Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CODY A History of Old Testament Priesthood PDF
CODY A History of Old Testament Priesthood PDF
ROME
PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE
1969
■ sam
■> •
; : m
■
ANALECTA BIBLICA
INVESTIGATIONS SCIENTIFICAE IN RES BIBLICAS
- 35 -
ROMAE
E PONTIFICIO INSTITUTO BIBLICO
1969
AELRED CODY, O.S.B.
Monk of St. Meinrad Archabbey
Professor in the Collegio di Sant'Anselmo, Rome
ROME
PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE
1969
(C) Iura e d itionis et versionis reservantur
PRINTED IN ITALY
The present work sets out on the paths of Ancient Israel and its
world, trying to follow and to understand Israelite priesthood's devel¬
opment, from its shadowy origins until the early second century B.C.
The manner of the search is specified in the Introduction. I had origi¬
nally intended for the work to cover the Maccabaean period as well,
but it became evident that any new synthetic assessment of priesthood
in the intertestamental period would profit by waiting a few years; there
is too much new material which has not been adequately sifted, and
some which has not even been published.
The earlier chapters began to take shape in two memoires presented
to the French Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, and were
presented in final form to the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Rome
as a thesis for the doctorate in Holy Scripture. To the Rev. Roland
de Vaux, O.P. I am especially indebted, for his personal example, his
encouragement, and his painstaking attention to detail in reading the
manuscripts and commenting on them. The other professors in Jerusalem,
too, Frs. P. Benoit, R. Tournay, B. Couroyer, F.-L. Lemoine, J. Prignaud,
J.-P. Audet, M.-fi. Boismard, J.-M. Rousee, have all my appreciation for
their kindly interest and their help. I am very grateful to the Very
Rev. Benjamin Wambacq, O.Praem., secretary of the Biblical Commission,
and to the two principal readers appointed by the Commission, the
Very Rev. R. A. F. MacKenzie, S.J., rector of the Pontifical Biblical In¬
stitute, and the Rev. Petrus Duncker, O.P., of the University of St. Thomas,
for their kindness and their generous suggestions. Fr. Stanislas Lyonnet
is responsible for the entire work's acceptance for publication in the
Analecta Biblica; to all these, as well as to the Rev. James Swetnam, S.J.,
of the Biblical Institute, I should like to express my gratitude not only
for the work's publication but also for their very competent and intelligent
help in ridding the manuscript of some of its roughness.
Others too have a place in the litany of thanksgiving, sed nomina
non sunt multiplicanda. For all, I have in mind a kind of thanks which
goes beyond mere words.
fr. Aelred Cody, O.S.B.
Rome, May 11, 1968
Feast of the Apostles Philip and James
-
Table of Contents
Foreword..
Table of Contents..
Abbreviations ..xin
Bibliography.xvi
INTRODUCTION 1
A. Biblical. 197
B. Extra-Biblical. 205
Index of Subjects:
'
Abbreviations
-> Die UrspriXnge des israelitischen Rechts (Berichte iiber die Verhand-
lungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Phil.-hist.
Kl„ LXXXVI/1). Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1934.
Ashkenazi, T., "La tribu arabe: ses elements,” Anthropos 41-44 (194649 ) 647-72.
Auerbach, E., "Die Herkunft der Sadokiden,” ZAW 49 (1931) 327f.
Avigad, N., "A New Class of Yehud Stamps," Israel Exploration Journal 7
(1957) 146-53.
Bachli, O., Israel und die V olker (ATANT, XLI). Ziirich-Stuttgart: Zwingli
Verlag, 1962.
Baltzer, K., Das Bundesformular (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten
und Neuen Testament, IV). 2nd ed. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964.
Bartlett, J. R., "Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem,” JTS n.s. 19 (1968) 1-18.
Baudissin, W. W. G., Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums. Leip¬
zig: S. Hirzel, 1889.
Bauer, H. and Leander, P., Historische Grammatik der hebraischen Sprache.
Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1965 (photomechanical reimpression of the origi¬
nal edition, Halle, 1922).
Begrich, J., “Das priesterliche Heilsorakel,” ZAW 52 (1934) 81-92.
-, "Die priesterliche Tora,” in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments
(BZAW, LXVI), pp. 63-88. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1936.
-, "Sofer und Mazkir: ein Beitrag zur inneren Geschichte des davidisch-
solomonischen Grossreiches und des Konigreiches Juda,” ZAW 58 (1940/41)
1-29.
Bell, H. I., Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1948.
Beyerlin, W., Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen. Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1961.
Bickermann, E., Der Gott der Makkabaer: Untersuchungen iiber Sinn und
Ursprung der makkabaischen Erhebung. Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1937.
Blackman, A. B., "‘The House of the Morning’,” JEA 5 (1918) 148-65.
-, "Sacramental Ideas in Ancient Egypt,” Recueil de travaux 39 (1921)
44-78.
Bonnet, H., Reallexikon der agyptischen Religions geschichte. Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1952.
-, "Die Symbolik der Reinigungen im agyptischen Kult," AITEAOE:
Archiv fur neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde 1 (1925) 103-21.
Breasted, J. H., Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1906.
Brekelmans, C. H. W., "Exodus xviii and the Origins of Yahwism in Israel,”
Oudtestamentische Studien 10 (1954) 215-24.
Brockelmann, C., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprachen. 2 vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908-13.
Budde, K., Die altisraelitische Religion. 3rd ed. Giessen: J. Ricker (Alfred
Topelmann), 1912.
__ Geschichte der althebraischen Litteratur (Die Litteraturen des Ostens
in Einzeldarstellungen, VII/1). 2nd ed. Leipzig: C. F. Amelag, 1909.
--, "Die Herkunft Sadok’s,” ZAW 52 (1934) 42-50.
Burchardt, M., Die altkanaanaischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Agypti¬
schen.’ 1 vol. in 2 parts. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909-10.
Caquot A., "Ahiyya de Silo et Jeroboam Ier," Semitica 11 (1961) 17-27.
Cassin/E./"Tablettes inedites de Nuzi,” RA 56 (1962) 57-80.
Cazelles, H., "Jeremie et le Deuteronome," RScR 38 (1951) 5-36.
Cody, A., "Le titre egyptien et le nom propre du scribe de David, RB 72
(1965) 381-93.
xvm BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gressmann, H., Mose und seine Zeit (FRLANT, XVIII). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1913.
Griffiths, J. G., “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12 (1953)
225-3 L
Grimme, H., "Der siidarabische Levitismus und sein Verhaltnis zum Levitismus
in Israel," Le Museon 37 (1924) 169-99.
Grintz, J. M., "Jehoezer — Unknown High Priest?” Jewish Quarterly Review
n.s. 50 (1960) 338-45.
Grohmann, A., Arabien (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, III/1/iii: Kul-
turgeschichte des Alten Orients, III/4). Munich: C. H. Beck, 1963.
Guillaume, A., Prophetie et divination chez les Semites. Paris: Payot, 1950.
Gunneweg, A. H. J., Leviten und Priester (FRLANT, LXXXIX). Gottingen: Van¬
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.
Haelvoet, M., “La theophanie du Sinai: analyse litteraire des recits d'Ex. xix-
xxiv,” ETL 29 (1953) 374-97.
Haran, M., "The Ephod according to Biblical Sources,” Tarbiz 24 (1954/55)
380-91 (in Modern Hebrew with English summary).
-, "Shiloh and Jerusalem: the Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the
Pentateuch,” JBL 81 (1962) 14-24.
Harris, G. L., Jordan (Survey of World Cultures, II). Hew Haven: Human
Relations Area Files Press, 1958.
Harris, Z. S., Development of the Canaanite Dialects (American Oriental Series,
XVI). New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1939.
-, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (American Oriental Series,
VIII). New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936.
Hauer, C. E„ Jr., "Who Was Zadok?” JBL 82 (1963) 89-94.
Haupt, P., "Hebrew kdhen and qahal,” JAOS 42 (1922) 372-75.
Hauret, C., “Aux origines du sacerdoce danite,” in Melanges bibliques rediges en
I'honneur de Andre Robert, pp. 105-13. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957.
-, “Moi’se etait-il pretre?” Biblica 40 (1959) 509-21.
Helck, W., Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. (Agyptologische Abhandlungen, V). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1962.
Hempel, J., Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums. Leipzig: R. Voigtlander, 1914.
Henninger, J., “La religion bedouine preislamique, ” in F. Gabrieli (ed.), L’antica
societa beduina (Universita di Roma, Studi Semitici, II), pp. 115-40. Rome:
Centro di Studi Semitici dell’Universita, 1959.
-, “La societe bedouine ancienne," in Gabrieli, op. cit. (in the preceding
entry), pp. 69-93.
Hertzberg, H. W., "Die Kleinen Richter,” ThLZ 79 (1954) 285-90.
Hofner, M., "War der sabaische Mukarrib ein 'Priesterfiirst’?” WZKM 54 (1957)
77-85.
Holscher, G., "Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,” ZAW 40
(1923) 161-255.
-, "Levi," Pauly-Wissowa, Real-encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswis¬
senschaft, XIII/2, 2155-2208. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1925.
Hoenig, S. B., The Great Sanhedrin. Philadelphia: Bloch, 1953.
Hoonacker, A. van, Le sacerdoce levitique dans la loi et dans Vhistoire des
Hebreux. Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1899.
Horst, F., Das Privilegrecht Jahves: Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (FRLANT, n. f. XXVIII). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru¬
precht, 1930.
Houston, M. G., Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian Costume (A
Technical History of Costume, I). 2nd ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1954.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXI
Huffmon, H. B., Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1965.
Hunt, I., “Recent Melkizedek Study,” in J. L. McKenzie (ed.). The Bible in
Current Catholic Thought, pp. 21-33. New York: Herder & Herder, 1962.
Hylander, I., Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (1 Sam. 1-15). Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932.
Ibn-al-Kalbi, Hisham, The Book of Idols, being a Translation from the Arabic
of the ‘‘Kitab al-asnam", tr. by N. A. Faris (Princeton Oriental Studies, XIV).
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1952.
Janssen, E., Juda in der Exilszeit (FRLANT, LXIX). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1956.
Jamme, A., "La religion sud-arabe preislamique,” in M. Brillant and R. Aigrain
(eds.), Histoire des religions, IV, 239-307. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1956.
Jaussen, A. and Savignac, R., Mission archeologique en Arabie. 3 vols. in 6 parts.
Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1909-22.
Jean, C.-F., ARM, IT. Lettres diverses. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1950.
-, "Excerpta de la correspondance de Mari," Revue des etudes semitiques
(1938) 128-32, (1939) 62-69.
Jepsen, A., "Die Reform des Josia,” in Festschrift Friedrich Baumgdrtel (Erlan-
ger Forschungen, X), pp. 97-108. Erlangen: Universitatsbibliothek, 1959.
Johnson, A. R., The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press, 1962.
Johnson, B., Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta
(Studia Theologica Lundensia, XXII). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1963.
Joiion, P., Grammaire de Vhebreu biblique. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1947.
Judge, H. G., "Aaron, Zadok and Abiathar,” JTS n.s. 7 (1956) 70-74.
Kahle, P., The Cairo Genizah (The Schweich Lectures, 1941). 2nd ed. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1959.
Kaufmann, Y., The Religion of Israel, tr. and abridged by M. Greenberg.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi. 37 vols. Berlin: Staatliche Museen, Vor-
derasiatische Abteilung, 1921-55.
Kennett, R. H., "The Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood,” ITS 6 (1905) 161-86.
Kees, H., Agypten (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, III/1/iii: Kulturge-
schichte des Alten Orients, I). Munich: C. H. Beck, 1933.
_; Das Priestertum im agyptischen Staat (Probleme der Agyptologie, I).
Leiden-Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1953.
King, L. W. (ed.), Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the
British Museum. 2 vols. London: British Museum, 1912.
Kittel, R., Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer;
vols. i-2: 7th ed., 1925-32; vol. 3: lst/2nd ed., 1927-29.
Kjaer, H., "The Excavation of Shiloh 1929: Preliminary Report,” JPOS 10 (1930)
87-174.
—. I det Hellige Land: de danske Udgravninger i Shilo. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1931. .
Knierim, R., "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Genchtsbarkeit,
ZAW 73 (1961) 146-71. t , VT. _ .
Knudtzon, J. A., Die El-amarna Tafeln (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, XI). 2 vols.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908-15. . ,
Koch, K., Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: erne uberltefe-
rungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT, LXXl).
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
XXII BIBLIOGRAPHY
Press, R., “Das Ordal im alten Israel," ZAW 51 (1933) 12140, 227-55.
, “Der Prophet Samuel: eine tradidonsgeschichtliche Untersuchung ”
ZAW 56 (1938) 177-225. g’
Procksch, O., Das nordhebraische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1906.
Rad, G. von. Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT, IV/26).
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938.
-, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium (BWANT, III/ll). Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1929.
-, "Die levitische Predigt in den Buchem der Chronik," in Festschrift
Otto Proksch, pp. 113-24. Leipzig: A. Deichert - J. C. Hinrichs, 1934.
-, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch (BWANT, IV/13). Stuttgart: W. Kohl¬
hammer, 1934.
-, Studies in Deuteronomy (Studies in Biblical Theology, IX), tr. by D.
Stalker from the 2nd ed. of Deuteronomium-Studien. London: SCM Press,
1953.
-, Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958-61.
Rainey, A. F., “The Military Personnel of Ugarit,” JNES 24 (1965) 17-27.
Ranke, H., Die agyptischen Personnennamen. 2 vols. Gliickstadt: J. J. Augustin,
1935.
Repertoire d’epigraphie semitique. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1900ff.
Ringgren, H., Israelitische Religion (Die Religionen der Menschheit, XXVI).
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1963.
Rosenthal, F., Die aramdistische Forschung seit Th. Noldeke’s Veroffentlichun-
gen. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964 (reprint of the original edition, Leiden, 1939).
Rost, L., Die Vberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, III/3).
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926.
Rowe, A., The Topography and History of Beth-shan (Publications of the Pales¬
tine Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, I). Phila¬
delphia: The University Press, 1930.
Rowley, H. H., “Early Levite History and the Question of the Exodus," JNES
3 (1944) 73-78.
-, From Joseph to Joshua (The Schweich Lectures, 1948). London: Ox¬
ford University Press, 1950.
-, “Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion," BJRL 44 (1961/62) 395431.
-, "Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen. 14 and Ps. 110),” in Festschrift Alfred
Bertholet, pp. 461-72. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1950.
-, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy," in Studies
in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson,
pp. 157-74. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950.
-, “Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets," JSS 1 (1956) 338-60.
-, "Zadok and Nehushtan," JBL 58 (1939) 11341.
Rudolph, W., Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW, LXVIII). Berlin:
Alfred Topelmann, 1938.
Ryckmans, G., Grammaire accadienne (Bibliotheque du Museon, VI). 4th ed.
Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1960.
-, Les religions arabes preislamiques (Bibliotheque du Museon, XXVI).
Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1951.
Ryckmans, J., L’institution monarchique en Arabie meridionale avant Vlslam
(Bibliotheque du Museon, XXVIII). Louvain: Publications Universitaires,
1951.
Schaeder, H. H., Esra der Schreiber (Beitrage zur Historischen Theologie, V).
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1930.
XXVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
2 INTRODUCTION
S,
PART ONE
ORIGINS
Chapter One
may find elements which served later as ultimate models in the organiza¬
tion of the clergy in the new state formed under David and Solomon.
Egyptian religion with its priesthood seems to have left no clearly dis¬
cernible impression on the Hebrews who sojourned in the Land of
Goshen, and if we are inclined to look to Mesopotamia for parallels
rooted in common Semitic origins, caution is indicated,1 all the more
so because the organized religion of Mesopotamia had a substratum which
was a cultural legacy of the non-Semitic Sumerians, as even the Sumerian
origin of many of the Akkadian names for cultic persons and temple
servants shows.2 Farther afield, we know that in the Hittite Empire
priests were already organized into classes, but we do not know what
their ordinary functions were, and the Hittite sources published so far
are official documents dealing with a state cult in which the king is
the principal priest.3 These urban civilizations can not help us much here.
The documents from the first quarter of the second millenium B.C.
found by Andre Parrot in the archives of the royal Palace at Mari, on
the Middle Euphrates,4 have furnished a wealth of information on the
social behaviour of the “Proto-Aramaean,” or Amorite, migrants rising in
successive waves from the Syro-Arabian Desert during the early second
millenium,5 among whom we can now situate the distant ancestors of
the Old Testament Hebrews,6 but precisely in those areas which interest
1 "Les religions semitiques ont evolue chez des peuplades deja differenciees par
leur culture, leur habitat, leur histoire. Les traces de l’unite premiere ont ete bien
vite effacees par le genie propre a chaque groupe ethnique et par les influences etran-
geres. C'est pourquoi nous ne pouvons nous resoudre a ramener a un seul type les
conceptions dont temoignent les documents et les monuments qui, du Golfe Persique a
la Mediterranee et a la Mer Rouge, ont sauvegarde le patrimoine religieux des tribus,
des cites, des nations qu’on rattache a une origine commune" (£. Dhorme, "La religion
primitive des Semites,” RHR 128 (1944), p. 16 [= Recueil Edouard Dhorme (Paris,
1951), p. 7211).
2 E. g., sangu. from sanga, enu from en, kalu from gala, naru from nar.
3 A. Goetze, Kleinasien (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, III/l/iii/3/i; 2nd
ed.; Munich, 1957), p. 161.
4 Now in course of publication under the direction of A. Parrot and G. Dossin
as ARM (Paris, 1950ff.).
5 The term "Proto-Aramaean” is the one favored by R. de Vaux (cf. RB 55 [1948],
p. 346). M. Noth, after suggesting the name “Proto-Aramaean” in Die israelitischen
Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT, III/10;
Stuttgart, 1928), p. 45, then rejecting it (in ZDPV 65 [1942], p. 34, n. 2), has recently
returned to his former preference in his monograph Die Urspriinge des alten Israel
im Lichte neuer Quellen (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen, XCIV; Cologne, 1961), p. 29. J.-R. Kupper, Les nomades en Mesopotamie
au temps des rois de Mari (Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophic et Lettres de
l’Universite de Liege, CXLII; Paris, 1957), pp. 241-44, explains why it is difficult to
find a totally satisfactory name; cf. also W. L. Moran in G. E. Wright (ed.), The
Bible and the Ancient Near East (London, 1961), p. 57. The majority of scholars
continue to use the conventional name "Amorite” (from Akkadian amurru, "West”),
which has the advantage of not taking sides in the question of particular linguistic
and ethnic relations to other West Semitic peoples.
6 For surveys of the Mari discoveries in their bearing on the Old Testament,
cf. G. Mendenhall, "Mari,” The Biblical Archaeologist 11 (1948) 2-19; M. Noth. Die
I. THE QUEST IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CIVILIZATIONS 9
Urspriinge des alten Israel im Lichte neuer Quellen, passim; J. C. L. Gibson, "Light
from Mari on the Patriarchs," JSS 7 (1962) 44-62.
i Our help, however, will not come from the developed kingdoms of South Arabia,
where society was largely sedentary and where international commerce had brought
in much from outside. Foreign influence on South Arabian priesthood can be seen
in the ’fkl priest of the South Arabian inscriptions (cf. RES, V [Paris, 1928], No. 2689),
which is cognate to the Akkadian apkallu, and whose presence in both Akkadian and
epigraphic South Arabic is not to be explained by a common Semitic origin, because
apkallu itself is probably of Sumerian origin: cf. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Hand-
worterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1959ff.), s.v. apkallu. The mention of an 3fkl (of Lat, of
Wadd) in the Lihyanite inscriptions at El-eUla in North Arabia published by A.
Jaussen and R. Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arabie, II (Paris, 1914), Nos. 49
and 277, is to be explained by the influence of the South Arabian Minaeans, whose
important trading colony in the area was at El-'Ula. The ’fkl is, in fact, peculiar
to the Minaeans. The "priest” in the other South Arabian dialects is a rsw (Sabaean,
Qatabanian, Hadrami) or a suf (Sabaean, Qatabanian), and the Lihyanites must have
been influenced by these Minaeans in the title ’fkl just as they were in the cult of
the South Arabian divinity Wadd, who, though known elsewhere in North Arabia,
was particularly venerated at El-'Ula, according to A. Grohmann, Arabien (Handbuch
der Altertumswissenschaft, III/l/iii/3/iv; Munich, 1963), p. 87.
8 The principal source is HiSam ibn al-Kalbi's Book of Idols, relied upon heavily
by J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed.; Berlin, 1897), W. R. Smith,
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (new ed.; London, 1894), and M.-J. Lagrange,
Etudes sur les religions semitiques (2nd ed.; Paris, 1905), but known to them only
partially, through citations in the work of the Arabic geographer Yaqut. Since then
a manuscript of the complete work of Ibn al-Kalbi has been found and published
by Ahmad Zaki Pacha, Kitab al-asnam (Cairo, 1913; 2nd ed. 1924), with translations by
R Klinke-Rosenberger, Das Gotzenbuch (Kitab al-asnam) des Ibn al-Kalbi (Leipzig,
1941) and by N. A. Faris, The Book of Idols (Princeton Oriental Studies, XIV; Prince¬
ton, N.J., 1952). The references in our following notes will always be to Fans trans¬
lation.
10 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
is R Dussaud, Les origines cananeennes du sacrifice israelite (2nd ed.; Paris, 1941).
i7 Cf. the remarks of J. Gray, "Cultic Affinities between Israel and Ras Shamra,
ZAW 62 (1950) 207-20.
is Baudissin, Geschichte, p. 269.
is W. R. Smith and A. Bertholet, "Priest, ’ Encyclopaedia Biblica, III (London,
1902), col. 3838.
12 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
24 On the different forms of ephod, cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 201-04.
25 Baudissin, Geschichte, p. 270. Baudissin is himself aware that the work of
early Israelite priests consisted mainly in oracular work: cf. pp. 58, 186f., 205ff.
26 These texts are late, but they are evidence of the conservation of the ancient
tradition which is guaranteed by the older texts. P represents the mentality and
the customs of the Temple priesthood, but it also has a keen interest in conserving
genuine traditions of antiquity — when they serve its purpose.
14 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
consultation is scPal (the priest “asks" God), and that the consultation,
though oracular, is limited fundamentally to the “yes”-"no” of the urim
and thummim.27
There is an Arabic cognate, kahin, for the Hebrew kohen which the
Old Testament regularly uses of both Hebrew priests and pagan priests,28
but in our extant Arabian sources the North and Central Arabian — that
is, the nomadic Arabian — cultic person who corresponds to the Israelite
sanctuary servant and oracle consultor is not so much the kahin: it is
rather the sadin. The Arabian kahin is comparable to certain kinds of
early Israelite prophets rather than to Israelite priests, 529 and the Arabic
cognate kahin turns out to be a somewhat false friend when we try to
On urim and thummim and their use, cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 204f.,
and on the alternative questioning leading to a "yes-no” answer, S. Mowinckel, Psal-
menstudien, III (Oslo, 1923), pp. 13f.
28 The word kemdrim is used three times in the Bible (2 Kgs. 23:5; Hos. 10:5;
Zeph. 1:4) — always in the plural, and always of idolatrous priests. W. F. Albright,
From the Stone Age to Christianity (2nd ed.; Garden City, 1957), p. 234, n. 46, proposes
the special meaning "eunuch priest" for the West Semitic komer, Akkadian kumru,
but I find this hard to accept. Albright gives these reasons for his interpretation:
1) kumru occurs in a text where it is a synonym of pasisu; pasisu is a regular appella¬
tion of Tammuz, and Tammuz is called pasisu in one text in which he appears par¬
ticularly akin to Attis and Adonis; 2) eunuch priests are associated with the cult
of the goddess Kubaba, and the word kumru is found once of a priest of Kubaba;
3) kamiru in the Amama letters means “eunuch”; 4) two grave-stelae of priests at
Neirab in Syria (c. 600 B.C.) show the priests (in each case kumra) without beards.
Of these, I should observe that 1) and 2) prove little if anything other than that
the persons in question could be called priests, and pasisu, not an altogether rare
word, nowhere seems to mean “eunuch priest” (for which there are Akkadian words:
kurgaru., assinnu, kulu^u); 4) is, of itself, inconclusive; as for 3), the context of kamiru
in the Amarna collection (a single letter, EA 1:15,33) sheds no light at all on the
meaning of the word. In Aramaic, kumra is the ordinary generic word for "priest.”
Furthermore, in the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Upper Egypt in the 5th cen¬
tury B.C., khn was the title reserved for the fundamentally Yahwistic Jewish priests,
kmr for the Egyptian priests of Khnub (Khnum): cf. A. Vincent, La religion des
Judeo-arameens d’Elephantine (Paris, 1937), pp. 456ff., and I can find no evidence at
all for eunuch priests of Khnum, or, for that matter, of any deity in Egypt. There
can be very little doubt that the usage of the Jews at Elephantine reflects that of
the Palestinian Jews, which we find in the three texts of the Old Testament: a khn
is a Yahwistic priest, and a kmr is a pagan priest. The priests called kemarim in
the Old Testament, then, are not eunuchs: they are priests tainted by paganism.
For a possible example of parallel usage in Phoenician, cf. n. 63 below, and for philo¬
logical information on kmr outside the Bible (apart from questions of meaning), cf.
F. Rosenthal, Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Noldeke’s Veroffentlichungen (Lei¬
den, 1939), pp. 21ff.
29 A point made by J. Pedersen, “The Role Played by Inspired Persons among
the Israelites and the Arabs,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to
T. H. Robinson (Edinburgh, 1950), pp. 127-42.
III. ANALOGOUS CULTIC FUNCTIONARIES AMONG ISRAEL’S NEIGHBORS 15
4<> Ibn al-Kalbi, op. cit., p. 46. In all of this matter one has to distinguish terms,
and to be on his guard for possible differences in the use of those terms by other
people. Strictly speaking, "divination” means the attempt to foresee the future or
the unknown either by means of one's own mantic powers or by the interpretation
of omens, while "oracular consultation” means the attempt to obtain advice or judge¬
ment from an infallible quide or indicator. We find some authors referring to the
arrows used in istiqsdm as divinitory, and others referring to them as oracular.
If they are considered as divinitory rather than oracular, it is doubtlessly out of
an intention to reserve the term "oracular” to messages rather than to signs or
indications. Since many follow Wellhausen (op. cit., pp. 132f.) in calling the practice
of istiqsdm "giving oracles,” and since it has become general in Old Testament
studies to call the analogous manipulation of urim and thummim "oracular con¬
sultation,” we shall follow that usage. At any rate, the Arabian kahin was primarily
a soothsayer, in a mantic fashion in which personal gift or inspiration, not the
manipulation or interpretation of objects or the procuring of oracular messages, was
the important factor: cf. Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 130; Pedersen, "The Role Played by
Inspired Persons,” p. 135. Having thus defined our terms, we can accurately say that
the kahin’s function was divinatory, the sadin's rather oracular, and, with G. Ryck-
mans, Les religions arabes preislamiques (Bibliotheque du Museon, XXVI; Louvain,
1951), that the priest with his oracular work was meant to be the spokesman of
the divinity (p. 9), while divination, practiced by the kahin, did not necessarily enter
the attributes of the priest (p. 11).
41 "Arabs (Ancient),” p. 671.
42 Ibn al-Kalbi, op. cit., pp. 30, 41.
43 The sadin’s oracular work appears to have extended beyond the practice of
istiqsdm to other forms as well: cf. Pedersen, op. cit., pp. 132f., who also points out
that there were people whose entire lives were guided by the decisions resulting from
the istiqsdm of a sanctuary's sadin. In the examples Pedersen has gathered of the
kahin’s activity, moreover, “nothing show's that there was a necessary connexion be¬
tween the kahin and the sanctuary” (p. 135).
44 Ibn al-Kalbi, op. cit., p. 16.
43 A. Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israel (Haarlem, 1869-70), I, 101 (= The Religion
of Israel, tr. by A. H. May [London, 1874], I, 99), where he gives the reference to
Land in Theologisch Tijdschrift 2 (1868) 171, which I have not been able to examine.
III. ANALOGOUS CULTIC FUNCTIONARIES AMONG ISRAEL'S NEIGHBORS 17
Arabian kahin which must lie behind such a reference even though we
know today that the kahin was properly a soothsayer rather than an
oracular consultant. Bernhard Stade, on the basis of the Arabian kahin,
went further and proposed that the Hebrew priests were originally ecstatic
soothsayers, who by gradually settling at oracular sanctuaries became
givers of oracles.46 Wellhausen’s position, often invoked in more recent
times in support of a view like Stade’s, was actually more sober. It is
important to note that Wellhausen’s readers can be misled by failing
to observe that when he writes “Priester” he sometimes means sddin
and sometimes kahin. His view included an element of development: at
an earlier period an Arabian “priest” would have been a kahin (soothsayer)
who was at the same time a sddin (sanctuary guardian) and hdjib (door¬
keeper), then, as soothsaying grew in importance, the kahin would have
retained that activity (it is difficult to say whether Wellhausen has
istiqsam reserved at this stage to the kahin or not), while the offices
of sddin and hdjib came to be separate.47 In view of this, it is not quite
exact to say that Wellhausen simply identified early Hebrew priests with
soothsayers.48 It is clear, on the contrary, that he was aware that in
the extant Arabic texts the counterpart of the Hebrew priest was the
sddin, and that his postulation of a union of sddin and soothsayer in a
single person at an earlier time must be an attempt to solve the philo¬
logical problem of how the Hebrew word kohen could be a cognate of
the Arabic kahin when a kohen was in fact the counterpart of the later
Arabian sddin rather than of the later Arabian kahin. The great German
orientalist seems to have hit upon the hypothetical solution that only
if a kahin was once also a sddin and a hdjib (and for that there is no
evidence) could the Canaanite tongues offer a cognate of kahin which
was used in referring to cultic persons who, unlike the kahana, were not
soothsayers.
Actually, the philological problem of the Arabic kahin is probably a
false one, as far as the nature of Hebrew priesthood is concerned. The
Arabic word itself may well be derived from a North-West Semitic
language — if not directly from Hebrew or another ‘ Canaanite language,
2
18 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
concluding that the presence of priests in the list is proof that they had specifically
priestly field duties.
58 c. F.-A. Schaeffer, “La XXIVe campagne de fouilles a Ras-Shamra-Ugarit 1961:
rapport preliminaire," Annates archeologiqu.es de Syrie 13 (1963), p. 130. He goes
on to say (pp. 130f.) that texts have been found on a lung-model which refer to
offerings or sacrifices, some of which were to be renewed each month, but it is
not clear from this report whether or not this lung-model is one of those mentioned
in connexion with divination; nor is it clear who was to perform the sacrifices.
59 In this and the following notes references are given to the text number and
line in KA1, which is the most recent collection, is in print, and can be easily consulted.
Since M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fiir semitische Epigraphik (Giessen, 1902-15) has re¬
cently been photomechanically reprinted and will also be convenient for consultation,
a reference to it will also be given when the text can be found therein. For the rb
khnm, cf. KAI 59:2 (Phoenician, from Piraeus in Attica, 3rd century B.C.); 65:10 =
Ephemeris, III. 283f. (Punic, from Cagliari in Sardinia, 3rd century B.C.?); and the
following Punic texts from Carthage, 4th-2nd centuries B.C.: 81:8f.; 93:3f. = Ephe¬
meris, II, 172B; 95:1 = Ephemeris, III, 57D (where the rb — sic — khnm is a
woman); 96:8 = Ephemeris, II, 56-60.
so KAI 32:2f. (Phoenician, from Kition in Cyprus, 341 B.C.).
61 KAI 72 :B (Punic, from the isle of Ibiza, c. 180 B.C.).
62 KAI 137 = Ephemeris, III, 58. .
63 KAI 159:5,7 (Neo-Punic, of uncertain date, from the ancient Althiburus m Tu¬
nisia). Lines 6f.’ of the same text mention a sp5 scl kmr ny'tmn. If the sp° is to
be related to the Hebrew sph "see, look out over" and to the emended translitera-
22 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
or third century B.C. list of temple wages from Kition (modern Lamaka)
on Cyprus mentions such zbhm and does not mention khnm, but that
in no way allows us to suspect, with Lagrange, that to be a zbh was
to be a priest.64 The real reason for the omission of any reference to
khnm in this list is one which adds a detail of some importance to our
picture of Phoenician priests. It is the administration of the temple of
Kition which is to pay the wages to the various temple servants and hired
laborers, and this administrative group itself was doubtless made up of
the temple’s khnm; the priests are not in the Kition lists because they
are not standing for pay but rather paying. The “Marseilles Tariff” is
another type of temple administration list, determining the portion of
various kinds of sacrificial offerings that is to accrue to the priests, and
here the khnm are found throughout the text; 65 in this type of list it is
they who are receiving.
This parallel material from the Canaanite world is disappointingly
sparse — all the more disappointingly so because what little we have
is so close to what we know of developed Hebrew priesthood that we can
see what value a better knowledge of priesthood in Ugarit, Phoenicia,
and the Phoenician colonies across the sea would have for understanding
priesthood in Israel. At any rate, we see that these khnm, like the Hebrew
kohanim, were men in charge of sanctuaries, and that in the larger
sanctuaries they had a fairly numerous and diversified body of cultic
personnel under them.66 Like the priests of the Hebrew sanctuaries
(Dt. 18:1-5; 1 Sam. 2:12-17; 2 Kgs. 12:5-17; 22:3-7; Ezek. 44:29f.; Amos 4:4)
they lived on revenue coming from the cult, and they were responsible
for the upkeep of the sanctuary, as the priests of Jerusalem were supposed
to be (2 Kgs. 12:5-17; 22:3-7). They were distinct from the “immolators,”
and, apart from the new findings in thirteenth century Ugarit, there is
no evidence of their practicing divination or divine consultation, but the
evidence is actually too sparse for us to say with any certainty that they
regularly did or did not do so. We do not have a clear idea of what part
they played in the cult itself. Finally, it should be noted that these
khnm of Ugarit and of the Phoenician settlements were priests of an
urban civilization, and that the resemblance between them and the
kohanim of Israel was certainly greater after Hebrew settlement in Pa¬
lestine had become an accomplished fact, and especially after the Israelite
monarchy had been set up, with the cultural influence of Phoenicia on
Israel becoming more intense.
a certain reserve must still be made until we know whether or not the
proprietor of the divinitory materials was a khn or a cultic person with
some other title. Among the Israelites of the monarchical period and
later, when a well-organized temple liturgy had been developed, the kohen
was similar partly to the Mesopotamian sangu, who made his living from
the altar and was the administrator of the temple's affairs,72 and partly
to the Mesopotamian urigallu, the guardian or custodian of the sanctuary
who was responsible for the greater part of the liturgy of prayer.73
At an earlier stage of development, a stage when the more elaborate
Canaanite type of temple organization had not yet made itself felt among
the Hebrews, the Hebrew kohen — who at this stage was more like the
urigallu than any other kind of Mesopotamian cultic person — had his
oracular consultation, but the only kind of consultation we know him to
have practiced was that involving manipulation of the urim and thummim,
which is akin to the Arabian istiqsdm with manipulation of arrows rather
than to the practices of Mesopotamian diviners, for whom a method of
manipulating objects is not attested and whose divination was based
rather on the observation of phenomena.74 Of the Mesopotamian diviners,
the most important, the baru, accomplished his work by observing the
states, behavior, acts, of living creatures, or of organs like the liver, or of
the stars.75 The dagil issuri was a specialist in augury, who observed the
flights of birds.7<5 The stfilu was primarily an interpreter of dreams.77
A man who was a baru could be, at the same time, a sangu,78 but he
could also be distinct from the sangu,79 and even the texts which give
both titles to the same man show by their distinction of titles that there
was a distinction of the corresponding offices and functions.
All this being so, a direct relationship between the Hebrew kohen
and the Mesopotamian baru is improbable, and to draw a parallel between
the two is as misleading as it is to speak of a “baru-priest.” The Hebrew
priest came from the semi-nomadic culture of the Syro-Arabian desert, not
from the urban culture of Mesopotamia, with that Sumerian substruct
72 Cf. Frank, Studien zur babylonischen Religion, pp. 5f.; Dhorme, op.cit., pp. 201f.
73 Cf. Frank, op. cit., pp. 21ff.; Dhorme, op. cit., pp. 203ff.
74 Cf. Dhorme, op. cit., pp. 275-82, 285-89.
75 Frank, op. cit., pp. 16, 29-33.
76 Ibid., p. 74.
77 Ibid., pp. 16f.; cf. also n. 80 below.
73 Cf. the inscription mentioning a “priest (sanga) of Sippar, baru (hI.hal)" in
L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum
(London, 1912), No. 36. ii. 9f., iii. 27,29; or the Akkadian tablet found in Ugarit men¬
tioning “Sammuaddu, baru, priest (sangu) of Adad" in J. Nougayrol, Le Palais royal
d’Ugarit, IV: Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Mission de Ras Shamra, VI; Paris,
1956), p. 201 (RS 18:02,16). On LU.rtAL or lu.ad.hal (cf. the following note) = baru, cf.
CAD, s. v. bard.
79 Cf. the ritual prescribing that “the baru (written ltJ.dumu.ad.hal) and the priest
(ltJ.sanga) of Adad take (plural) the liver" in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens
(Paris, 1921), p. 92, reverse, line 3 (translation p. 98).
III. ANALOGOUS CULTIC FUNCTIONARIES AMONG ISRAEL’S NEIGHBORS 25
so Another indirect verbal contact may perhaps be seen in the unique use of the
title safilu by a Canaanite scribe in EA 35:26 for an augur, who in authentic Akkadian
usage is not a saPilu but a dagil issuri. The verb scdal we know to be that used in
early Biblical texts for the oracular consultation of a priest with his urim and
thummim (cf. pp. 47-48). Was this verb used more broadly in the Canaanite area
for any kind of divinization or oracular consultation, so that the scribe responsible
for EA 35, not familiar with fine distinctions in the technical terminology of Meso¬
potamia, was using the participle of a Canaanite verb with which he was familiar
to express the agent of an act of divination which happened in that particular case
to be augury? Even if this is so, the verb was used by the Hebrews in conformity
with the oracular practice of their own society. The verb used in Hebrew can be
Canaanite in background, the actual Hebrew practice and its method non-Canaanite
(and non-Mesopotamian).
81 Cf. Begrich, "Die priesterliche Tora,” especially pp. 64f., 69-72 ( = Begrich, Gesam-
melte Studien, pp. 234ff., 238-42).
82 Cf Lindblom, Prophecv in Ancient Israel, p. 89, who also observes that if the
priest Zadok in 2 Sam. 15:27 (a disturbed text) is said to be a ro°e, "corresponding
to the Akkadian baru” it would be because he "divined by means of the priestly
oracle” Whether this is properly called “divination” is, of course, open to question
(cf. above, n. 40, p. 16), and we ought not to forget that this text, even before
disturbed in transmission, dates from a time when oracular consultation by a priest
was beginning to be obsolete, with recourse moving increasingly to the prophet for
26 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
fresh consultations of God’s will and decrees, as we shall have occasion to see later
in this study. There was a certain improper analogy between a priest’s consultation
and the divination of a Mesopotamian baru, but analogy is not equivalence, and a
parallel is not indicated between a baru and a Hebrew kohen. For a detailed examina¬
tion of the difference between the kohen on the one hand and the ro*e and the nabV
on the other, cf. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Cardiff,
1962), pp. 9-29.
83 Baudissin, Geschichte, p. 269; also Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 471.
P. Haupt, “Hebrew kohen and qahal,” IAOS 42 (1922) 372-75, too, stating that "a medial
h is often secondary,” would have kohen a “modification” of kun, which root would
express something having to do with what is true or right. E. Konig, Hebrdisches
und aramaisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testament (5th ed.; Leipzig, 1931), s.v. khn,
gives as probable basic meaning of kohen "bringing forward, preparing, serving,”
and also refers to kwn, but without saying why.
