http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/02/an-ithamarite-priesthood/ A biblioblog Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:06:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/02/an-ithamarite-priesthood/#comment-9849 Blue Cord » Postexilic Ithamarites? Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:23:20 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/02/an-ithamarite-priesthood/#comment-9849 [...] Cook kindly responded to the points I raised in “An Ithamarite Priesthood.”  I think we are mostly in agreement, but I want to address a couple of things he [...] […] Cook kindly responded to the points I raised in “An Ithamarite Priesthood.”  I think we are mostly in agreement, but I want to address a couple of things he […]

]]> http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/02/an-ithamarite-priesthood/#comment-9778 Stephen L. Cook Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:56:02 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/02/an-ithamarite-priesthood/#comment-9778 Thanks, Kevin. You correctly write: "I think our main clue to the function of the Ithamarites is in the HS layer in Numbers. Numbers 4:28, 4:33, and 7:8 give Ithamar authority... To me, this would indicate that the Ithamarites served in the temple as overseers in the postexilic period, but did not function as priests." I would agree here. I agree that the Zadokites did not want the Ithamarites to "have charge of the altar" and that they reserve this for themselves (see also Ezek 40:44-46!). There are perhaps two places where I would (might?) differ with you. First, Ezek 40:45 still calls the Ithamarites "priests," even though it disconnects them from altar service. Second, I believe that the Ithamarites may have felt very differently about this whole matter of their proper role at the temple than the Zadokites did. I might answer your question as to why no Ithamarite geneology is preserved by saying that the priestly geneologies that we do have in Bible are only those of the Zadokites, who had no interest in supporting Ithamarite claims. Clearly, there were tensions in the postexilic period between Israel's three major priestly lines. At least at points in the postexilic period, the Ithamarites felt excluded in some way by the temple leadership. See especially their complaint in Isaiah 66:5. When you say that you question the postexilic existence of the Ithamarite priestly line, my mind jumps to Isa 66 and cries out with its authors, "We exist, Kevin!" Peace, ---Stephen C. Thanks, Kevin. You correctly write: “I think our main clue to the function of the Ithamarites is in the HS layer in Numbers. Numbers 4:28, 4:33, and 7:8 give Ithamar authority… To me, this would indicate that the Ithamarites served in the temple as overseers in the postexilic period, but did not function as priests.” I would agree here. I agree that the Zadokites did not want the Ithamarites to “have charge of the altar” and that they reserve this for themselves (see also Ezek 40:44-46!). There are perhaps two places where I would (might?) differ with you. First, Ezek 40:45 still calls the Ithamarites “priests,” even though it disconnects them from altar service. Second, I believe that the Ithamarites may have felt very differently about this whole matter of their proper role at the temple than the Zadokites did. I might answer your question as to why no Ithamarite geneology is preserved by saying that the priestly geneologies that we do have in Bible are only those of the Zadokites, who had no interest in supporting Ithamarite claims. Clearly, there were tensions in the postexilic period between Israel’s three major priestly lines. At least at points in the postexilic period, the Ithamarites felt excluded in some way by the temple leadership. See especially their complaint in Isaiah 66:5. When you say that you question the postexilic existence of the Ithamarite priestly line, my mind jumps to Isa 66 and cries out with its authors, “We exist, Kevin!” Peace, —Stephen C.

]]>