Blue Cord

At the SBL meeting in 2006 I picked up Alice Hunt’s book Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History. I wrote a review of it on this blog a couple of months later. While the book does make some good points, I ultimately did not agree with the conclusions. Hunt argues that there are no Zadokites until the Hasmonean period because she sees no stress on Zadokites prior to that, while I would say they were around in the preexilic period, but because of their position of power they did not need to justify their position.

This month’s Review of Biblical Literature has a review of Missing Priests by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. Tiemeyer has a slightly more positive view of the book, so if you are looking for a review with a different take on the book, check it out.

Steve Cook and John Hobbins both replied to my post on H in Genesis. I wanted to address their comments.

Steve is right, of course, in pointing out that Knohl does not completely reject the idea of H in Genesis. In addition to p.103, n.150, which Steve notes, Knohl also says on p.60 that parts of Genesis 17 may belong to HS. This is a far cry, however, from attributing large amounts of narrative to H as John and Jim Getz have done.

John asks how I explain Ezekiel when I date H to the post–exilic period. The answer is that I see a development of tradition from PT, through Ezekiel, to HS. Ezekiel is, in effect, writing Torah, especially in Ezekiel 40-48. But according to the authors of the Pentateuch, all Torah is given at Sinai. This leads to HS taking many of the ideas of Ezekiel and writing them into the Pentateuch. For one example of this, see my post on P in the book of Numbers.

John also criticizes van Seters for seeing J as entirely post–D, but I don’t think this is an entirely accurate reading of van Seters. J the author certainly worked post–D according to van Seters, but I am sure he doesn’t deny that J drew upon older traditions (and even if van Seters denies this, I don’t). Although I am not directly familiar with Blum’s work on the Jacob stories, I would have no problem seeing a pre–exilic version of this story. It probably had several versions, some that are oral and some that are written. This does not change the fact that J as an author is post–D.

Finally, John thanked me for keeping this topic going, but I wanted to thank those who have responded (and hopefully will continue to respond) to this thread. As you know, I am currently not working in academics, so my only colleagues are those in the biblioblogosphere. Thanks to all of you for providing the intellectual stimuli I need to challenge my thinking on this topic.

While I was continuing to work my way through From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch last night, something occurred to me.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Nihan argues that Pg ends somewhere in Leviticus (I haven’t gotten far enough in his book to know where he thinks it ends). Others argue that it ends with the instructions to build the tabernacle in Exodus 25-31 or the completion of the tabernacle in Exodus 40. All of these make sense from a narrative perspective.

But this raises a new question for my own research. I am currently working on a paper that deals with the relationship of PT, Ezekiel, and HS. I started this paper in the summer of 2006, but put it aside to work on some other projects. In short, the paper sees a PT layers in Numbers 16-18 that Ezekiel re-interprets in Ezekiel 44.  HS takes Ezekiel’s reading and edits Numbers 16-18 to bring it into line with Ezekiel.

The problem, obviously, is that if Pg ends in Exodus or Leviticus, it doesn’t continue into Numbers. The question then becomes, what was Ezekiel reading when he came across the story in Numbers 16-18? Was it a priestly document that was not a part of Pg? Given the similarity in vocabulary and terminology between Numbers 16-18 and Ezekiel 44, I find it hard to believe that it was not a written document. So what was it?

The final day of the SBL began with me at the Pentateuch section. This was the second Pentateuch section that was held together with the Deuteronomistic History session. Although four presenters were scheduled, Mark Zvi Brettler and Albert De Pury were not able to attend.  So, we only heard two papers, but fortunately they were both very good.

Thomas B. Dozeman’s paper “The Golden Calf in the Enneateuch” was first.  The is probably the best paper I heard at the conference, mostly because he combined excellent scholarship and new interpretive approaches in a paper that was logically organized and easy to follow. He discussed the passages that discuss the Golden Calf: Exodus 32, Deuteronomy 9-10, and 1 Kings 12.  He argues that Exodus 32 is the latest of these and is engaged in innerbiblical exegesis on the other two texts.

This has implications for some of the work I am doing.  Obviously, Exodus 32, which is non-P, is pro-Levite and anti-Aaronid.  This would suggest that it was composed around the same time as texts such as Ezekiel 44 and the reworking of Numbers 16-18 by HS. It seems a part of a larger dialog taking place in the post-exilic period about the place of the Levites.