84 Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions semitiques, p. 215, n. 5; EL Dhorme, “ Pre-
tres, devins et mages dans l’ancienne religion des Hebreux,” RHR 108 (1933), pp. 117f.
VT Suppl 4 (1957) 256; BASOR, No. 163 (Oct. 1961), pp. 50f.
86 Albright reasons that qdl can not be derived from *qawlu because in the
Siloam Inscription it is written ql, not qwl, and since in the dialect of Judah (re¬
flected in the Siloam Inscription) diphthongs were not contracted (whereas in Israel
they were), qdl from *qawlu would still have appeared in the Siloam Inscription
as qwl, not ql. To Albright’s theory someone might object that in Arabic the nominal
form cognate to Hebrew qdl is qawl, but this objection can be countered with the
further objection that Arabic nur, "light,” with medial consonantal w manifest in
its broken plural anwdr, is cognate to the Syriac nuhra with medial h; and for the
presence of that h in Proto-Semitic, cf. C. Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Berlin, 1908-13), I, § 45r.e, using the Akkadian
nuru as an example in treating of the fate of medial h in Akkadian.
IV. THE ETYMOLOGY OF KOHEN 27
than w > h it would rather be, e.g. ah > a > (if in a stressed syllable)
o, and Haupt s statement that a medial h is often secondary may well
be inaccurate, for it seems to be rather the converse phenomenon — the
disappearance of the medial h as a phoneme — that is secondary.87 This
being the case, if there were a relation between khn and kwn (kun) it
would be kwn which was derived from khn rather than vice versa.
As for the other proposed etymology, it is also very difficult to see
how Akkadian kanu can have been derived from *kahanu so that the
West Semitic khn could have any relation to kanu. Original h, it is true,
became 5 in Akkadian (Von Soden’s 32) as the original laryngals and
pharyngals were reduced in that area of Semitic speech, and it is also
true that Brockelmann's rule that 5 from intervocalic h is regularly kept88
does not always hold in medial s2 verbs 89 — in other words, that certain
of these verbs are treated as weak verbs rather than as strong medial 5
verbs. Nevertheless, this is not the case with kanu, which is obviously
not a strong medial 3 verb, were one of those medial 32 verbs which are
treated as weak verbs (*kahanu ]> *ka?anu > kanu), it would appear as
a medial a verb and its imperative would be kan;90 but kanu is definitely
a medial u verb and its imperative is kun, a cognate of the West Semitic
kwn, 91 and the difficulties in deriving kohen from any form of that root
remain the same. In fact the Akkadian evidence makes it difficult not
only to derive kohen from hollow kwn but even to derive forms of kwn
from a primitive khn, for it informs us that kwn can not be the residue
of a root with primitive medial h but was always a genuinely hollow
root — or, if one is a triliteralist, a genuinely biconsonantal root.99
87 The phenomenon seems to have been most common in the North-West Semitic
languages, other than Aramaic (which tends to preserve a medial h more than other
languages do), when the h was postvocalic, especially in nominal forms of the type
qatl/qitl/qutl: cf., for Hebrew, in addition to Albright’s published examples, ner,
"lamp" (cp. Syriac nuhrd, "light"), and bos, “be ashamed” (cp. boset, “shame," with
its cognate Syriac behtta — in the absolute state behtat; for the adjectival origin of
bos, cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrdischen Sprache
[Halle, 19221, p. 388); for Ugaritic: Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, § 5.39. The question
of the extent of syncope of intervocalic h in North-West Semitic is not entirely clear:
cf. Z. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects (American Oriental Series, XVI;
New Haven, 1939), pp. 55f. Much more could be said in favor of the medial h as
primary rather than secondary when there is a question of both forms where it is
present and forms where it is absent, and many more examples can be found to
work with, but this is not the place to assemble them.
88 Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik, I, 127, § 45r.(3.
89 W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Rome, 1952), § 98a-b.
90 Ibid., § 104b.
97 Ibid., § 104c,f; G. Ryckmans, Grammaire accadienne (4th ed.; Louvain, 1960),
§ 319.
92 Cf. also I. J. Gelb’s remark on kun in his extensive review of von Soden’s
Grundriss in Bibliotheca Orientalis 12 (1955), p. 105. One last remote hope for
establishing some relation between kohen and kwn might be sought in the observa¬
tion made by M. Dahood, Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology (Biblica et Orientalia, XVIII;
Rome, 1965), p. 63, that in text 1161:5f. of Gordon’s Ugaritic Textbook the word salm,
"the investigators," is associated in parallel with tknn, "they shall ascertain" — a
28 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
Polel of the root kwn, and that in Job 8:8 ser>al stands in parallel to konen, also a
Polel form of kwn (but a form which on the basis of the Syriac version has often
been emended to bonen). Now the verb sa°al is that used in the Old Testament for
the Hebrew priest's consultation of Yahweh (cf. below, pp. 4748). Is it possible that
on the basis of the Ugaritic text and the one in Job we can suspect kohen to have
had an original meaning akin to that of sa?al and to have been derived from kwn
after all? The prospect is enticing, but the difficulties are great. The tknn of the
Ugaritic text is not, strictly speaking, syntactically parallel to salm but a verb with
the substantive participle salm as the antecedent of its unexpressed subject, and the
sense "to find out, to ascertain” is not really demonstrable for konen either in the
Bible or in Ugaritic, although it could certainly be conjectured for Job 8:8. The
knn of tknn in the Ugaritic text seems rather to mean “vindicate, testify in favor of”
as in Ps. 7:10, a sense which fits very well: "Whoever the investigators (are) who are
to testify in favor of the (human) pledges, behold, they shall testify (in their favor)”
(mnm . salm dt . tknn el . crbnm hnhmt tknn). So the association of s°l with a
Polel of kwn seems after all to be fortuitous in the Ugaritic text, and the meaning
of konen in Job 8:8 is still somewhat uncertain. The philological difficulty of relating
khn to kwn remains.
93 R. Dozy, Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes, II (Leiden, 1881), p. 496, lists
Arabic takahhun with a first meaning “priesthood” and a second one "abundance.”
Is this second meaning an ancient one in Arabic, or is it borrowed from some
dialect of Aramaic? And what of the likelihood of a loan from Aramaic being turned
into a Form V verbal noun like takahhun?
There is an interesting point which may lend some vague confirmation to this
hypothesis, however. There is a tablet found in Alalakh which provides for temple
offerings, to be made by a man who is evidently a priest of some sort, although he
is mentioned by name only, without any title. This tablet includes instructions for
an azazhu-offering which is expected to bring welfare to a man’s house. The tablet
is from Level VII in the excavations, hence to be dated in the 18th century B.C.
For the text, cf. D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional Publications of the
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, II; London, 1953), p. 63, and, on the
presence of West Semites in 18th century Alalakh, ibid., p. 9, with the additional
remarks of E. A. Speiser in JAOS 74 (1954), p. 19.
V. THE SECULAR TRIBE OF LEVI 29
From all this we conclude that the earliest priests among the Israelites
were essentially sanctuary attendants — not soothsayers, not diviners, not
sacrificers, although oracular consultation was their principal activity and
there was nothing to prohibit their offering a sacrifice like other men.
We can be reasonably sure of the West Semitic origin of the word kohen,
but the West Semitic texts outside the Bible give us little insight into
the nature of a priest in that cultural area. The concept of a Hebrew
priest is illustrated somewhat by Arabian sources, where, however, the
close equivalent is the sadin rather than the philologically cognate kahin.
The conditions of Hebrew life in pre-Mosaic times precluded a proper
priesthood in the later sense, and even if Hebrew priesthood began with
some North Arabian, Midianite influence in the formative years of Yah-
wism it remains problematic whether or not its members were at first
called kohanim. If the Hebrews' Yahwistic sanctuary ministers, such
as they were, were not called kohanim when they arrived in Canaan with
their brethren — and it is quite possible that they were not — they
adopted the Canaanite name which fitted their office as they came to
know something of their Canaanite predecessors in the land.
Bible, are pleasant examples of Biblical folklore, but they have no solid
philological support as real etymologies. Under this root, also, come the
proposals of modern authors that Levi means "escort” of the Ark,95 or
one “associated” with worship.96 Budde thought the word arose either
from the Levites' joining themselves to Moses (Exod. 32:25-29) or from
their attachment to a sanctuary.97
2) Iwy which is the Arabic lawa (with alif maqsurah), “to turn, twist,
wind,” a root which does not appear independently in Hebrew but is
the supposed root of liwya, “wreath," and of “Leviathan.”
Here the etymologies proposed take a somewhat imaginative turn.
Mowinckel sees a sense of swinging around in a dance in the root and
finds the Levites to have been originally ecstatic cult dancers at a sanc¬
tuary, 98 but the etymology is a little far-fetched, and Levites simply do
not appear as cultic dancers of any sort. Mowinckel mentions a proposal
by Paul Haupt to connect Levi with the Arabic lawa IV, “to give oracles,”
certainly an enticing proposal, but close examination reveals not only
that there is no evidence that lawa in any of its forms means “to give
oracles,” but also that Haupt did not say that it did.99 Eduard Meyer,
using material of Bernhard Luther, sees a connexion with lawa used of
coiling serpents (this really is attested, for Form VI) and relates the
origins of the Levites to a snake cult (Moses’ rod changed to a serpent,
Exod. 4:3; the brazen serpent, Num. 21; the Nehushtan of 2 Kgs. 18:4),10,0
but the explanation, although ingenious, is quite gratuitous.
3) Iwy “to borrow”; in the Hiphcil: “to lend.”
Here, where at first sight there would seem to be no chance of any
origin for the word lewi, is precisely where the etymology which has
received the greatest number of qualified adherents is situated.
In the Minaean trading colony which once flourished at El-cUla (the
Biblical Dedan) in northern Arabia the expeditions of Euting in 1884
and of the Dominicans Jaussen and Savignac in 1907-10 found a number
of inscriptions in which the word Zw3 and its feminine Zw3Z occur.101
The two words were at first thought to mean “priest" and “priestess,”
but H. Grimme demonstrated their real sense to be “person pledged for
a debt or a vow.”1012 Hblscher, writing without knowledge of Grimme's
correctives, accepted the substantial identity of the Minaean Zw3 and the
Hebrew lewi, with both meaning “priest,” using this as one of his prin¬
cipal arguments against the existence of a secular tribe of Levites.108
For Albright, following Grimme, the Zw3 of Dedan and the lewi of the
Bible were originally persons pledged or dedicated to a deity or a sanc¬
tuary, 104 but unlike Grimme, who emphasized the fact that at Dedan
the Zw3 and Zw3Z were ordinary people presented as votaries to the
Minaeans’ god Wadd, and not ministers of any kind, both Albright and
von Rad speak of these people as "temple personnel” like the Levites.10’5
The Danes Pedersen and Nielsen, too, have in mind the inscriptions of
Dedan when they see lewi meaning originally “consecrated to the tem¬
ple.” 106
Without doubt the interpretation of the material from Dedan has
done more than anything else to confuse the issue in the question of
Levitic origins. There are good reasons for stating not only that the Zw3
of the Dedan inscriptions is not at the origin of the Hebrew Levite but
that he does not even share a common origin with the Levite. The date
1000-900 B.C. given by Glaser in the last century for the Minaean colony
at Dedan is much too high; a date in the last half of the first millenium
B.C. is certain,107 and that fact in itself already reduces the possibility
of an Arabian origin for a Levitical institution as far as arguments based
on cognates go, since apart from the Dedan inscriptions there is no
question of a cognate for the Hebrew lewi in any North or South Arabic
dialect. Since the recently discovered inscriptions of the sixth century
"Tablets from Chagar Bazar and Tall Brak, 1937-38,” Iraq 7 [1940], p. 40; to which
can be added now ARM, VI, 51:4; 52:4,19,20; IX, 6:10,13), [La)-wi-la-dDa-[gan] (ARM,
VII, 280:viii':17), La-wi-la-AN (ARM, VII, 112:8; 219:52; VIII, 82:5), La-u-la-a-da and
La-u-dIM (Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, p. 141), and the Egyptian transcription
3w3hddi in the execration texts studied by G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de
Nubie (Brussels, 1940), E21 (p. 76). H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in
the Mari Texts (Baltimore, 1965), p. 225, objects, that Goetze’s explanation could apply
easily to Lawi-AN but not to these names with Lawu-/Lawi- followed by a second la.
It is true that no name in La-wi-la- is paralleled so far by one in Ya-wi-la-, but that
may be a matter of chance. It is also true that it is not easy to conceive of both
of the la's in La-wi-la- as filling exactly the same function, but might it not be pos¬
sible that the first la has a specifically optative function, the second la an intensive
or emphatic function ("indeed”)? Cf. F. Notscher, “Zum emphatischen Lamed,” VT
3 (1953) 372-80, and the analysis of Ugaritic usage in Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, § 9.16.
If so, a name like La-wi-la-dDa-gan would mean something like "May (the first la)
Dagan indeed (the second la)..."] the verbal root, with its meaning, can not be de¬
termined with certitude: for possibilities, cf. Huffmon, op. cit., p. 72. At any rate,
Goetze’s explanation of lawi as la-yawi > lawi would also help to explain the vocaliza¬
tion of Hebrew lewi with e: * la-yawi > *laywi (apocopation of the vowel following
the original word stress; cf. Bauer-Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebraischen
Sprache, § 12b) > lewi in Hebrew (on diphthongal ay > e in Canaanite generally,
and early, cf. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects, pp. 29-32), but > lawi
in Amorite (on diphthongal ay > a in Amorite regularly, except when final, cf.
I. Gelb, “La lingua degli Amoriti,” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendi-
conti della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Ser. 8, Vol. XIII (1958),
§ 2.4.3,4 [p. 149], or, without reckoning with any apocopation after word stress,
ibid., § 2.3.3. [p. 147]: -aya-f>a).
112 M. Burchardt, Die altkanaanaischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Agypti-
schen (Leipzig, 1909-10), II, 32 (No. 604), from a text of the reign of Rameses III
(early 12th century, B.C.); cf. W. F. Albright, The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic
Orthography (American Oriental Series, V; New Haven, 1934), p. 8, n. 16; p. 35, No.
III.B.7.
U3 The patriarchal ancestors of the twelve tribes are treated in the popular
legends as individual persons with personal names, but in these legends the ancestor
of a tribe, bearing a personal name which is at the same time the tribe’s gentilitial
name, is a witness not necessarily to the real existence of the tribal ancestor but
to the existence of the tribe with its own life, history, characteristics, distinct from
other tribes. "Der ‘Patriarch’ ist ein heros eponymus des Stammes oder Volkes,
der freilich in den Erziihlungen als individuelle Persbnlichkeit gedacht und geschildert
wird, aber doch gerade wie die arabischen Ahnherren, die Ideale, Eigentumlichkeiten
und Schicksale des von ihm vertretenen Kollektivs widerspiegelt” (J. Lindblom,
"Einige Grundfragen der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft,” in Festschrift Alfred Ber-
tholet [Tubingen, 1950], p. 331).
3
34 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
functions, but the early traditions of Israel consider the Levites as con¬
stituting a tribe, although a tribe in reduced status. Levi finds his place
among the twelve sons of Jacob in Gen. 29:31 -30:24; 35:16fT.,23-26;
46:8-25; Exod. l:2ff.; Dt. 27:12f.; Ezek. 48:31-35; 1 Chr. 2: If., and Levi is
included among the twelve tribes of Gen. 49 and Dt. 33. To the witness
of this twelve-tribe schema with Levi apparent in it we can add the
twelve-tribe census list of Num. 26:5-51 + 58aba, if we accept Kurt M6h-
lenbrink’s theory that v. 58aba, with the Levites, is the continuation of
w. 5-51, with w. 52-56 a later insertion and w. 57 and 58b(3 a secondary
textual graft around 5 8aboc-114 This material bears forthright witness
to the tradition of an existence of the tribe of Levi, a tradition which
is all the more impressive when we remember that the tribe’s existence
with full tribal status must have been a fact at a relatively early stage
of Israel's history and that when the tradition took its present form Levi
as a full tribe must already have reached a state of relative dissolution.115
This tradition, found in a series of texts which includes very early texts,
is faced with another enumeration of the twelve tribes which omits Levi
and replaces Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh (Num. 1:5-15,2043;
2:3-31; 7:12-83; 13:4-15; Josh. 13-19; 21:4-7,9-39). None of these latter
texts is old, and the entire series reflects not the tradition of twelve
tribes before settlement in Canaan but the actual situation obtaining
after settlement. The first series of texts, with Levi, is built on the tradi¬
tional list of the twelve eponymous sons of Jacob, the second series,
without Levi, on those tribes which actually held territory in Israel,
with the traditional number of twelve maintained.116 The old texts carry
down the tradition from semi-nomadic times when the Levites were still
reckoned as a full tribe, and the younger group of texts, without Levi,
reflect the actual situation in a sedentarized Israel when full tribal status
could not be had without tribal territory. It is easy to understand the
later texts as products of their times. It is by no means easy to under¬
stand the earlier tradition with the Levites as a full tribe if they really
had no historical tribal identity, for there is no reason to make a tribe
of a group which is not one, and such an artificial procedure would not
catch hold readily in tribally conscious Israel.
But was the tribe of Levi a secular tribe, or was it a "priestly”
tribe from the very outset? 117 At the very stage of history when Levi
could still have been a tribe on more or less equal footing with the others,
it would have been a practical impossibility for an entire tribe to have
been functioning as priests,118 and indeed none of the texts listing Levi
as one of the twelve eponymous tribal ancestors distinguishes him in
any such way from the others. The saying on Levi in the Blessings
of Moses (Dt. 33:8-11) does make it clear that at the time those verses
were composed the Levites were closely identified with priestly functions,
but the text taking that direction is from the middle of the monarchical
period and reflects a more advanced stage of Levitical development.119
In the Blessings of Jacob, however — a complex which perhaps dates,
in its present form, from the late eleventh century12® — Simeon and
Levi are associated as "brothers” in the same judgement: for their deeds
of violence both are objects of divine displeasure which results in their
lack of census-figures for the Levites, the impression is almost given of thirteen
tribes. Gunneweg, op. dt., pp. 55f., shows the weaknesses in the attempts of Mo-
winckel and Hoftijzer to establish a greater antiquity for these tribal lists which omit
Levi than for those lists which include him.
ii7 Xo cite only some literature dealing directly with the subject: that the Levites
were ever a secular tribe has been denied by Holscher, “Levi," in Pauly-Wissowa,
Real-Encyclopadie, XII/2, 2160f., and Nielsen, Shechem, pp. 280-83; that Levi was
originally a secular tribe is held by Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 152-55,
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme, pp. 426ff.; T. J. Meek, "Moses and
the Levites,” AJSL 56 (1939) 113-20; Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, pp. 122ff.; also
Noth, Das System, p. 34, with his UP, p. 497, n. 503.
us Cf. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, p. 58.
119 Cf. R. Tournay, “Le psaume et les benedictions de Moise," RB 65 (1958) 191-
210- also F. M Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses," JBL 67 (1948),.
p 203, n. 29, even though they hold a much greater antiquity for the Blessings of
Moses’ as a whole and for v. 11, too. They suggest that v. 11 may have been the
original blessing of Levi, with the rest added later. V. 11 has nothing specifically
priestly to say about the Levites. „„ ^
120 For this date, cf. W. F. Albright in CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 9f., who accepts the
conclusions of R. G. Boling partially published in JSS 5 (1960) 221-25. However
there are certainly many who will still prefer to leave the question of the date of
these Blessings open. Even working with the hypothesis of a later date, though,
forSfhe Blessing of Jacob in its present form, the text of vv. 5ff. would be very in¬
teresting for our present concerns, for it would manifest a perdunng tradition of
Levi as a secular tribe at a time when the Levites were pressing their claims to
nriestly work. On the other hand, the tradition behind the text of vv. 5ff. can be
older than the present form of vv. 5ff., or of the Blessing of Jacob as a whole.
36 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
121 Gen. 34:25f.,30f. also mention Simeon and Levi together, in a purely secular
context (the violence at Shechem), but these verses may be a later addition, inspired
by the association of Simeon and Levi in Gen. 49: so, with considerable differences
of detail, E. Konig, Geschichte der alt test ament lichen Religion (4th ed.; Giitersloh,
1924), p. 270; Mohlenbrink, "Die levitischen Oberlieferungen,” p. 228; Nielsen, She¬
chem, pp. 282f.; S. Lehming, “Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte von Gen. 34,’’ ZAW 70
(1958) 228-50. In that case we could not safely use them as an independent witness.
On the other hand, the association of these two tribes, both in Gen. 34 and in
Gen. 49, may correspond to historical reality, the two of them being associated in
tradition because both are former full tribes, now of reduced status. We have no
real reason for questioning the presence of both Simeon and Levi together in the
nucleus of the tradition behind Gen. 49:5ff., and indeed just as the list of Levitical
clans in Num. 26:58 leads us to Judah (Hebron, Libnah), as does the information
on an individual Levite’s origin in Judg. 17:7 (Bethlehem), so, too, Simeon is associated
with Judah in Judg. 1:3,17 and Josh. 19:1-9 (“Simeonite’’ cities which are, in fact,
in Judaean territory).
122 Thus Noth, t)S, p. 197, n. 503, who speaks of an accidental identity of the
proper name LSwi and an appellative lewi applied to priests, an accidental identity
which might explain the change from a secular tribe to a "priestly” tribe. But Noth
is still under the influence of the old interpretation of the Dedan inscriptions and
their significance.
123 Holscher, “Levi,” cols. 2160f.
V. THE SECULAR TRIBE OF LEVI 37
124 cf. G. L. Harris (ed.), Jordan (Survey of World Cultures, II; New Haven, 1958),
p. 56.
38 CHAPTER ONE. PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE PRIESTHOOD
ri,* * * 4 Moses,5 Hophni and Phinehas 6 — found among Old Testament Levites
bears witness to some kind of strong cultural influence on the Levites
at some stage of their history. Now it is true that such influence need
not absolutely require any appreciable number of Levites to have been
actually in Egypt, and Moses’ Egyptian name does not prove that Moses
himself was actually in Egypt, but it does at least indicate that the
original Moses — and the Levites at some stage of their history — were,
if not in Egypt, at least in the desert area between Egypt and the arable
part of Palestine.7 Palestine in the Late Bronze Age was subject to
Egyptian hegemony, but the cultural influence of Egypt in Palestine at
that time did not go much beyond providing models for administrative
organization, to judge from the Amarna Letters, whose very language
was not Egyptian but rather bad Akkadian, although they were written
to the Egyptian court. In none of the land-holding tribes — in no Hebrew
group other than that of the Levites, in fact — do we find a tradition
of Egyptian personal names. There is no reason why the Egyptian names
given to Levites in the Old Testament should be artificially borrowed
ad hoc from Egypt by authors or compilers; none of them, except that
of Moses, occurs in any context which has an Egyptian past in mind.
Nor does any good reason come to mind for Hebrews in the desert
between Egypt and Palestine to have adopted Egyptian style in naming
their children, had they or their ancestors not actually been in Egypt
and the traditional names been adopted there. At any rate, there are
good indications that there were Levites in Egypt to take part in the
Exodus, and there is the Biblical tradition that Moses himself was one
of them. The problem now facing us is that of the beginnings of priestly
claims among the secular Levites after the Exodus, in Palestine. Did this
have something to do with the bond between Moses and the Levites,
(because of Steuemagel’s theory that only Rachel tribes came out of Egypt, Moses
would have belonged to the tribe of Jacob, and subsequently to that of Joseph);
H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit (FRLANT, XVIII; Gottingen, 1913), p. 214 (be¬
cause Moses failed to react to the loyalty of the Levites in Exod. 32:25-29 as would
befit a fellow tribesman!).
4 M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung (BWANT, III/10; Stuttgart, 1928), p. 225, n. 9, attaches Merari to Arabic
mirra, “bodily strength; gall” (from marra, “to be bitter"; in Form VI “to fight"),
but the Egyptian proper name mrry, or mrrl is well attested for the Egyptian Old
and Middle Kingdoms: cf. H. Ranke, Die dgyptischen Personennamen (Gliickstadt,
1935), I, 162, No. 22. Ranke does not analyse the name, but I should thing it probably
a hypocoristicon formed by the common hypocoristic ending -1 (often -y, especially
in the Middle Kingdom) added to a short-name mrr (imperfective, geminating sdm.f
of mrl “to love”) from some full-name like the mrr.wl k3.l (“My Ka loves me”)
listed in Ranke, loc. cit., No. 27.
s Cf. J. G. Griffiths, “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12
(1953) 225-31.
e Hophni and Phinehas as Egyptian names will be discussed in the section on
the Elides below, pp. 70-71.
7 Noth, VS, p. 178f.
I. MOSES AND PRIESTHOOD 41
A. Moses a Priest?
Those texts of P which justify the claims of the group calling them¬
selves "Aaronides” to the rights of exclusiveness in priestly functions at
the expense of all other groups, including "the levites” (in its late sense
as a name of subordinate function), insist that only Aaron and his
descendants can be legitimate priests (Exod. 28:1,43-; Num. 3:10). P, ac¬
cordingly, in the later stages of Pentateuchal growth, never calls Moses,
Aaron’s brother, a priest. In the two passages of P, however, which
depict the priestly inauguration of the Aaronides, Aaron and his sons lay
their hands on the victims in the series of sacrifices which form a part of
this "ritual of ordination” (Exod. 29:10,15,19; Lev. 8:14,18,22), whereas
Moses immolates the victims and performs the ritual acts which involve
the manipulation of blood (Exod. 29: llf.,16,20f.; Lev. 8:15,19,23f.). The
significance of this is found by comparing the general prescriptions for
sacrifice which belong to the same stratum in P as Exod. 29: 9 it is the
man who makes the offering who both lays his hand on the victim and
immolates the victim, and it is the priests (always "the sons of Aaron”)
who manipulate the blood (Lev. 1:4f.; 3:2,8,13; cf. 4:5ff., 5:9, etc.). So
Moses, in "ordaining” the Aaronides, is portrayed as accomplishing those
parts of the sacrificial ritual which are reserved strictly to the priests, and
since this inauguration of the Aaronides lasted seven days (Exod. 29:35)
G. B. Gray has written of Moses' "priesthood of a week.” 10
Many details of these accounts are drawn from the liturgy of the
monarchical period and applied anachronistically to the desert period.
s Holscher, ‘‘Levi,’’ col. 2160. For E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbar-
stdmrne, p. 78, Moses is a priest as well as a secular Levite.
9 K. Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16 (FRLANT, LXXI;
Gottingen, 1959), p. 48; Lev. 8 would, according to Koch (contrary to Ewald and Well-
hausen), be later than Lev. 1-7 (cf. pp. 67fL). The primitive form of the ritual
used by P in Lev. 1 and Exod. 29:15-18, however, would be more closely followed in
Lev. 1 than in Exod. 29: cf. p. 26.
10 G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1925), p. 196.
42 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
Koch would see the possibility, though, that the substance of these details
had been handed down from the ancient days in some place of worship
other than Jerusalem, with Aaron’s figure rooted in the tradition but
Moses’ figure added and intermingled quite late.11 That Aaron was
present in the tradition for a long time without Moses, however, is
open to objection, for if we remove the figure of Moses from the present
accounts we are left with Aaron and his sons being inaugurated as priests
by no one, while it is clear that P wishes to show the necessity of their
being ritually purified by someone before they can approach the altar,12
and in Lev. 8 the problems of the sacrificial ritual are insoluble unless
it is recognized that Moses is acting as a priest with Aaron and his sons
acting not as priests at all but as sacrificing worshippers.13 In both
of these passages, if Moses is removed while Aaron is retained, a member
of the dramatis personae essential for the action is lost: Aaron without
Moses is insufficient, for the chief priest can not be installed by another
priest when, as the present narratives require, no priests have yet been
made. Did not the texts perhaps receive their present shape with P's
introducing both Moses and Aaron with his sons in a description based
on traditional ritual, with the direct purpose of showing a Mosaic origin
for the Aaronide priesthood? The motive for doing so would be simply
the desire to express in this particular matter, as in so many others,
the theological idea that Moses is at the origin of Israel’s religious
institutions in general; it might, in addition, have been inspired by an
older Levitical tradition basing Levitical priestly claims on an origin with
a priestly Moses. What historical fact there might be behind the narrative
escapes the control of both the historian's and the traditio-historian’s
methods.
2. Exodus 24:3-8
details which show a great age for its original tradition: the blood-rite
is unique in the Old Testament for its similarity to ancient Arabian
blood-rites.15 If the tradition were a recent one, Moses might be said
to appear as a priest, for he builds an altar and he engages in blood-
manipulation, which in later Israelite ritual was reserved to priests. But
the traditions here are early, and the blood-manipulation is not that
provided for in the prescriptions of P, which pertain to the ritual of
sacrifices made by individual worshipers through the mediation of a priest.
Nor was the building of an altar reserved to priests in early times:
the Patriarchs did so regularly when they wished to offer their non-priestly
sacrifices (Gen. 12:7f.; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7).
This text is clearly a text having to do with covenant-making rather
than sacrifice, and although the sacrifices described are real sacrifices
— and covenant-sacrifices at that16 — the blood-rite seems rather to be
inspired by the non-sacrificial blood-rites of ancient Semitic religion,
amalgamated here with the covenant-sacrifices,17 and such blood-rites
were performed not by priests but by kings and chieftains.18 Moses
appears in Exod. 24:3-8 less as a priest than as a leader, as the represen¬
tative of his people in relation to God, like the kings of more developed
Semitic civilizations, and especially like the mukarribun of the early
theocracies which preceded the kingdoms of South Arabia — rnen who
were first and foremost chieftains, so much so that any priestly character
has been denied them with the possible exception of the mukarribun of
Hadramaut.19 Maria Hdfner has recently shown that these chieftains
had a very special function: that of covenant-making between their god
and their people, an activity which was political in that the whole
social and economic order of their primitive theocratic state was founded
on such covenants, but which was essentially a cultic function.20 This is
very much the way Moses is shown in Exod. 24:3-8. Whether we call his
activity priestly or not depends on what we understand by "priestly.”
Sichem," RB 69 (1962), pp. 355-61, holds Exod. 24:3-8 to be a text whose purpose
is to attach the Code of the Covenant artificially to Sinai, and an implicit corollary
to this would be that Moses’ presence in the text is artificial and late (for L’Hour
the attachment of the Code to Sinai is post-Deuteronomistic). Noth, VP, p. 6, holds
this text to be one of those which ultimately defies sure literary analysis,
is G. Quell in TWNT, II (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 117.
i« D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Analecta Biblica, XXI; Rome, 1963),
pp. 162f.
17 Ibid., p. 173.
is A good illustrative example is to be found in the treaty published by E. F.
Weidner, “Der Staatsvertrag Assumiraris VI. von Assyrien mit MatPilu von Bit-Agusi,"
AfO 8 (1932/33), p. 19, 1:10-14: the covenant is made by kings for their whole peoples,
and the blood-rite is no part of a sacrifice but a rite of guarantee. The text may
also be consulted in McCarthy, op.cit., p. 195.
10 J. Ryckmans, L’institution monarchique en Arabie meridionale avant l Islam
(Bibliotheque du Museon, XXVIII; Louvain, 1951), p. 99.
20 m. Hofner, "War der sabaische Mukarrib ein 'Priesterfiirst'?," WZKM 54 (1957)
77-85.
44 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
His activity does not fit our understanding of the terms, nor even that
which the term had in Israel, but in primitive Semitic society matters
were far less clear-cut than in our civilization, with its line of demarca¬
tion between the sacral and the profane so neatly marked.
3. Exodus 18
23 Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 162-68; cf. also Gray, Sacrifice in the Old
Testament, p. 208. .
24 So, R. Knierim, "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichts-
barkeit,” ZAW 73 (1961), p. 153, for whom the verse would be a fragment of a
Levitical cult-aetiology. This depends on Aaron’s figuring here as a Levitical figure,
which, agreeing with Noth, VP, pp. 197f., I do not believe to be the case in any
text that is this old.
25 Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, p. 86.
26 Noth, VP, pp. 197f. Noth, though, would admit the possibility of the (non-
priestly) Aaron's presence in Exod. 18:12 as secondary (p. 196).
27 This suggestion has been made by C. H. W. Brekelmans, "Exodus xvm and
the Origins of Yahwism in Israel,” Oudtestamentische Studien 10 (1954) 215-24, who
also refers (p. 218, n. 5) to the commentaries on Exodus by Strack (1894), von Hum-
melauer (1897), and Heinisch (1934).
as On sacrifice and covenant meal, cf. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 172t.
As for the meal’s significance: "The covenant meal means admission into the family
circle of another” (ibid., p. 173).
46 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
of "xiberlegene rituelle Schulung” (p. 181) in dealing with sacrificing and oracle-con¬
sulting priests, even in the primitive period. But the Patriarchs and the Arabian
patresfamilias certainly sacrificed without extensive ritual schooling, and much the
same can be said of the generalized oracular consultation which appeared in cer¬
tain parts of ancient North Arabia (cf. Ibn al-Kalbi, The Book of Idols, pp. 30, 41).
34 De Vaux, Les institutions, II, 205. _
35 Baudissin, Geschichte, p. 262, would see a priest mvolved in Rebekah s con¬
sultation (Gen. 25:22f.), but he does so gratuitously, and the text tells us nothing
whatever about how Rebekah’s consultation was made.
48 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
(Dt. 4:29; 2 Sam. 12:16; 21:1; 1 Chr. 16:10; 2 Chr. 7:14; 11:16; 20:4; Isa. 51:1; Jer.
50:4; Hos. 3:5; 5:6,15; Zeph. 1:6; 2:3; Zech. 8:21f.; Pss. 24:6; 27:8; 83:17; 105:3f.;
Prov. 28:5; and here in Exod. 33:7). Once, in Amos 8:12, it is used of people seeking
the prophetic word of God, and once, in Lev. 19:31, of having shameful recourse
to wizards, but the verb biqqes itself implies no particular relation either to prophetic
or to priestly intervention, and Moses in this text still has the traits of an Arabian
kdhin but not of a Hebrew kohen.
sa Cf. Grohmann, Arabien, p. 88.
40 Lammens, L'Arabie occidentale avant VHegire, p. 160.
41 Ibn HiSam, Sirat ar-rasul, 92, 284, in Lammens, op. cit., p. 135, n. 4.
42 E Meyer, Die Israeliten and ihre Nachbarstamme, p. 72, and Gressmann, Mose
und seine Zeit, p. 156, have seen this aspect of Moses’ figure in Exod. 17. Of course,
Moses with his rod appears elsewhere, too, as a sort of Yahwist magician: cf. Exod.
4■ 2ff • 7-9-12 (the rod transformed into a serpent); 15:25 (the rod which sweetens
the waters of Marah). Cf. also Moses and the brazen serpent of Num 21:6-9
43 H. Lammens, Le berceau de I'Islam (Rome, 1914), p. 267; in old North Arabia,
4
50 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
does not alter this particular conclusion, because to be a Levite was not
the same thing as to be a priest.
45 A. Lods, Israel des origines au milieu du VIIIs siecle (Paris, 1930), p. 512.
46 Cf. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, pp. 148-60. Rowley accepts the Kenite
hypothesis, but gives the essential biblography for both sides. There is much to
be said for the possibility of such influence, but the specifically formative in¬
fluence is not to be found there: cf. R. de Vaux, "Israel (Histoire d’),” DB Sup pi,
IV (Paris, 1949), col. 736: “L'etablissement de la nouvelle religion qui devait rester
jusqu’au bout celle d’lsrael ne trouve pas d’explication suffisante dans les influences
etrangeres et le milieu du desert. Le Yahvisme se rattache davantage aux croyances
des Hebreux pre-israelites de 1’epoque patriarcale; il a pu emprunter certaines formes
aux cultes voisins, mais l’esprit qui les anime est radicalement nouveau et cette
eclosion d’une religion monotheiste est un evenement qui echappe aux explications
de l'historien: celui-ci s'arrete devant le mystere de la Revelation.”
47 For a recent negative view, cf. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, tr. by
M. Greenberg (Chicago, 1960), p. 244.
48 VP, pp. 178-91.
I. MOSES AND PRIESTHOOD 51
49 Noth, Das System, pp. 65ff., expounds the hypothesis that Shechem was the
earliest sanctuary of Yahweh in Palestine after the Exodus, where it was the shrine
of the Israelite Covenant. A. Alt, Die Urspriinge des israelitischen Rechts (Berichte
fiber die Verhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
Phil.-hist. Kl. LXXXVI/1; Leipzig, 1934), p. 62 (= KS, pp. 324f.), agrees with Noth
in this, and insists that Dt. 27, because of its form and content, is ancient, con¬
serving authentic memories of a sacral event. According to Dt. 27:14 — and perhaps
28:9 also, altough the expression hak-kohdnim hatewiyim might make one suspect
a specifically Deuteronomic influence in the text — the Levites have an important
role in this sacral event. G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (Studies in Biblical
Theology, IX; London, 1953), p. 41, sees the section beginning with Dt. 27:12 as a
text whose Gattung is that of a cultic celebration, celebrating the Covenant Festival
of the amphictyony at Shechem. Dt. 27, then, might retain traditional memories
of Levitical cultic influence at early Shechem, even before Shiloh. (However, it
ought to be noted that Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 103,
rejects the idea that the central sanctuary might once have been at some place other
than Shiloh, and more recently J. Bright, A History of Israel [London, I960], p. 147,
though less negative, is hesitant about Shechem because of its Canaanite background;
it is a fact that our sources mention only Shiloh as location of the amphictyonic
sanctuary.)
M. Noth, "Das Amt des ‘Richters Israels’,” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tu¬
bingen, 1950), p. 414, has written that, although the tribes were bound by a common
worship at the central sanctuary, it is not likely that a permanent priesthood sup¬
ported by all the tribes was established at that sanctuary, but that each of the
twelve tribes in turn took care of the sanctuary; the priesthood of the Elides would
have been a later development connected with the erection of a temple building
in Shiloh. His principal reason for this hypothesis is that worship was not of
sufficient importance to the twelve tribes as an amphictyonic group for them to
establish a permanent office of priesthood at the central sanctuary,, although the
importance of sacral law in Israel made the office of "judge” essential. Our sug¬
gestion, though, is not that Levites were established in the central sanctuary through
the initiative of the amphictyony but that they established themselves there on the
basis of a tradition. If this tradition were centered on the Ark, there would be
no need to await the erection of a permanent building before a traditional ark-priest¬
hood (in the nomadic sense, not in a sedentary one) took shape.
so A tradition of Levitical relation to Moses is attested precisely in a context
of Levitical desirability for priestly work (Judg. 17-18) — and in the far North at
that — in the old text of Judg. 18:30 without the Massoretic alteration of Moses
name. On the antiquity and significance of this text, cf. G. F. Moore, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC; Edinburgh, 1895), pp. 400fL; C. F. Burney,
The Book of Judges (London, 1918), pp. 414f„ 436; Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testa¬
ment p. 209; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD, IX; Gottingen,
1954)/ p. 242 ’ C. Hauret, "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite,” in Melanges bibliques
rediges en Vhonneur de Andre Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. 105-13.
52 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
Gen. 49:5ff. has uttered a sentence on Levites who are clearly thought
of as a secular tribe, without allusion to the priests among them. We
have material in the final part of the present Book of Judges which
clarifies their sociological status and illustrates their early priestly activity,
with its relation to that status.
A. Judges 17 -18; 19
Judg. 17 -18, a very old narrative, tells the story of the erection of a
household sanctuary by the Ephraimite Micah, who makes one of his own
sons priest of the sanctuary (17:5) but then takes advantage of the
passing of a migrant Levite to hire the Levite as his priest in place of
his son (17:13). A band of Danites, on the way to look for a new
territory fit for their tribe’s settlement, happens along, asks the Levite
for a consultation of God (18:5f.), and later returns to take the Levite,
along with the appurtenances of Micah’s sanctuary, off to lay the founda¬
tion of the tribal sanctuary of Dan in the North.
