A few days ago, Steve Cook posted a piece on the social location of Ezra. Steve suggests that there were three groups of priests in postexilic Yehud: Zadokites, Aaronides, and Levites. I asked Steve a brief question about Ezra and the Holiness School, to which he kindly responded. I wanted to push the conversation a bit farther, though in a slightly different direction.
I am wondering (actually wondering, having not made up my mind) whether these three groups can be isolated and whether all of them actuall existed. Certainly the Levites did, as they are scattered all over 1 and 2 Chronicles. Where the uncertainty creeps in for me is with the Aaronides and Zadokites. That a group that identified itself as the “sons of Zadok” is clear from Ezekiel 40-48. The question is whether they can be separated from the Aaronides.
According to the Pentateuch, Aaron had four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Nadab and Abihu are killed in Leviticus 10, so there is no priestly line descended from them. Eleazar is presented in Numbers as succeeding Aaron as the high priest, so the main priestly line descended from him. But what of Ithamar? It is interesting to note that there is no line given for Ithamar anywhere in the OT. The closest we come is 1 Chronicles 24, which calls Ahimelech the son of Ithamar. This would mean that the Ithamar line was banished to Anathoth by Solomon and therefore ceased to function as priests. This suggests that while in theory there were non-Zadokite priests by the late preexilic period, the reality was that only Zadokites were functioning as priests.
This is further strengthened by the fact that every preist mentioned in Chronicles is listed as coming from Aaron through Zadok. We have no priestly lineage that is not descended from Zadok. In her book Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History, Alice Hunt argues that Chronicles does not make a big deal of Zadok. This is true. In each case, Zadok is simply mentioned without any focus placed on him.
But while this suggests to Hunt that the Zadokites were not important or even existant at the time, to me it suggests that the Zadokites did not need to press their lineage in Chronicles because by that time their position was secure. If it wasn’t, we would expect to see Chronicles at least giving us the lines of other priestly houses, if only to discredit them. The only challengers to the Zadokites in the exilic period were the Levites, and Ezekiel 40-48 and later Numbers 16-18 (Steve would reverse this order) had already taken care of them.
In other words, it seems that there are Zadokites and Aaronides in the postexilic period, but they are the same group.
I am sure Steve has evidence for these groups being separate, and I look forward to hearing it. If anyone else has some ideas one this subject, I encourage them to jump in as well.
Next post in this series: An Ithamarite Priesthood?
On February 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hi Kevin,
I’m sorry it’s taken me awhile to respond. We’ve been launching the Spring semester here at the Seminary, and I’ve been running from one thing to another. Your questions are very fruitful ones, well worth answering. Joseph Blenkinsopp was on a panel with me at the most recent SBL (along with Alice Hunt), and had a paper on “The Mystery of the Missing Sons of Aaron.” All the papers should be coming out in a volume with T & T Clark soon, and they should be interesting to read in full. As for me, I’ve always had a hard time agreeing with the idea of Blenkinsopp and others that the Aaronides trace back to the priests at Bethel, although I admit that the polemic against the northern monarchic-cult at Bethel in Exodus 32 does make “Aaron” look pretty bad! Lev 10:1-3, which you mention in your post, is a better text for unearthing the Aaronides, since it is written by them (by the PT circle). It carves out a place for the descendents of Ithamar (the Aaronides) as well as those of Eleazar (the Zadokites), since neither of these sons are killed along with Nadab and Abihu in the passage (see also Num 3:4). Joshua 21 is another passage that carves out a place for the Aaronides. It speaks of a division of “Kohathite” cities, and Kohath is way, way back in the priestly genealogy, alowing this circle to include large groups of priests beyond the Zadokites. Kevin, you are right that Ithamar’s line is not traced well anywhere in the OT. I do not know why this is true, but I believe that this “gap” allowed the Chronicler to give the Levites an Aaronid geneology (cf. Cross, CMHE, 1973, p. 208 etc.). That is, the “gap” allowed the Ithamarite line to function as a rubric for incorporating certain Levites as sacrificing priests when this became necessary. Dean McBride and Robert R. Wilson have suggested 2 Chron 29:34 as one spot where some Levites seem to be rising up to the level of having Aaronide rights and responsibilities. I want to stress, though, that such Levites were probably incorporated into an already existing body of Ithamarites. This larger body was responsible for writing literature such as the PT source and 2 Isaiah. It is the group that supported Ezra in his reforms, when the Zadokite leadership of Yehud was proving resistant. This corpus of non-Zadokite, non-Levite priestly literature within the Hebrew Bible would be the primary evidence that I would point to as requiring the hypothesis of an actual Aaronid priesthood over-against the pure Zadokites. —-Stephen C.
On February 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
[…] Cook kindly responded to my questions, both here and on his blog. I wanted to take up some of the points that he made and respond to them. Please […]
On May 16th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Any discussion of Ezra’s social setting is premature until the socil setting of the book itself) involving the relationship with Nehemiah) has been established. A consideration of other relevant evidence (Ben Sira, 2 Macc, Josephus) leaves good reason to doubt that Ezra can simply be treated as a historical figure of the fifth century. If we continue like this, social scientific study will become in danger of the same error as biblical archaeology, namely assuming the texts are history and filling in the details. Sociology of texts is a rather more complicated matter than this.
On May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Hi Philip! Please leave a post if you have a new article or book on Ezra, as we would love to have a look at it. Your post is a bit too cryptic for me to fully reply to it at this point. In general, I think you and I have somewhat different understandings of a proper sociology of texts. Surely we both agree that we can never simply assume that any given text is history! Where I think you may disagree with me is that I try to maintain an epistemological openness to the biblical testimony and particularly to the historical evidence that diachronic tools such as form-criticism are able to extract from oblique readings of the text. —Stephen Cook