Almost no one denies the antiquity of the story,53 but the part which
particularly interests us (17:7-13) has often been divided into two, or
even three, sources, or else considered a single source with redactional
interpolations, because of the fluctuation of epithets used to refer to
the Levite, but especially because in 17:10 Micah asks the Levite to
be “a father and a priest,” while 17:11 says that "the young man (i. e. the
Levite) was like one of his sons” to Micah.64 Nowadays a variation in
the use of epithets is no longer looked upon as a sure sign of a plurality
of sources, and the supposed contradiction involved in Micah's asking
a young man to be "a father and a priest” to him is no contradiction
at all: "father” here is clearly an epithet not of age but of functional
office, and perhaps even a title given regularly to priests.65 There are
53 Vv. 17:6 and 18:1 are pro-monarchist, and they take a negative attitude to the
story of Micah and his Levite. They have the hallmarks of redactional glossing of
the story being recounted, which they interrupt. M. Noth, “The Background of
Judges 17-18" in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage:
Essays in Honor of J. Muilenburg (New York, 1962), pp. 68-85, interprets these two
chapters of Judges as a polemic by partisans of Jeroboam’s cultic innovations in
Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33) against the previous cult in Dan. But then why
the account of the migration of the Danites (against which the negative comment
of 18:1 seems to be directed)? The episode is not anti-Levitical, and 1 Kgs. 12:29-33,
which comes to us through a source that is pro-Levitical but anti-Jeroboamite, does
not complain that Jeroboam introduced at Dan the non-Levitical priesthood he in¬
troduced at Bethel (cf. below, pp. lllf.); consequently, Judg. 17-18 explains the
origins of the Danite priesthood which continued under Jeroboam and his successors,
as the later text of Judg. 18:30 says it did. Vv. 17:6 and 18:1, as redactional glosses,
could certainly be the product of partisans of Jeroboam (as could 18:31), but they
could just as well be later (as is 18:30); the narrative as a whole can very well
be earlier. It seems to me that the story in Judg. 17 -18 as a whole is not ade¬
quately explained as a product of the events described in 1 Kgs. 12:25-33, that it
is rather an old Danite tradition, preserved for us practically intact, with a few
pieces of supplementary information (18:30f.) and occasional pointed remarks (17:6;
18:1) by a later and more sophisticated editor who disapproved of the goings-on
he found in the episode.
54 Burney, The Book of Judges, pp. 408fL, with reference to his predecessors;
then again, more recently, but only on the basis of the discrepancy between "father"
and "young man," A. Murtonen, "Some Thoughts on Judges xvii sq.," VT 1 (1951)
223f. (postulating a third source to account for the Levite and Micah’s son as distinct
persons); also G. R. Driver, "Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,”
in L’Ancien Testament et VOrient (Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia, I; Louvain, 1957),
p. 143. C. A. Simpson, Composition of the Book of Judges (Oxford, 1957), pp. 63-70,
divides the narrative into J and E plus considerable redactional material.
ss M. Noth, Amt und Berufung im Alten Testament (Bonner akademische Reden,
XIX; Bonn, 1958), pp. 9, 29, n. 12 (=-- Noth, Gesammelte Studien, 2nd ed„ p. 314);
Dhorme, L’evolution religieuse d’lsrael, I, 222f. R. de Vaux, in an individual com¬
munication, suggests that the title is inspired by a role as counselor, which in the
case of the early priest would be dependent upon his oracular consultation, then,
as priesthood developed, upon his teaching of torn; he suggests as enlightening
parallels Gen. 45:8 (Joseph with respect to Pharaoh); 2 Kgs. 2:12 (Elijah with respect
to Elisha); 2 Kgs. 5:13; 6:21; 13:14 (Elisha with respect to secular rulers; cf. also
2 Kgs. 8:9); Est. 3:13f., 8:21f. (the vizier); and the frequent use of "son" in ad¬
dressing the receiver of wise counsel in the Book of Proverbs.
54 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
no real reasons for denying the basic unity of the narrative or its antiquity;
the marginal and redactional remarks which are most probably in the
text (e. g. 17:6; 18:1; perhaps elements of 18:30f.) have no bearing on
our present concern.
This episode reveals some very interesting things. Micah’s son, an
Ephraimite, can be priest-attendant of the sanctuary, but a Levite is so
much to be preferred that Micah is eager to hire a Levite in place of
his own son. The significance of this is that it was already accepted
that Levites were the right people to have as sanctuary attendants,
while at the same time it was not absolutely necessary to have them,
for a non-Levite could also be a priest. Furthermore, in 17:7 the wander¬
ing Levite is said to have come from Bethlehem in Judah, where he was
living as a ger56 — i. e. not belonging to the tribe of Judah (for he is a
Levite, as the same verse states), but belonging to a Levitical clan accepted
by the tribe of Judah and living in Judaean territory with the enjoyment
of certain rights accorded by the Judaeans.57 He has left Bethlehem to
wander elsewhere, and in the territory of other tribes, too, he lives as a
ger (17:8). It would seem that before coming into Ephraim he has
already been among the Danites, because the Danite expedition in 18:3
is said to recognize his voice. 58
bs The text says he was “living as a ger there.” Where is "there"? For many
who see two different versions of the story, v. 7 is a parallel to another source’s
v. 8, and since v. 8 refers to the Levite's prospective residence as a ger in places
outside of Judah, the “there” of v. 7 would refer to the place where Micah lived
in Ephraim. But the sam, “there,” of v. 7 makes good sense as a resumptive par¬
ticle with Bethlehem of Judah as its antecedent, and with v. 8 continuing the same
narrative. The text reads:
(7) There was a young man of Bethlehem of Judah... a Levite, and he lived
as a ger there (in Bethlehem). (8) But (waw of contrast) the man left the
city, Bethlehem of Judah, to go and live as a ger (also, just as in Judah)
in any place he might find; and (thus) he came to the hill-country of Ephraim
to the house of Micah, as he was going along his way.
Burney, The Book of Judges, ad loc., wishes to read the consonantal gr sm not as
"ger there” but as the proper name grsm, the Gershom of 18:30; as Gunneweg,
Leviten und Priester, p. 20, n. 3, points out, however, if the Levite’s name was to be
introduced here in 17:7 Hebrew style would require not wehti gersom but some¬
thing like usemo gersom (or perhaps more elegantly wegersom semo).
si On the Biblical ger, cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, I, 116ff.
58 Simpson, Composition of the Book of Judges, p. 63, says: "that a young man
of the family of Judah (mispahat yehuda) was a Levite is historically impossible.”
But the phrase mispahat + proper name is not of itself a tribal designation. The
proper name which serves as the determining nomen rectum in the formula designates
a certain area with which a particular clan within a tribe was connected: cf. the
text of Num. 26:58, where there is a mispaha of Hebronites and one of Libnites
(primarily local designations), but both are clans (Canon Simpson’s “family") of the
tribe of Levi. The young man of Judg. 17:7 is a member of the tribe of Levi who
belongs to a Levite clan attached to Judah and known, for that reason, as a “clan
of Judah” (the phrase is better translated "a clan” rather than "the clan,” for we
know of a plurality, or at least a pair, of Levite clans of Judah — the Hebronites
and the Libnites — and there is no grammatical difficulty, for a nomen regens can
be indefinite notwithstanding a following determinate nomen rectum, especially when
II. LEVITES AND PRIESTHOOD IN THE DAYS OF THE JUDGES 55
the nomen rectum is determinate only in sense, by its being a proper name: cf. Ge-
senius-Kautzsch-Cowley, § 127e). Canon Simpson (p. 67) would eliminate ‘from
Bethlehem of Judah” and “he was a Levite” from the text of v. 7 as redactional
additions, and then make the young man a Danite, because his voice was recognized
by the Danite band (18:3). This emendation of the text is somewhat violent, and
the wandering Levite’s recognition by the Danites is perfectly understandable if he
had passed through Dan before coming on through Ephraim,
ss Nielsen, Shechem, p. 281.
w Noth, Das System, p. 25, n. 3.
61 Cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, I, 116.
62 Cf. Henninger, "La societe bedouine ancienne,” p. 79.
56 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
after the organization of the monarchy: at the top are the Israelites in
the society and territory of their own tribe, then the gerim, like the
individual Levites in Judg. 17 and 19 (or, with a modification, the col¬
lective ger of Dt. 14:29; 16:11,14; 26: Ilf.),63 and at the bottom are people
like the non-Israelite, Gibeonite captives in Josh. 9:19-27, "hewers of
wood and carriers of water.”
For some reason which escapes us, the actual existence of Levi as
a tribe with full tribal status had ceased to be a fact, although national
memory of the tribe and national awareness of its continued existence
as a distinct sociological group persisted, along with the Levites' own
consciousness of their membership therein. This change in status was
certainly fixed by the time land division on a tribal basis had become
a fait accompli in Israel, because the fundamental cause of the Levites'
reduction must lie in the fact that for some reason or other — perhaps
because in the Hebrew migration into Palestine they were slow in be¬
coming sedentary, not settling down early enough, or not in sufficient
numerical strength, to get a solid foothold in land-tenure64 — they found
themselves in the end without a definite tribal territory of their own:
they were left without “a portion or an inheritance.” At any rate, they
found themselves no longer in the status of a full tribe but in that of
gerim, and this result is that attested in Gen. 49:7, whose curse will have
Levi (and Simeon) "divided in Jacob” and "dispersed in Israel.”
The fact that the Levites were not acquiring tribal roots in Palestine
may not be unrelated to the migration of at least a number of them
into Egypt, whence to go out into the desert with Moses, just as it is
certainly not unrelated to the migrations of the individual Levites in
Judg. 17-18 and Judg. 19. If we look at the old list of Num. 26:58,
we see that it enumerates four clans of Levites: the Libnites, the Hebron-
ites, the Mahlites, and the Mushites. The first two are formed with
the names of two cities in the territory of Judah: Libnah and Hebron,
which are later found in the lists of Levitical cities (Josh. 21:13; 1 Chr.
6:57; and Josh. 20:7; 21:11; 1 Chr. 6:55), while the latter two are ap¬
parently formed from personal names. 65 Rowley thinks that while some
secular Levites were in Egypt and the desert with Moses, others were
already in southern Palestine.66 If this is so, the Libnites and the Hebron-
ites may be Levites who were living in southern Palestine before the
arrival of the others, and the Mahlites and Mushites those who took
part in the wanderings in the desert; the original Mosaic priests, accord¬
ingly, would have been found among those Levites who came to be known
as Mahlites and Mushites. A group of gerim must have a tribe in which
to find its place, for gerim are gerim with respect to some full tribe,
and the Libnite and Hebronite clans of Num. 26:58, kinsmen of the desert
Levites but inhabitants of the territory belonging to sedentarized Judah
when tribal limits became fixed, can explain the bonds of the individual
Levites of Judg. 17 and 19 with the tribe of Judah. The remnants of
the old secular tribe of Levi had, as a social group or groups, become
gerim within the tribe of Judah, while individual Levites could become
gerim — and probably did increasingly become gerim — in other tribes
(cf. Judg. 17:8; 19:1).67
In the light of what has been said in the preceding paragraphs, it
is difficult to agree with certain positions taken in Gunneweg’s traditio-
historical interpretation. For Gunneweg a Levite living as a ger in the
tribe of Judah would belong by blood to the tribe of Judah, not to any
real tribe of Levi.68 Levi would be one of the twelve sons of Jacob,
but not all of the groups represented by the twelve sons as eponymous
ancestors would be real tribes — or would have been real tribes.69 A
Judaean, or Ephraimite, Levite would be a man who for some reason
or other had broken his ties of Judaean or Ephraimite tribal membership
to live in the status of a ger, 70 the Levites, in other words, would be
65 in the late Levitical genealogies the nisbeh-forms libni and hebrorti (the latter
minus the -i, now) become personal names and enter the schema of personal genea¬
logies, "Libni” as son of Gershom, son of Levi (Exod. 6:17; Num. 3:18; 1 Chr. 6:2,
5 14) and "Hebron" as son of Kohath, son of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chr.
cj.oq. a *3* 23*1219) As the genealogies are harmonized, "Mahli” and "Mushi become
the sons of Merak, son of"Levi (Exod. 6:19; Num. 3:20; 1 Chr 6:4,14; 23:21; 24:
26,28), or else “Mahli” is made a son of "Mushi (1 Chr. 6.32, 23.23, 24.30).^
se H. H. Rowley, "Early Levite History and the Question of the Exodus,
gerim not because their tribe failed to find a place among the land-
holding tribes in the process of sedentarization but because certain mem¬
bers of various tribes broke their normal tribal relationships to become
a group of gerim knows as Levites. At this one begins to wonder why
they would deliberately abandon the security of full tribal status to be¬
come gerim. A partial, but not entirely satisfying, answer would be
provided by Gunneweg in his theory that gerim stood in a special relation
to Yahweh and to the Yahwist amphictyony,71 but the Old Testament
material on gerim — the material in Judg. 17 and 19 but especially the
gerim of Deuteronomy, who are probably not even Israelites — would
urge that gerim as such stand in no special religious relation to anyone
but rather in a special sociological relation to full tribes, and this is
confirmed by what we know of the cognate Arabian jiran. And what of
Simeon? Simeon too is one of the twelve eponymous ancestors. The
Simeonite group, like that of the Levites, failed to gain, or to hold, a
territory of its own in the process of sedentarization, and Simeon is
mentioned on equal footing with Levi in Gen. 49:5ff. We do not find
mention of Simeonite gerim in the Bible, but that does not mean that
when the events of Judg. 17 and 19 were first recounted the residual
Simeonites were not also in the status of gerim. But would the Simeon-
ites, too, stand in a special relation to Yahweh and his amphictyony,
and would that explain the presence of Simeon, too, among the twelve
eponymous sons of Jacob?
The bonds of kinship between the Levites and Moses, their having
been made priests of the Ark by Moses himself (the hypothesis which
recommends itself), and their continuing as priests of the Ark in the
central shrine of Israel in Canaan (cf. Judg. 20:27f.; 1 Sam. 1-4) gave
the Levites a special prestige which was such that other Israelites pre¬
ferred to have them as ministers of sanctuaries throughout the land.
At this point there must have been a good many Levites who were not
priests (the Levite of Judg. 19:1 does not seem to have been one), and
whether an individual Levite was a priest or not depended on whether
he had a job as priest or not. In the narrative of Judg. 17-18 the Levite
is called simply a Levite. He "becomes a priest” (17:12) when Micah
asks him to "be his priest” (17:10). In the following scene, when the
Danites arrive, they do not take it for granted that the Levite they know
is working as a priest. It is the voice of "the young Levite” that they
recognize, and when they ask him what he is doing he explains that
he has found a job as a priest (18:3f.) — information which was not
self-evident even to men who knew he was a Levite. It is only as a
result of this discovery that the Danites ask him to consult God for them
(18:5). In the rest of the narrative the Levite figures specifically as a
72 Cf. Noth, Das System, p. 113; de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 176f.
73 "Le clan, qui n’a pas pour base l’autorite d’un chef, mais la conscience de la
consanguinite, possede une cohesion tres forte qui fonctionne chaque fois qu’il y a
des interets a defendre” (Henninger, "La societe bedouine ancienne," p. 90).
74 Cf. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 130.
60 CHAPTER TWO. PRIESTS IN NASCENT ISRAEL
as a property of the group. The basis for the Levites’ preferred status
in priestly functions was provided by the traditions of their role in the
origins of Israel's religion.
C. Canaanite Influence?
As this historical process was taking place there were still Canaanite
sanctuaries in the land, with Canaanite priests and priesthoods, no doubt.
Did they play a part in modifying the nature of Israelite priesthood?
Perhaps in some ways they did. Eli’s priestly office at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1 - 4),
like that of many Phoenician priesthoods,75 would normally have devolved
upon his posterity, had not his sons’ behavior drawn God's curse down
upon them (1 Sam. 2:27-36), but the development of hereditary priesthood
is probably normal anywhere when sedentary life makes fixed sanctuaries
possible and a family establishes itself at a sanctuary. The numerous
priesthood at Nob (1 Sam. 21:2-10; 22:9-23) presents the aspect of a
collegiate priesthood, with Ahimelech a sort of chief priest or master
of the guild, like the Ugaritic and Phoenician rb khnm, but collegiate
priesthoods were not unknown among ancient nomads, either 76 and the
sanctuary attendants of the Ark in the desert may already have had a
collegiate aspect. It is even possible, but by no means certain, that
certain Canaanite priesthoods remained at their sanctuaries and became
more or less Yahwistic as the Israelites took over the land.77 Yahwists
who were not Levites could still certainly become priests, as the examples
of the sons of Abinadab (1 Sam. 7:1) and Micah (Judg. 17:5) show, and
perhaps whole families or whole priesthoods of sanctuaries could by
marriage or genealogical fiction become tribal Levites, since it is doubtful
that a tribe was ever exclusively endogamous;78 but it is much to be
doubted that they did so, because, despite a certain preference in Israel
for priests who were Levites, it was not really necessary for a priest to
From this point on the only priests who appear as individuals playing
a part in Biblical narratives are those whose lives had some relation to
the national destiny of Israel. The first of these are the Elides, at the
national sanctuary of Shiloh, who stand on the line of demarcation be¬
tween the Israel of the judges and the new Israel of the kings. The
fate of the descendants of Eli is traced on down to the priesthood under
David, and even beyond. Samuel's career begins with service in the
sanctuary of Shiloh under Eli and continues in the political and religious
situation of pre-monarchical Israel, but his importance lies precisely in
the fact that it is he who is destined to introduce the monarchy in Israel.1
For the ancient Biblical historians the Shilonite roots of both Samuel
and the descendants of Eli are of importance for the subsequent history
of the monarchy and of the monarchy's court priesthood. In dealing
with the Elides and with Samuel at the beginning of this new section
we are following the division made in the present arrangement of the
Old Testament itself: the history of the monarchy is introduced by the
history of Samuel, and the history of Samuel begins at Shiloh under
the priesthood of Eli.
I. Shiloh
The material which tells the stories of the family of Eli and of Samuel
at Shiloh is a literary complex which shows signs of compiling and editing.
It will be worth our while to try to isolate the units used in forming
5
66 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
2 For work directly concerned with this kind of analysis of the first chapters
Jerusalem from Solomon s reign on, and w. 35f. fit the historical situation
of the Zadokite - Levite rivalry under the divided monarchy — perhaps
as late as the time of Josiah (cf. 2 Kgs. 23:9 against the background of
Dt. 12.12,18f.; 14:27,29; 16:11,14; 18: If.; 26:1 Iff., to which we shall return).
That, of itself, does not exclude the possibility, seen by Budde,5, Steuer¬
nagel,6, and Tsevat,7 that the rest of the oracle is older, or even that
the entire oracle is older,8 although it is not necessary to follow Tsevat
in considering w. 27-33, because of their vagueness, as predictions chro¬
nologically prior to the actual event, since a vaticinium ex eventu is not
necessarily characterized by clear references to particular details, and it
is even less so when, as here, older material is re-used and re-shaped
for a new purpose. Tsevat holds that vv. 27-33 date from the reign of
Solomon, or even of David, that is to say: before the deposition of
Abiathar (cf. 1 Kgs. 2:26-27a; Benzinger9 and Noth10 ascribe 1 Kgs. 2:27b,
which presupposes either, or more probably both, of the oracular scenes
in 1 Sam. 2:27-36 and 1 Sam. 3:1 -4:1a, to a relatively late redactor — for
Noth the Deuteronomistic redactor).
It is true that 1 Sam. 2:31-33 contains a nucleus (cf. 31a, 33b) which
seems to allude to the massacre of the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:17ff.),
and v. 34 certainly refers to the disaster at Ebenezer (1 Sam. 4:10f.).
The primitive form of these verses may, in fact, be' very old,11 but of
themselves they do not tell us anything we do not know more clearly
from other texts, and the oracle itself, as it now stands, is given its
shape and direction by vv. 27-30. These verses, which speak of the
house of Eli’s father as a tribe with an Egyptian history, chosen for
priestly ministry, direct the entire oracle not primarily against the Elides
like the oracle in chapter 3, but against the Levites.12 Since the evidence
s Loc. cit.
6 C. Steuernagel, “Die Weissagung liber die Eliden (1 Sam. 2:27-36),” in Alttesta-
menttiche Studien Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht (BWAT, 1/13; Leip¬
zig, 1913), pp. 204-21.
t M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel, I,” HUCA 32 (1961), p. 194f.
8 M. Noth, "Samuel und Silo,” VT 13 (1963), p. 394 with n. 5.
9 I. Benzinger, Die Bucher der Konige (KHC, IX; Freiburg i. B., 1899), p. 12.
19 Noth, VS, p. 66.
ii Tsevat, op. cit., pp. 195-209, gives a very interesting interpretation of the threat
in w. 31ff. in the light of Biblical and Talmudic karet, a cutting off or out of the
community as divine punishment for a transgression of sacral law, with death as
the ultimate instrument. The analogies he finds are striking and merit considera¬
tion. From the chronological aspect it is worth noting that the pertinent karet texts
found by Morgenstem and Zimmerli and amplified by Tsevat are all late (P, the Code
of Holiness, Ezekiel, and then the Talmud), but the idea can be an old one.
is Steuernagel, op. cit., pp. 219f., has seen this, but because he treats the oracle
as aetiological rather than polemic he thinks the connexion with the Levites was
added (prior to vv. 35f.) merely to provide a better explanation for the downfall of
the Elides. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis (Gottingen, 1871), p. 49,
n. 1, on the contrary, admits that the entire priestly stock of the Levites is meant,
and'that the text does not necessarily suppose that the Levites as a whole were
priests.
68 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
is Cf. Noth, “Samuel und Silo,” pp. 391f. Noth includes 2:27-36, as a condemna¬
tion of the Elides, in the material of the second tradition (cf. also pp. 393f.), while
we see them as independent, for the reasons already given.
44 Ibid., p. 397.
I. SHILOH 69
and the anecdotal material on the sons of Eli and their father’s negli¬
gence. 2.12-17,22-25 ( B”), and cutting them and piecing them together
alternating pieces of “A” with pieces of "B”, he has achieved a sort of
literary montage comprising vv. 11 (A) + 12-17 (B) + 18-21 (A) + 22-25
(B) + 26 (A), a device which effectively contrasts the "good” Samuel with
the bad family of Eli. Finally, he has made his own contribution,
3:1-4: la, which drives his point home: the Elides, unworthy bearers
of the sacral traditions of Yahweh, are a shame to Shiloh, while Samuel,
a worthy bearer of those traditions, has been a glory to Shiloh before
all Israel as a prophet of Yahweh. In this, the compiler-author shows
that bent of mind characteristic of Old Testament prophetic circles,15
and he has two prime interests in his presentation: Samuel and Shiloh
indeed Samuel as related to Shiloh and vice versa.. The scandalous
behavior of the Elide cult-functionaries is a disgrace to Shiloh, and it
affords a striking contrast with the figure of Samuel.
Our interest lies in the priestly family of Eli and in the figure of
Samuel, as they appear in this block complemented with details furnished
by other sources.
16 Cf., most recently, weighing the value of 2:27, H. Ringgren, Israelitische Re¬
ligion (Die Religionen der Menschheit, XXVI; Stuttgart, 1963), p. 47.
17 Budde, Die Bucher Samuel, p. 34, thinks that the names Hophni and Phinehas
were not originally in the texts of 1 Samuel, but that they "surely belong to a very
old tradition" and that the name Phinehas elsewhere in the Old Testament depends
on the Phinehas, son of Eli; R. H. Pfeiffer, "Midrash in the Books of Samuel," in
Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London, 1937), pp. 305f., suspects
that they belong to "material that came into the text from the margins of manuscripts
or was composed ad hoc."
18 Source references and chronological data in Ranke, Die agyptischen Personen-
namen, I, 113, No. 13.
10 Ibid., I, 239, No. 13. The dropping of final r in the pronunciation of Egyptian
personal names shows up already in cuneiform transcriptions well before the Israelite
I. SHILOH 71
period began in Palestine: cf., for some examples, W. F. Albright, “Cuneiform Ma¬
terial for Egyptian Prosopography 1500-1200 B.C.," JNES 5 (1946) 7-25, Nos. 27, 34, 40,
49, 51, 57, 65. For the final vowel in Hophni, cf., in Coptic, Sahdic noufe, but in the
North, where the Hebrews had been, Bohairic and Fayyumic noufi, from nfr; Sa'idic
noute but Bohairic and Fayyumic nouti, from Egyptian ntr, etc.
20 c. 1050 B.C. according to Albright in Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and
Modern Study (Oxford, 1951), pp. 12f.; c. 1000 B.C. according to Noth, History of
Israel, p. 165.
21 So the commentaries on Samuel by Smith, Budde, Dhorme, ad loc., and Noth,
VS, pp. 22f., 61.
22 Die Samuelbiicher, p. 34.
23 Cf. above, p. 48.
72 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
The Shilonite priesthood was being passed down from father to son.
Hophni and Phinehas were priests, kohanim, (1 Sam. 1:3; 2:13ff.) as was
their father before them (1:9,11 + LXX 1:3).25 This brings us to the
question of Samuel: is Samuel, who is not only unrelated to the priestly
family of Shiloh by blood but an Ephraimite instead of a Levite (1:1),
incorporated into the priesthood of Shiloh? Is he portrayed as a priest
or not? For I. Hylander, Samuel is the representative of the Levitical
ideal and the very type of the early Levitical priest.26 Kittel interprets
the pertinent texts in 1 Sam. 1-3, too, as an indication of Samuel’s
induction into the priesthood by Eli,27 and Dhorme sees in Samuel a
combination of the offices of priest and judge.28
between authority “in relations between the various tribes or with the neighboring
peoples" (the authority of the king) and that "in relations between the nation and
its God" (the authority of the priest; Samuel). But the king, more than the priest,
was properly the man who stood forth in the relations between God and the people,
as we shall have occasion to see below, and it was the prophets, not the priests, in
Israel (Dhorme says “priests and prophets”) who communicated the mind of Yahweh
and his reprimands to the king.
.29 On the purpose and method of 1 Chr. 6:7-13,18-23, cf. A. Lefevre, "Note d exe-
gese sur les genealogies des Qehatites," RScR 37 (1950) 287-92.
3« The sacred meal of 9:22ff. took place in some sort of building on the high
place, but the building was not necessarily a sanctuary, and the cult itself may just
as well have taken place in the open air: cf. R. de Vaux, Les Livres de Samuel
(BJ; 2nd ed., Paris, 1961), p. 56, n. a).
si Cf. Noth, VS, p. 63.
74 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
32 Hence, perhaps, also Ps. 99:6: "Moses and Aaron were among his priests, and
Samuel among those calling upon his name. They called upon Yahweh and he
answered them,” for which R. Tournay informs me that a phrase-division after
"Samuel” instead of after "Aaron" and an absence of division after "those calling
upon his name" have been proposed, in which case this text, too, would consider
Samuel a priest together with Moses and Aaron.
33 Among the temple personnel listed to be paid for their services in the Phoeni¬
cian temple accounts from Kition we find ncrm mentioned along with immolators,
barbers, stewards, sacred prostitutes, and scribes: KAI 37:A:8,10(?),12; B:ll. The
I. SHILOH 75
document sheds no light on what their duties might have been, but they were
not priests (khnm): cf. above, p. 22 with n. 64.
34 This has been confirmed by the detailed study of B. Johnson, Die hexaplarische
Servants,” JAOS 54 (1934), pp. 364-67, 386f.; translation alone by A. Goetze in ANET,
pp. 207b, 209b.
37 Cf. Bonnet, Reallexikon, pp. 631f.
38 Ibid., p. 633. The vesting of the Pharaoh for his entry into the sanctuary
came to be a sumptuous and solemn sort of thing which makes one think of
pontifical vesting in the post-Carolingian West: cf. the description given by A. M.
Blackman, " ‘The House of the Morning’,” JEA 5 (1918), p. 161, n. 10, and "Sacramental
Ideas in Ancient Egypt,” Recueil de travaux 39 (1921), p. 46. Blackman’s two articles
also reveal the complex religious significance that came to overlay these Egyptian
rites as the centuries passed.
39 Translation in J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906), IV,
422 (§ 823).
40 G. Ryckmans, Les religions arabes preislamiqu.es, pp. 18, 38f.
44 Herodotus Histories ii.37.
42 Cf. Montet, La vie quotidienne en Egypte au temps des Ramses, p. 77. The
details on the use of individual fabrics in A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries (3rd ed.; London, 1948), pp. 166-72, reveal that the use of anything besides
linen for clothing between the Badarian and the Roman periods was exceptional, and
most of the other materials were not used at all.
43 The accuracy of Herodotus’ observations leaves quite a bit to be desired,
however, and his not having noticed a distinction does not necessarily mean there
was none. In Late Egypt the practice of shaving the entire body was a hallmark
I. SHILOH 77
of the priests in the cult of Isis and Osiris, while laymen were not necessarily
characterized in those times by the absence of hair, but did shave themselves when
actually taking part in a cultic observance: cf. G. Glotz, “Les fetes d’Adonis sous
Ptolemee II,” Revue des etudes grecques 33 (1920), p. 183. Herodotus' memory is
certainly confused even in the detail of whether laymen ordinarily were shaven or
not: compare Bistories ii.65,66 with iii.12 and ii.36.
44 Cf. M. G. Houston, Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian Costume (A
Technical History of Costume, I; 2nd ed., London, 1954), p. 53. Actually not even
the leopard-skin was characteristic of all priests but rather of the Sem-priests on
solemn occasions and of the high priests of Heliopolis; Egyptian priests for the
most part did not have a peculiarly hieratic form of clothing for ritual occasions
(Bonnet, Reallexikon, p. 606).
45 A. Erman, Die Religion der Agypter (Berlin-Leipzig, 1934), p. 337. Whether the
Egyptians really felt that strongly about the matter or not might be difficult to
prove, but the fact that woolen material is very rare from the Dynastic times
although wool-producing sheep were introduced in Egypt already in the Middle
Kingdom (cf. A General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British
Museum [London, 1964], p. 218), and especially the fact that in the Ptolemaic Period
Egyptian priests were expressly forbidden to wear woolen clothing and the temples
had what almost amounted to a monopoly on the manufacture of fine linen, which
was produced chiefly for the use of the priests (H. I. Bell, Egypt from Alexander
the Great to the Arab Conquest [Oxford, 1948], p. 49), do certainly indicate that
linen was the proper thing for priests to wear and that there was some kind of
religious taboo attaching to the use of wool.
46 M. Haran, "The Ephod according to Biblical Sources,” Tarbiz 24 (1954/55)
380-91 (in Modem Hebrew, with English Summary).
78 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
Canaanite origin,47 still preserved in early Israel for wear by men when
they were considered to be ritually in the presence of God. It would
thus be worn especially by priests, but not exclusively by priests. David
wore it when he danced before the Ark because ancient peoples looked
upon such a dance as a sacred, ritual activity, and David’s piety led him
to lay aside his profane clothes and don a sacred garment because before
the Ark he was in the immediate presence of God. The custom must
have survived long after in Israel, for Ezek. 44:17ff. insists that officiating
priests change to linen clothing before entering the sacred area. The
word ephod is no longer used for any such article of clothing, and perhaps
the form of the garment had changed, but linen was still prescribed for
ritual wear in the divine presence. By Ezekiel’s time, of course, no one
but a specially cultic person was allowed in the area of divine presence,
but the use of linen clothing was determined by the divine presence in
the sacred area rather than by any cultic or priestly quality of the wearer.
Accordingly, Samuel would naturally be clad in an ephod when he per¬
formed his duties in the sanctuary of Shiloh, without that fact’s being
any indication that he was a priest.
We conclude, then, that Samuel, who is never called a priest in the
Bible (with a possible exception in Ps. 99:6), was not, in fact, a priest in
any genuine sense. The priests of Shiloh who had the rights and duties
of administration and direction of that sanctuary — for it is important
to note that the image of a priest as the solitary attendant of an unim¬
portant sanctuary is yielding, at an important sanctuary, to that of the
administrator and director of a more extensive personel — were members
of one Levitical family, that of Eh; Samuel was a naear or temple servant
47 Haran, op. cit., p. 391, has a good point when he explains the Israelite ephod
as antique remnant preserved by the conservatism of cult. The word "ephod" itself
suggests the course the history of the garment took. In Biblical Hebrew it is used
only of cultic objects — the ritual clothing, and the ephod kept in the sanctuary
and used for oracular consultation (the origin of the latter is probably to be sought
in some sort of garment: cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 202f.). But in the older
and more northern Canaanite of Ugarit it was used for "garment" in a less limited
sense: cf., in context, the ipdk (ipd + k), "thy garment," of text 67:i:5 in Gordon,
Ugaritic Textbook — "Baal” I*.i.5 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends
(Edinburgh, 1956), p. 103. Gordon, in his glossary, enters the form ipdk as “pdk(?)"
(op. cit., p. 466, No. 2015), and J. Pedersen, Israel: its Life and Culture, III-IV, p. 685,
sees a verb pdy, but cf. rather W. F. Albright in BASOR, No. 83 (Oct. 1941), p. 40,
n. 10. Now, however, a text not available for the earlier editions of Gordon’s com¬
pendium but published in Ugaritic Textbook (text 1152:3) shows ipd without pos¬
sessive suffix, and Gordon, while keeping the old entry pdk, has made a new one
for ipd (p. 364, No. 300).
Still earlier in history, and farther to the north, there is a Cappadocian cognate
in the Old Akkadian (plural) epaddtu of the texts from Alishar and Kiiltepe: cf.
I. J. Gelb, Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity (The University of Chicago Oriental
Institute Publications, XXVII = Researches in Anatolia, VI; Chicago, 1935), p. 69, with
J. Lewy's review in JAOS 57 (1937), p. 436. A garment not uncommon in long-for¬
gotten days had been gradually restricted to use as a properly cultic garment in
Canaan, and its usage, along with its name, passed into early Israel.
I. SHILOH 79
at their disposal (1 Sam. 2:11; 3:1), and thus at the disposal of God
(2:18). The fact that the Arabian sadin, who corresponds to the Hebrew
kohen, slept in his sanctuary can not be adduced as evidence that Samuel,
by sleeping in the sanctuary at Shiloh (3:3,9) appears as a priest.48
The nomadic sadin naturally slept in the sanctuary of which he was the
solitary guardian. Eli, the priest responsible for a sanctuary with the
beginnings of developed organization in sedentarized Israel, delegated the
nocturnal guard and the matutinal opening of the sanctuary doors (3:15)
to a subordinate, Samuel the nacar, while Eli, "whose eyes were growing
dim and who could no longer see,” slept in his own room (3:2).
In his adult life Samuel was a judge (7:6,15ff.),49 and his sons became
judges after him (8: Iff.), just as Eli's sons followed in their father's
footsteps as priests. There is much traditional material on Samuel as
a prophet, too. He is called a nabP in 3:20 (cf. also the redactional
gloss in 9:9) and a "seer” (ro°e) in 9:11,18, and all the material on Samuel
and the word of God to be gleaned in 3:1-4: la; 9:6-21; 15:10-31 can be
added, for the "word” belongs to the prophet, torn to the priest (Jer.
18:18).50 The same qualities of judge and prophet — or prophetess —
are united in Deborah (Judg. 5 - 6), who was commissioned by God to
summon Barak to deliver the people, as Samuel was commissioned to
summon Saul and David (Judg. 4:4), but that goes beyond our concern
except for the reminder that for the compiler-redactor of 1 Sam. 1:1 -4:1a
Samuel was especially a prophet, and that he preserved the material on
Samuel’s service in the sanctuary not to show Samuel as a priest but to
48 For the sadin’s sleeping in his sanctuary, cf. Ibn al-AtIr, Usd al-gaba, IV, 153,
in Lammens, L’Arabie occidentale avant VHegire, p. 139, n. 2.
49 Caspari, Die Samuelbiicher, pp. 82-86, believed that in 1 Sam. 7 Samuel had
- been extraneously introduced into an old Kampf-Erzahlung. Noth, US, p. 55, and The
History of Israel, p. 172, n. 2, keeps Samuel in the text but makes all of 7:2-17
Deuteronomistic, allowing, however, for old tradition behind Deuteronomistic fiction
in vv. 16f. A. Weiser, “Samuels ‘Philister-Sieg’,” ZTK 56 (1959), pp. 257-60 (= Weiser,
Samuel: seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiose Bedeutung, pp. 9-12), while ad¬
mitting that the account of Samuel’s victory over the Philistines in this chapter is
not historical, defends the historicity of Samuel's activity as a judge. Weiser follows
H W Hertzberg, “Die Kleinen Richter,” ThLZ 79 (1954) 285-90, G. von Rad, Theologie
des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1958-61), I, 42, 68, and H. Wildberger, “Samuel und
die Entstehung des israelitischen Konigtums,” ThZ 13 (1957), pp. 463f., in pointing
out that Samuel was not one of the major judges raised up charismatically to deliver
Israel from an enemy, but rather a minor judge, whose business it was to know
and interpret divine law and to adapt it to new situations when occasion arose; for
bibliography on the minor judges, cf. Wildberger, op. cit., p. 464, n. 50.
so He even appears at the head of a band of ecstatic prophets in 1 Sam. 19:18-24.
For R. Press, "Der Prophet Samuel,” ZAW 56 (1938) 177-225, Samuel is an individual
prophet standing midway between the bands of ecstatic prophets, with whom he
shares a certain professional quality in prophetic function, and the later literary
prophets, with whom he shares the manner of his prophetic proclamation. K. Moh-
lenbrink, “Sauls Ammoniterfeldzug und Samuels Beitrag zum Kdnigtum des Saul,
ZAW 58 (1940/41), p. 65, finds a resemblance between the figure of ^Samuel in 1 Sam.
15 and that of the prophets Amos and Isaiah. On Samuel as ro^e/nabP, cf. A. R.
Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, pp. 14, 16f.
80 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
root Samuel in the place which was the center of the pre-monarchical
Yahwistic spirit, leading up to his climax of showing Samuel as a prophet
in that spirit’s tradition. Samuel as an independent cultic figure (i. e. as
more than a cultic na'ar) appears in tradition as a prophet rather than
a priest.51
Shiloh with its sanctuary was destroyed not long after the battle
of Ebenezer,52 but the continuity of the Shilonite priesthood was not
to be broken. The thread will reappear, and with it the posterity of
Eli will enter on stage. In the meantime the narratives preserved for
us turn to the fate of the Ark.
A. Kiriath-jearim
When the Ark was at last returned by the Philistines, who had seized
it at Ebenezer, it was received by the ordinary people of Beth-shemesh
and then of Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam. 6:13-21). The statement in 6:15 that
Levites took the Ark down from the cart is the fruit of a later redactor’s
scruple on profane hands touching the sacred, and it interrupts the flow
of the narrative in which it is inserted. Once the Ark had arrived in
Kiriath-jearim, where it was to remain for a while, the citizenry took
stock of the situation and decided that the Ark had to have someone
serving as attendant and caretaker. The resting-place of the Ark was
“the house of Abinadab on the hill,” and we might expect the normal
reverence and vigilance of Abinadab and his family to suffice, but such
was not the case. Abinadab’s son Eleazar was set apart from the realm
51 This conclusion corresponds with those of A. Gonzalez Nunez, Prof etas, sacer-
dotes y reyes en el antiguo Israel; Problemas de adaptacion del Yahvismo en Canaan
(Instituto Espanol de Estudios Eclesiasticos, Monografias, I; Madrid, 1962), pp. 129-91
(cf. especially pp. 189ff.), for whom Samuel is a judge, a seer, a prophet, a religious
guide (with emphasis on the one or the other aspect by different traditions), but
not a priest. O. Ploger, “Priester und Prophet," ZAW 63 (1951), p. 167, observes that
the account of Samuel's ministry in the sanctuary of the Ark may contain a perti¬
nent reminder that Samuel as "seer” belongs in a "priestly-cultic" milieu, but that
to be a “seer" in Israel was not to be a priest. M. M. Cohen, “The Role of the
Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel," HUCA 36 (1965), p. 66,
following H. M. Orlinsky (cf. Cohen’s references), on the contrary, says that Samuel,
according to Biblical tradition, is primarily a seer-priest or diviner-priest, and a
prophet only in the sense that he is a diviner-priest. On the serious reserves one
may well entertain with regard to the whole concept of a "diviner-priest” in Israel,
cf. what we have written above (pp. 16ff.; 23ff.) in comparing the Hebrew kohen
with the Arabian kahin and the Mesopotamian baru.
52 On the destruction date at Seilun (Shiloh), cf. W. F. Albright, in BASOR, No.
35 (Oct. 1929), p. 4, and his Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
1960), p. 228.
II. BETWEEN SHILOH AND JERUSALEM 81
of the profane (for such is the essential meaning of qiddes) to watch over
the Ark of Yahweh’s presence (7:1). We are reminded of Micah’s son,
priest of the sanctuary at his father’s house, in Judg. 17:5, before the
itinerant Levite came along.
Eleazar is not called a priest in this passage, but there is no mistaking
the fact that he is a priest. His priesthood is implied in the use of
the verb qiddes for the act of establishing him in his functions (cf. Exod.
28:3,41; 29:1,33,44; 30:30; 40:13; Lev. 8:12,30), and we catch one of the
last clear glimpses in the Old Testament of the primitive rural priest,
the solitary attendant of a local sanctuary. We should like very much
to know by what procedure he was set apart for the sacred, and by whom,
and what his everyday activities were, but our curiosity is left unsatisfied.53
The action of the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim is not taken because
of some authoritative directive but because it is evidently the thing they
find called for in the circumstances. Although they are Israelites, they
are probably not far removed from the Canaanite world of religious
ideas, for their city is one of the four Canaanite cities mentioned in
Josh. 9:17, and in the description of Benjaminite territory in Josh. 18:11-20
we learn that its name had been changed — presumably within recent
memory — from Kiriath-Baal (Josh. 18:14).54 This proximity to Canaanite
traditions, on the frontier of Israelite territory, may also explain why
there was no question of a Levite's being chosen as the attendant of
the sanctuary, although the Levites by this time were already becoming
cult-specialists, and Micah in Judg. 17 was only too happy to have his
son replaced as priest by a Levite. There were perhaps no Levitical
gerim in the neighborhood to lay claim to an appointment — if the
men of Kiriath-jearim knew of any such Levitical tradition at all.
The Elide lineage reappears in 1 Sam. 14, with Ahijah the priest and
"ephod-bearer” — here the oracular ephod with urim and thummim55 —
53 in fact, it is likely that no procedure or rite at all was involved in his being
set apart for the sacred, but that once a sort of mutual consent was established
he was deemed to be thus set apart: cf. Noth, Amt und Berufung, pp. 7ff. (= Noth,
Gesammelte Studien, pp. 311-14).
54 Noth, Das Buck Josua, p. 110, however, denies that Kiriath-jeanm really under¬
went a change of name; the supposed change would have resulted from a confusion
in the list’s redaction with a distinct but neighboring Baalah.
55 in v. 18 the MT reads "Ark," the LXX "ephod." We know from 1 Sam 7:1,
continued in 2 Sam. 6, that the Ark was not moving around with the people of Israel
but was fixed at Kiriath-jearim. The MT could be altering a text, either m the light
of Judg. 8:27, where the ephod is an object of scandal (de Vaux, Les Livres de
Samuel ad loc.), or in view of a preconceived idea of the convenience of the move¬
ment of the Ark with the Israelites. On the other hand, the LXX could be altering
a more difficult text. Because of all the other information we have on the location
of the Ark in this period, and because of 1 Sam. 14:3,19b,3642, the LXX s ephod
seems to have the weight of probability on its side.
6
82 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
in the company led by Saul against the Philistines. His only function
appearing in the text is that of consulting God for Saul (14:18f.,36ff.).
Before tracing the Elide lineage further, we ought to look at the
question of the authenticity of that lineage, for the connexion of the
subsequent members of this priestly family with Eli and Shiloh is made
through 1 Sam. 14:3. The pertinent texts for the genealogy are these:
1) 1 Sam. 4:19-22 recounts the birth of Ichabod, son of Phinehas,
son of Eli.
2) 1 Sam. 14:3: “Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, son
of Phinehas, son of Eli, the priest of the Lord in Shiloh.”
3) 1 Sam. 22:9: "Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub” (the first mention
of Ahimelech’s origin).
4) 1 Sam. 22:20: after the massacre of the priests of Nob, "one
of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped
and fled after David.” This Abiathar is to become David’s official priest,
along with Zadok, who then supplants Abiathar under Solomon (1 Kgs.
2:26f.).
5) 2 Sam. 15:27 tells us that Abiathar had a son named Jonathan.
The authenticity of this genealogy is accepted generally, but not
unanimously.56 Most of the reasons of those impugning the authenticity
of 1 Sam. 14:3a and its information are forced arguments of style or
smoothness, or arguments based on historical convenience or chronological
computation without firm evidence. Tsevat, reducing them basically to
the arguments given by Arnold and Caird, takes them one by one and
does a good job answering them.57 I should like only to add two further
observations to what he has already said. First, if the genealogy were
a fictitious attempt to attach Abiathar and his descendants to Eli, the
place to do so would be 1 Sam. 22:9, or at least 22:20, where the point
would be more clearly made, and there would be no need to pass through
Ahitub (otherwise unknown to us and presumably to the ancients too),
for the connexion could pass directly through Ichabod. The impression
given is rather that the genealogical information is offered by someone
who knew the details of this family tree and who has seized the first
mention of a son of Ahitub — Ahijah in 14:3 — to give the details necessary
for spanning the gap between this generation and the point where the
Elides had last appeared. Also, the establishment of the genealogy is
made for a reason, but the source need not be a Zadokite seeking to
C. Nob
ss it has been suggested, e. g. by B. Duhm, Das Buck Jeremia (KHC, XI; Tiibin-
gen-Leipzig, 1901), p. 3, and K. Budde, Geschichte der althebrdischen Literatur (2nd
ed.; Leipzig, 1909), pp. 38-43, that Abiathar or a member of his immediate family
had a hand in the sources of the history of the early monarchy. Rost, Die Uber-
lieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, p. 135, shows how unlikely it is that Abia¬
thar is a source for the details in the History of the Davidic Succession, but that,
on the other hand, it is quite possible that he had a hand in the History of the
Davidic Accession, and that would naturally bring Abiathar nearer as a likely source
of the Eliade genealogical details. The knowledge of the threat, however, may not
at that time have spread far beyond local Shilonite circles. It does not seem to be
known by the History of the Ark (cf. 1 Sam. 4).
59 Many commentators hold, needlessly, that Ahimelech and Ahijah are one and
the same person.
69 Haran, "The Ephod according to Biblical Sources," p. 388, denies that the
priests of Nob were priests at all, because he believes it would have been unlikely
to find so many priests in one sanctuary, and that fits his thesis that the linen
ephod was always distinct from the properly sacerdotal precious ephod, even when
the two existed contemporaneously, as he holds they once did. (Are Y. Kaufmann’s
views on P and its early date in the background here?). But it is difficult to deny
that the people who gave the tone to the group of men at Nob were priests, and
we have already remarked that in 22:18 the original text spoke of the oracular
ephod, not of a linen ephod to be worn.
84 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
kind of cultic guild under Ahimelech,61 and there may have been a
distinction of offices among them, some of them being priests, themselves
admitting of division into priests of different rank like the chief priest,
61 Cf. the Phoenician and Ugaritic rb khnm of whom we have already spoken in
Chapter One.
62 Cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, I, 39.
63 The phrase nose0 epod in 22:18 is surely an attribute, for in context the priests
murdered by Doeg were not actually carrying the ephod. Exactly the same phrase
is used of Ahijah in 1 Sam. 14:3, and although Ahijah soon does appear in the act
of consultation (14:18f.,36), the construction (participle + noun without article) still
suggests that the phrase itself is a set phrase expressing the outstanding attribute
of a priest in the early period. In 1 Sam. 2:28, which is a slightly later text, the
characteristic activities of a priest are expressed as going up to the altar, making
smoke rise from offerings, and — still — bearing the ephod; neither qetoret nor
epod has the article (nor does mizbehi, which however, is defined by the pronominal
suffix and could not take the article anyway). For a stylistic parallel (participle +
noun with article, to express a characteristic attribute), cf. hoger hagora, literally
"girding armor," as attribute of men subject to military duty, and for a parallel
without participial nomen regens but with the name of a quasi-cultic object as
nomen rectum without article, cf. the eset bcfalat ob, literally "woman, mistress
of ob" = medium or necromancer, in 1 Sam. 28:7. (We still do not know just what
an ob was, but cf. below, the end of n. 34 to Chapter Four.)
II. BETWEEN SHILOH AND JERUSALEM 85
64 J. Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent Meeting’,’’ HUCA 18
of
(1943/44), p. 9. ^
65 Mohlenbrink, “Sauls Ammoniterfeldzug und Samuels Beitrag,” pp. 66fr.
es Cf. A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Paldstina (Leipzig, 1930), p. 28
(= KS, II, 20).
86 CHAPTER THREE. THE LATER YEARS OF THE AMPHICTYONY
at Nob would not necessarily prejudice Saul’s choice of Gilgal for the
general assemblies in which his cultic actions took place, for Gilgal had
come to be a shrine venerable not only for Benjamin but for the entire
amphictyony, easily accessible, through the Jordan Valley, and relatively
safe from Philistine incursions. The details in the two stories of Saul's
cultic actions in Gilgal are later and are overlaid with legendary features,
but at the origin of both of them there is probably an old observed
tradition of some sort of transgression of sacral law or custom on Saul’s
part. But even if the location of the scenes at Gilgal has contributed to
the negative portrayal of Saul in these narratives as we have them,
there is no clear justification for attributing an historical assembly of
Israelites under Saul to a conflict with the sanctuary tradition of Shiloh-
Nob and its priests. We are on safer grounds in accepting the motive
for the murder at Nob given in the Biblical narrative: Ahimelech's kindly
and politically disinterested reception of David, and Saul’s insanely jealous
leaction.
The sole survivor of the Nob massacre was Ahimelech’s son Abiathar,
whom David took under his patronage (1 Sam. 22:20-23). Abiathar con¬
tinued in the tradition of the times, consulting God for David (23:6-12;
30:7f.), and we may presume that when David consulted God in 1 Sam.
23:2ff.; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19,23 it was, again, through Abiathar. No other
priest and no other priestly activity are mentioned in the Bible for the
rest of David’s period of vicissitudes before his establishment of the
kingdom in Jerusalem.
Chapter Four
When David took the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and set up his
residence there (2 Sam. 5:6-12; 1 Chr. 11:4-9), the nascent kingdom of
Israel had at last a fixed political center, in a city which could be claimed
by rivalries neither of the North nor of the South. To confirm the new
capital’s pre-eminence by making it the religious center as well as the
political center of Israel, thereby associating Yahweh in the victory and
triumph, David saw to the transfer of the Ark of Yahweh's presence, which
still remained in the care of the family of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim,
“in the house of Abinadab on the hill,” and the account of this transfer
is given in 2 Sam. 6.1 The priest Eleazar is not mentioned, but the cart
laden with the Ark is driven by his two brothers Uzzah and Ahio (6:3f.); 2
we are reminded of the brothers Hophni and Phinehas who accompanied
the Ark from Shiloh to Ebenezer (1 Sam. 4:4), but there is a difference:
there is no indication that Uzzah has been set apart for attendance
upon the Ark like his brother, Eleazar (1 Sam. 7:1), and when Uzzah
dares to touch the Ark as it is danger of falling from the cart, God
strikes him dead (2 Sam. 6:6f.).
The resulting fear of the Ark as a "dangerous” object leads David to
take it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for a period of experimental
3 Although Obed-edom is said to be from Gath, and Gath in the Old Testament
is always a Philistine city unless the name is qualified by another element (Gath-
hepher, Gath-rimmon), Obed-edom’s name is certainly not Philistine, but neither is
it Yahwistic, if Edom is the name of a god (cf. the Biblical Obadiah [cobadya.hu;
‘obadya] and Abdiel, the names formed with cbd + the name of a deity among the
Phoenicians and Aramaeans listed in M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen
Epigraphik [Weimar, 1898], pp. 332-35 and G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic
Inscriptions [Oxford, 1903], p. 373, the Arabian names of the same formation listed
in Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, pp. 2ff., and the discussion of Obed-
edom in S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books
of Samuel [2nd ed.; Oxford, 1913], pp. 268f.; to this can now be added a possible
relation of Edom to the deity Admu, found as theophoric element in both Amorite
and Akkadian names in the Mari texts and discussed by Huffmon, Amorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts, pp. 158f.). Perhaps Obed-edom was a man of the old
Canaanite stock settled on the coastal plain in pre-Philistine days, who, not being
content with his condition there, had thrown in his lot with David in the days
described in 1 Sam. 27 and 29. If his presence in Israelite territory were merely
that of a mercenary like Doeg or the Cherethites and Pelethites, he would not neces¬
sarily be a Yahwist, but in that case we should be given pause by the notice that
the presence of the Ark was a source of blessings on his family, in view of the
disastrous results of the same presence among the infidels described in 1 Sam. 5.
Later, 1 Chr. 16:5,38,42 will make Obed-edom a Levitical porter!
4 1 Chr. 16 turns the event into a vast family-reunion of priests and Levites in
the post-Exilic sense of the two terms, but that is a figment presenting things as
the Chronicler felt they should have been.
I. THE ERECTION OF OFFICIAL PRIESTHOOD IN JERUSALEM 89
as the kingdom took organized shape. His name and office are given
in the lists of royal officials (8:17; 20:25), he is involved in the transporta¬
tion of the Ark (15:24-29), and he is mentioned in 2 Sam. 17:15; 19:12.
In none of these texts is he mentioned alone. In every one of them
he is associated with the priest Zadok, and in every one of them he is
mentioned after Zadok. In 15:24-29 the text has been disturbed, and
the product gives Zadok a role superior to that of Abiathar. Ultimately
Zadok displaces Abiathar entirely from the royal priesthood when, in
the intrigues surrounding the succession to David’s throne, Abiathar has
had the misfortune of supporting the faction of the losing contender,
Adonijah, while Zadok has supported the winner, Solomon (1 Kgs. 1:7,
19,25; 2:22), who consequently banishes Abiathar to Anathoth (1 Kgs.
2:26f.), leaving Zadok and his posterity in possession of the royal priesthood
of Judah (cf. 1 Kgs. 4:2).
The question of Zadok’s origins is a vexing one because of the lack
of reliable information thereon in the Bible. In the narratives he appears,
as it were, from nowhere. He is provided with an Aaronide genealogy by
1 Chr. 5:30-34; 6:35-38, while 1 Chr. 24:3 makes him a Levite of the
family or clan of Eleazar, while making Abiathar, through his father
Ahimelech, a Levite of the family of Ithamar. 2 Sam. 8:17 reads “Zadok
son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar,” but the text has surely
been disturbed, for it is Abiathar who is the son of Ahimelech and
Ahimelech who is the son of Ahitub, as we know from 1 Sam. 22:9,20 and
the chronological succession of the dramatis personae in 1 Sam. 2Iff.
Besides, 1 Sam. 22:16,20 makes any survivors of the Nob massacre other
than Abiathar — hence, as far as we can judge, any other descendants
of Ahitub — unlikely. The original order of the four names in 2 Sam. 8:17
was most probably just the opposite of the order in the present text,
and Wellhausen's suggestion that a Zadokite partisan took the order
A-B-C + D (Abiathar son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, and Zadok) with
Zadok at the end and made it D-C -f B-A with Zadok at the head is
plausible.5 That leaves Zadok without a genealogy in the ancient texts,
and the genealogies of Chronicles are, as genealogies, historically unreliable
(and besides, the data in 1 Chr. 5:33f.; 6:37f. are dependent on the already
reversed order of names in 2 Sam. 8:17).
So we are left wondering about Zadok’s provenance. Theories thereon
are by no means lacking. The can roughly be classified this way:
1) Zadok was the priest of Gibeon, while Abiathar was the priest
of Jerusalem.6
The Gibeon hypothesis depends on 1 Chr. 16:39, but even if we were
to accept that verse's dubious information that Zadok was active in a
sanctuary of the tabernacle at Gibeon, the same verse specifies that he
was left as priest of the tabernacle at Gibeon, at a time when the Ark
had already gone on to Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim via the house
of Obed-edom; cf. 1 Chr. 15:25,29; 16:1, and compare 1 Chr. 16:39 (Zadok
and his brethren, the tabernacle, Gibeon) with 16:37 (Asaph and his
companions, the Ark, "there,” i. e. in Jerusalem according to 16:4 in
immediate context). Gibeon, where Solomon sacrificed at least once
(1 Kgs. 3:4) is nowhere mentioned in the life of David, and the hypothesis
does not explain the appearance of Zadok as an important priest in
Jerusalem under David’s reign.
2) "Zadok was perhaps established already by Saul in the place
of Ahijah (= Ahimelech).” 7
But then why would he have risen so quickly to prominent position
under Saul's enemy David, concurring with David’s faithful protege Abia-
thar, son of the murdered Ahimelech?
3) The proper name Ahio in 2 Sam. 6:3f. should be read as ahiw,
"his (Uzzah's) brother,”8 and the resultant nameless brother would be
Zadok.9
This explanation is not absolutely impossible. Accepting Albright’s
dates of c. 1050 for the battle at Ebenezer,10 c. 1000 for the accession of
David, and c. 960 for the accession of Solomon: * 11 if Eleazar were twenty
years old when he was consecrated for the attendance upon the Ark, i. e.
c. 1050 (the Ark was in the hands of the Philistines for only seven months,
according to 1 Sam. 6:1) and his father Abinadab were only twenty years
older than he, then a half-brother of Eleazar — hypothetically Zadok —
could be born c. 1035 or even 1030, when Abinadab would be fifty-five
or sixty. Since Abiathar was old enough to share in the wanderings of
David for some time before the establishment in Hebron and then
Jerusalem, he would himself hardly have been born much after 1020,
at the latest. Thus, at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, c. 960, Abiathar
would be sixty years old and Zadok seventy or seventy-five. By the time
the list of Solomon’s officials in 1 Kgs. 4:2-6 was drawn up Zadok had
already been succeeded by his son Azariah (1 Kgs. 4:2).
This hypothesis would explain easily enough what Zadok was doing
in Jerusalem and why he held so influential a position, but it has no
positive evidence in its support, and we are left wondering why Zadok
is not called the son of Abinadab in 2 Sam. 8:17 and thus given his
rightful ancestry. We are also left wondering, for that matter, why
12 The most thorough and best though-out presentation of this theory is that
of H. H. Rowley, "Zadok and Nehushtan," JBL 58 (1939) 11341. It has also been
advanced by S. Mowinckel, Ezra den Skriftlaerde (1916); H. R. Hall in A. S. Peake
(ed.), The People and the Book (Oxford, 1925), p. 11; Aa. Bentzen, Studier over det
zadokidiske Praesteskabs Historie (1931; cf. his own summary in ZAW 51 [1933]
173-76); Mohlenbrink, "Die levitischen Uberlieferungen des Alten Testaments,” p. 204;
G Widengren, Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation as Religious Documents
(Uppsala, 1937), p. 322; C. E. Hauer, "Who Was Zadok?,” JBL 82 (1963) 89-94; Ringgren,
Israelitische Religion, p. 192. I have not seen the cited works of Mowinckel and
Bentzen, except for Bentzen’s summary in ZAW.
13 Hauer, op. cit., has proposed a theory that the Jebusite priest Zadok, for
reasons unknown, abandoned the Jebusites to go over to David’s side during the
siege of Jerusalem. This theory would raise the problem of Zadok's standing with
the Jebusites afterwards as priest under David in a still heavily Jebusite Jerusalem.
His maintenance as priest under such conditions would alienate the goodwill of the
Jebusites instead of conciliating it.
14 H S Nyberg, "Studien zum Religionskampf lm Alten Testament, Archly fur
Religionswissenschaft 35 (1938), pp. 373f., has remarked that, while the name-list of
the sons of David born earlier in Hebron include two theophoric names (out of six)
92 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
compounded with Ya for Yahu or Yahweh and one (Absalom, son of a Geshurite,
i.e. Aramaean, princess) compounded with the West Semitic divine name Sim, the
name-list of the sons bom in Jerusalem includes one (Solomon) based directly on
Sim and four (out of eleven, or according to the list in 1 Chr. 3, twelve) com¬
pounded with the general West Semitic El. Nyberg disregards Japhia as a compound
with Ya, and rightly so, for the Ja- (i.e. ya-) of Japhia (Hebrew ypy*) is an imperfect
preformative: for the form, cf. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, p. 28, with
p. 204, n. 5, for the Canaanite cognates in the Amama letters. Still, a certain amount
of caution is in order with accepting Nyberg’s view of the deity Sim as a theophoric
element in the names of Absalom and Solomon, for the god's name seems to have
been Salim (cf. Dahood, "Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine,” pp. 88, 91),
and the differences of vocalization cause a problem if one wishes to see his name
in those of Absalom and Solomon.
is On El and the assumption of his titles by Yahweh, cf. de Vaux, Les institu¬
tions, II, 144.
is The indirect evidence is collected and soberly weighed by Rowley, “Zadok and
Nehushtan,” and again, with special reference to the figure of Melchizedek, in his
"Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen. 14 and Ps. 110),” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, pp.
461-72. The chronic problem in using both Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 is the lack of agree¬
ment on the date to assign to them, dates given for both fluctuating greatly, al¬
though in recent years the pendulum has begun to swing away from the former
tendency to assign them a late date. A recent exception, for the case of Ps. 110,
is R. Tqurnay, "Le psaume CX,” RB 67 (1960) 541, who holds that the psalm is from
around the time of Onias I in the 3rd century B.C., and that even Gen. 14 — or at
least the part dealing with Melchizedek — would have been composed after the
second half of the 5th century B.C.
17 R. de Vaux, in addition to the reason he gives in Les institutions, I, 145 , 236
(that such an explanation implies the existence of a sanctuary of El-Elyon used for
the worship of Yahweh, while the texts never speak of such a sanctuary, but rather
leave the Ark under a tent until the end of David’s reign and associate Zadok only
with the Ark and tent of Yahweh), has kindly communicated another difficulty:
that the theory that Zadok had been a Jebusite priest might lead one to expect
an introduction of Jebusite usages into the cult of Yahweh, which has never been
convincingly established.
II. THE MODELS FOR ISRAEL'S STATE PRIESTHOOD 93
of priests, Abiathar despite his pedigree did not, and that is what we
know with certitude.17a
17a Just before giving the final manuscript to the printers, I have read J. R. Bart¬
lett, "Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem,” JTS n.s. 19 (1968) 1-18. Bartlett
doubts that the high priests of Jerusalem were directly descended from Zadok,
being rather appointed in each case by the king, on the basis of the appointee s
merits. I am inclined to accept his conclusion, remarking only that the attention
given to Zadok in both early texts and late texts does show that throughout the
monarchical period Zadok was recognized as the first in the succession of chief
priests in Jerusalem, even though that succession may not have passed regularly
from father to son. The king may well have designated the high priest (or at least
have had a determining voice in his designation), and the priesthood may have
included men who were not descendants of Zadok, but when the scraps of material
on the Jerusalem priesthood are put together, the resulting sketch suggests a self-
perpetuating closed circle, with its members’ own likes and dislikes constituting the
criterion for admission, especially after the reigns of David and Solomon had passed
and the Jerusalem priesthood was solidly established.
is Cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 130.
is On these developments in Egypt, cf. A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Ox-
94 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
ford, 1961), pp. 316-30; fi. Drioton and J. Vandier, L’Egypte (Clio, I: Les peuples de
1’Orient mediterranean, II; 4th ed., Paris, 1962), pp. 359-66, 511-22.
20 For the implications of this marriage, cf. A. Malamat, "Aspects of the Foreign
Policies of David and Solomon," JNES 22 (1963), pp. 9-17.
21 R. de Vaux, "Titres et fonctionnaires egyptiens a la cour de David et de Sa¬
lomon,” RB 48 (1939) 394-405; J. Begrich, "Sofer und Mazklr: Ein Beitrag zur inneren
Geschichte des davidisch-salomonischen Grossreiches und des Konigreiches Juda,” ZAW
58 (1940/41) 1-29 (— Begrich, Gesammelte Studien, pp. 67-98). Since these two publica¬
tions, S. Morenz, “Agyptische und davidische Konigstitulatur,” Zeitschrift fur dgypti-
sche Sprache und Altertumskunde 79 (1954) 73f„ has seen as a parallel to the promise
to David in 2 Sam. 7:9 “I will give you a great name,” the Egyptian practice of
"giving a name” (irl m) to the Pharaoh (cf. also G. von Rad in ThLZ 72 [1947], col.
215), and A. Cody, "Le titre egyptien et le nom propre du scribe de David," RB 72
(1965) 381-93 has seen the sy3 (2 Sam. 20:25), sys3 (1 Kgs. 4:3), and sws3 (1 Chr. 18:16)
of the cabinet-lists of the early monarchy in Jerusalem as corruptions of an Egyptian
title for the secretary in charge of official royal correspondence.
22 B. Maisler, “The Scribe of King David and the Problem of the High Officials
in the Ancient Kingdom of Israel," BJPES 13 (1946/47) 105-14 (in Modem Hebrew,
with English summary).
22 S. Yeivin, "The Administration in Ancient Israel,” in A. Malamat (ed.). The
Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 47-65 (in Modem Hebrew, with
English summary).
24 A. Alt, "Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palastina," in KS, II, 1-65 (cf.
especially p. 25).
II. THE MODELS FOR ISRAEL’S STATE PRIESTHOOD 95
did not seem to have a leadership centered in one man,25 but the extra-
Biblical evidence for a predominance of aristocracies over minor kingships
is not convincing.26 With respect to the second, the light on the Western-
Semitic political situation which has come to light in the texts from
Ugarit and Alalakh, and the consciousness of the details in that sort
of organization shown by the anti-monarchical invective of 1 Sam. 8,
indicate that a certain kind of authentically Canaanite system of mon¬
archy was not so unfamiliar after all to the Israelites at the beginning
of the monarchical period.27
In the present state of the question we know that David was sur¬
rounded by Jebusites and other Canaanite elements in his kingdom, and
there can be no doubt that it was psychologically easier for the Israelites
to assimilate ideas and usages from the ethnically and culturally related
populations of Canaan than from a traditional enemy like Egypt. Never¬
theless, the parallels between the Israelite officialdom and that of the
New Kingdom in Egypt are still too impressive to be discarded lightly.
Perhaps the safest judgement for the nonce is that Egypt had served
as a model for the organizations of the officials of the Canaanite petty
kingdoms during the Egyptian hegemony — for such patterning can be
the result of Canaanite imitation rather than Egyptian imposition — and
that the system was adopted afterwards, at least in part, by Israel from
Canaan. This is not to imply that civil organization in Canaan was all
of a piece; on the contrary, the racial movements and socio-political
changes of Late Bronze Syria-Palestine would suggest that there was
no little diversity. What borrowing Davidic and Solomonic Israel did,
it probably did from particular Canaanite states, most likely Jebusite
Jerusalem and the more highly developed and cosmopolitan Tyre (cf.
2 Sam. 5: Ilf.; 1 Kgs: 5:15; 1 Chr. 14: If.). If we agree with Yeivin that
25 Of the examples given by Alt, this is clearly the case with Shechem (Judg.
9 :lf.), Succoth (Judg. 8:5f.), and Gibeon (Josh. 9:3ff.; 10:2), but not at all clearly
the case with Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6-9) and Gezer (1 Kgs. 9:16). The frequent mention
of kings of the Canaanite cities, including Jerusalem (Josh. 10:3 with Judg. l:5ff.)
is a counterbalance.
as Alt does not give references to extra-Biblical sources for his theory. In the
Amama correspondence, which does duty as our principal source of information on
Late Bronze Palestine, I can find only two letters sent to the Egyptian court by
groups of men (a sign of ‘'aristocracy’’?) rather than by an individual man: one
is from the inhabitants of Tunip (Tell Hana, 16 km. NW of Qatna in Syria? Cf.
M. Noth in ZDPV 64 [1941], p. 71) and the other is from the citizens of Irqata
(Arqa at the northern end of Lebanon, between El-abdeh on the coast and Halba),
or at least in their name. The letters are No. 59 (from Tunip) and No. 100 (from
Irqata) in EA, I, 342ff„ 450ff. But even Irqata did, in fact, have a king, mentioned
in EA, I, 590f. (text 140:10), and the great frequency of kings in the Amama letters
is proof of a predominance of vassal kingship rather than aristocracy in Syria-Palestine
at least in the fourteenth century. .
27 I Mendelsohn, “Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship m the Light of the ak-
kadian Documents from Ugarit,” BASOR, No. 143 (Oct. 1956), 17-22, surveys the com¬
parative material, using that from Alalakh along with that from Ugarit.
96 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
The presence of priests in the ranks of the royal officials, too, may
be a practice derived ultimately from Egyptian use. We know, in fact,
that even though selection for priestly office in Egypt depended — at
least in theory and in ancient custom — on membership in a pure
family, the development of the royalty in the New Kingdom contributed
to the importance of royal appointment of priests to the greater sanc¬
tuaries of the realm as delegates of the Pharaoh himself and dependants
of the royal bureaucracy, often with heredity or membership in a “pure”
family subordinated to reasons of royal expediency or security.28 The
origins and the fates of Zadok and Abiathar come to mind. Mazar has
proposed that even the founding and distribution of Levitical cities in
certain parts of Israel, especially in frontier areas and recently Canaanite
regions, was an arrangement inspired by the cities in Canaan consecrated
to Egyptian gods and provided with a staff of priests occupied both with
cult and with secular administration, for Mazar would also see the
Levites in the Levitical cities as men put there for strategic reasons as
administrators.29
Nevertheless, a Canaanite imitation of the Egyptian practice of in¬
cluding priests in royal civil service would not entail an imitation of
Egyptian religion or of Egyptian priesthood itself. A certain cultural
influence of Egypt in Canaan can be seen reflected in seals, tomb decora¬
tions, small artifacts here and there, and even in the temple design and
iconography of a place like Beth-shan, but the religion of Canaan re¬
mained thoroughly Canaanite. The divine images on heavily Egyptianized
stelae found in the temples of Beth-shan are Canaanite Mekal (probably
to be identified with the Phoenician Melkart), Anath, and Ashtoreth.30
Exceptions — sanctuaries in which the religion itself is known to have
28 On the place of priests in the Egyptian state until the end of the second
millennium, cf. H. Kees, Agypten (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, III/l/iii/1;
Munich, 1933), pp. 242-57, and his later, more thorough treatment (which, however,
begins only with the New Kingdom) in Das Priestertum im dgyptischen Staat vom
Neuen Reich bis zur Spdtzeit (Probleme der Agyptologie, I: Leiden-Cologne, 1953),
I, 1-71. Kees’ very first sentence in the latter work goes straight to the heart of
the matter: "Priestertum ist in Agypten Konigssdienst."
29 B. Mazar, “The Cities of the Priests and the Levites," VT Suppl 7 (1960) 193-205.
30 Cf. A. Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-shan (Publications of the
Palestine Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, I; Philadelphia,
1930), pp. 14f., 19fE., 32f., and plates 33, 48:2, 50:2; L. H. Vincent, "Le ba'al cananeeen
de Beisan et sa paredre,” RB 37 (1928) 51243.
II. THE MODELS FOR ISRAEL'S STATE PRIESTHOOD 97
been genuinely Egyptian — are the temples of Byblos and Gaza,31 but
Byblos had for over a millenium been closely bound to Egypt commer¬
cially, and Gaza, close to Egypt geographically, was the capital of the
Egyptian province of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.33 Religion was a
national-territorial affair, and Egyptians in Canaan respected the local
dominion of Canaanite gods and their cult.33 The Egyptian hegemony
in Syria-Palestine passed away leaving the local religion and its practices
Canaanite, as they had been before. If early monarchical Israel in assim¬
ilating elements of Canaanite civilization found itself in possession of
things originally Egyptian in the civil order, such was not to be the
case in the order of worship, where elements borrowed by the Hebrews
after previous borrowing by the Canaanites will have come from other
Semitic civilizations.34
7
98 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
Agal, "great house," applicable, just as in Hebrew, to a royal house and to a temple.
Here, again, the intermediacy of Akkadian in the transition from Sumerian into
Canaanite has been doubted, e.g. by Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel,
p. 218, n. 89, referring to a suggestion by A. Poebel in ZA 39 (1929), p. 145 and JAOS
57 (1937), p. 71, n. 95, that the word was borrowed directly from Sumerian. But
Poebel, in the second reference, is claiming a direct passage from Sumerian to West
Semitic for a Sumerian *da(m)mu-zi (dumu.zi) > Hebrew tammuz, Syriac tamuz,
not for E.gal. In the first reference he does cite the Hebrew hekal beside e.gal
as evidence of a dropped initial h in Sumerian, but Poebel elsewhere, Grundziige
der sumerischen Grammatik (Rostocker orientalistische Studien, I; Rostock, 1923),
p. 21, n. 1, has wondered if perhaps the h itself, in the forms he is really concerned
with in ZA 39, is not secondary. In any event, we should expect the shift ft > h:
cf. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, §§ 8i; 25a, c, and we wonder
if in the shift £.gal > ekallu > hekal the West Semitic h does not appear by false
retrograde analogy with the Proto-Semitic h, lost in Akkadian but retained in
Hebrew, in such pairs as alaku/halak, aldlu/halal apaku/hdpak, eru/hara. If so,
both kiyor and hekal demonstrate our thesis that Canaanite borrowing in the field
of cult was made within the Semitic family, and that even Sumerian religious in¬
fluence passed first through the Semitic population of Mesopotamia on its way into
Canaan. Recently C. Rabin, in Orientalia 32 (1963), pp. 115f., has suggested a Hittite
origin for the strange word ob, used in the Old Testament in connexion with nec¬
romancy, but with a curious fluctuation in use that indicates that the Hebrews
themselves were uncertain of its exact sense. If Rabin’s tentatively proposed ety¬
mology is right, both its presence in Palestine and the relative unfamiliarity of its
sense among Hebrew speakers could be explained by its being a word used by the
Hittite element in Palestine and not really assimilated by the Semitic element. In
fact, it is scorned and condemned in every Old Testament context where it appears.
ss Cf. the bibliography on the religious character of the king in general in de
Vaux, Les institutions, I, 330, and, for a sober evaluation of the problem of divine
kingship, M. Noth, “Gott, Konig, Volk im Alten Testament," ZTK 47 (1950) 157-91 =
Noth, Gesammelte Studien, pp. 188-229; de Vaux, op. cit., I, 171ff.; H. J. Kraus, Psal-
men (BK, XV; Neukirchen, 1960), II, 879-83.
36 Kees, Das Priestertum im dgyptischen Staat, I, 1-9; H. Bonnet, "Die Sym-
bolik der Reinigungen im agyptischen Kult," AITEAOE: Archiv fiir neutestament-
liche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde 1 (1925), p. 105, n. 2. Kees is good for factual
details, while Bonnet in his rather extensive note provides an excellent insight into
the religious ideas behind the facts. I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the
Ancient Near East (Uppsala, 1943), pp. 4-15, has assembled the material on the divinity
III. KINGS AND PRIESTHOOD 99
both the continued interest of the kings in the state cult and their control
over that cult’s revenues. Ahaz commissioned a renovation of the Temple
furnishings on Damascene models (2 Kgs. 16:10-18), and Josiah himself
undertook the responsibility for the reform of worship and religion in
his day (2 Kgs. 23). In the Northern Kingdom, too, it was the king-
founder Jeroboam I who established the royal sanctuary at Bethel and
provided for its worship (1 Kgs. 12:26-33; cf. Amos 7:13).
These responsibilities are administrative, and so were the official
responsibilities of an Assyrian sangu. A non-royal sangu — the sangu
properly so called — was primarily a hierarchic official in charge of the
entire complex hierarchy of temple functionaries in the Mesopotamian
system, and his social standing and importance were of the highest.44
This, indeed, is what the priests — and particularly the high priest —
of the Temple in Jerusalem became, and their development as such was
quite natural. They became the regular administrators, under the king’s
aegis, of the sanctuary to which, as kohanim, they were professionally
attached. A kohen was essentially the attendant of a sanctuary with the
objects contained therein: the oracular work characteristic of the early
period was done with the ephod kept in his sanctuary. His raison d’etre
was service at a sanctuary, and his principal work was, until very late
in Israel's history, the giving of oracular responses or, later, the giving
of tora. A king, of course, had nothing to do with oracular work or
the giving of tora, and his raison d’etre was not service at a sanctuary
but sovereign rule of a kingdom. There, precisely, lies the important
distinction to be made: while sangu bespeaks primarily an office of cultic
administration, kohen, in Israel, bespeaks primarily actual service of a
sanctuary, and the sangu had nothing to do, as sangu, with oracular
work or even with divination. Thus in Hebrew a king could not be styled
a kohen, and even though, as an aspect of his kingship, he was a priest
in somewhat the same sense that an Assyrian monarch was a sangu
above the regular sange properly so-called, Hebrew had no real equiva¬
lent of this title.
That the Hebrew mentality shrank from considering and calling the
king a kohen must, however, have been determined to some extent also
by certain connotations attached to the word which were peculiar to
Hebraic culture and were not to be found in the Canaanite milieu, for
the Canaanite figure of Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18ff. is both priest and
king, and the same idea is present in Ps. 110:4, an enthronement psalm
whose antiquity and profoundly Canaanite background are now generally
admitted.45 The sarcophagus inscription of Tabnit, King of Sidon, shows
that at the end of the sixth century B.C. a Phoenician king could also
be a priest.46 Why was this union of titles — king and priest, melek
and kohen — not equally acceptable in Israel?
We approach the answer, perhaps, when we notice that in early
Hebraic culture the kohen was in the service of someone else. The
priest of Judg. 17f. was dependent, as far as his position went, on Micah;
Ahijah and Ahimelech were in the service of Saul, as Zadok and Abiathar
were in the service of David; even Eli’s priesthood at Shiloh can be
understood as a service subject to the Israelite amphictyony.47 A com¬
parison of the use of the referential particle lamed after "priest" in early
Israel with the same use elsewhere in Canaanite civilization is instructive
in this regard. In Israel before the later monarchy one is priest to (Ze)
Micah (Judg. 17:5,10,12), to the Danites (Judg. 18:4,19) or "to the tribe”
(Judg. 18:19,30), and priest to David (2 Sam. 20:26). Only the priests
of the amphictyonic sanctuary are said — once — to be "priests to
Yahweh” (1 Sam. 1:3).48 But outside of Israel the converse is true: one
is never said to be a priest "to" someone else, but rather priest to a
divinity.49 Thus, Melchizedek is priest to El-Elyon (Gen. 14:18), and a
Phoenician priest of Lapethos on Cyprus is priest to a divinized Ptolemaic
ruler;60 farther off, in the Punic colony of Althiburus in what is now
Tunisia, we find a priest to Baal-Hammon.51 In Canaanite civilization
as a whole a king could call himself priest, even though he was not a
professional priest, not only because in Canaan the aspect of administra¬
tion was emphasized in priesthood 52 but also because a priest was con¬
sidered to be primarily in the service of a divinity, not of another man.
In Israel, however, closer to nomadic traditions in which the sanctuary-
attendant and oracle-consultor was a simple man in the service of other
men, the transfer of the title kohen to the king was not apt. Only a
professional priest was a kohen, and under the monarchy the chief priest
of Jerusalem was kohen precisely to the king (2 Sam. 20:26).
The fact that the Israelite monarch was the highest authority in
matters of cult even though he had no priestly title probably explains
the absence of the title “high priest” (hak-kohen hag-gadol) in authentic
pre-exilic usage.53 At the same time the distinction required by the
meaning of kohen makes it difficult to accept Morgenstem’s understand¬
ing of the pre-exilic king himself as high priest in the post-exilic sense
of the term,04 for the king, not being a professional sanctuary minister
but rather a professional ruler, was not a priest in the Hebrew sense
of the word. The post-exilic high priest was a professional priest. That
he was also the highest authority in the civic order within the Jewish
community itself was an accident of circumstances which we shall survey
in due time. The post-exilic high priest was not a king in the real sense
any more than the pre-exilic king was a priest in the real Hebrew sense.
In the light of what we have just seen, we can also more readily
understand and accept the statement of 2 Sam. 8:18 that the sons of
David were priests. This is perfectly natural, in spite of learned refusal
to read the text in its perfectly obvious sense.65
The idea of David's sons’ being priests was disturbing people already
in ancient times. The LXX reads aularchai instead of hiereis in 2 Sam.
8:18, and the parallel 1 Chr. 18:17 states not that the king’s sons were
priests but that they were rv’sdnim (“chiefs” or "princes”) at the king’s
side. The alteration by the Chronicler is in accord with his regular
sollicitude for exclusiveness in priestly prerogatives. In the case of
2 Sam. 8:18, an emendation of kohamm to sokenim has been proposed.56
53 There are both historical and textual reasons for suspecting that the cases
of what might appear to be pre-exilic uses of the expression are actually not
authentic: cf. de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 241. The textual reasons lie in the
parallels in Chronicles, and in the LXX: hag-gadol is not in the text of the parallels,
and its Greek equivalent is not in the LXX. Since both the editing of Chronicles
and the translating of the LXX were done at a time when the title hak-kohen hag-
gadol was normal, neither an editor nor a translator would have reason to alter
the expression if he actually had found it in the records with which he was working.
s4 J. Morgenstern, "A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood," AJSL 55
(1938), pp. 5-13, 183.
ss A. Klostermann, Die Bucher Samuelis und der Konige (SZ; Nordlingen, 1887),
p. 233, accepts the MT but would explain kohen as having the sense of something
like "representative” here. Ehrlich, Randglossen, III, 292, would give it a sense
of "confidant” and mediator between king and people, and Baudissin, Geschichte,
p. 191, seeks a way out of what for him, too, is the difficulty by suggesting that the
title of priest was probably attached honoris causa to a king’s sons and to high
officials. These hypotheses have nothing to support them, and they attempt to solve
a problem that lies not in the text but in an assumption a priori that David’s sons,
Nathan’s son Zabud, and Ira the Jairite could not have been priests as the texts
say they were. The notice on Zabud, however, presents a textual problem of its
own, on which cf. de Vaux in RB 48 (1939), p. 403, n. 3.
ss T. K. Cheyne, “Minister," in Encyclopaedia Biblica, III (London, 1902), col. 3100,
proposing the emendation not only for 2 Sam. 8:18 (for which he says the same
emendation was proposed long before by Hitzig) but also for 2 Sam. 20:26 (Ira the
104 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
The entrance of soken into the discussion is a good thing, not because it
justifies emendation of kohen but because on the contrary it helps show,
perhaps, that the presence of a word other than kohanim in the Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX's 2 Sam. 8:18 does not date from the earlier monarchy.
The word soken occurs in Isa. 22:15, where, because it is clearly in
apposition to the title aser cal hab-bayit, "(he)-who-(is)-over-the-house,”
it is generally translated "steward.” Since the Greek autarches does
mean "steward,” the hypothesis arises that a Greek translator found the
word sknym instead of khnym in his Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 8:18 and,
adverting to the Hebrew text of Isa. 22:15, translated sknym as aularchai.
But that does not mean that sknym was in the original text; nor does
it mean that whoever altered khnym to sknym intended it in the sense
of "stewards.” It is not very likely that David would have made his
sons mere stewards. Skn is used as a title of considerable importance
in Phoenician,87 where it means something like "governor, prefect.”58
Cheyne would translate it as "chief minister,” "administrator,” "friend”
in those places where he emends from kohen.59 But Begrich has con¬
cluded — quite independently of the problem of 2 Sam. 8:18 and without
reference to the soken of Isa. 22:15 — that the office of the man "who-is-
over-the-house” was introduced only in Solomon’s time (not in David's),
that at first it was the lowest office in the royal cabinet and probably
in the hands of a foreigner, but that it grew in importance until, toward
the end of the monarchy, it was found occasionally even in the hands
of a king’s son (cf. 2 Kgs. 15:5) and was practically equivalent to the
title "vizier.”®0
If this is so, the aser cal hab-bayit of Isa. 22:15, a text which was
composed under the later monarchy, is at that time (but not at the be¬
ginning of the monarchy) the title of an important personage in the realm,
and the soken with which it is in apposition means by that time some¬
thing more than "steward.” Soken as an epithet or title is a hapax in
Isa. 22:15. The feminine sokenet is used as a predicate participle (not
as an epithet or title) of the attendance of Abishag the Shunammite on
David in 1 Kgs. 1:2, which would also suggest that at that early date
the epithet soken would have had a stronger connotation of subservience
Jairite) and 1 Kgs. 4:5 (Zabud the son of Nathan). F. Wutz, Systematische Wege
von der Septuaginta zum hebraischen Urtext (Stuttgart, 1937), p. 775, n. 2, proposes
sohanim in 2 Sam. 8:18, but since, as far as I know, the root shn does not exist,
this may be a typographical error for sok^nim, although Wutz gives no reasons and
no references.
87 Cf. KAI 1:2; 31 :lf.
58 Cf. Z. S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (American Oriental
Series, VIII; New Haven, 1936), p. 126.
59 Cheyne, toe. cit.
60 Begrich, “Sofer und Mazklr,” pp. 26f. (= Begrich, Gesammelte Studien, pp. 95f.).
R. de Vaux in RB 48 (1939), pp. 402f., arrives at substantially the same conclusions,
even in the matter of the office’s introduction only after David's time.
III. KINGS AND PRIESTHOOD 105
in the usage of Jerusalem (if it was used at all in Jerusalem then) and
that it would be indicated as suitable for a king's sons only at a later
date either after a development parallel to and dependent on that
of aser cal hab-bayit, or after the impact of Phoenician administrative
nomenclature had been felt. A date later than the early monarchy is
also likely for the theological objections to David's sons’ priesthood,
for only with the passing of time did the defence of the rights of
closed groups to priestly functions become really intense.
So, instead of emending the kohanim of 2 Sam. 8:18 and elsewhere
to sbkenim or to anything else, we may admit that the Greek aularchai
of 2 Sam. 8:18 is the result of a previous alteration to sdkenim of an
original kohanim. In retaining kohanim we follow that fundamental
norm of textual criticism: difficilior lectio probabilior, although the dif¬
ficulty in this case is only relative.
David’s sons, then, were indeed priests. He had a number of sons,
and affairs of state would not occupy all their time. The more or less
regular accomplishment of priestly functions as delegates of their father
would be an honorable occupation, and David may understandably have
found it to his advantage to have members of his immediate family
in important and honorable positions for strategic reasons. Ira the
Jairite in 2 Sam. 20:26 could also have been an appointment of personal
esteem or of strategy, and Zabud in 1 Kgs. 4:5 was, after all, the son
of Nathan, a man of prominence who had given Solomon open and active
support against Adonijah (1 Kgs. 1:8,11-14,22-27, etc.). Priestly positions
for members of the royal clan are known from Ugarit, Phoenicia, and
Mesopotamia,61 and they are abundantly attested for sons of the Egyptian
Pharaoh.62 If David, by the very fact that he was occupied by kingly
duties, could not be attached primarily to sanctuary functions, his sons
— some of them, at least, — could be, and could properly be called,
kohanim beside the official kohanim of the royal cabinet (Zadok and
Abiathar).
We can even carry the analogy between the Israelite king and the
Assyrian monarch with his sangutu a step farther, for the duties of a
si Cf. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, pp. 66, 122; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan =
VT Suppl 5 (1957), p. 154. On priests in the royal house of Phoenicia, cf. S. R. Driver,
Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, p. 285, and
for Mesopotamia, cf. Dhorme, Les religions de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, p. 201, where
we note that the species of priesthood to which, for example, Asshurbanapal raised
his younger brothers was not that of the more administrative sangutu but rather
that of the more properly liturgical urigallutu — a distinction impossible in Hebrew,
where both types of office would be filled by men called simply kohanim.
sz Leaving aside the Twenty-First Dynasty, in which it is too esay to find examples,
but for very special reasons, cf. Kees, Das Priestertum im dgyptischen Stoat, I, 93-96,
181-85, 199-202.
106 CHAPTER FOUR. PRIESTHOOD AND THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT
non-royal sangu, on which the king’s sangutu was patterned, did not lie
exclusively in administration. He was often expected to preside at sacri¬
fices and at the more solemn festivities.63 David and Solomon did the
same thing on great occasions — David when the Ark was brought to
Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:13,17f.)64 and when he inaugurated the altar on the
threshing-floor of Araunah to win God's favor and turn the pestilence
from the people; Solomon on the high place of Gibeon at the beginning
of his reign (1 Kgs. 3:4,15), at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:5,
62ff.), and on the great festivals of the liturgical year (1 Kgs. 9:25).
For the mentality of the early monarchical period this was not difficult
to accept. In semi-nomadic times sacrifice was probably offered by heads
of families, then by important personages who were the heads of clans
and tribes, and the step from those practices to sacrifice by the head of
the Israelite state was easy to make. Parallels for royal sacrifice can
be found in other Semitic civilizations not too far distant from nomadic
or semi-nomadic existence: in South Arabia,65 in Mari,66 and in the an¬
cient civilization represented in the mythological texts of Ugarit.67
These things passed as quite acceptable in the older narratives, but
such was not to remain the case; a change in mentality is noticeable
as the centuries of monarchy go by. The act of blessing, performed by
Under the monarchy there was a certain tension between the new
establishment, typified by Jerusalem, and the old ideal of rural, particu¬
laristic Israel typified by the Shiloh of olden days. The Davidic mon¬
archy’s acceptance of certain sacral functions was an innovation in Israel,
as, indeed, was the monarchy itself. The monarchy, moreover, in its
settled form, was achieved with a certain accomodation and adjustment
with sedentary Canaan — concretely with Jebusite Jerusalem. This was
not a particularly bad thing, nor a particularly irreligious thing. Jebusite
Jerusalem and the rest of Canaan absorbed into Israel seem for the
most part to have become quickly and readily Yahwistic, but for the
bearers of the old ideal Canaan was, and remained, a bad word — not
entirely without reason, for the endemic plague of syncretistic Baalism
kept threatening Israel, and it was openness to neighboring lands, the
antithesis of the old Israelite particularism, that kept the plague endemic.
The Ark, once in Shiloh, was now in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was irre¬
vocably the center of Yahwism as well as of the Davidic state. The
new ways of the establishment can hardly have sat well with the more
conservative elements in Israel, and this uneasiness was made more in¬
tense with the reign of Solomon. Solomon's increased relations with
foreign lands and the consequent increase of influence of the culture
of those lands in Israel naturally offended the particularism of rural
Israel, and the substitution of what was perhaps an originally Jebusite
dynasty of priests in place of that of the Elides set up an antipathy
between the Zadokites and those who favored the Israelite, Levitical,
Elide line of Abiathar.1 This situation was only a part of the complex
of reasons that led ultimately to the division of the kingdom after Solo¬
mon’s death, but we can see bits and pieces of evidence that there was
a certain alignment of opposing interests and forces between, on one
side, the Zadokites and the new order of things in Jerusalem and, on
the other, the Levites and the representatives of the religious traditions
1 Cf. Cohen, "The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of
Ancient Israel,” pp. 89-93.
I. “ SHILOH ” VERSUS “ JERUSALEM 109
early one. At any rate, the very existence of the tradition in strikingly
different forms attests the reality of the tradition itself, and we will not
be far from the truth if we accept Noth's view that the tradition is one
reflecting difficulties resulting from lack of distinction between the king’s
sacral and secular functions and from conflict between the secular re¬
quirements of the monarchy and the ancient sacral traditions. 4
Shiloh never recovered its ancient position, and even its existence
as an inhabited place may have passed into the realm of memory, but
the spirit of Shiloh lived on.5 If we look for this spirit in the priesthood,
we can find traces of it here and there among Levitical and prophetical
circles rather than among those priesthoods actually entrenched in the
service of the royal sanctuaries. The non-Levitical Zadokites were es¬
tablished in Jerusalem, and the priests of the Northern Kingdom’s royal
sanctuary at Bethel were not Levites, either, according to 1 Kgs. 12:31,
information whose historicity is not necessarily to be questioned, for it is
worth noting that the text inveighs explicitly (v. 32) against the non-
Levitical priesthood of Bethel but that it refrains from complaining
explicitly that the other sanctuary at Dan (v. 30) had non-Levitical priests.
We know from the tradition of Judg. 17 -18 that Dan did, in fact, have a
Levitical priesthood. If the author knew this and criticized only the
priesthood of Bethel, there is no reason to doubt that the priests of
Bethel really were not Levitical.6 Bethel was meant to be a rival to
Jerusalem, and if the people were not disturbed by the non-Levitical
nature of the Jerusalemite priesthood they would not be too inclined to
object to non-Levitical priests at Bethel in the late tenth century.
On the other hand, there was the more or less accepted traditional
idea that priests were more fittingly Levites, and Jeroboam perhaps tried
to find Levites who would be willing to assure the priestly functions
of his southern sanctuary just as they did at his northern one in Dan.
If so, and he found none who were disposed to accept, that might be an
indication already of a distaste Levites felt for the forms worship was
taking in the North (cf. Exod. 32:25-29 in its present context).7 The
statement of 2 Chr. 11:13-17; 13:9f. that the (Aaronide) priests and the
Levites fled to Judah from Jeroboam’s Israel presents anachronistic traits
like the late distinction between priests and levites, but it may yet contain
a reminiscence of opposition given by Levites, or certain Levites, or
Levites and still other priests, to Jeroboam’s cultic policies. Whether
this is really the way things were or not, it is clear that the desirability of
Levites as sanctuary priests was subject to fashion, and that fashion, as
always, was determined by the accepted way things were done and atti-
8
114 CHAPTER FIVE. PRIESTHOOD IN THE DIVIDED MONARCHY
and content, that vv. 9b-10, at least, are then a later addition within
the framework of the primitive blessing of Levi.17 A reader can not
help being impressed by the change from the singular (Levi, standing for
the tribe) in vv. 8-9a,ll to the plural (the Levites) in vv. 9b-10, and this
impression is heightened when he notices that for this difference there
is a corresponding difference in the historical levels at which we should
very much be inclined to situate what these two sections claim for Levi,
for the section using the singular makes claims which strike a more
archaic tone than those of the section using the plural.18
a. T ora
In the section with the plural verb-forms (vv. 9b-10) we find elements
which show kinship with the priestly activity of later times rather than
with that of earlier days. According to this section, the Levites teach
the customary laws (mispatim) and give instructions or decisions (torot)
of God to the people (v. 10a),20 in fidelity to the divine Covenant with
Israel.21 The giving of tora by priests does not appear in any texts earlier
than the eighth century or early ninth century (Hos. 4:6; Mic. 3:11;
cf. also 2 Kgs. 12:3), but from that time on down to the Exile it is
closely associated with priests (Dt. 31:9,26; Jer. 2:8; 18:18; Ezek. 7:26;
Zeph. 3:4).
Whether this priestly tora was a development from the primitive
oracular consultation or not,22 it was originally instruction or decision
between what was right and what was wrong, what to be done and
what not to be done, in the narrower field of worship, ritual, the
observance of the Sabbath;23 yet, it did not always remain so. Hos. 4:6
condemns priests for scorning a knowledge (defat) whose content, inspira¬
tion, and manner of presentation are not specified but which may already
be concerned with a wider area of morality than that of cult and ritual.24
According to Hos. 8:12 (which is roughly contemporary with the later
part of the blessing of Levi), at least some tora — priestly torn (cf. the
sacrifices in the following verse) — was already set down in writing.
Some two hundred years later, in the text of Dt. 31:9, it is the written
Law which is entrusted by Moses to the charge of the priests, and this
is the Law, or tdrd, in the Deuteronomic sense of a revelation of the will
of God which consists of a corpus of directives and laws deriving from
\ ahweh s Covenant with Israel. It is quite possible that this is the
sense of tdrd in Jer. 2:8, also, which speaks of wielding "the” tdrd.
This later priestly concern with written tora in the Deuteronomic
sense is hardly without some historical development behind it, a develop¬
ment reflected in that of the term tora itself, but it is not an easy matter
to trace the steps of that development or to sort out, with reference
to various chronological levels, the various relations between the torot
given by priests, by prophets, by lawmakers, by sages.25 At any rate, the
torot of Dt. 33:10 are not limited to responses given ad hoc to requests
for particular decisions. There is something more objective and stable
tain change of this priestly tora — a change discernible as early as Hosea — into
something more objectivized and less transitory than a mere act of lot-casting or
ad hoc oracular consultation.
23 On priestly tora, cf., in addition to Begrich, "Die priesterliche Tora”: Ostborn,
op. cit., pp. 89-111; Ploger, "Priester und Prophet,” pp. 179-88; de Vaux, Les institu¬
tions, II, 206ff.
24 Noth, Amt und Berufung, p. 29, n. 15 (= Noth, Gesammelte Studien, p. 315,
n. 15), writes that such texts as Hos. 4:6; Zeph. 3:4; Mic. 3:11; Jer. 2:8; 18:18, in
considering tora as an essential attribute of a priest, presuppose that tora, no longer
limited to the cultic and ritual realm, extended to instruction on behavior in general.
The difficulty is that none of these texts, with the exception of Hos. 4:6, gives us
any hint about what that tora which they had in mind consisted of or was con¬
cerned with. Begrich, op. cit., p. 86, notes that priestly dacat is parallel to priestly
tora not only in Hos. 4:6 but in the much later text of Mai. 2:7 as well, and on
the basis of these parallels he concludes, not that priests were concerned with in¬
struction involving knowledge of a broader range of human behavior, but that there
was a specific type of priestly tora which constituted a kind of "secret priestly
knowledge.” To what extent, though, does the existence of two words in literary
parallel allow us to identify or to fuse the two things or two concepts which they
express? Defat and tora in parallel may be the same thing in these two texts;
they may also be two entities which are separate and distinct, although related,
and such a relation can be close or distant. The texts, unfortunately, are lacking
in the concrete details which would enable us to judge.
25 Qf the authors cited in n. 23, only Ostborn is concerned with examining all
these types of tora. Begrich, p. 87, says that for him the connexion between tora
and law is one which was completed outside priestly circles. On Levitical influence
in the formation of the Deuteronomic code, cf. G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy
(Studies in Biblical Theology, IX; London, 1953), pp. 66-69.
118 CHAPTER FIVE. PRIESTHOOD IN THE DIVIDED MONARCHY
c. Sacrifice
27 cf. Ostborn, Tora, pp. 112-26, and compare what Ben Sirach (not considered
by Ostborn) has to say at a later date about the scribe (Sir. 39:1-11) with what he
has to say about the high priest (Sir. 50:1-21).
28 De Vaux, Les institutions, II, 209, 292f.
29 It is difficult to say when words from the root qtr in pre-exilic texts refer
to incense-burning and when to the smoking and burning of holocausts. In post-exilic
texts they refer much more clearly, and more regularly, to the burning of sweet¬
smelling, aromatic materials.
120 CHAPTER FIVE. PRIESTHOOD IN THE DIVIDED MONARCHY
Our analysis of Dt. 33:9b-10 has already brought to our notice the
role of priests in handing down instruction and judgements of customary
law, besides their more liturgical functions. A word remains to be said
about the accomplishment of public judiciary work by priests in Israelite
society in the period of the divided monarchy.
Albrecht Alt, in his pioneer work on Israelite law, mentioned in
passing that priests had nothing at all to do in judging cases on the
basis of casuistic law inherited from Canaan; this kind of judiciary
work fell to the lot of lay tribunals made up of the land-holding elders
m a given piace. A priest had a part to play only in the pronouncing
and declaring of apodictic law, in which he served as the speaker for
God in what was to all intents and purposes a sacral act 31 This is
probably the original shape of Israelite legal practice. It seems to be
implicit m the narrative of Exod. 18:13-26, with Moses dividing judgement
of cases between himself and the elders. As this narrative now stands,
the basis of the allotment is one of the gravity of the case (v. 22), but
when Moses tells his father-in-law Jethro what he has been doing, he
says that the people have been coming to him to consult Yahweh, and
that he has been deciding matters, not by applying casuistic law but
by instructing the litigants in the huqqim and torot of God (vv. 16b,20).
We have already noted that the priestly trait given here to Moses’ figure
depends on these two verses (16b and 20), but that the two of them
are probably later additions to the text.32 But when and why were they
added?
In the second quarter of the ninth century, according to 2 Chr. 19:8,11,
King Jehoshaphat established tribunals in Jerusalem comprising priests
and elders, for the “cases of Yahweh” (matters of religious law) and
for civil disputes. Amariah the chief priest was the authority in the
cases governed by religious law, and Zebadiah, ndgid. of Judah, for those
governed by civil law.33 In doing so he was in effect establishing a
tribunal of second instance, above the tribunals of first instance established
here and there outside Jerusalem (vv. 4-7). Rolf Knierim has shown how
Exod. 18:13-26, with w. 16b and 20 now added (and most probably the
other insertions, w. 21b and 25b, too), is the old Mosaic tradition now
given an aetiological relation to these new developments in the judicial
31 Alt, Die Vrsprunge des israelitischen Rechts, pp. 16f., 33, 61f. (= KS, I, 289,
302, 324f.). The role of the priest in rites of ordeal in cases of occult crime (cf. Num.
5:11-31), too, may be included in the priest’s work of sacral judiciary work.
32 Cf. above, pp. 47f.
33 It was long the fashion to see the Chronicler’s report of this judicial reform
of Jehoshaphat as a fiction based on the ordinances of Dt. 16:18ff.; 17:8-13. There
are surely elements of the Chronicler's account which he himself has added; the
detail about the levites serving in a subordinate position as bailiffs of the court
accords only too well with his post-exilic interest in seeing that levites not be for¬
gotten but that they be in a position subordinate to that of priests. Josephus Anti¬
quities IV.viii.14 speaks of a long-standing practice of having two levites appointed
as assistants to each judge in his day, and the practice may well have existed at
the time of the Chronicler. But the details of the Chronicler's account of the re¬
form show not only discrepancy with those of Deuteronomy (Dt. 16:18 has the
provincial judges throughout the provincial cities; 2 Chr. 19:5 has them only in the
fortified cities) but conformity with institutions of the earlier monarchical period
(the ndgid of the House of Judah, who according to 2 Chr. 19:11 is to preside
over civil cases, must belong to a time when the ndgid still retained a certain im¬
portance in society, an importance which he lost gradually in the monarchical period):
cf. W. F. Albright, “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat," in Alexander Marx Jubilee
Volume (English Section; New York, 1950), pp. 61-82, especially pp. 74-82. Com¬
mentators since 1950 accept the substantial authenticity of the Chronicler’s report
of Jehoshaphat’s judicial reform.
122 CHAPTER FIVE. PRIESTHOOD IN THE DIVIDED MONARCHY
At the end of the eighth century the Levites were still scattered
abroad in the land, and their priests went about their work with torot
and sacrifice but were still excluded from the royal sanctuaries — entirely
excluded, once Dan had fallen into the hands of the Assyrians. They
were conservative, and they prided themselves on their fidelity to the
ancient Covenant. Understandably enough, they opposed the entrenched
priesthoods of the royal establishments, not only out of rivalry but out
of religious ideals, too. In this they were not alone.
It has been pointed out that the prophet Hosea, in the third quarter
of the eighth century, shared this same spirit of fidelity to the old purely
Israelite Yahwism with the requirements of its Covenant, and that along
with opposition to the official state priesthoods Hosea also appears to have
shown considerable sympathy for the non-official, Levitical circles as
such.36 Indeed, Hos. 12:8-11 is outspokenly against “Canaan” and the
culpable prosperity of Israel, while conjuring up the ideal of the old
days of wandering, and even though Hosea condemns wicked priests
and exterior, formalized cult (4:4-14; 6:6; 8: Ilf.), he shows himself to
be in favor of the kind of dacat and mispat and tora characteristic of
good priests by the very fact that he condemns priests for their failure
to give them to the people (4:6; 5:11; 6:5f.; 8:12). He condemns the
calves of monarchical, non-Levitical Bethel (8:5f.; 10:5; 13:2), which he
calls Beth-aven in pejorative contexts (4:15; 5:8; 10:5), but in 12:5 he
hearkens back to the days of ancient Bethel, called now by its proper
name. Like the priests excluded from the royal sanctuaries — as Levites
other than those of the sanctuary of Dan were — he is anti-monarchical
(8:4; 13:11), and in 9:15 he even condemns Saul’s proclamation as king.
The tone of Hosea’s anti-monarchical words is not far from that of
Samuel's in 1 Sam. 15’s version (cf. 15:22f.) of the tradition of conflict
between the secular requirements of the monarchy and the old sacral
traditions, otherwise set forth in 1 Sam. 13:7b-15a. The idea in both
1 Sam. 15 and in Hosea is that obedience has pride of place over mere
external worship.
Moreover, in Hosea, as in the anonymous man, probably himself
from prophetical circles,37 who compiled 1 Sam. 1:1-4: la, there is a
certain nostalgia for the days of Israel before the monarchy, and a
strong disapproval of the failure of established priesthoods to live up to
their divinely willed obligations. The Levites, shadowy though their
history is during all this period, show kinship with this mentality, although
they too would doubtlessly have been subject to the same condemned
abuses, had they been more successful in finding comfortable and secure
places in the more important sanctuaries. As things turned out, the
Levites, relatively untainted by the cultural and religious influence of
Canaan,38 were known for their fidelity to Yahweh’s Covenant and its
requirements.
1 On the event to which Judg. 18:30 refers, and the various interpretations of
the verse, cf. C. Hauret, “Aux origines du sacerdoce danite,” in Melanges Bibliques
rediges e'n I'honneur de Andre Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. lllff.
2 The majority of scholars working with the problem today favors a Northern
origin, especially because of the published work of A. C. Welch, The Code of Deute¬
ronomy (London, 1924); G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT; 2nd ed., Got¬
tingen 1948- henceforth to be cited in its English translation: Studies in Deuteronomy
[Studies in'Biblical Theology, IX; London, 19531); A. Alt, "Die Heimat des Deutero-
nomiums," in KS, II, 250-75. This has been accepted only with reservation (while
admitting the good possibility of incorporated material from the North) by M. Noth
"Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition," Oudtestamentische Studiiin 8 (1950) p. 46
(= Noth, Gesammelte Studien, p. 186).
126 CHAPTER SIX. DEUTERONOMY AND ITS WAKE
A basically Northern origin has been rejected recently by O. Bachle, Israel und
die Volker (ATANT, XLI; Ziirich-Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 204ff., in favor of an origin
among the official circles of Jerusalem and the landed gentry of Judah. N. Lohfink,
“Die Bundesurkunde des Konigs Josias,” Biblica 44 (1963) 261-88 , 461-98, accepting the
identification of the “Book of the Law” found in Josiah's reign (2 Kgs. 22:8) with
Deuteronomy, suggests that this document may have been the written covenant-
document of Jerusalem itself, subjected to some subsequent editing. M. Weinfeld,
“Deuteronomy — the Present State of Inquiry,” JBL 86 (1967) 249-62, thinks the work
may come from sapiential scribes of the courts of Hezekiah and Josiah.
3 It is seen as a pattern for a planned reform by Alt, op. cit. (in preceding note),
pp. 274f.; cf. also J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed., Bar-
lin, 1905), p. 9. Alt himself does not deny that much if not most of the legal con¬
tent of Deuteronomy is made up of what already existed and was known to the
compiler or compilers. G. Holscher, "Komposition und Ursprung des Deuterono-
miums,” ZAW 40 (1923) 161-255, sees Deuteronomy as something quite removed from
reality, a post-exilic plan for what amounts to an almost utopian state; in this
he has not found a following.
4 On this problem, cf. E. Konig, Das Deuteronomium (KAT; Leipzig, 1917), pp.
48ff.; A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (The Schweich Lectures, 1938; London,
1939), pp. 97-148; H. H. Rowley, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deutero¬
nomy,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson (Edin¬
burgh, 1950), pp. 157-74; H. Cazelles, “Jeremie et le Deuteronome,” RScR 38 (1951)
5-26; A. Jepsen, “Die Reform des Josia,” in Festschrift Friedrich Baumgartel (Erlan¬
gen, 1959), pp. 97-108; H. H. Rowley, "Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion,” BJRL 44
(1961/62), pp. 427 f.; E. Nicholson, "The Centralisation of the Cult in Deuteronomy,”
VT 13 (1962) 380-89.
s This has been seen since the work of T. Oestreicher, Das deuteronomische
Grundgesetz (Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, XXVII/4; Giitersloh, 1923)
and of Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, nor has it been regularly denied even by
those who hold a much more recent origin for the code itself than Oestreicher and
Welch would admit.
6 For attempts at sifting these various stages of growth, cf. J. Hempel, Die
Schichten des Deuteronomiums (Leipzig, 1914), and, for Dt. 12 -18, Horst, Das Privileg-
recht Jahwes and C. A. Simpson, "A Study of Deuteronomy 12-18,” Anglican Theo¬
logical Review 34 (1952) 247-51. Hempel, Horst, and Simpson work with theories
of documentary supplementation. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, passim but
especially pp. 11-24, uses form-criticism in approaching the problem. New possibili¬
ties for the form-critical approach itself have been opened by K. Baltzer, Das Bun-
desformular (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, IV;
2nd ed., Neukirchen, 1964), pp. 40-47, showing the influence of Ancient Near Eastern
covenant formularies in Dt. 1-4; 28:69 - 30:20 and in fragments elsewhere in the
framework of Deuteronomy; also by M. Weinfeld, "Traces of Assyrian Treaty For¬
mulae in Deuteronomy,” Biblica 46 (1965 ) 417-27, who is concerned with Dt. 28; cf.
also Lohfink, op. cit. (above, n. 2).
I. DEUTERONOMY AND THE LEVITES 127
years before the reign of Josiah, and, no matter what the provenance
of the code and its sources were, its contents were known and respected
in Judah of the late seventh and the sixth centuries. It is the code
itself that is now our principal concern, for we have already examined
the old and originally independent Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33); Dt. 31:9,25f.
and Dt. 10:8f. are Deuteronomistic and will be taken up briefly later.
Dt. 27, in which the Levites are associated with Moses in addressing
the people (27:9) and then pronounce the curses attached to infractions
of Covenant law (27:14) presents a literary problem of its own, but the
part the Levites play in this chapter raises no particular historical ques¬
tions independent of those based on other texts.
9
130 CHAPTER SIX. DEUTERONOMY AND ITS WAKE
priests who have in their keeping the scroll from which a copy of the
law is to be produced upon the accession of a king (17:18) does not
have the characteristics of great antiquity: it is in hortatory material
now found embedded in what is basically and originally not exhortation
but legal codification.
Dt. 24:8 exhorts the people to pay careful heed to the instructions
given by “the Levitical priests” in cases of leprosy. This is tora in the
classical sense: a distinction in matters of sacral purity. Dt. 24:8f. is
distinguished from the surrounding laws by its hortatory style, by its
unexpected change from second person singular to second person plural,
and by the historical allusion to an event in the desert after the Exodus,
unique in this particular group of laws; its hortatory style indicates that
it belongs to one of the latter redactions of the code.14 Prof. Wright,
in distinguishing "Levitical priests” in Deuteronomy as altar-clergy and
"Levites” as client Levites living out in the land, has proposed tom-giving
as a remaining means of livelihood for the latter class, which would be
the non-priestly class of Levites. The difficulty here is that tom-giving,
as we have had occasion to observe in the preceding chapter, is very
much a specifically priestly activity by the end of the monarchy, and
this Deuteronomic text is careful to specify that the Levites who give
it in matters of leprosy are Levitical priests. In the old prescriptions
on the case of a man killed by un unknown murderer and found outside
a city, the Deuteronomic insertion (21:5) also assigns to Levitical priests
the duty of pronouncing on cases of dispute or assault. This work would
be done throughout the land, not only in the place of centralized worship,
yet the term of function, "priest,” is used — and these priests away
from the one and only sanctuary would not, in Deuteronomy's program,
be altar-priests.
One might, of course, surmise that a Levite, to be a functioning
priest, did not absolutely have to be an altar-priest, that he could also
be a tom-giving priest or an adjudicating priest out in the land, away
from the central sanctuary. This, indeed, does not seem to be directly
excluded by Deuteronomy. Still, in actual practice, did priests who were
not actually functioning at a sanctuary (where they would, by this time,
be altar-priests) really give tora — especially that tora in the strict sense
which was specifically priestly and ritualistic? And, in spite of Dt. 21:5,
did adjudicating priests function as adjudicators if they were not already
functioning as priests (altar-priests) at a sanctuary? If not, then cultic
centralization would not leave much opening for Levites with priestly
aspirations to eke out a living by tom-giving and adjudicating, though
whether or not Deuteronomy foresaw that is hard to say.
Our most important text is Dt. 18:1-8, which, as it now stands, is
a provision of the latest redaction of Deuteronomy, presupposing the
selves, but the author wishes to connect his theological explanation with
the tribe’s priestly prerogatives. That even the client Levites are included
implicitly in this view is shown by Dt. 12:12; 14:27,29, which speak of
the client Levites who (being able to make their living from altar work,
unlike other Israelites) have no “portion and inheritance” with the rest
of the Israelites.18 This being so, the author reasons further, any Levite
from anywhere in Israel has a right to go to the central sanctuary and
minister in the name of Yahweh (w. 6-8), sharing in the priestly rights
listed in w. 3f. For Deuteronomy, only a Levite should be a priest, and
all Levites are potentially priests even though not all are functioning
priests.
So, as Prof. Wright has observed, “priest” in Deuteronomy is not
absolutely synonymous with “Levite”; but neither is “Levite” absolutely
synonymous with client Levite, nor does Deuteronomy seem to intend
deliberately to limit "priest” to the altar-priest, although it can be doubted
that by this time there was much chance of a man's being a priest
without being an altar-priest. "Levite” is still, as in earlier days, a term
of tribal affiliation and there is a distinction to be made between a
Levite's basic and exclusive priestly rights in the concept of Deuteronomy
and the question of whether he is actually serving as a priest or not.
As an indirect result of the attitudes canonized in Deuteronomy, however,
the days of the use of the term “Levite” as a tribal name rather than
a functional one were numbered.
20 The presence of Shechem itself in the lists of Levitical cities (Josh. 21:21) is
intrusive. It springs from a secondary combination of the list of Levitical cities
with the list of cities of refuge (Josh. 20:7f.); cf. M. Noth, Das Buck Josua (HAT,
1/7; 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1953), p. 127.
21 The theory of a Levitical origin of Deuteronomy has been presented particularly
by Baudissin, Geschichte, pp. 93f., Horst, Das Privilegrecht Jahves, p. 123, and von Rad,
Studies in Deuteronomy, pp. 66-69; also, apparently, by Aa. Bentzen, Die josianische
Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen (Copenhagen, 1926), which I have not been able
to consult. It has been rejected by M. Weinfeld, "Deuteronomy — the Present
State of Inquiry," JBL 86 (1967), pp. 252ff. There are certain details in von Rad’s
exposition which I think lend themselves to further discussion. In answering the
objection that Levites could not have composed Deuteronomy because they would
have been "sawing off the branch upon which they sat," he says (pp. 67f.) that there
is no difficulty here, because, from the point of view of literary criticism, the
material on cult-centralization belongs to the latest and final layer of redaction (a
point on which Weinfeld disagrees). But he adds that at this stage the country
Levites had probably "long outgrown the cultic sphere proper" and were occupying
themselves "with the scholarly preservation and transmission of the old traditions."
To this it must be objected that the latest layers of material are the very ones in
which Deuteronomy shows an interest in Levitical claims to the cultic sphere (cf.
Dt. 18:1-8, and the relation of "priest-Levite" to its contexts). For that matter,
did the Levites ever outgrow the cultic sphere proper? From the days of the
Judges onwards, we see their interest in the cultic sphere, and both the tension
between Levites and Zadokites in the latter chapters of Ezekiel and the place of
the Levites in Chronicles show that this interest continued long after Deuteronomy.
Cult-centralization can not really be said to align itself totally with the vested in¬
terests of the Levites, and the provisions for Levites may show a sympathy for
them without direct identification with them; nor are the Levites the only pos¬
sible source for the earlier compilations of laws in the code, for Mosaic traditions
were not limited to circles of Levitical "preaching” (von Rad, p. 69) — a point well
made by Lqhfink, "Die Bundesurkunde," pp. 495f. There is much in Deuteronomy
that does suggest the literary work of priests. The very transmission of the written
sacral law was no doubt largely in their hands (cf. Dt. 17:18), but those priestly
hands are not necessarily Levitical.
134 CHAPTER SIX. DEUTERONOMY AND ITS WAKE
Once the Deuteronomic code’s implicit notion that there was a par¬
ticular seemliness in having priestly functions carried out by Levites
had spread abroad in Judah (even where it had not been accepted before),
and with it had spread abroad the code’s explicit provision that any
Levite who might care to could function as priest in the Temple with
other Levitical priests, we may readily suppose that there were a number
of Levites who set to work agitating for the practical realization of their
freshly patented claims. The Zadokite priests already entrenched in
Jerusalem were equally determined, surely, to keep any breach from
being broken in the walls of long-standing custom which defended their
preserve. In this they were apparently successful.
When King Josiah set out upon his religious reform (2 Kgs. 22:3 -23:25;
2 Chr. 34:1 -35:19) around the year 622,22 one of his first steps was to
exterminate the pagan cults in Jerusalem and its environs and in all
Judah (2 Kgs. 23:4-7; 2 Chr. 34:3ff.), along with their pagan priests, called
kemarim in 2 Kgs. 23:5, kohdnim in 2 Chr. 34:5. So far so good for all
Yahwists and Yahwistic priests. But when afterwards he proceeded to
carry out in practice the actual centralization of Yahwistic worship itself,
in the spirit of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs. 23:8a,9), he removed the priests
of all the country shrines of Judah, submitted their altars to ritual pro¬
fanation, and brought these priests to the royal capital. Worse yet was
in store for the priests in the old Northern Kingdom, who, instead of
being brought to Jerusalem, were peremptorily executed (2 Kgs. 23:15,19f.;
2 Chr. 34.5f.). The measures taken in the South covered the entire ter¬
ritory of Judah, “from Geba to Beersheba” (2 Kgs. 23:8), and those in
the North extended as far as Upper Galilee (2 Chr. 34:6).23
Josiah s steps were surely in conformity with the ideal of centralized
worship expressed in Deuteronomy, but there are some noteworthy dif¬
ferences between the situation after centralization as Deuteronomy en¬
visioned it and the situation actually obtaining in Josiah’s fait accompli.
The country priests were, to be sure, given an opportunity to come to
the central sanctuary. This, as far as the Levites were concerned, was
in conformity with Dt. 18:6-8; yet, contrary to the whole spirit of Dt.
18:1-8, Levites — even those who had been functioning as priests in the
country — were not admitted to any work around the altar of the
Temple, the most important work of the Jerusalem priesthood and the
only real source of income left for priests after Josiah’s reform measures.
That a number of the priests who had been serving the sanctuaries of
the high places were Levites is indicated indirectly by Ezek. 44:10-14,
a fiercely Zadokite passage, however, whose exaggeratedly negative accu¬
sation of idolatry among the rival Levites can be discounted on the basis
of the positive attitude toward Levites evident in Deuteronomy and else¬
where. Nevertheless, the Yahwistic priests mentioned in the account of
Josiah’s reform are called simply “priests,” and there is no particularly
urgent reason to think that all the priests who had been serving the
country shrines were really Levites, in either the North or the South.
The priesthood of the Temple remained non-Levitical, and outsiders,
Levites or not, were not really admitted to priestly functions there: “the
priests of the high places could not go up to the altar of Yahweh in
Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread in the midst of their brethren”
(2 Kgs. 23:9). Those outsiders who found and accepted work in the
Temple could only function as cultic workers of inferior rank.
This may well be the historical situation behind the final develop-
ss This remark is worth making, because Alt, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums,"
p. 258, limits the southern measures to the areas belonging to Judah but not to
the territory of the “city-state of Jerusalem,” i.e., the area including Bethlehem and
Netophah in the south, Jerusalem itself, and the cities of Judah north of Jerusalem:
cf. Alt, "Bemerkungen zu einigen judaischen Ortslisten des Alten Testaments,” BBLAK
(= ZDPV) 68 (1946-51), p. 196 (= KS, II, 292). But the precision "from Geba to
Beersheba” expresses a totality which would include the cities, like Geba, north of
Jerusalem. Alt’s explanation is influenced by his own interpretation of the lists of
Levitical cities (Josh. 21:1-42; 1 Chr. 6:39-66), in which he sees Josiah’s reform as a
cause of the gap in the area between Jerusalem and Hebron ("Bemerkungen,” pp.
199-206 1= KS, II, 294-301]). Alt would also limit Josiah’s rather violent intervention
in the northern sanctuaries to the area in the hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh
— the territory of the northern gap in the Levitical lists. But the text of 2 Chr.
34:6 clearly states that this intervention was extended as far as the territory or
Nephtali, and, as Bright, History, p. 297, says, there is no positive reason to doubt this.
136 CHAPTER SIX. DEUTERONOMY AND ITS WAKE
ment of the oracle in 1 Sam. 2:27-36, directed originally against the Elides,
then gradually expanded to aim at other Levites besides the immediate
family of Eli. Although Noth, the most recent scholar accounting for
growth in the oracle, prefers to situate the final term of this development
earlier, in the times of divided monarchy,24 one may suspect that w. 35f.
belong to the time of Josiah, or slightly afterwards. When we read the
closing words of the oracle:
And it will come to pass, that everyone who is left of thy house
will come to bow down before him (the "faithful priest” of v. 35)
for a petty coin and a cake of bread, and will say “Please attach
me to one of the priestly functions, that I may have a morsel of
bread to eat!” — 1 Sam. 2:36
walk before Yahweh’s anointed one is consonant with that close associa¬
tion of Davidic dynasty and royal temple which lay at the heart of the
Jerusalemite nationalist-religious ideal expressed most explicitly in 2 Sam. 7
and underlying many of the oracles of Isaiah and Micah. The Zadokites
in Jerusalem were important personages by this time, and both king
and nobles had recourse to the leading priests in serious matters not
even limited to the cultic sphere (cf. Jer. 21:1; 29:24,29; 37:3). These
Zadokites of Jerusalem were undoubtedly men of considerable sophistica¬
tion, while the predominantly rural Levites were certainly not, and we
have an echo of this in the tone of 1 Sam. 2:36. A king would not be
particularly interested in having his trusted priests displaced by men
who were politically and socially inexperienced.
Josiah's suppression of possibilities for priestly work outside of Jeru¬
salem affected not only the Kingdom of Judah, but the territory of the
old Kingdom of Israel as well, where the cultic center of Bethel had
even experienced a temporary revival of sorts some time after Samaria
had fallen to the Assyrians, a deported priest having been sent back to
Bethel from his exile to teach the people how to fear Yahweh and follow
his customary laws (2 Kgs. 17:25-28). From now on, the South, with
Jerusalem, will be the only scene of development in legitimate priesthood.
has (or Deuteronomists have) very definite ideas on what functions should
be reserved to Levites, and these ideas may well be those used by Levitical
groups themselves in pushing their claims after the tactical defeat suffered
in the outcome of the Josian reform. The most revealing texts are
Dt. 10:8,27 and Dt. 31:9,25f.28
Dt. 10:8 ascribes to Moses the selection of the tribe of Levi “to carry
the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh for minister¬
ing unto him, and to bless in his name." According to Dt. 31:9, Moses
gave the written Law to "the priests, the sons of Levi, who carry the
Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, and to all the elders of Israel,” and
Dt. 31:25f. adds that Moses told "the Levites, who carry the Ark of the
Covenant of Yahweh,” to place the book of the Law beside the Ark.
The text of 10:8 offers us a picture of priestly functions drawn mostly
from the later strata of the Deuteronomic code: standing before Yahweh
(cf. Dt. 17:12; 18:5), ministering unto him, and blessing in his name
(cf. Dt. 18:5; 21:5).29 These texts in the code, with the exception of 21:5
(the late insertion which we have already examined), all read simply
"the priest.” The Deuteronomist makes the application to Levites, and,
in 10:8, adds a new function, the first to be mentioned: that of carrying
the Deuteronomistic edition as one of those examples which show how God's effi¬
cacious word and man's response were behind events in Israel’s history, seen as
the accomplishment of that word — the word of God in this instance being an
oracle against the Elides, and its accomplishment being shown in 1 Kgs. 2:27 with
the deposition of Abiathar. For other examples of the pattern: word of God — ac¬
complishment in an event, in the Deuteronomistic history, cf. von Rad, Studies in
Deuteronomy, pp. 78-81.
27 Dt. 10:6-9 is clearly later material interrupting the continuity of its preceding
and following context: cf., besides Noth, VS, p. 17, n. 3, the remarks of H. Cazelles,
Le Deuteronome (BJ; Paris, 1950), p. 55, note c); N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot (Ana¬
lecta Biblica, XX; Rome, 1963), p. 291. Vv. 6 and 7, with the figure of Aaron as:
priest and the succession of Eleazar in priesthood, show ideas proper to P, and
are probably even later than w. 8 and 9, in which the Levites themselves appear
as priests (an idea excluded by P). Vv. 8-9 were probably inserted immediately
after v. 5 (in which Moses puts the tablets of the Law in the Ark), the juncture
being inspired by partial analogy with the kind of concept found in Dt. 31:25f. (in
which Moses gives the book of the Law to the Levites to put in the Ark).
as On the literary criticism of Dt. 31:9 and 31:25f., cf. Noth, VS, pp. 39f., 214.
Noth entertains some doubts about attributing the expressions "the priests, the sons
of Levi, who carry the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” in 31:9 and "the Levites
carrying the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” in 31:25 to the Deuteronomist, be¬
cause they are not found, in precisely those words, in other Deuteronomistic texts.
Yet, the elements of both expressions are found throughout Josh. 3-4, in material
which Noth finds specifically Deuteronomistic (cf. Noth, Das Buck Josua, pp. 32-38).
If these texts are not actually of the Deuteronomist, they are characteristically found
in the work of the Deuteronomist, and they reflect attitudes contemporary with
his time.
29 The MT of 18:5 reads: "to stand to minister in the name of Yahweh,” while
the Samaritan and the Greek read, "to stand before Yahweh, thy God, to minister
(unto him) and to bless in his name.” The MT’s "to minister in the name of
Yahweh” is curious; perhaps it is the result of a corrector’s feeling it improper
for a levite (in the post-exilic sense) to bless, but admissible for him to "minister.”
The Samaritan and Greek give what was probably the original reading.
II. THE JOSIAN REFORM AND ITS AFTEREFFECTS 139
the Ark. The same function is the only one mentioned for the Levites
in 31.9 and 31:25, although these two texts show a certain association
of Levites with custody of the Law. The relation between Levites and
a moral custody of the Law we have seen to be an older tradition among
Levites and their sympathizers (prophetic groups, the cam ha-'dres, and
others sharing their religiously conservative, covenant-minded bent). Here,
the only new aspect is the actual, physical custody of the written document
of the Law with which Moses is said to have entrusted them.
Something entirely new, however, is the idea of Levites as carriers
of the Ark (distinguished in emphasis from the idea of Levites as
custodians of the Ark or of its sanctuary). It occurs also in the Deute-
ronomistic material of Josh. 3 and of Josh. 8:33: there it is the "priest-
Levites” who carry the Ark of the Covenant (Josh. 3:3; 8:33).30 Further¬
more, the Deuteronomistic editor of the story of the return of the Ark
from Philistine captivity, finding it somewhat sacrilegious for the Ark
to be touched by profane hands, has inserted a statement that it was
“Levites” who took it down from the cart near Beth-shemesh (1 Sam.
6:15), and in the account of the flight of David and his partisans from
Jerusalem during the revolt of Absalom the editor, after the text’s
mention of Zadok, has added: “and all the Levites with him, carrying
the Ark of the Covenant of God" (2 Sam. 15:24), a textual intervention
which has resulted in considerable disturbance of the rest of the text.
This notion is not ancient. At the time of the entrance into Palestine,
it is doubtful that priests of any kind were required to carry the Ark,
but by the time the Ark was settled properly with its own sanctuary
and the sanctuary’s priestly attendant in the Promised Land, sacral
propriety required that it be transported by priests (cf. 2 Sam. 6:6f. and
the late texts of Exod. 25:15; Num. 4:5,15, 20), even though the requirement
was not always really fulfilled (1 Sam. 7:1a, a case of necessity), and
the early narratives did not always take great pains to state that the
carriers were priests (2 Sam. 6:13,15,17). In the account of the crossing
of the Jordan, it is possible that it was the Deuteronomistic redactor who
consistently added the word "priests” to the participial expression “carrying
so Josh. 3 - 4 presents Old Testament literary criticism with one of its most com¬
plex problems, but for those who reckon at all with the presence of Deuteronomic
or Deuteronomistic elements in these chapters Josh. 3:2-4 is one section on which
all agree- S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.
reprinted; New York, 1957), p. 105, assigns it to D; Rudolph, Der “Elohist,", pp. 170,
279, to his Deuteronomiker; Noth, Das Buch Josua, p- 32, to the Deuteronomist.
Eissfeldt Hexateuch-Synopse, p. 206*, even in allotting this entire section to E, ex¬
cepts the words "of the Covenant” and “Levites” in 3:3, as being additions made
by D (cf. p. 280*). Our other text, Josh. 8:33, is found in a section (8:30-35) con¬
taining traditions which are decidedly pre-Deuteronomic, but the material has been
worked over by a Deuteronomistic hand, and v. 33 is one of the more easily detected
instances of Deuteronomistic work: cf. Eissfeldt, p. 281, Rudolph, pp. 198f., Noth,
Josua, pp. 51ff.
140 CHAPTER SIX. DEUTERONOMY AND ITS WAKE
the Ark” or “carriers of the Ark,”31 but the addition may just as well
be anterior to the Deuteronomist, coming perhaps from the hand of the
"collector” of the traditions,32 for the idea that priests alone should be
carriers of the Ark is older than the time of the Deuteronomistic redaction.
Even when priests did carry the Ark, however, in the older narratives
they were not necessarily Levites (cf. 2 Sam. 6:3 with 1 Sam. 7:1b;
1 Kgs. 8:3,6; also Zadok perhaps in the original state of 2 Sam. 15:24).
In certain cases they were Levites (Hophni and Phinehas in 1 Sam. 4:3-11;
Abiathar in 1 Kgs. 2:26), but for the incidental reason that the Ark being
carried happened at the time to be in a sanctuary cared for by Levites.
The idea that, not just priests, but specifically Levites should be carriers
of the Ark seems to be Deuteronomistic, to belong to the time after the
reform of Josiah and before the new formations which were to take shape
when Judah was recovering from the Exile.33
In the days before the monarchy the trump held by the Levites
had been the accepted notion that it was peculiarly fitting for Levites to
be in charge f sanctuaries. If it is true that the Levites were the
attendants and caretakers of the desert sanctuary, then they really were
the carriers of the Ark in the desert. Why, then, had no issue been
made of this before? 34 Because the whole situation involving Levites and
sanctuaries had not been the same before. In earlier days, the Ark,
indeed, had been in one place, one sanctuary, at any given time, but
there were other sanctuaries, too; Levites seeking attachment to other
The simple “carriers of the Ark” occurs only in 3:15a. Elsewhere in the
account of the crossing, the word “priests” is added before it (and in 3:3 "priest-
Levites”). Authorities are widely divided on the literary criticism of the verses in
Josh. 3-4 which mention priests carrying the Ark (except for 3:3), i.e., of 3:6,8,13,14,
15a,17; 4:9,10,11,16,17,18. Of the authorities mentioned in the preceding note. Driver
assigns all these verses either to D or to P, none to J or E. Rudolph and Noth
agree in assigning 3:14-17 and 4:9 to a previously existing source — for Rudolph
it is J, for Noth that of his Sammler. Driver and Noth also agree on a Deuteronomic
or Deuteronomistic character of 3:6,8. Eissfeldt distributes the material among J, E,
and his L.
32 On the work of the Sammler or “collector” postulated by Noth, cf. his Das
Buck Josua, pp. llff.; the idea can also be found in Rudolph, op. cit., pp. 164-211
(in the course of his analysis), but for Rudolph this already collected material be¬
longs, practically, to J.
33 The ideal of Levites carrying the Ark is retained by the Chronicler, who has
altered the account of David’s bringing the Ark to Jerusalem in such a way that
the unnamed bearers of the Ark in 1 Sam. 6 are made Levites (1 Chr. 15:2f., Ilf.);
in 15:2 he adds the peremptory statement that “The Ark of God can be carried
by no one but the Levites." He also makes Levites of the priests who brought the
Ark into the Temple of Solomon (2 Chr. 5:4). For P, with its systematic relegation
of levites to a position of inferiority to priests, this is inadmissible: levites must
not touch the Ark but must carry it with bars (Exod. 25:15), and if they draw
near to it before it has been 'covered by priests they do so at the peril of their,
lives (Num. 4:5,15,20).
34 In ancient traditions the tent and the Ark were not closely associated. Their
union must, however, have been effected already in David’s time: cf. G. von Rad,
Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (Munich, 1958), p. 237, n. 108.
III. THE KINGDOM'S END, AND THE EXILE 141
sanctuaries had to lay direct stress not on their having carried the Ark in
the desert but rather on their having taken care of the desert sanctuary.
In the situation obtaining in the period now concerning us, however,
there was only the one sanctuary, in Jerusalem, and further emphasis
on the aspect of sanctuary administration was tactically useless in the
face of the Zadokites. Both the administration of the Temple and the
work at the sacrificial altar in the courtyard of the Temple were firmly
in the hands of the Zadokites. Still, there remained less important types
of priestly service. If the Levites could successfully argue that they had
divine sanction for close contact with the Ark, they could hope for
admission to various types of priestly service in the Temple building itself,
where the Ark was kept. Their position would be inferior to that of the
Zadokites, but they would at least have some kind of priestly work open
to them. To judge from later developments, they were at least successful
in attaining this goal, although the affair was to go yet further, in
directions unforeseen.
year 630 (Zeph. 3:4).35 Conditions do not seem to have changed very
much with the passing of the years; the same kind of oracle is still being
pronounced during the final siege of Jerusalem (Jer. 34:19).
We even have a glimpse of a better side of the picture. Some
of the priestly elders were associated with Jeremiah (19:1), and when
Jeremiah in his poetic evocation of dire times in the land speaks of
prophets and priests wandering about the countryside as though out of
their senses (14:18), he is using an image which would not have had a very
strong impact if prophets and priests had not ordinarily been men upon
whom the people relied for good judgement; the imagery of the whole
oracle depends upon violent contrast with the situation before calamity
befell. Even through Jeremiah himself complained that
still the hope of the populace did rest on confidence that "instruction
would not fail with the priest, nor counsel with the sage, nor the word
with the prophet” (18:18).
Such optimism does not seem to have been in Jeremiah’s own eye
when he himself looked at the priests of Jerusalem,36 but Jeremiah
was probably somewhat prejudiced. He was from Anathoth, where there
were unpleasant memories attached to the Zadokite priesthood in Jeru¬
salem from its very beginning (1 Kgs. 2:26f.), and he was a man who
remembered Shiloh (Jer. 7:12,14; 26:6), a name which conjured up not
only the nostalgic religious past of Israel of the covenant but also the
rivalry between the Zadokites and those priestly elements excluded from
altar-functions in Jerusalem (1 Sam. 2:27-36; Jer. 26:9). Jeremiah himself,
a prophet, and of a priestly family, was to some extent a sign of con¬
tradiction to the picture he himself paints of both classes. There were
different types of priests and prophets, and Jeremiah was admittedly
an exceptional man.
Judah in general was sinful, and the priests of Judah too. The
Babylonians came and conquered. "Priest and prophet were killed in
the sanctuary,” mourned Lam. 2:20. One month after the fall of Jerusalem,
Nebuzaradan, Babylonian commander of the guard, destroyed the Temple
35 Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 424f., for the oracle’s authenticity and for a
date before the Josian reform’s complete accomplishment.
ss Jer. 31:14, which shows little hope for priests in Jeremiah’s heart, may not
be authentic: cf. W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT, 1/12; 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1958), p. 179.
III. THE KINGDOM’S END, AND THE EXILE 143
along with much of what was left in the city (2 Kgs. 25:8ff. = Jer. 52:12ff.)
and took Seraiah, the chief priest, Zephanaiah, the second priest, and
the three keepers of the sacred threshold, together with other members
of the highest echelon of royal Jerusalem, and brought them all to Riblah
in Syria, where they were executed (2 Kgs. 25:18-21 = Jer. 52:24-27).
We have almost no details on the conditions of the Jews actually
taken into exile after 587. We do know what kind of people were
taken into exile in the first deportation, in 597: the ruling class, warriors,
useful craftsmen and artisans — all of them men of real ability (2 Kgs.
24:14ff.). Priests were among them (Jer. 29:1), and Ezekiel must have
been one of their number (Ezek. 1:3 with 33:21). The Babylonian
selection of people to be deported followed a classical pattern, although,
unlike the Assyrians, the Babylonians did not bring in people from other
regions to take the place of those deported: members of the better
trained classes were deported, while the poor and the ineffectual were left
in the land, for they would not cause trouble that could not be managed
by the conquerors.37
It is impossible to say whether or not some Zadokites remained behind
in Jerusalem. People continued to go in pilgrimage to the site of the
ruined Temple, according to Jer. 41:5, but this detail is found in a
context which is chronologically situated a very short time after the
destruction, and the pilgrims were from the North, where definite word
of the presence or absence of possibilities for continuing accustomed
liturgical ceremonies in a more or less accustomed way may not yet
have penetrated. The introduction to the Book of Baruch (Bar. 1:1-14)
mentions a high priest in Jerusalem, the presence of the altar, and
provisions for elaborate sacrifices, all shortly after the destruction in 587,
but the passage is certainly not authentic, and the superscription itself
with the chronological data does not even belong to the original form
of the rest of the introduction.38 Enno Janssen, in placing Lamentations
in a liturgical setting, has seen such an oracular passage as Lam. 4:21f.
as evidence of the active presence of a priest in Jerusalem during the
Exile,39 but even Begrich, who isolated this particular oracular Gattung
and who held a priestly origin for it, was quite aware of its use by
— not a large number, and probably not the really poor client Levites of
Deuteronomy — would then be those first directly affected by this
distinction. The very unequal proportion of Levites to priests among
those returning from Babylonia was probably based on a genuinely
unequal proportion of those deported to Babylonia. We can fairly safely
say that a majority of important, functioning priests went into exile,
while a majority of Levites did not.
10
Chapter Seven
The problem now facing us is this: we know that before the Exile
the word “priest” was the name of a function, while the word "Levite”
was the name of a tribal group which had long before ceased to be
independent and which had been living among the other tribes, with
the status of particularly favored gerim. Deuteronomy had canonized the
idea that membership in the tribal remnant of Levi gave a man a right
to function as a priest if he wanted to, yet the outcome of Josiah’s
reform left it impossible for anyone who was not a Zadokite to function
as a sacrificing altar-priest. Deuteronomy had also insinuated unmistakably
that all priests ought to be Levites, yet the only legitimate priests now,
the Zadokites, were not Levites. Tensions were there to be resolved
somehow or other, and resolved they were, at the end of a process in
which all priests — and that means particularly the originally non-
Levitical Zadokites themselves — claimed to be of a special group of
Levites that was Aaronide ("the priests, the sons of Aaron”), while the
Levites in the broader and authentic sense remained in a position of
cultic subordination to the priestly group and were called simply "levites.”
At the end of this process, in fact, all cultic personnel, priestly or not,
had been made "levites” of one sort or another. Who were the Aaronides
originally, how did all this come to pass, when, and where?
1 For the parallels between Exod. 32 and 1 Kgs. 12:26-32, cf. M. Aberbach and
L. Smolar, "Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves,” JBL 86 (1967) 129-40, especially
Walter Beyerlin sees the original narrative of the golden calf (basically
vv. 1-6) as a favorable aetiological narrative for the particular form of
the worship at Bethel; the secondary material of Exod. 32 would, then,
have been negative material directed against the cult which in the earlier,
positive, narrative, had been legitimized.4 If this analysis is correct
(whether it is or not it something we need not decide here), would such
an early, aetiological, narrative for Bethel's cult mean to include an
aetiology for Bethel’s priesthood as such? And could such a priesthood
be called an "Aaronide” priesthood? This would practically require
Aaron's presence as a clearly priestly figure in the narrative, since neither
the presence the people alone nor the presence of Aaron as a non-
priestly figure is enough to provide auch an aetiology. But Aaron’s figure
in Exod. 32 is not that of a priest. He performs no priestly act, and
his building an altar (v. 5) is not an act reserved to priests in the Old
Testament: it is regularly, as here, an element in the account of the
foundation of a sanctuary, by men who were not priests (Gen. 12:7f.;
13:18; 26:25; 33:20; Josh. 22:10; Judg. 6:24; 2 Sam. 24:25).
Aaron's presence in Exod. 32 is determined rather by the setting of
the scene (at least in the ordering of the Pentateuchal narrative) at the
foot of Sinai. The Sinai-context is established by Exod. 24:12-15a — the
text immediately preceding Exod. 32 when the intervening material of
chapters 25-31 (belonging to P) is removed. In 24:14 Aaron and Hur
are left with the people at the foot of Sinai when Moses ascends the
mountain. If Aaron had been introduced in 24:14 in deliberate preparation
for 32:1-6, why would Hur, who is totally absent from chapter 32, and
totally unrequired either by chapter 32 or by the context of 24:14, be
placed with Aaron in 24:14? The presence of Aaron and Hur in 24:14
is more likely determined by their presence together in the relatively old
narrative of Exod. 17 (cf. 17:10,12),5 and the presence of Aaron in 24:14,
consequently, has not been contrived deliberately by someone who had
the golden calf narrative of chapter 32 in view. If the original nucleus
of the narrative of the golden calf really was favorable to the cult at
Bethel,1(5 and if at that stage Aaron was already present in the narrative,
then his role was not that of a priest meant to lend luster to the
priesthood of Bethel.
4 Beyerlin, op. cit., pp. 146f. The earlier, positive, form of the narrative would
have presented Aaron, too, in a favorable light: ibid.., p. 149; cf. also Pedersen, Israel,
III/IV, 192.
5 Noth, VP, p. 198; cf. also G. Westphal, “Aaron und die Aaroniden,” ZAW 26
(1906), p. 211.
e An original hostility towards Bethel is not proven by the element of the golden
calf in the narrative, an element which is probably authentic and which was by
no means necessarily idolatrous in the beginning of worship at Bethel, or before.
The calf was probably no more identified with the divinity itself than were the
analogous cherubim of Jerusalem: cf. O. Eissfeldt, "Lade und Stierbild,” ZAW 58
(1940/41), p. 205 (= Eissfeldt, Kl. Schr., II, 296).
I. EXODUS 32; AARON IN EARLY TRADITION 149
^ On this action as an ordeal, cf. R. Press, "Das Ordal im alten Israel,” ZAW
51 (1933), pp. 125f.
s The guilt of the people rather than of Aaron in this text is even more strongly
indicated if we take the Hiph'il hebe°ta as a Hiph'il used to express consent to the
root idea (Jouon, Grammaire, §54d), as T. J. Meek has taken it in his translation,
"that you have let them incur such great guilt," in The Complete Bible: an American
Translation (Chicago, 1939).
s Exod. 32:25b is a parenthetical remark as it now stands; had it been intended
by the same hand as that responsible for v. 25a, the verse would rather begin:
"And when Moses saw that Aaron had broken the people loose..." The mention
of Aaron presupposes that vv. 25-29 have already been united with at least the
essential part of the material which now precedes, and, as Holzinger, Exodus (KHC,
II), p. 109 points out, simsa in 25b is (ate Hebrew. V. 35b’s remark that Aaron made
the calf is superfluous after 35a’s statement that "Yahweh struck the people because
they made the calf." For Noth, Exodus, p. 201, vv. 21-24 and 35b are even later than
25b, as is the present text of vv. lb-4, which would be a substitute for a primitive
text in which Aaron had nothing at all to do with the golden calf before it was
already made by the people. In this he is followed by Lehming, op. cit., pp. 47f.,
who, in addition, interprets vv. 21-24 as a late attempt to exculpate an already in¬
culpated Aaron. For an opposite view on the originality of vv. lb-4, however, cf.
Beyerlin, op. cit., p. 24, n. 3.
150 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
in the narrative is not that of a priest but that of a leader at Sinai who
serves as an interlocutor in what dialogue the narrative requires.
10 Cf. Kenneit, op. cit., p. 163; Westphal, op. cit., pp. 211, 216; Noth, VP, pp. 195-99.
11 Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, pp. 81-88, and, for Exod. 32, pp. 88-95.
12 Ibid., p. 85.
is Ibid., pp. 82ff.
14 Ibid., pp. 84ff.
(some of them P) in which fathers bless their children, e. g., Gen. 27:4;
28.1,6, 32:1; 48:9. The texts in which Aaron appears with Moses before
Pharaoh also include texts in which Aaron, with his rod, has the aspect of
a magician of the true God (cf. Exod. 7:9f.,19; 8: lf.,12f.); the corresponding
actions, when performed by Egyptians, are performed by magicians (the
hartummlm of Exod. 7:22). Magical wonder-working may at some stage
or other of Israelite religion have been considered the business of a priest,
but we have no evidence that such was ever the case. Such acts remind
us rather of the stories recounted of the prophets Elijah and Elisha,
who were not considered priests.16
The figure of Aaron, then, is not yet a priestly one either in Exod. 32
or in other early Pentateuchal texts. The hypothesis that the “Aaronides”
were originally priests of Bethel becomes dubious.
The section on the Levites, vv. 25-29, as all today agree, was added
to the literary complex of Exod. 32 after that complex as a whole had
taken shape (with the remark on Aaron in v. 25b added still later). If
we ask ourselves at what chronological point this section was added,
we can answer only that it was done after the material against the
golden calf had achieved its unity. If that material as an assembled
literary whole belongs to a Northern E, then vv. 25-29 may not have been
added much before the eighth century, for nowhere in the ninth-century
stories of the combats of Elijah and Jehu against idolatry in the Northern
Kingdom do we find the golden calves in the North attacked, whereas
in the eighth century Hosea was railing against them (Hos. 8:5f.; 10:5;
13:2).17 If the material as a whole belongs to J,18 the general Southern
opposition to the schismatic sanctuaries of the North would make a
much earlier date possible, and for that matter, an earlier date in E is
not excluded, for the stories of Elijah and Jehu do not necessarily tell
is Gressmann, op. cit., p. 269, holds the original figure of Aaron in both Exod.
32 and Num. 12 to have been that of a priest (and Miriam’s in Num. 12 originally
to have been that of a priestess!). For Gressmann, Aaron and Miriam were priests
at an early stage, then, at a later stage of growth in tradition, they began to take
on the traits of prophets. One suspects strongly that it was the other way around,
as far as Aaron the prophet and Aaron the priest goes, and one wonders if Miriam
is ever a priestess at all in Biblical tradition.
ii A similar condemnation is attributed to Ahijah of Shiloh in 1 Kgs. 14:9, but
this text is an addition to the earlier part of the story of Ahijah, while, at the same
time, it is itself earlier than the Deuteronomistic redaction. Cf. Noth, US, pp. 79ff.
is The greater part of the material in Exod. 32 is usually attributed to E or an
Elohistic complex, but Rudolph, Der “Elohist,” p. 49, thinks it comes more likely
from southern Levitical circles, although not belonging to J, which Rudolph dates
before the time of Jeroboam I and the origins of his schismatic cult. Noth, UP,
p. 33, n. 115, calls it a secondary element within J, except for vv. 7-14 (“Deutero¬
nomistic”: n. 113). S. Lehming, "Versuch zu Ex. XXXII,” also ascribes it to J.
152 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
all.19 On the other hand, a date much later than the fall of the Northern
Kingdom and the end of its royal cult in the eighth century is not likely,
and the disparate units had been assembled by the time J and E — what¬
ever we understand by "J” and "E” — had taken shape. This was still
the time of an Aaron who lacked priestly color in the traditions.
Both express a stout-hearted detachment from kith and kin which appears
to have been an integral part of Levitical traditions. The section in
Exod. 32, moreover, has as its conclusion the conferment of priesthood
on the sons of Levi by Moses himself, the most telling aetiology we have
for the priestly rights of the Levites. We have here a fragment of a
classical aetiological tradition explaining the appropriateness of priest¬
hood among Levites, torn asunder from its original context and inserted
in its present context. The original event, historical or not, on which
this aetiology was built is lost, but the central idea of the aetiology is
that as a result of some act of vigorous and heroic fidelity on the part
of the Levites, an act which required the decimation of relatives of the
Levites themselves, the remaining Levites acquired priestly standing, the
acquisition being sealed with Mosaic approbation. The similarity of Exod.
32:27,29 to Dt. 33:9a need not show direct literary dependence of either
19 R. de Vaux,
"Le schisme religieux de Jeroboam Ier,” Angelicum 20 (1943), p. 82.
20 Gressmann,Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 215f. Noth, VP, p. 160, n. 416, thinks,
however, that the block of vv. 25-29 was composed specifically for insertion in its
present context and that it is, accordingly, meant from the outset to be a polemic
against the non-Levitical priesthood of Bethel; we have already noted that he does
not hold it to be in any way anti-"Aaronide.’’ Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester,
pp. 35ff., concludes, rightly I think, that vv. 25-29 express an opposition of value
between zealous Levites and sinful people, not between Levites and a rival priesthood,
and that Aaron does not figure here at all before the later addition of v. 25b. Gun¬
neweg leaves open the question whether vv. 25-29 were originally composed for
insertion into the complex of Exod. 32 or had a previous separate existence.
I. EXODUS 32; AARON IN EARLY TRADITION 153
text on the other, and, in fact, does not seem to show such dependence.
The idea is put differently in each text, and both appear to be separate
expressions of a common traditional theme. The text of Deuteronomy
does nothing to explain its startling remarks on Levi and his kinsmen,
taking it for granted, instead, that the readers or hearers know the back¬
ground-story well enough to grasp the allusion. A form of the story
itself is partially preserved in the fragment in Exodus.21
When we pause to consider the matter more closely, we notice that
the story explains not only the priesthood of the Levites but also the
partial disappearance of the Levites as a full tribe, for this decimation
of kinsmen serves also to explain the reduction of the tribal Levites,
who had survived only as gerim. The two things are explained together.
The story itself is governed by a double meaning, a sort of pun or
word-play, on the ambiguous expression "to fill (the) hand,” which in
Classical Hebrew is often used to denote entrance upon a priestly office
(Exod. 28:41; 29:9,33,35; Lev. 8:3; 16:32; 21:10; Num. 3:3; Judg. 17:5,12;
1 Kgs. 13:33), but which is also used of having one's hand filled with
profit gained from another (Ps. 26:10), and even of filling one’s hand with
justice (cf. Ps. 48:11).22 According to the aetiological fragment of Exod.
32:25-29, the Levites, rallying to Moses’ call for fidelity to Yahweh, took
sword in hand and killed many Israelites, and particularly other Levites
— their "sons and brothers.” The misfortunes of the Levites as a tribe
are thus explained to the credit of the Levites themselves. The climax
of the faithful Levites’ dramatic intervention comes with Moses' cry in
v. 29: "Fill your hands today (or with the LXX and Targum Onkelos,
"Today you have filled your hands”) for Yahweh, each man at the expense
of his son and his brother, so that he (Yahweh) may give you his blessing
today.” 23 Here the double meaning of the expression "to fill the hand”
comes into play: the Levites are there with the human spoils of justice
after their intervention, and at the same time this is bound intimately
and inseparately with the assumption of priesthood by the Levites, which
is what the narrative wishes to explain: the Levites, as a result of their
"filling their hands” in the slaying of their kinsmen, have “filled their
hands” in the sense of becoming priests. The procedure is splendidly
Semitic. It is a form of that kind of aetiology found in countless Old
Testament narratives which explain the origins of a place, a person, a
group of people, with a story using a word-play, thereby furnishing an
etymology which is scientifically inexact but, to simple people, delightful
and striking, while at the same time providing an aetiology. Indeed,
behind Moses’ exclamation may even be a desire in the narrative to
provide a popular explanation for the very expression "to fill the hand”
in the sense of "to become a priest,” which the Israelites themselves
must have found rather curious. As an aetiology was being given for
the priesthood of the Levites, the expression “to fill the hand” as applied
to entrance upon priestly function was itself given a popular explanation
in terms of its not unfamiliar, and more easily explicable, use in the
sense of a spoil-taking, after an armed altercation, which could even
entail the taking of human lives.24
23 In the light of the usage now known from the Mari texts, we may be quite
justified in translating, "each man (filling his hands) with (Hebrew be) his son and
his brother” — all the more so because "to fill with” is the normal sense of mille*
in Hebrew. The kinsmen themselves, and their lives, are the spoils, the vanquished
men put to death.
24 G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, pp. 249f., has objected to seeing
the expression “fill your hands” in Exod. 32:29 as one having to do directly with
the Levites’ becoming priests, limiting it instead to the sort of concrete sense that
"to fill the hand” has in 2 Kgs. 9:24 (Jehu "filled his hand” with a bow), but Gray
would still admit some obscure allusion to priesthood. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus
(HS, 1/2; Bonn, 1934), pp. 234f., objects that no one fills his own hands and makes
himself a priest, so that any interpretation of Exod. 32:29 in this sense must be
false. Heinisch would interpret the text as meaning “fill your hands with a sacri¬
fice,” i.e., make a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Yahweh. It is true that in the late
text of 1 Chr. 29:5 the expression "to fill one’s (own) hand” is used in the sense
of filling one’s hand with a gift for cultic offering, but in the older text of Lev. 16:32,
which unmistakably has to do with entrance into priestly office, a priest does, just
as unmistakably, fill his own hand. The same may be true of the late 2 Chr. 29:31a,
if it is addressed to the levites of the preceding verse, with the address to the
I. EXODUS 32; AARON IN EARLY TRADITION 155
people beginning only in v. 31b, but the case is not clear enough. At any rate,
as Noth, Exodus, p. 206 says, the interest of the aetiological fragment of Exod.
32:25-29 lies in the climax: the Levites were to be priests.
25 Lehming, "Versuch zu Ex. XXXII,’’ pp. 43f., has found the felicitous expression
"apology” (rather than polemic) for the primitive sense of vv. 25-29, although he
believes the over-all sense of Exod. 32, once Aaron has been artificially given a more
active role in the episode, to be polemical and to be directed against the Northern
sanctuary’s priesthood. This does not affect the question of vv. 25-29, for Lehming
situates such a development of Aaron’s role after the incorporation of these verses
into their present context.
156 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
at least one of which (v. 25b), if not both, was added after vv. 25-29.
The time and source of these latest additions are difficult to deter¬
mine. 28 If what we shall propose below is valid, they probably came
from sympathizers with the Levitical position, or from Levitical circles
whose hopes lay in maintaining the old claims of Levi and rejecting the
new ones of Aaron, when Aaron the Levite was being used as the epo¬
nymous head of a group (essentially Zadokite) seeking to establish itself
as more Levitical than the Levites themselves.
At any rate, if it is granted that Exod. 32, minus the two late added
phrases in vv. 25b and 35b, is not the echo of a dissension between
Levites and a group of priests styling themselves "sons of Aaron,” then
it is no longer tenable that the Levites were struggling with Aaronides
as early as the time when J and E took consistent shape; nor is it tenable
that the Aaronides were originally a group of priests at Bethel in the
North, or that Exod. 32 represents a polemic between Southern Zadokites
and "Northern Aaronides.”
fails to explain how after the Exile Zadokites could possibly have remade
Jerusalem instead of Bethel the place of the national sanctuary simply
by styling themselves Aaronides, if the transfer of that shrine’s locality
to Bethel were so popular a thing.
Welch’s view is a more sober one.29 According to his theory, it
would be an over-simplification to represent Ezra’s work of restoring
the Temple as the work of the returned exiles. The remnant in Palestine
had renewed sacrificial worship on the site of the destroyed Temple in
Jerusalem, and Neh. 10 would contain the dispositions on which they
agreed for the maintenance of that worship.3,0 Whereas Ezekiel insisted
that only Zadokites should be priests, with levites relegated to a menial
position, the re-establishment after the Exile saw a compromise which
would settle the problem by refusing to limit the priesthood to Zadokites
and widening the circle to include all those who could claim descent
from Aaron, i.e. to include the priests who had remained in Judah. The
same compromise, while refusing to admit levites to a status of equality,
also refused to degrade them.
Most of Welch’s theory has much to be said in its favor. The only
part of it to which one might really want to take exception is Welch’s
postulation of organized priestly activity in Palestine during the Exile.
There may have been some such activity there, but it would have been
of an unofficial character, if it existed at all. The document of Neh. 10,
no matter what is thought about its original provenance and the circum¬
stances of its incorporation into the present text of Nehemiah, certainly
supposes a Temple that is standing and in use, not a ruined one whose
rebuilding is only projected,31 and Welch’s situation of that document in
the period of the Exile has not found acceptance in subsequent studies.
It may be noted that Welch does not deal with the question of the original
Aaronides; he merely notes the role Aaron had in the genealogical lists
which belong to the post-exilic period.32 A number of problems remain
for us to grapple with.
29 A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (The Schweich Lectures, 1938; Lon¬
don, 1939), pp. 157-60.
so Welch gives his reasons for so interpreting Neh. 10 in his Post-Exilic Judaism
(Edinburgh, 1935), pp. 67ff.
31 Cf. W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT, 1/20; Tubingen, 1949), pp. 180f.
32 The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 85f.
II. THE ZADOKITE-LEVITE COMPROMISE 159
The figure of Aaron the priest becomes clear only after the Exile,
in P, but that figure was not something which P constructed without
antecedents. We have observed that the early traditions preserved in
the Pentateuch do not consider Aaron a priest, but the quest for the
figure of Aaron, leader in the desert, leads us already to southern Judah
and its traditions.33 In the same region we find the tradition on Aaron
and the elders eating bread before God (Exod. 18:12).34
We do not find demonstrably Northern traditions on Aaron. Exod. 32
in its present form does have to do with the cult at a Northern sanctuary,
but — apart from the doubt surrounding the precise nature of the golden
calf episode in its earliest stage of tradition, and the doubt about Aaron’s
role in the episode at that stage — our previous discussion, with the
divergent views of authorities cited, has shown at least that arguments
can be given for a Southern background to Exod. 32 just as well as for
a Northern background. The reference to Aaron (with Moses) among
Josh. 24’s old, and presumably Northern, Shechem traditions, in Josh. 24:5a
(missing in the LXX), is, in all probability, a very late gloss.35 The figure
of Aaron seems, then, to have belonged originally to the South, and if
that is the case, the suspicion arises that a group of men calling them¬
selves Aaronides or sons of Aaron also ought to be sought in the South,
not in the North.
When we pursue our search further, we come to the list of Levitical
cities whose more original form is given in Josh. 21:9-42, paralleled in
1 Chr. 6:39-66 (LXX 6:54-81). 36 In the distribution of these cities through
uses material already at hand,40 is using a fact still well known (that
the Aaronides were related to the Kohathites) as the foundation for its
genealogical derivation of Aaron from Kohath.
The groups in the city-list more credibly show a certain regional
solidarity which had gradually grown up among the Levites once they
had progressed from the stage of wandering gerim to that of settled
gerim scattered throughout the land — a regional solidarity expressed,
in Israelite fashion, by setting up descent from a common ancestor. The
arrangement is hardly a primitive one. We can not reasonably expect
that the wandering individual Levites of pre-monarchical days would so
consistently have assembled in previously existing clans when they were
settling down. The clans of Num. 26:58ab« are probably those of a
previously existing arrangement: the names of two of them (the Libnites
and the Hebronites) are based on place-names in southern and south¬
western Judah, and we know that what traces we have of the early
Levites do lead us to the south of Palestine. Subsequently, the circum¬
stances of Levitical settlement dissolved those ancient unities, and new
ones based on the geographical areas of the settlement throughout the
other tribes then arose. The Aaronide group took shape as a part of
this process, and the Aaronides were in the South, precisely where the
traditions on Aaron, the priest, seem to have come into being.
The dating of the list of Levitical cities is disputed, and the question
of an original list and the list in its present form is involved in the
dispute.41 Rather than enter upon that problem in all its details, let
us merely note that even according to the minimal theory, which holds
the terminus cl quo for the list as it stands to be no earlier than the
reform of Josiah, we are still in the pre-exilic period, and still in the
period when two tensions were greatest: the ideological tension between
the principle that priests should be Levites and the fact that the Zadokites
40 The names Libni, Hebron, Mahli, and Mushi, all treated as personal names
in Exod. 6:17ff. and other genealogical constructions, are derived from the names
of the Levitical clans in the ancient tradition found in Num. 26:58, on whose antiquity
cf. Noth, Das System der Zwolf Stdmme Israels, pp. 122-32, with Mohlenbrink, op. cit.,
P 41 w. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 121-25, and op. cit.
(above n 36), argues for an original date not much after the time of David and
Solomon,'on the grounds that certain cities in the list were not under Israelite
control very long afterwards; cf. also B. Mazar, "The Cities of the Priests and the
Levites ” VT Suppl 7 (1960) 193-205. M. Noth, "Uberlieferungsgeschichthches zur zwei-
ten Haifte des Josuabuches,” in Alttestamentliche Studien Fnedri^ Nots°%%
60. Geburtstag gewidmet (Bonner Biblische Beitrage, I; Bonn, 1950), pp. 164-67, dis¬
agrees with Albright’s chronological conclusions, but abstains from trying hims
to offer a definite solution. On Alt’s views, dating the list after Josiah’s reform,
cf. above, Chapter Six, n. 23.
11
162 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
were not, and the sociological tension between the entrenched Zadokites
and those Levites seeking to make a living as priests.
The next problem in dating is caused by the division into the three
groups and the Aaronide subgroup. Hertzberg claims that this division
can only lead us into the post-exilic period when, alone, it would have
any significance.42 But its significance may quite well be just what it
purports to be: a demographic subdivision within a larger tribal group.
One wonders what its post-exilic significance would be if it were not
originally just that, for it was not absolutely necessary for the Aaronides
to be derived from the Kohathites (in Num. 7:8 they are not), and the divi¬
sion into Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites serves little pragmatic
purpose in the post-exilic material. The three groups are mentioned in
genealogical lists, but the two not used for Aaronide derivation are not
continued: cf. 1 Chr. 5:27-41 (LXX 6:1-15). Some isolated confirmation
of the group-locations given by the city-list is afforded by Judg. 18:30:
the priest of new Dan in the extreme North was "son of Gershom,” and
it is there in the far North — in Naphtali, Issachar, and Asher — that
Josh. 21:27-33 puts the Gershonites. According to Num. 3:21-37; 4:2-33,
the Kohathites are supposed to carry the Ark, and that does have some
significance, while the functional distinction between Gershonites and
Merarites has little significance: the Gershonites have charge of tent
coverings, curtains, doorscreens, hangings, and their appurtenances, while
the Merarites have charge of the frames, bars, columns, pedestals, columns,
and their appurtenances. One has the impression that this distinction
between the work of the Gershonites and that of the Merarites is made
solely because the genre required somthing of the sort to correspond
with a real division within the tribe known from tradition.
Noth presents the more specific argument that it is the derivation
of the Aaronides from the Kohathites which is post-exilic.43 Inspection
of the Old Testament material, though, reveals that as time passes the
connexion between the Aaronides and the Kohathites grows not stronger
but weaker. In the genealogy of early P in Exod. 6:16-23 the connexion
is there.44 In the clan distribution worked with by Num. 3, Eleazar,
son of Aaron (v. 32) presides over the Kohathites (w. 27-31), although
he is not made a part of them. In the more recent strata of P, the
“sons of Aaron” are quite distinct in function from the "sons of Kohath”
42 H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD, IX; Gottingen, 1954),
p. 118.
43 Das Buch Josua, p. 131.
44 That the genealogical list of Exod. 6:14-27 is an insertion in already existing
material hardly needs demonstration, and its attribution to P is not disputed. That
the list itself is compounded from previously extant genealogical elements having
a separate existence already before the Exile has been argued by Mohlenbrink, "Die
levitischen Uberlieferung," pp. 207ff„ but he would not take the attachment of Aaron
to the Kohathite lineage as anything more than secondary, although early (before
the Exile?): loc. cit. and pp. 187ff.
II. THE ZADOKITE-LEVITE COMPROMISE 163
49 Ibid., p. 132.
50 On the basis of Num.26:58, add Libnah and Hebron to the partial list in
Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 123.
si Although an opinion like that of Holzinger, Exodus (KHC, II), p. 9, can be
found assigning Exod. 4:14 to a late redaction of P because of Aaron's being called
a Levite, the majority of scholars assign the verse to an earlier source, J or E, yet
allowing in various ways for its belonging to a later stratum within J or E; thus:
O. Procksch, Das nordhebrdische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle (Leipzig, 1906), p. 68,
n. 1 (secondary within E); G. Beer, Exodus (HAT, 1/3), p. 12 (E, but on p. 36: an
addition of younger hands, because of the growth of Aaron’s role in the tradition);
Noth, VP, p. 31 with n. 103 (an addition to J).
52 Baudissin, Geschichte, pp. 58f., Procksch, loc. cit., S. R. Driver, The Book of
II. THE ZADOKITE-LEVITE COMPROMISE 165
cities makes him and his sons members of the tribe of Levi, but it is
only the secondary material, very easily post-exilic, which makes him a
priest. Aaron’s intrusion beside Moses may in some cases, like Exod.
8:21; 10:8,10f., have been determined by the original text’s mention of
sacrifice, which by the time of the later monarchy was a strongly priestly
attribute, but the intrusions as a whole may show a Levitical influence,
and the fact that certain of the intrusions may be made with a priestly
prerogative in mind is not suprising, if the intrusions came from groups in
which priestly prerogatives were a continuing interest. Such intrusions can
show a directly Levitical concern with only an indirectly priestly concern.
In addition to the suggestion, already dealt with, that the Aaronides
were originally priests of Bethel, it has been proposed that they were
from the beginning Zadokites of Jerusalem seeking to legitimize them¬
selves as Levites by appealing to a Levitical Aaron as their ancestor, and
opposing him to a Levitical Moses held by the authentic Levites to be
their ancestor.53 To this, one must object that, whatever can be said
about the traditions of opposition or rivalry between Aaron and Moses
(Exod. 32:21-24; Num. 12:1-9,11), we have already noted that in these
texts there is no allusion to priesthood involved, and it is not demonstrable
that Levites appealed to Moses in opposition to another group appealing
to Aaron. The text of 1 Sam. 2:27-36, which comes almost certainly from
Zadokite circles in its present form, makes no appeal to Aaron (for the
"faithful priest” of 1 Sam. 2:35 must be chronologically posterior to Eli),
and does not mention Moses (for to see Moses as that father of the house
of Eli mentioned in w. 27f. is gratuitous). Finally: the exilic text in
Ezek. 44:6-16 is overtly anti-Levitic and pro-Zadokite, but neither in this
passage nor in any of the other texts found in Ezekiel is the figure of
Aaron used at all.
The general result of our inquiry indicates that the Aaronides were
indeed members of the tribe of Levi, and that the members of the tribe
who lived in Judah — excepting north-western Judah between the moun¬
tain country and the coastal plain — were, for some time before the
Exile, those known (at least among themselves) as sons of Aaron. If this
is so, then the majority of those Levites seeking admission to priestly
Exodus (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge, 1911), p. 29,
Noth, VP, pp. 195, 197, say that since "Levite” in Exod. 4:14 distinguishes Aaron from
Moses (who, according to Exod. 2:1, was a Levite), the qualifier “Levite” in 4:14
refers not to a tribe but to a function. But the text’s insisting on Aaron's being
a Levite is not necessarily meant to distinguish him from Moses; it can quite as
well be an emphasis on a point the writer wanted to make and which at that time
was not yet universally taken for granted: that Aaron was a Levite.
s3 R. Smend, Die Erzdhlung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin,
1912), pp. 352-60; Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, p. 281.
166 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
57 Cf. above, pp. 137-41. Gese, op. cit., pp. 64f., holds that in Ezek. 40:45-46a
the priests of higher rank serve the altar, and those of lower rank the Temple
(bayit), while in the "Zadokite” stratum’s Ezek. 44:11-15 Zadokites serve the sanc¬
tuary (miqdas; the understanding is Gese’s, p. 127), and the Levites the Temple area
(bayit; again, the understanding is Gese’s p. 127); in a third text, Num. 18:1-7 (P),
the Aaronides serve both the altar and the sanctuary (qodes), the Levites the tent.
Building on these observations, Gese says (p. 121) that both the situation implied
by Ezek. 40:45-46a and that implied by the somewhat later Ezek. 44:11-15 have been
worked and blended into Num. 18 (and Num. 3-4, also P). This may be the case,
but Gese goes on to reason that the arrangement in P is earlier than that of the
Zadokite stratum in Ezekiel (without denying that Num. 18, as a written document,
could be later than the texts in Ezekiel), and, since in Num. 18:5’s allotment of
both altar service and sanctuary service to Aaronides he sees a provision for two
groups — the sons of Eleazar (Zadokites) and the sons of Ithamar — among the
Aaronides, he then concludes that the alliance between the Zadokites and the sons
of Ithamar is chronologically prior to Ezek. 44:6-31’s program for an exclusively
Zadokite priesthood, not chronologically posterior to it.
To this some exception can be taken. Num. 18 does not mention Zadok, Eleazar,
or Ithamar at all, and we have no texts which suggest that the division between
the sons of Eleazar (Zadokites) and sons of Ithamar corresponds to the division
of work between altar service and sanctuary service (so, rightly, Gunneweg, Leviten
und Priester, p. 190). We have no evidence that an exclusivly Zadokite priesthood
was chronologically posterior to P's Aaronide priesthood including both Zadokites
(sons of Eleazar) and sons of Ithamar; we have no texts clearly prior to the post-
exilic period which associate Eleazar and Ithamar, but for the post-exilic period,
even outside of P, we have Ezra 8:2. Nor should we forget that Num. 18, like the
rest of the material in P, takes Aaron for granted as the all-important ancestor of
the Zadokites; none of the strata in Ezekiel make any use of him, or any mention
of him, at all.
168 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
58 That these netinim are descendants of those before the Exile and not Levites
who have actually been reduced to that state is shown by two cases in which ethno¬
logical rather than genealogical derivation is given (in Ezra 2:50 = Neh. 7:52) and
by the rarity of Yahwistic theophoric names among them; on the other hand, they
had been associated ethnically with the Israelites, otherwise they would hardly have
been included in the lists of those returning: cf. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 23.
59 The distinction is taken very much for granted in the more recent texts found
in Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 1:5; 3:8ff.; 12:6,10,18,20 etc.; Neh. 8:13) and in Chronicles
(1 Chr. 6:33f; 9:2,10,14; 13:2; 15:4,14 etc.; 2 Chr. 5:12; 7:6; 8:14f. 11:13 etc.). Is the
list in Ezra 2 = Neh. 7 one drawn up in Nehemiah’s time, or is it an older list from
the time of an initial return movement before the year 520? G. Holscher, "Die
Bucher Esra und Nehemia,” in HSAT, II (4th ed.; Tubingen, 1923), pp. 503f., sees
the document as a list of worshipers in the Temple made largely for reasons of
taxation, after the time of Nehemiah; cf. also R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old
Testament (3rd ed.; New York, 1941, pp. 822, 836). This position is extreme and has
not won a following. F. Ahlemann, "Zur Esra-Quelle,” ZAW 59 (1942/43), pp. 81ff.,
87f., interprets it as an enumeration of those who returned with Ezra, and that
would take us down at least to the year 458. For Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia,
pp. 16f., it must date from slightly before 520, and for K. Galling, "The ‘Gola-List’
II. THE ZADOKITE-LEVITE COMPROMISE 169
The numbers given for priests and levites in this list are impossible
to evaluate for real accuracy, but they surely express a general proportion
of some validity. The list counts 4,289 priests, but only 74 levites.
Ezra could obtain only a small number of levites to accompany him
from Babylonia to Palestine (Ezra 8:15-20), and the figures in the list
given by Neh. 11 for the population of Jerusalem total 1192 priests, but
only 284 levites, even when the temple-singers are included. The small
proportion of levites has been explained by the fact that Levites were
not deported in large numbers in the first place, and that those in
Babylonia would not care to return to a situation in which they would
be mere temple-servants.60 But we should not overlook the relatively
large number of netinim who returned: they are 392 in the list of Ezra
2:58 = Neh. 7:60, and 220 of them accompany Ezra according to Ezra 8:20;
so their number is considerably larger than that of the returning levites.
The lot of the netinim, who had not yet been assimilated to the levites,
would, if anything, be worse than that of the latter, yet they returned
in numbers greater than those of the latter. We need not doubt that the
number of Levites led into captivity was not very large, but the number
of Zadokite priests taken from Jerusalem may not have been as large
proportionately as that indicated in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah for
those returning. The numbers given for priests may have been swollen
by the accretion of non-Zadokite priests.
If this hypothesis is correct, a number of Levites (members of the
tribe of Levi) had assured for themselves acceptance in priestly status
even by the Zadokite element in Babylonia, by the time of the return
to Judah. Not all Levites would have succeeded in doing this, or could
have succeeded in doing so; those who did not were left in the status
of simple non-priestly levites. How might those Levites counted as priests
have managed to achieve this? In the first place, the new hope and
relaxation of tensions following upon the common trials of defeat and
according to Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7,” JBL 70 (1951) 149-58, from slightly after 520.
Rudolph accepts it as an authentic list of those returning; Galling takes it as a
list of the worshipers already in Palestine. For W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period
from Abraham to Ezra (New York - Evanston, 1963), p. 92; p. 110, n. 180, it is origi¬
nally a census-list of Judah, begun at the restoration and including both the re¬
turned exiles and Jews already established in the district, with corrected numbers
and additional entries to bring it up to date down to the time of Nehemiah, about
a hundred years later. If, as is possible, the original structure is from the time
of the first return at the end of the sixth century, whether before or after the
people listed had actually arrived in Palestine, then the distinction between priests
and levites in the list reflects the situation already obtaining at the beginning of
the restoration. It can also, to be sure, be later.
eo E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (Halle, 1896), pp. 175ff.; Rudolph,
Esra und Nehemia, p. 22; de Vaux, Les institutions, II, 223f., 254 G. Holscher’s
explanation ("Levi," in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie, XII/2, col. 2185) that tor
the priests all males of age fitting them for service are counted, while for the levites
and the lesser cultic personnel only those actually employed are counted, has little
if anything to support it.
170 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
exile must have done much to assuage old antagonisms and to build up
a new spirit of partnership which would make it easier for the Zadokites
and their rivals to bury the proverbial axe.61 Once the Zadokites themselves
had admitted the principle that priests should be Levites, it would be
somewhat awkward to bar all Levites from priesthood, and besides, the
absence of sacrificial worship during the Exile meant that the question
of whether one was a priest or not had little pragmatic significance for
the time being. Furthermore, we know from the final chapters of the
present Book of Isaiah that in the climate of early post-exilic Judaism
there was a certain lack of concern for traditional rights and privileges in
the matter of who might be a priest or a levite. In Isa. 61:6 the Israelites
at large are told that in the coming era of greatness they will "be called
'priests of Yahweh’ and 'ministers of our God’,” and in the universalist
text of Isa. 66:21 Yahweh even declares that he will make some of the
foreigners coming to Mount Zion priests and levites.
Those Levites who managed to be accepted as priests may have done
so on the basis of their personal qualities. It was the better type of
man who was regularly deported in the deportations of the Ancient Near
East, and a man of this type, especially if he already had some sort of
priestly background, could more easily, though perhaps grudgingly, be
accepted by the Zadokites who continued to form the core of the Jewish
priesthood. Those exiled Levites who were unable to make such personal
qualities felt remained levites (with an increasingly small 1), and returned
as such. The netinim had no chance of any assimilation to the ranks
of the priests, but, like the levites, returned anyway. Most Levites had
never left Palestine.
The head of the priesthood in the restored Temple was Joshua, son
of Jehozadak (Hag. 1:1 etc.; Zech. 6:11; Ezra 3:2 etc.), whose father
was Seraiah, the last of the Zadokite chief priests of Jerusalem before 587
(2 Kgs. 25:18 = Jer. 52:24), according to the genealogical data proffered
by 1 Chr. 5:40 (LXX 6:14). In the documents having to do with the
early return to Palestine there is no mention of Aaron or of the "sons
of Aaron.” If the hypothesis we have evolved in the preceding paragraph
carries weight, some mingling of Zadokites and priestly Levites had
already been done, but Aaron was not yet used to seal the matter
genealogically. This may even be the stage at which the text of David's
cabinet officers was altered in 2 Sam. 8:17 to bring Zadok into the family
of the Elides.
61 Gunneweg, Leviten and Priester, p. 196, makes a good point in stressing the
difference between the fanatically exclusive tone of the Zadokite stratum in Ezekiel
in dealing with non-Zadokites and the calmer tone of P, which allows for a certain
amount of compromise and is concerned with fixing arrangements already made.
II. THE ZADOKITE-LEVITE COMPROMISE 171
Somewhat later, with Ezra, there are two groups of priests returning
from Babylonia: the descendants of Phinehas and the descendants of
Ithamar (Ezra 8:2): the beginning has been made of the widespread
genealogical construction which will make both Zadokites (through Phi¬
nehas son of Eleazar) and non-Zadokites (through Ithamar) Aaronides.62
Ezra himself is attached by the text of Ezra 7:1-5 to Aaron through the
lineage of Eleazar. It has been suggested that the origins of this con¬
struction of a double priestly lineage with a common forefather, Aaron,
are to be sought in Babylonia between the time of Zerubbabel and the
time of Ezra. 63 From the evidence available to us, this is quite likely
the case. This construction is not known in the list of Ezra 2 = Neh. 7,
but it was applied in the list of those coming with Ezra from Babylonia
(Ezra 8:2); yet, at that same time it was not used in Palestine (cf. Ezra
10:18-22). Nevertheless, we can not entirely exclude the possibility that
the same construction was developing in Palestine, where the document
of Neh. 10:2-28, probably recovered from archives where it had been kept
from the time of Nehemiah himself,64 includes a list of priests (Neh.
10:3-9) whose individual names, when compared with those of other texts,
suggest that the priestly groupings in Palestine were rearranging them¬
selves and tending toward the eventual common derivation from Aaron.65
Whether the Zadokites became "sons of Aaron” in Babylonia or in
Palestine, or in both places more or less simultaneously (the Jews in
Babylonia not lacking contact with their brethren in Judah, as we know
from Ezekiel), they did this by assimilation with another group. This
group, when all the evidence is in, appears to be that of the Levites who
before the Exile had been living in Judah: the Kohathite group of
62 We can not say why the name Ithamar was chosen. Phinehas, if drawn from
documents or traditions which have come down to us, must have been inspired by
1 Sam. 1:3; 2:34; 4:4, with perhaps Judg. 20:27f. Phinehas, by reason of his Elide
and Levitical background in tradition, was particularly suitable for a genealogical
construction seeking to assimilate "Zadokites” to those associated with the name
of Zadok's traditional rival, Abiathar, but, as ancestor of Abiathar, somewhat clumsy
for use as an ancestor of Zadok, in any genealogy seeking at the same time to
keep the two groups distinct. The disadvantage for any desire to keep Zadokites
and Abiatharides distinct seems to have been sensed quickly, for Phinehas was soon
moved down a degree and given a father, Eleazar, as head of the Zadokite lineage.
The name Eleazar may have been inspired by 1 Sam. 7:1.
63 De Vaux, Les institutions, II, 264ff. The theories of Baudissin, Geschichte, p. 199,
Smend, Die Erzdhlung des Hexateuch, p. 355, and Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit,
pp. 275, 281, that the Zadokites had already been known as descendants of Aaron
in the period of the monarchy suffers from a total lack of witness from so early
a time, and from the further difficulty that the tradition of Aaron, Levite and priest,
developed fairly late and seems originally to have been connected with Levites rather
than with Zadokites.
34 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, pp. 173f.
65 Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III (Stuttgart, 1927-29), p. 406. Cf. also
J. M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, 1965), p. 176, on the
list in Neh. 10 as the reflection of an expansion from the situation seen in Ezra 2 =
Neh. 7 and in Ezra 8, but earlier than the courses of priests in 1 Chr. 24:7-18.
172 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
Moses and Aaron.bS The Levite Korah appears here, as in the genealogical
material of Exod. 6:21 (cf. Exod. 6:18) and 1 Chr. 6:7 (LXX 6:22) as a
Kohathite. This later stratum of Num. 16, depicting the struggle over
priestly prerogatives as the revolt of a Kohathite against a priestly Aaron,
must come from a moment before the priestly Aaronides had assured
their position, a period when they were still in conflict with the Levites
best in a position to challenge them: those Kohathites not admitted as
Aaronides. Gunneweg sees a similar situation behind an insertion of
Aaron and Eleazar into the material of Num. 4 (Num. 4:5-15,16,17-20), an
insertion which has the effect largely of replacing the Kohathites by Aaron
and Eleazar and which, like the recent P-stratum in Num. 16, suggests
strongly that at this stage of historical development the principal rivals
of the Aaronides were their "next of kin,” the Kohathites.69 At this
stage of development, the tension between the established priestly group
and its rivals was represented as a tension between Aaron and Kohath.
The process of development in the relation between Kohathites and
Aaronides can be seen by comparing three blocks of material in Chronicles.
In the genealogical material of 1 Chr. 5:27-41 (LXX 6:1-15) Aaron, Eleazar,
and the chief priests of Jerusalem down to the Exile are Kohathites.
The somewhat later genealogy of 1 Chr. 6:1-15 (LXX 6:16-30) excludes
Aaron, Eleazar, and the chief priests from the ranks of the Kohathites,
but includes Korah as a Kohathite. The still later inserted material of
1 Chr. 15:4-10 makes a clear-cut distinction between “sons of Aaron” and
"sons of Levi,” and if, in the redactor's mind, a logical connexion exists
between this inserted block and the following v. 11, which is independent
of it, then the late redactor reckons the sons of Kohath among the sons
of Levi, not, however, among the sons of Aaron.70
es Although the details of this narrative’s literary division differ slightly from
author to author, there are few who disagree that the latest stratum deals with
a contest of rivalry between Korah and Aaron and that this stratum belongs to
a fairly late stage of development within P: cf., for example, J. Wellhausen, Die
Composition des Hexateuchs (4th ed. = 3rd; Berlin, 1963), pp. 102-06 (remembering
that Wellhausen's Q is practically equal to what has now come to be styled P), with
the further observation (adopted from Kuenen) on p. 342; Noth, VP, pp. 15, 19, 138f.;
S. Lehming, “Versuch zu Num. 16,” ZAW 74 (1962) 291-321 (on Korah and Aaron in
late material, p. 318). J. Liver, “Korah, Dathan and Abiram,” Scripta Hierosolymi-
tana 8 (1961) 189-217, although rejecting a division of the narrative on the basis of
different literary sources, sees Korah, nevertheless, as a Levite, the sons of Korah
as Levites, and the story of Korah in Num. 16 as one intruded into the tradition
of a revolt of Dathan and Abiram against Moses, by priests of Jerusalem seeking
to defend their position against Levites. Liver would place this intrusion, however,
fairly early in the monarchical period rather than after the Exile — something he
can more easily do not reckoning with a post-exilic P.
69 Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, p. 180.
to We have seen above, p. 163, the reasons from the viewpoint of tradition-
criticism for placing the genealogical arrangements of 1 Chr. 5:27-41 (LXX 6:1-15)
chronologically prior to those of 1 Chr. 6:1-15 (LXX 6:16-30), and the reasons from
the viewpoint of literary criticism for seeing 1 Chr. 15:4-10 as a block of material
added after the basic text of Chronicles had already taken form.
174 CHAPTER SEVEN. AARONIDES, LEVITES, AND ZADOKITES
2 Cf. A. Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums,” in Fest¬
schrift Otto Procksch (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 22ff. (= KS, II, 331f.).
3 Cf. above, p. 103.
4 For Fohrer, Ezechiel (HAT, 1/13), p. 254, the ordinances of Ezek. 45:21 - 46:15
represent an intermediate stage between those of Deuteronomy and those of P. Ezek
45:21a,22-25 ; 46:1-10,12 form the nucleus of what Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des
I. A COMMUNITY HEADED BY PRIESTS 177
national holocaust is still the holocaust of the prince (titist* * * * 5), but the
actual offering is to be done by priests, and the prince, although allowed
to advance further toward the inner Temple than the people at large,
is required to remain in the Temple porch (Ezek. 46:1-4).
True it is that men like the prophet Haggai had great hopes for
Zerubbabel as Yahweh's “seal ring” when the kingdoms of the earth
should be overthrown (Hag. 2:20-23), and the original text of Zech. 6:11
certainly spoke of a royal crown which was to be placed on Zerubbabel’s
head,5 but even when such sanguine expectations were being entertained
for Zerubbabel, Joshua the priest was given a place not inferior to the
scion of David but rather alongside of him. Joshua was to sit at
Zerubbabel’s right hand as he sat and reigned on his throne, and the two
of them were to share “counsel of peace” (Zech. 6:13); the two olive
branches paired beside the bowl on the golden lampstand seen by Zecha-
riah in the night were Joshua and Zerubbabel, two “sons of oil" who
were paired in "standing by the Lord of the earth” (Zech. 4:11-14). 6
A very short time afterwards, Zerubbabel vanished from the Biblical
stage, and with him vanished the last remnant of the House of David
in any kind of civil administration. Since Jerusalem and Judah were
at this time, it appears, a part of the province whose capital was Samaria,
all civil administration of the area was centered in a city at some distance
from Jerusalem. This very eclipse of Jerusalem as a civil capital served
to enhance the city's quality as the spiritual capital of all Judaism, and
the Jewish community, now scattered in Babylonia and Egypt and the
other places which would constitute the increasing diaspora, was now
no longer a nationalist community but a religious community. This
development effected an important change in the character of the priest¬
hood of Jerusalem, for it meant that this priesthood was now the leading
element in the restored community. The head of the priesthood, the
high priest, was no longer a royal civil servant, as he had been in the
days of the monarchy, nor was he on more or less equal footing with
a Jewish civil administrator, as he had been envisaged by Haggai and
Zechariah when Zerubbabel was briefly present at the beginning of the
Restoration. He was, in fact, the supreme religious leader in a now
primarily religious community. In a certain modified but nevertheless
Ezekiel, pp. 85ff., calls the "nasP-stratum." Since he considers the nasp-stratum
to be earlier than the Zadokite stratum in Ezek. 40 - 48, he assigns an "exilic, probably
late exilic, date" to the nasp-stratum (pp. 120ff.).
s This is quite evident from the context, as the commentaries regularly point
out, and Joshua’s name was only later substituted for that of Zerubbabel.
6 K Galling, "Konigliche und nichtkonigliche Stifter beim Tempel von Jerusa¬
lem," BBLAK (= ZDPV) 68 (1946-51) 134-42, suspects that this image is chosen to
make it quite clear that the priest Joshua is not to be in that subordinate position
with respect to the House of David which was occupied by the chief priests before
the Exile. Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, II, 300, interprets this text as
a unique prophetic view of Israel as a dyarchy.
12
178 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
quite real sense he had become to the restored Jewish community what
the kings had been to the pre-exilic community. It may well be that
it is just this situation, elevated to the level of ideals, that is reflected
in Exod. 19:6's words of God addressed to the people: “You will be to
me a kingdom of priests and a holy people (mamleket kohanim wegdy
qados),” for there are good reasons for understanding mamlakd when
balanced with goy as the ruling power balanced with the people ruled,
mamlakd and goy being the two complementary facets constituting a
nation.i * * * * * 7 If so, mamleket kohanim in this text means a nation who
rulers are priests.
The significance of this development, and its acceptance by the com¬
munity, are reflected in the textual alteration of Zech. 6:11: Zerubbabel
vanishes from the text and the high priest Joshua appears as the sole
receiver of the crown of sovereignty.8 From that time on, the Jewish
community in Judah remained a sort of theocratic community under
Joshua and his successors,9 * until the arrival of Nehemiah, appointed
governor (peha in Neh. 5:14; 12:26; tirsataP in Neh. 8:9; 10;2) by the
Persians in 445,1€ marked the re-establishment of a civil authority distinct
from the religious authority in Jerusalem. This distinction was still
prevailing around the year 410, for we know from the Elephantine texts
that at that time Bagoas was governor in Jerusalem and Johanan, men¬
tioned in Neh. 12:22 (and probably in Neh. 12:11, reading Johanan for
Jonathan), was the high priest.11
The question how much longer this situation lasted can not be given
a simple answer. In the excavations of Ramat Rahel a little to the south
of Jerusalem, a number of fourth-century jar stamps have turned up
which read yhd (or yhwd) phw°, “Judah; the governor” (phw3 being
i The evidence for this sense of mamlakd, already suspected by various scholars
in various Biblical texts, has been carefully assembled, previous work surveyed, and
the application convincingly made to Exod. 19:6 by W. L. Moran, “A Kingdom of
Priests," in J. L. McKenzie (ed.), The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (New York,
1962), pp. 7-20 (cf. especially pp. 10-17), who would assign a pre-monarchic date to
this text, however. G. Fohrer, " ‘Priesterliches Konigtum,’ Ex. xix,6," ThZ 19 (1963)
359-62, noting characteristically Deuteronomic phraseology in Exod. 19:3b-8, would
rather assign Exod. 19:6 with its context to the very end of the monarchical period,
although he admits that mamleket kohanim indicates a structure in which the
ruling power is priestly.
s Cf. Horst in T. H. Robinson and F. Horst, Die zwolf Kleinen Propheten (HAT,
1/14; 3rd ed.; Tubingen, 1964), pp. 237f.
9 Cf. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im Persischen Zeitalter, p. 148.
19 Nehemiah received his commission in "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" (Neh.
2:1). Since in Nehemiah’s case Artaxerxes was certainly Artaxerxes I, who reigned
from 465 until 424 (cf. the summary of the evidence in Bright, A History of Israel,
pp. 375f.), Nehemiah received his commission in 445.
ii Cf. the copy or draft of a letter addressed to Bagoas, dated in the seventeenth
year of Darius (i.e., Darius II, who reigned from 423 until 404), which mentions
Johanan in connexion with events in the fourteenth year of the same reign, in
A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), 30:14,18-21,30.
I. A COMMUNITY HEADED BY PRIESTS 179
almost certainly the equivalent of the Biblical peha),I * * * * * * * * * * 12 and this indicate
the continued presence in Jerusalem of a civil governor answerable to
the Persian imperial administration during the fourth century. In at
least two fourth-century jar-stamp inscriptions, however, and in a similar
inscription on a coin of the same period found at Beth-zur, a proper
name is found in conjunction with yhd/yhwd; in one of these inscriptions
(from Ramat Rahel) the proper name is found in conjunction with both
yhwd and phw3. In each case the proper name is not Iranian but Jewish:
°wryw (Urio), yhzqyhw (Yehizqiyahu or Hezekiah), and yhw'zr (Jeho-
ezer).13 It has been suggested that these names are characteristic of
post-exilic priestly families and that we might see in these inscriptions
some evidence that by the fourth century it was the high priest in
Jerusalem who served as governor within the Persian administration
itself.14 This is quite possible, but the evidence adduced is not entirely
conclusive, since we can not be sure that any one of the bearers of
these names in the inscriptions really was a high priest, and since those
men whom we know to be high priests in the Bible are always called
“high priest” or "priest,” even in periods when there was no distinct
civil governor appointed for the Jewish community. Still, it is true that
when Biblical documentation begins again in the second century B.C.,
the highest local authority in Jerusalem, both civil and religious, will
be in the hands of the high priest.
It is important to note that even when a civil commissary or governor,
distinct from the high priest, was present in Jerusalem, his office as
containing priestly names) and also the Urio who was father of Meremoth, the
treasurer of Ezra in Ezra 8:33. W. F. Albright, "The Seal Impression from Jericho
and the Treasurers of the Second Temple," BASOR, No. 148 (Dec. 1957), 28ff., makes
the association between high priest and temple treasurer, and would agree that Urio
of the jar-stamp was of a priestly family, since names at this time were often re¬
peated from generation to generation in Jewish families; but he would not accept
Avigad's identification of the Urio of the jar-stamp with the Urio of the Biblical texts..
Aharoni op. cit., p. 112, notes that Josephus Contra Appionem i,187ff. refers to a high
priest named Ezechias (Hezekiah, Yehizqiyahu) at the start of the Hellenistic period,
and Aharoni concludes, after connecting this Ezechias with the yhzqyhw of the coin
from Beth-zur, that the high priest had authority to mint coins not so much be¬
cause he was high priest and temple treasurer but rather because he was also the
civil governor. J. M. Grintz, "Jehoezer — Unknown High Priest?, Jewish Quarterly
Review n.s. 50 (1960) 338-45, following, like Albright, the principle that the same
name occurred in different generations in the same family, examines the pertmen
epigraphic and Talmudic material, along with the writings of Josephus to conclude
that Jehoezer was a name found exclusively in priestly circles after the Exile, and
that the Jehoezer of the jar-stamp from Ramat Rahel was either a pnestly temp
treasurer, or even a high priest, who also functioned as governor.
180 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
such meant little for the ideals and aspirations of the Jewish community.
He was a representative of a foreign administration. The Jewish com¬
munity was henceforth a primarily religious community, and as such
its own principal dignitary — abstracting from questions of personality —
was the high priest.15
Neh. 12:10f. gives us the succession (perhaps incomplete) of high
priests from the beginning of the Restoration until around the year 400:
Joshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan (probably the Johanan of
Neh. 12:22), and Jaddua. Aside from Joshua, we know nothing about
them, except in the cases of Jonathan, whom we have found mentioned
in the Elephantine papyri, and of Eliashib, who co-operated in the re¬
building of Jerusalem by seeing to the construction of the Sheep Gate
and part of the city walls in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1).16
A. In Jerusalem
13:30f.), at the same time assuring the payment of tithes, whose neglect
had led levites to leave their work in the Temple of Jerusalem and to
turn to farming for a living (Neh. 13:10f.). It would be unfair to see
these measures taken by Nehemiah, the civil governor, merely as the
correction of situations resulting from clerical neglect, for they were
measures which before the Exile would have fallen to the responsibility
of the civil ruler, the king, as the man ultimately responsible for the
upkeep and maintenance of the royal sanctuary and its liturgy. More
profoundly significant is the difference between the general attitude of
the priests of Jerusalem and that of Ezra and Nehemiah. The priesthood
of Jerusalem was establishing broadminded liaisons with Samaritans and
other outsiders which foreshadowed that openness towards the world at
large characteristic of the Sadducees and the Jewish priests of Greco-
Roman times; men like Ezra and Nehemiah, zealous Jews from Babylonia,
were particularistic in their religious nationalism.17
Among the priests of Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible at this time
we do not find traces of that sort of concern and activity which would
foreshadow that of the later "doctors of the Law and the Prophets. ”
The priests of post-exilic Jerusalem were Temple-administrators and cultic
personnel rather than men learned in sacred writings. Ezra himself,
a priest and a scribe (Ezra 7:12; cf. also Ezra 7:6,11; Neh. 8: Iff.) was
no real exception, for Hebrew soper or Aramaic sapar in these texts
did not originally mean "exegete learned in the sacred writings”: in the
official Aramaic of the Persian imperial administration the term was a
technical term or title meaning something like "official” or "administrative
officer” and requiring further specification by a following genitive, as in
Ezra 7:12, the beginning of an Aramaic document from the Persian chan¬
cery, addressed to Ezra, “sapar of the law of the God of Heaven.” This
may have been Ezra’s original title, a title signifying originally an ad¬
ministrative officer whose competence within the Persian administrative
organization had to do with the interests of the Jewish God and his
community, based on Jewish religious law, with the title sapar only later
re-interpreted in the properly Jewish milieu to mean "scribe skilled in
the law of Moses,” as in the Hebrew of Ezra 7:6.18
A. Organization
colleges of priests, and that this Jewish college of priests was what later
developed into what the Mishnah calls the k'neset — the college of
doctors of the Law and the Prophets.23 We have already noted, in the
preceding section, the difficulty in seeing post-exilic priests as forerunners
of the doctors of the Law and the Prophets. It is true that there were
colleges of temple-personnel in Mesopotamia to which the word kinistu
was applied, but the Neo-Babylonian and Late-Babylonian kinistu or
kinastu is often associated with persons of lower rank like the erib biti
and the manual laborer attached to the temple.24 Besides, the existence
of the Mesopotamian kinistu is not a clear indication that the Jewish
keneset had a Mesopotamian origin and background, because the Meso¬
potamian term itself is Aramaic in origin,25 and both the Jewish term
and the Mesopotamian term may quite well have been derived indepen¬
dently from Aramaic, the college itself being different in nature in the
two areas.
of the erib biti: Dhorme, Les religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie, pp. 205f.
25 Von Soden, loc. cit.
26 Cf. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 64-73.
27 its secondary nature was first pointed out in J. W. Rothstein and J. Hanel,
Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT, XVIII/2; Leipzig, 1927), pp. 419f.,
who are followed, on this point, by subsequent commentators.
184 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
1. Priests
At the top of the clerical pyramid was, of course, the high priest.
We know something of the actions of certain of these high priests from
the accounts of their relations with Ezra and Nehemiah, but we do not
know much about their regular life and work in this period. The high
priest’s great moment liturgically must surely have been his function in
the annual Day of Atonement, described in detail in Lev. 16. Sirach,
in his eulogy of the high priest Simon at the beginning of the second
century B.C., confirms this impression, for the ritual actions which Simon
is described as performing in Sir. 50:5-21 are those of the Day of
Atonement.
As for the other priests, Jer. 33:18 characterizes them as men who
stand before God to make the holocaust rise, to make the vegetable
offering smoke, and to accomplish daily sacrifice.39 P, in Lev. 1 - 6,
28 Welch, op. tit., p. 55. The present MT also gives the impression that the
Chronicler retains that expression so characteristic of Deuteronomy: “the Levitical
priests” or "priest-Levites” (hak-kohanim halewiyim; 1 Chr. 9:2; 2 Chr. 5:5; 23:18;
30:27; cf. also Ezra 10 ;5; Neh. 10:35; 11:20). But does he really? For all of these
texts, except 2 Chr. 5:5, there are variants reading “the priests and the Levites.”
There is a stylistic reason for suspecting that an original "the priests and the
Levites” has become “the Levitical priests” in the MT, by the simple dropping of
the copula we. A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW, XVI; Giessen,
1909), pp. 62f., has found that in the style of the Chronicler we always precedes
each noun of a series except the first, or, in groups of four nouns in series, it
precedes the second and the fourth; if a noun is second in a series, it is preceded
by we. This can not be applied as a criterion to halewiyim, precisely because of
the possibility of the word’s being adjectival, but when it is applied to hak-kohanim
we discover that, of the texts cited at the beginning of this note, in both of the
two instances (1 Chr. 9:2 and Neh. 11:20, presuming with some degree of probability,
that the latter is from, or has gone through, the Chronicler’s hand) in which
hak-kohanim is second in a series the we is not present in the MT, although in both
instances there are Greek variants (and for Neh. 11:20 a Syriac variant) reading "and
the priests and the Levites.” This suggests the possibility that original wave’s have
been dropped before hak-kohanim in these texts because they were being dropped
before the following halewiyim, and that an original waw has been dropped else¬
where in those passages of the Chronicler now reading, in the MT, hak-kohanim
halewiyim. There are still many places in the MT of the Chronicler's work where
nothing of the sort has happened, the MT itself reading hak-kohanim u^haUwiyim.
That hakohanim halewiyim must be correct in 2 Chr. 30:27 because, according to
Num. 6:22 and Lev. 9:22, only priests might bless (Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 303),
is an argument worth considering, although its edge is somewhat blunted by the
Chronicler's general tendency to add “and the levites” to any mention of priests.
29 Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, p. 77.
so The entire section Jer. 33:14-26 is lacking in the LXX, and its incorporation
into the present Book of Jeremiah must have taken place rather late, after a period
of independent circulation. It is not easily dated with precision, but its concern
with hopes of both Davidic and Levitical continuation reminds us of the earlier
chapters of Zechariah, shortly after the Exile. The passage is concerned with Levites
who are priests (cf. v. 21), and that too suggests a date not very long after the
III. ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES OF POST-EXILIC PRIESTS AND LEVITES 185
2. Levites
Exile, before the distinct separation of priests and levites was clearly and defini¬
tively made.
186 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
the singers (Ezra 2:41 = Neh. 7:44). The other tasks around the Temple
which Chronicles assigns to levites must have been performed by the
temple-servants, that is to say: by the netinim and “the sons of Solomon's
servants,” who still existed as such in the return from Exile (Ezra 2:
43-58 = Neh. 7:46-60; Ezra 8:20) and who are also mentioned elsewhere
in Ezra and Nehemiah, but who in Chronicles are mentioned only in a
list of those who had once returned (1 Chr. 9:2). In the religious attitude
of settled post-exilic Judaism, only priests and levites should be entrusted
with temple duties. All other groups were replaced by levites, or assi¬
milated to the levites. That this assimilation was not totally realized
even when the present books of Chronicles were taking shape is sug¬
gested by the listing of classes of singers (1 Chr. 25), gate-keepers (1 Chr.
26:1-19), and those entrusted with other tasks around the Temple (1 Chr.
26:20-32) separately from the listing of classes of Levites (1 Chr. 23:1-24;
24:20-31); it is also suggested by the fact that in the Chronicler’s account
of Josiah’s Passover in 2 Chr. 35 the role of the levites lies in sacrificial
preparation (vv. 10f.), while in v. 15 the “Asaphite singers” and the gate¬
keepers are mentioned first (not as levites), and then are followed by
"their brothers, the levites,” who are to provide for the absent gate¬
keepers.
si Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, p. 130, n. 2 and The Work of the
Chronicler, pp. 89f., has drawn upon the implications of 1 Chr. 25:1-6 for the idea
of cultic prophets. This and the other texts have been advanced by Johnson, The
Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, pp. 69-75, as evidence of the existence of cultic
prophets and of their assimilation to the levites by the time of the Chronicler. There
is also a good summary of the question in J. M. Myers, I Chronicles (The Anchor
Bible; Garden City, 1965), pp. 171f.
III. ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES OF POST-EXILIC PRIESTS AND LEVITES 187
is still under discussion,32 we must at least admit that, if they did exist,
then they too, by the time of the Chronicler, were subject to the priests
and were being assimilated to the levites, as levitical singers and musi¬
cians. A long-standing sharing of ideals by Levites and men in prophetic
circles would have facilitated such an assimilation — and to speak of
prophetic "circles” is not necessarily to speak of closely organized and
cohesive “groups” or "bands” of prophets.
32 Cf. DE Vaux, Les institutions, II, 249ff. It is a fact that "to prophesy” alternates
with "to sing” in 1 Chr. 25:1-6 (de Vaux), and even Mowinckel, Psatmenstudien,
III, 26, has proposed the possibility that the verb nibba5, "to prophesy,” here ex¬
presses action undertaken under a broader, more general, even poetic type of inspira¬
tion. On the other hand, of the psalms whose titles contain the name of Asaph,
Heman, or Jeduthun (or Ethan), at least five (Pss. 50, 75, 76, 81, 82) contain material
which can be qualified as "prophetic,” an indication that tradition looked upon
these men, or men associated with those names, as prophets in a stricter sense
(Myers, I Chronicles, p. 172, following Gunkel and Begrich). One might object that
the existence of prophets who prophesied in cultic situations is not yet a proof of
their organization into well defined groups; the texts in Chronicles do imply such
an organization, but without totally excluding prophecy in a cultic situation by an
individual not belonging to such a group (cf. 2 Chr. 24:20).
53 G von Rad "Die levitische Predigt in den Biichern der Chromk, in Festschrift
Otto Proksch (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 113-24 (= von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament, pp. 248-71).
188 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
sense),34 and the inclusion of the levites being brought about by the
Chronicler’s general tendancy to mention levites along with priests, pari
passu, when left to his own devices.
The texts in which the Chronicler calls the levites mebinim are more
difficult to assess. The word mebin has among its possible meanings
that of “skilled”; for the Chronicler, the levites were skilled (mebinim)
in music and song (1 Chr. 15:22; 25:7f.; 2 Chr. 34:12). This sense is
not allowed by the passages which more particularly concern us here,
where the sense required must be transitive and probably factitive (“to
cause to understand”), but it does confirm the impression that the epithet
mebinim was particularly associated with levites. Neh. 8:7-9 is not free
from the problems of interpretation which beset its entire context. It is
most likely that the Chronistic editor has taken already extant material
(the “Ezra Memoirs”) and retouched them.35 In the first of these three
verses a number of men (distinct from, or together with?) the levites
are said to make the people understand the law (mebinim... lat-tdra, v. 7);
to be noted is the unique use of the participial mebinim in a context
where the verbal forms are otherwise wayyiqtdl, even when describing
concomitant action. In the following verse (v. 8), the levites are said
to read from the book (some manuscripts and the versions add “of the
Law”), whereas in the rest of the passage it is Ezra alone who reads
(w. 3,5,18). In v. 9 the present text reads: “Then Nehemiah the governor,
and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the levites who caused the people
to understand (ham-mebinim et ha-cam), said,” but the verb “said” remains
in the singular. We may infer that here, again, Ezra alone spoke in
the earlier text,36 and that the addition of the levites (and of Nehemiah)
is the work of the Chronistic editor. In 2 Chr. 35:3 the levites are
again called “those who cause all Israel to understand” (ham-mebinim
lekol yisrcPel). This phrase has nothing to do with the duties of the
levites at the Passover fetival whose ordering is to follow, and it happens
to occur in one of the passages (2 Chr. 35:1-4) in which the Chronicler
departs from the more realistic attachment of levites to the service of
the House of God (corresponding to P’s attachment of them to the service
of the desert tent), attaching them, rather, to the service of the Ark,
in that Levitical tradition well known to the Deuteronomist.37 This
suggests that the Chronicler's calling the levites mebinbn here and in
his additions to Neh. 8:7ff. is another instance of his reflecting a Deu-
teronomistic Levitical tradition, probably that of Dt. 31:9-13, in which
34
Cf. J. M. Myers, II Chronicles (The Anchor Bible, Garden City, 1965), pp. 99f.
35
Cf. Noth, VS, p. 128; Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 557; Rudolph, Esra und
Nehemia, pp. 141-44.
33 Cf. Rudolph, op. cit., p. 148. Noth, VS, p. 130, opts rather for Nehemiah as
the sole speaker in the earlier text.
87 Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, p. 71.
III. ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES OF POST-EXILIC PRIESTS AND LEVITES 189
the Levitical priests are entrusted with the Deuteronomistic code, which
they are to read to the people once every seven years.38
The epithet may not be entirely out of touch with reality. The
Chroniclers addition in Neh. 8:8 has the levites giving out the law in
translation (after Ezra s reading in Hebrew), and thus causing the people
to understand the reading (wayydbinu bam-miqrcf). It is not inconceiv¬
able that this addition was inspired by a new function of levites, known
already at the time of the Chronistic compilation: a function as liturgical
readers of the sacred text, reading to the people in Aramaic, or reading
an interpretation constituting an early form of targum.,39 thereby “causing
the people to understand” the Hebrew text of the sacred writings. Ac¬
tually, the more accurate expression might be “liturgical singers” of the
sacred text rather than liturgical readers,” for in the civilizations of
the Near East passages from sacred books are traditionally not read
but sung. The Coran is not read in public: it is sung or cantillated,
and so are the Biblical texts in the Christian churches of the East and
in the synagogues (and until quite recently in the normal, sung liturgies
of the Latin Church). This function would be quite consonant with the
levites function as temple-singers.40 The use of mebinim in this sense
also helps to explain why Chronicles is fond of using the same word,
intransitively, instead of some word like mahir to say "skilled” when
speaking of the levites’ skill in singing: mebin and its plural mebinim
had come to be a characteristic epithet of levitical singers.
To translate meblnim as "teachers,” then, is misleading. Used of
the levites, it means rather "interpreters” or "expositors,” when it does
not simply mean "skilled.” For P, the "teaching” activity of priests — a
38 This is also one of those Deuteronomistic passages in which the Levites are
called those "carrying the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh" (Dt. 31:9).
39 On Neh. 8:8 as a text illuminating the origins of the tar gum, cf. Welch, Post-
Exilic Judaism, pp. 272f. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, p. 14, too, remarks that
in this passage we "can not be expected to believe that the ad hoc invention of
something completely novel is implied"; however, for von Rad, as we shall note,
the passage represents the levites giving didactic instruction in the Law, rather than
a translation or an interpretation thereof.
40 P. Kahle, in the first edition of his The Cairo Genizah (The Schweich Lectu¬
res, 1941; London, 1947), p. 124, saw in Neh. 8:8 an indication that "the Jewish tradi¬
tion which connects the origin of the targum with Ezra is quite correct"; but in the
second edition of The Cairo Genizah (Oxford, 1959), p. 103, n. 6, after reviewing
pertinent Rabbinic material, he says of Neh. 8:8 that "here we already have the idea
that the right accents contribute to the right understanding of the text." In this
later edition, Kahle was struck particularly by the phrase sm ski in Neh. 8:8, and his
interpretation connects the text with the origins of the work of the Massoretes
rather than with that of the targum. In this he is approaching the interpretation
of M. Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites," VT 10 (1960) 241-84, based on Pal¬
estinian and Babylonian Talmudic texts (cf. pp. 244-48). It is not irrelevant here
to note that the singing of the Coran or of Christian liturgical texts (including
readings from the Bible) also use melodic patterns and formulas related to the sense
of the text being sung — the singing thus contributing to the right understanding
of the various co-ordinated parts of the text.
190 CHAPTER EIGHT. PRIESTHOOD IN THE RESTORED JEWISH COMMUNITY
Whether the tora in this text is to be taken as the old classical priestly tora
or rather in the later sense of the written tora of Ezra — even of the developing
Pentateuch — is hard to say, and so the exact nature of the activity expressed by
more here is also unclear. In the actual vital development of institutions and of
linguistic usage the lines were not as clearly drawn as we should like to have them
drawn, anyway.
42 It is true, as von Rad, points out in his essay "Die levitische Predigt in den
Biichem der Chronik," passim, that the examples he cites share points of reference
with the prophets and with Deuteronomy. Prof, von Rad himself has also related
Deuteronomy to Levitical ideas, in his Studies in Deuteronomy, pp. 66-69, and
H. W. Wolff, "Hoseas geistige Heimat,” ThLZ 81 (1956) 83-94 has seen similarites
of thought found in Deuteronomy, in prophetic circles typified by Hosea, and in
Levitical circles; but to move from these kinships of mentality to the postulated
existence of Levitical preaching in Chronicles is to take quite a leap. The inter¬
pretation of Neh. 8:7f., of course, is important for von Rad’s thesis. He must deny
that Neh. 8:7f. portrays the Levites merely translating or interpreting the reading
of the law, and he does so in fact, both in "Die levitische Predigt," pp. 113f. ( =
Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, pp. 248f.) and in Studies in Deuteronomy,
pp. 13f. The key problem is the meaning of the word meporas in v. 8. H. H.
Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, pp. 52f., and in greater detail in his "Iranische Beitrage,
I, ” Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft: Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse
6 (1930), pp. 199-212, concludes that the word is a Hebraicized form of the Aramaic
participial meparas found in Ezra 4:18, and that the word means "interpreting" —
in the contexts of Ezra and Nehemiah: more specifically "interpreting” in the sense
of "translating” from the scroll lying before the reader. Von Rad, unlike most
scholars, does not accept this explanation. Nevertheless, that the word means
"interpreting” in some sense is certain, and even though Schaeder's specification
that in Neh. 8:8 it has the sense of “translating" may not be satisfactorily proven,
von Rad's own specification that it has there the sense of didactic teaching or preach¬
ing is, in its own turn, difficult to prove.
IV. summary; theological implications 191
that concept has developed into a complex division in which the many
tasks around a busy Temple are divided between priests and levites. Of
the ancient oracular consultation, there remains nothing but, materially,
the urim and thummim of the high priest’s ornamental breast-piece (Exod.
28:30; Lev. 8:8) and, formally, the ford-giving of priests, slowly expanding
(Lev. 10: lOf.) through decisions on the sacred and profane into an activity
involving the handing down of traditional legal material and its applica¬
tion. "Levite” in genealogical contexts retains a residual tribal sense,
and includes the priests; in functional contexts it covers all the lesser
ministrants of the Temple, distinct from the priests.
The only properly sacral institution in Judah, the only one whose
members represent Yahweh to the community and the community to
Yahweh, is now that of the priesthood.43 A comparison of parallels in
Kings and Chronicles shows an unwillingness in the latter work to admit
the cultic actions of kings, who in the old days had been the mediators
or representatives par excellence between Yahweh and the people: ac¬
cording to 1 Kgs. 8:55-61 Solomon blesses the assembly of Israel at the
dedication of the Temple, but there is nothing of this in the Chronicler's
parallel (2 Chr. 6:40-7:1); according to 2 Sam. 8:18 David’s sons are
priests, but in 1 Chr. 18:17’s parallel list they are stewards; King Uzziah's
leprosy is simply mentioned in 2 Kgs. 15:5, but 2 Chr. 26:16-20 explains
it as the result of Uzziah's presumption in trying to bum incense on the
altar of incense. These cultic actions are now reserved exclusively to
priests. The inferior cultic work of the netinim, and perhaps the work
of former cultic prophets, is now reserved to levites.
All of this corresponds to a theological development in which the
holiness of priests (sacral, ritual holiness rather than ethical or moral
holiness) is accentuated in contrast to the relatively reduced holiness of
the rest of the community.44 It is because the priests and the levites
are holy that they may take charge of the objects belonging to the Temple
(Ezra 8:28,30) and may enter into the Temple (2 Chr. 23:6; 35:5). The
people of Israel, too, possess a certain holiness which non-Israelites do
not have, a holiness which also has a certain relation to their liturgical
participation; 45 but, while the people are "sanctified” or "sanctify them¬
selves” ritually in order to take part at a distance in the liturgy (2 Chr.
30:17), they are nowhere in post-exilic texts said to be holy in a properly
ritual or cultic context. It is the priests and levites who may exercise
their proper functions because they are holy, and if Exod. 19:6, which
is not in a specifically ritual or cultic context, speaks of a ruling power
that is priestly and a people ruled that is holy,46 this may be because
the religious mentality behind the text envisaged the ritual holiness in¬
herent in the priestly ruling power as something flowing down to affect
the people ruled — the ideas of corporate personality and of fluidity
between the one and the many being in operation here.
Whether it is the restriction of cultic functions to priests and levites
which is to be explained by this development in the theology of holiness,
or, conversely, the theological development which is to be explained as
a result and a justification of the interests of the clerical groups, is
debatable. Signs of this restriction’s development are already evident
in late pre-exilic texts,47 and this fact, along with the fact that the people
at large are not totally excluded from the realm of even the ritually holy,
is perhaps an indication that the restriction developed independently of
the theology of holiness but that the theology was brought to bear in
justifying the restriction.
1 P. Lapp, “Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from Judah," BASOR, No. 172 (Dec.
1963) 22-35.
2 Ibid., pp. 31-34, with the references to Rostovtzeff, U. Kahrstedt, and A. H. M.
Jones. It is interesting to note that this very matter of the tax paid by the high
priest to the central government leads E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaer (Ber¬
lin, 1937), p. 56, to just the opposite conclusion. For Bickermann, it was only in
the third century B.C. that the high priest began to achieve a certain amount of civil
independence, the sign of this being that only then do we seem to find the high
priest paying a tax suggesting, for Bickermann, the relation of a semi-autonomous
ruler to his suzerain. As for the fact of the high priest’s payment of such a tax
in the Seleucid period, we have 2 Macc. 4:24,27. For the preceding Ptolemaic
period, we have only Josephus Antiquities XII. iv. 1, which has a high priest dealing
with a suzerain Ptolemy in a chronological context which is that of Seleucid rather
than Ptolemaic Palestine; for the serious questions raised about the historicity of
this passage, cf. M. Holleaux, "Sur un passage de Flavius Josephe (Antiq. Jud., XII,
4, § 155),” REJ 39 (1899) 160-76.
13
194 A HALTING PLACE: THE HELLENISTIC AGE
That the imperial administration of both the Ptolemaic and the Se-
leucid empires stressed administrative centralization can hardly be denied.
On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that these Hellenistic empires
did accord a certain autonomy to the various ethnic groups and cities
within the empire, even in political matters, except when there was danger
of revolt, and that in the specific case of the Jews the Seleucid empire
(and presumably the Ptolemaic empire before it) even patronized the
observance of the Mosaic Law and of particular Jewish religious customs,
as had the Persian empire still earlier.3 Although Judah's semi-autonomy
ought not to be exaggerated, it is nevertheless true that this semi-auton¬
omy, within its limits, had a largely clerical and theocratic character, and
that this character was all the more in evidence as long as the high
priest was the most important personage in Judah.4 The central im¬
portance of the priesthood is evident when we see the Seleucids inter¬
vening in the political appointment of Alcimus, not as governor but as
high priest (1 Macc. 7:4-11), when we note that the great struggle for
office in Jerusalem under the Seleucids had to do with the office of
high priest (2 Macc. 3 - 4), when we remember that the revolt against
the Seleucids and their Hellenizing supporters (including many Helleniz-
ing priests) was itself led by the Hasmonaean priestly family of Mattathias
(1 Macc. 2-4). It is still evident when we see the Hasmonaean Jonathan
obliged to rule for a brief period at Michmash because of the power of
the Hellenizing priesthood in Jerusalem (despite the temporarily vacant
office of high priest), before moving on into Jerusalem and being himself
invested with the office of high priest by the Seleucid Alexander Balas
(1 Macc. 9:23-10:21), whereby the union of Judah’s political leadership
and high priesthood in one man was re-established until the time of Herod.
The nature and structure of priesthood established earlier in the
course of the post-exilic period prevails. In the praise of Aaron and
Phinehas in the latter part of Sirach (Sir. 45:6-26), Aaron (the figure of
priests in general) is appointed to offer sacrifices, incense, and perfume,
to make expiation for the people, and to bless them in the name of
the Lord (45:14fL); God’s commandments are entrusted to him, and it
is he who is to teach huq and mispat to the people (45:17). He is to
live on offerings from the people (45:20f.). Phinehas (the figure of the
high priest) has a law and a covenant from God according to which he
and his posterity are to be set over the sanctuary and to have the high
5 For recent reconfirmation, with new evidence, of the view that the Hebrew
text of Sirach found in the Cairo Geniza is independent of the Greek and Syriac
versions, and that these two versions have worked with the type of text found in
the Cairo Geniza, cf. A. A. Di Lella, "Authenticity of the Geniza Fragments of
Sirach," Biblica 44 (1963) 171-200.
6 Cf. H. Wenschkewitz, "Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester
und Opfer im Neuen Testament,” AITEAOE: Archiv fiir neutestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte und Kulturkunde 4 (1932), pp. 22f.
i Rabbinic tradition describes the Great Sanhedrin as a primarily legislative
and judicial body, with Rabbinic pairs presiding over it. Non-Rabbinic sources
describe the Sanhedrin as a body presided over by the high priest. Modem scholars
still disagree over the credence to be given to the two types of source, over the
relation of the gerousia to the Sanhedrin, and over the possibility of a distinction
to be made between two different types of Sanhedrin (a priestly one for the ad¬
ministration of the Temple, and a civil one for general interpretation of the Law).
S. B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin (Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 1-113, surveys the dif¬
ferent positions, before preceding to his own proposals in the pages following.
196 A HALTING PLACE: THE HELLENISTIC AGE
s Most of the important material for such a history has been used in the works
of, for example, E. Schurer, Geschichte des jtidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jcsu
Christi (4th ed.; Leipzig, 1901-11), II, 267-336; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu
(3rd ed.; Gottingen, 1962), pp. 166-251.
® Some of this has certainly been done already in the doctoral dissertation of
W. F. Smith, A Study of Zadokite High Priesthood within the Graeco-Roman Age:
from Simeon the Just to the High Priests Appointed by Herod the Great, which, as
far as I know, has not been published. There is a brief summary in HTR 54
Indexes
I. Texts Cited
A. Biblical
Genesis 6:16-24 160f., 162f.
6:17ff. 57 n. 65, 161 n. 40
4:3ff. 6:18 173
8:20 12 6:21 173
12:7f. 148 6:24 174
13:18 148 6:25 70
14 92 7:9f. 151
14:18ff. lOlf. 7:9-12 49 n. 42
22:13 10 n. 11, 12 7:18 151
25:22f. 47 7:22 151
26:25 148 8: lf.,12f. 151
27:4 151 8:21 150, 165
28:1,6 151 10:8,10f. 150, 165
29:31-30:24 34 12:21-27 12
29:34 29 15:25 49 n. 42
31:44-54 45 17:8-15 49, 150
31:54 10 n. 11, 12, 45 17:10,12 148
32:1 151 18 4448
33:20 148 18:12 44f., 159
34 36ff., 39, 56 n. 64 18:13-26 44, 4548, 71f., 121f.
34:25f.,30f. 57 n. 67 19:6 52, 178, 192
35:2 77 19:22,24 52
35:16ff., 23-26 34 24:3-8 42ff.
39:4 74 24:5 12
40:4 74 24:12-15 148
45:8 53 n. 55 24:13 74
46:1 10 n. 11, 12 25:15 139, 140 n. 33
46:8-25 34 25:30 84
48:9 151 28:1 41
49 34 28:3 81
49:5ff. 35-38, 52, 57 n. 67, 58, 115 n. 18 28:30 175 n. 1, 191
49:7 56 28:41 81, 153
28:43 41
29:1 81
Exodus
29:9 153
29:10-21 41f.
l:2ff. 34
2; if. 39, 49, 164 n. 52 29:11 191 n. 44
4:2ff. 49 n. 42 29:14 191 n. 45
29:33 81, 153
4:3 30
29:35 41, 153
4:14 164
198 INDEXES
3:5-9 91 23-12 57 n. 65
3:18 175 n. 1 23:13 13, 107, 119, 185
5:27-29 163 23:19,21,23 57 n. 65
5:27-41 162f., 173 23:25-32 183, 185
5:28 57 n. 65 24:3 89
5:30 70 24:7-18 171 n. 65
5:30-34 89 24:20-31 186
5:40 170 24:26,28,30 57 n. 65
5:41 156 25:1-6 186f.
6:1 163 25:1-31 185
6:1-15 173 25:7f. 188
6:2-5 57 n. 65 26:1-19 185f.
6:7 173 26:20-32 186
6:7-13 12 n. 21, 73 29:5 154 n. 24
6:14 57 n. 65
6:18-23 12 n. 21, 73 II Chronicles
6:32 57 n. 65
6:33f. 168 n. 59 5:4 140 n. 33
6:35-38 89 5:4f. 183
6:39-66 135 n. 23, 159 5:5 184
6:55,57 57 5:12 168 n. 59, 185f.
9:2 168 n. 59, 184 n. 28, 186 5:14,15 185
9:10,14 168 n. 59 6:10-7:1 191
9:26-32 185 7:6 168 n. 59, 185
11:4-9 87 7:14 48 n. 38
13:2 168 n. 59 8:14f. 168 n. 59
14: Iff. 95 9:4 74
15:2 183 9:23 48 n. 38
15:2f. 140 n. 33 11:13 168 n. 59
15:4 168 n. 59 11:13-17 111
15:4-10 163, 173 11:16 48 n. 38
15: Ilf. 140 n. 33 13 181 n. 17
15-14 168 n. 59 13:9f. 111
15:16-22 185 13:14 185
15:22 188 15:3 190
15:23 185 17:7ff. 187
15:25 90 19:4-7,8,11 121f.
15:27 75, 106 20:4 48 n. 38
15:29 90 20;14f. 186
16 88 n. 4 23:6 191
16:1 90 23:16 100 n. 43
16:4 90, 183 23:18 184 n. 28
16:5 88 n. 3 24:5f. 185
16:6 185 24:20 187 n. 32
16:10 48 n. 38 26:16-20 107, 191
16:37 90 28:23 107
16:38 88 n. 3 29:12ff. 186
16:39 89f. 29:16,21 185
16:41 183 29:22ff. 12 n. 22
16:42 88 n. 3 29:25 185
18:17 103, 191 29:26 185
23:3-27:34 174 29:30 185f.
23:1-24 186 29:31 154 n. 24
23:3-6a 163 n. 46 30:16 185
23:6b-24 163 n. 46 30:17 191
INDEXES 203
SlRACH Baruch
Amos
Zechariah
4:4 22 3:1,8 176
5:21-25 109 4:1-6 157
7:10-15 112 4:10-14 157, 177
7:13 101 6:11 166, 170, 176ff.
8:12 48 n. 38 6:12-15 157
6:13 177
Micah
7:1-3 157f.
8:21f. 48 n. 38
3:11 116f.
Malachi
Zephaniah 1:6 2:9
-
180
1:4 116 n. 21
14 n. 28 2-7^
1:6 117 n. 24
48 n. 38
2:3 48 n. 38
3:4 116f., 142 I Maccabees
2-4 194
Haggai 7:4-11 194
9:23-10:21 194
1:1 156, i, 170, 175
1:1,12,14 176 II Maccabees
2:2,4 176
2: llff. 118 n. 26 3-4 194
2:20-23 177 4:24,27 193 n. 2
B. Extra-Biblical
1. By Collection or Editor
a. Akkadian XIII, 23:15f. 153
ARM Cassin, "Tablettes inedites de
II, 13:17 153 Nuzi” 20f.
II, 66:15 32 Dossin, "Une revelation du Dieu
II, 135:12 32 Dagan a Terqa" 153
V, 2:5'-7' 153 Dossin, “Les archives economiques
VI, 51:4 33 du Palais de Mari” 32
VI, 52:4,19,20 33
VI, 78:18 32 EA
VII, 112:8 33 1:15,33 14
VII, 219:52 33 35:26 25
VII, 227:8' 32 59 95
VII, 263:iv: 10' 106 100 95
VII, 280: viii': 17 33 140:10 95
VIII, 5:21 32
32 Gadd, “Tablets from Chagar
VIII, 11:35
33 Bazar and Tall Brak" 32f.
VIII, 82:5
IX, 6:10,13 33 Gelb, Inscriptions from Alishar
IX, 291: ii: 29 32 and Vicinity 78
206 INDEXES
2. By Ancient Author
Flavius Josephus iii.12 77
Antiquities Ibn al-Atir
IV.viii.14 121 Usd al-g&ba, IV, 153 79
XII.iv.1 193 Ibn Hisam, Abdalmalik
Herodotus Sirat ar-rasul, 92, 284 49
Histories Ibn al-Kalbi, Hisam
ii.36 77 Kitab al-asnam 10, 15f., 47
ii.37 76 Philo Judaeus
ii.65,66 77 De vita Mosis ii(iii).224 12
II. Subjects
A. In English Form
Aaron: in ritual of priestly inaugura¬ Aramaic, 27f., 184, 189, 190; see also
tion, 41f.; not a priest in early tradi¬ Syriac
tion, 45, 146-51, 155f.; in Levitical ge¬ Ark, 10, 13, 50fL, 58, 60, 70, 78, 80f„ 85,
nealogies, 89, 137f., 160-63, 170-74; in 87fL, 90, 100, 13841, 162, 167, 172, 183,
southern tradition, 159, 161; as priest, 189; History of, 66, 69
41f., 150, 159, 194f.; as (non-priestly) Army, 13, 20
Levite, 164f. Assyrian empire, 93, 125, 137, 143
Aaronides, “sons of Aaron”: priestly
inauguration of, 4If.; distinguished Babylonian Exile; see Exile in Baby¬
from levites, 74, 137, 146, 163; flight lonia
from Judah under Jeroboam I?, Ill; Beni Atiyah Tribe, 37
not priests of Bethel, 147f., 151f.; Beth-shan, 96f.
originally Kohathite Levites, 158-66; Bethel, 53, lllf., 118, 124, 133, 137, 147fL,
made superior to Kohathites, 162; 151f., 155, 157f.
not originally priests of Jerusalem, Blessing (act of), 106f., 150f., 184f., 191
165; epithet adopted by Zadokites, Blood rites, 42f., 119
170-74; rivalry with non-priestly Ko¬
hathites, 172f. Canaanite civilization, 10f., 94-97, 101f.,
Abiathar, 67f., 82f., 84f., 86, 88-93, 96, 108, 112, 123f.; see also Ugaritic po¬
102, 108, 138, 171f. litical organization
Ahijah: the priest, 81-84, 109; the proph¬ Canaanite religion and the Israelites,
et, 109, 151 10f., 60f., 81, 88, 92, 96f., 101f., 112;
Ahimelech, 82-86, 89 see also Ugaritic priests
Ahitub, 82, 89 Central sanctuary, 50fL, 58, 69-72, 73f.,
Ahio, 87f., 90 127-37, 135f.
Akkadian, 25, 26f., 40, 88, 97f, 99, 153, Cherethites and Pelethites, 88
183 Chief priest, 19, 84, 103; see also High
Alalakh, 28, 95 priests
Amarna Letters, 14, 25, 32f., 40, 92, 95 Clergy: Egyptian, 14, 98, 105; Hittite,
Amorite, 32f., 88 8, 99; Mesopotamian, Ilf., 23fL, 99ff.,
Amorites, 8f. 105f.; North Arabian, 14-18; Phoeni¬
Amphictyonic sanctuary; see Central cian, 21fL, 60, 74, 84, 105; South Ara¬
sanctuary bian, 9, 43; Ugaritic, 18-23, 60, 84, 105f.
Amphictyony, 39, 51, 58, 99f., 102; see Consultation of God, 45-48, 115; see also
also Twelve-tribe system Divination, Oracular consultation
Arabian civilization and early Hebrews, Coptic, 71
9f., 14-18, 30fL, 37, 43, 44f., 48f., 55f„ Covenant: of the people, 117f., 120,
59; see also South Arabia, Midian 123f., 142; of Levites, 116; of Aaron
Arabian names, 88 and Phinehas, 194f.
Aramaeans, 88, 93, 100f., 107 Covenant-making, 43, 45
INDEXES 209
cultic prophets, 186f.; and the desert enant-making, 42ff., 45; in Egypt, 39-
sanctuary, 52, 57, 70, 140f., 185, 188; 41, 50; and Levitical priestly claims,
and the Deuteronomic code, 127, 129- 42, 46, 50ff., 138f., 152ff.; no priestly
34, 139, 189; in Deuteronomistic texts, traits in early traditions, 41-50; role
137-41; and Deuteronomy, 125-34; in priestly inauguration of Aaron,
early priestly activity, 52ff.; in Egypt, 41f.; similarity to semi-nomadic lead¬
39f., 57, 67; during the Exile, 144f., ers in Arabia, 48f.; and tora, 46, 47f.,
170; fidelity to national covenant, 118, 121f.
120, 123f., 155; as generic class of Musicians (in the Temple), 185ff.
inferior ministers distinct from
priests, 137, 167, 174, 184-91; as gerim Nabonidus, 32
with priestly specialization, 54-60, 81, Nehemiah, 180f.
128, 146, 153, 161; groups of inferior Nob (priests of), 60, 67, 75, 83-86, 88f.
cultic personnel assimilated to, 174,
186f.; and Jeroboam I, 11 If.; after Obed-edom, 87f., 90
the Josian reform, 128, 134-41; as Oracular consultation: activity of early
minor clergy, 137, 167, 174, 184-91; Hebrew priests, 13f., 18, 23ff., 52, 58,
and Moses, 39ff., 46, 50ff., 70, 152ff.; 84, 101, 115f., 120; in Arabia, 15f.;
not all priests, 58f., 131f.; not a name with army in the field, 13, 129; de¬
of function before the Exile, 59; not fined, 16; development into ford-
synonymous with “priest”, 59, 68, 129- giving, 12, 25, 72, 116ff., 191; method
32, 167ff.; not teachers or preachers, of, 13f., 47, 118; not limited to altar
187-90; origin of the word “Levite”, or sanctuary, 13; and verb sa’al, 13f.,
29-33; opposed to Aaronides, 146, 156; 47, 115; see also Consultation of God,
and prophetic spirit, 123f.; and re¬ Divination
ligious conservatism, 108, 123f., 155;
returning from Babylonia, 144f., P, 13, 41ff„ 150, 159, 162ff., 167, 170,
168fL; as secular tribe, 33-38, 40, 55- 172ff„ 184f„ 189f., 191
60, 120, 129-32, 194; as singers, 185ff., Patriarchal period, 33-38, 39
189; in southern Palestine, 57, 161; Persian empire, 168, 175-81, 193f.
and tora, 116, 138f.; vindications of Philistines, 88, 90
priestly work, 59f., 120, 128-34, 137-41, Phinehas: Eli’s son, 40, 69ff., 83, 87,
152-56 109, 140; as figure of high priest,
Levitical cities, 57, 132f., 135, 159-64 194f.; in post-exilic genealogies, 163,
Linen, 75, 76ff. 171f.
Literary texts, concern of priests for, Phoenician priests, 21ff., 60, 74, 84, 105
19f., 133 Phoenician religion and the Israelites,
10f„ 74, 88, lOlf.
Magic, 49, 151 "Priest”, sense of in Dt., 129-32
Mari: civilization and religion of, 8f., Priesthood, Israelite: and kingship,
106, 153f.; proper names, 32f. 98-107, 119f., 191; modes of entering,
Marseilles Tariff, 22 41f., 58f., 60, 81, 153f.; nature and
Melchizedek, 92, lOlf. duties of, 11-14, 29, 59, 71f„ 78f., 81,
Merari, 39f. 84, 101, 102, 115-23, 184f., 190ff., 194f.
Merarites, 160, 162ff., 166, 172, 174 Priests (khnm): Israelite, passim;
Mesopotamian clergy, 8, Ilf., 23ff., 99ff., Phoenician, 21ff., 60, 84, 102, 105;
105f. Ugaritic, 18-23, 60, 84, 105f.; see also
Mesopotamian civilization and Israelite Clergy, Priesthood, kohen (in the
religion, 7ff., 11, 23ff., 97f.; see also index of non-English forms)
Mari Prophetic circles, 69, 187
Midian, Midianites, 44, 46, 50 Prophets, 47, 79, 115, 117, 123f., 141f.,
Minaeans, 9, 32 144, 151, 186f., 190; see also Cultic
Moses: with Aaron, 41f., 151; and con¬ prophets
sultation of Yahweh, 4548; and cov¬ Proto-Aramaeans, 8f.
INDEXES 211
Ptolemaic empire, 193fL South Arabia, 9, 43, 106; see also Mi-
naeans
Qaysi-Yamani division, 37 Sumerian, 8, 9, 97f.
Sumerian substruct of Mesopotamian
Rank (clerical), 22, 60, 84, 135 religion, 8, 24f., 97ff.
Revenue of priests, 22, 59, 69f., 167, 194 Syriac, 27f., 98
Syriac variants, 184, 195
Sacrifice: blood rites in, 42f., 119; of
communion (selamim), 42; in cov¬ Tabernacle; see Desert sanctuary
enant-making, 43, 45; during the Tabnit, lOlf.
Exile?, 143f., 158; by kings, 12, 99, Targum, 189
106f.; not reserved to priests in early Teaching functions, 118f., 187-90
Israel, 12, 43, 72, 73f.; reserved to Temple (of Jerusalem), 112, 133f., 135f.;
priests in later monarchical period, service in, 135f., 140f., 167, 183-86,
119f., 185; and sanctuaries, 73f., 107 188f., 191; see also Sanctuaries
Sacrificial offerings, 69, 84, 131f. Trumpets, reserved to priests in cult,
Salvation, history of, 3 185
Samaritan Pentateuch (variants), 138 Twelve-tribe system, 34-37, 57; see also
Samaritans, 181 Amphictyony
Samuel, 65-69, 72-75, 78ff., 109
Sanctuaries: amphictyonic, 50f., 58, 69- Ugarit, sacrifice in, 106
72, 84ff., 102; in Arabia, 15f.; and Ugaritic, 78
cultic centralization, 127-32, 155; and Ugaritic political organization, 95, 105f.
judgement, 48; and kings, 98-101; in Ugaritic priests, 18-23, 60, 84, 105f.
Phoenicia and its colonies, 21f.; and Urartian, 97
priests, 13, 22, 50-54, 58, 71f., 73f., 81, Urim and thummim, 13f., 15f., 24f., 47,
84, 101; and sacrifice, 73f.; and "seek¬ 81, 115f., 175, 191; see also Oracular
ing God”, 48; see also Temple (of consultation
Jerusalem) Uzzah, 87, 90
Saul, 83, 85f.
Second priest, 84, 143 Wise men, 119
Seleucid empire, 194f.
Septuagint; see Greek variants Zadok, 66, 68, 82, 88-93, 96, 136, 139f., 170
Sheshbazzar, 175 Zadokites: before the Josian reform,
Shiloh, 50, 65, 68f., 78f., 79, 80, 83, 85, 67, 82, 93, 108f„ 113f., 133f.; from
108ff., 114, 120, 142 Josiah to the Exile, 128, 137, 141-45;
Singers (in the Temple), 185ff., 189 Levitical priests in Ezek., 166ff.; peace
Simeon, Simeonites, 36, 56, 57, 58, 115 with Levites, 169f.; become Aaroni-
Sirhan Tribe, 37 des, 170-74
Solomon, 88, 90fF., 94f., 106f., 108 Zerubbabel, 156f., 166, 175-78
B. In Non-English Form
1. Akkadian 3. Arabic
iiiigniiiiwiiiiiniiiiiiiiHiiMii
3 1=127 □□□□1165 5
222.1
C64 Cody, A.
A history of Old Testa¬
ment priesthood
DATE ISSUED TO
J /_ J~7- ~r\
222.1
C64
30. J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religi5se Struktur
und ihre literarische und doktrinare Bedeutung (1967). xxv,
355 p. L. 5.700; $ 9.50
37. J. Galot, «Etre ne de Dieu». Jean 1, 13. Sub prelo; in the press.