The second paper was “The Envisioning of the Land in the Priestly Material: Fulfilled Promise or Future Hope?” by Suzanne Boorer.  She argued that Priestly material does not continue into the book of Joshua, which leaves the promise of the land unfulfilled in the Priestly document. Although it was a good paper, I disagree with her. As I argued in a paper last year at the EABS, I think there is a good deal of P in Joshua 13-21. But I do agree with Boorer that at some point the promise of land was broken off when Joshua was removed in the process that created the Pentateuch out of the Hexateuch.

Some of the discussion surrounding the papers was helpful for my own thought process.  One idea that came to me is that the Priestly layers in Joshua might have been added by HS in the post-exilic period in order to encourage people to return to Judah/Yehud from Babylon. A focus on the land would make sense at that point.

After a quick run through the book sale, I headed to the Kansas City Barbecue place across from the Hyatt.  Some scenes from the movie Top Gun were filmed there, and being an aficionado of  barbecue I thought I should give it a try.  The barbecue was OK, but not quite up to the standards of North Carolina, although the sweet potato pie I had for desert was excellent.

I will be heading to the airport this afternoon.  I have a red-eye flight back tonight at 11:00 pm.

Next year in Jerusalem Boston!

One the questions in the history of the priesthood is the reference of Ezekiel 44:10, which presents the Levites as going after idols when Israel went astray. On the basis of this sin, Ezekiel states that the Levites must be given a lower status in the cult and may no longer serve at the altar.

A number of scholars have seen this as a reference to Levites participating in the worship at high places prior to the reforms of Josiah. This doesn’t make much sense to me. After all, it was Deuteronomy that argued against worship at high places, and Deuteronomy seems to come from Levitical circles. Besides, Ezekiel does not seem to be particularly influenced by Deuteronomy, and I find it unlikely that he would have approved of Josiah’s reforms. After all, Josiah allowed Levites to be priests in Jerusalem, which would have meant Ezekiel’s priestly group would be forced to share the temple service with others.

Steve Cook did a great deal to further the discussion when he recognized that Ezekiel 44 is making explicit reference to the Levitical rebellion in Numbers 16-18.¹ It seems to me that Ezekiel is reading the situation in late preexilic Judah (c.620-586 BCE) through the lens of Numbers 16-18. The people of Judah are going astray, and the Levites — who have been granted leadership positions by Josiah — are participating in this idolatry. The Zadokites, on the other hand, did not participate in the idolatry (Ezek. 44:15). For more on my thoughts on the relationship between Numbers 16-18 and Ezekiel, see my post from last summer.

While Ezekiel creates the situation that we see in the postexilic period, with Zadokites serving at the altar and other Levites (both Aaronide and non-Aaronide?) serving as temple servants, what I am more interested in at this point is what the situation was before the exile. It seems to me that they had three groups: Levites that had come from the north, Aaronides who had always been in Judah, and Zadokites who are perhaps a subset of Aaronides. The question is, what were the Aaronides doing when Israel went astray?

It is interesting to note that already in Ezekiel the Zadokites are referred to as the “sons of Levi.” What I would like to know is whether Ezekiel was the first to apply this to the Zadokites. Would they have considered themselves Levites prior to the exile? The Levites as a priestly group seem to have very ancient origins, perhaps even going back to the pre-monarchic period. Would it have been necessary for the Zadokites to claim Levitical descendancy in order to be priests? At what point would this have been necessary?

I have to wonder whether the Zadokites came to ascendency because they were the main priestly group that was deported. Jehozadak was a priest taken into exile, and the formation of his name suggests a connection with Zadok. His son Joshua is the first high priest of the exilic period. If those exiled to Babylon were principally from Jerusalem and not the surrounding countryside, this would mean that it was the central priesthood that was exiled. Joshua 21 presents the Aaronides as living in the rest of Judah, and they may have made up only a small part of the priests in exile. The Levites, on the other hand, would have been serving in Jerusalem and some of them would have gone into exile as well. But it is instructive to note that the Chronicler’s history mentions a large amount of Zadokites returning from exile accompanied by a much smaller group of Levites.

If the Zadokites were the predominant group in exile, it is easy to see how they would have gained prominence over those left in Judah. Jeremiah had stated that the exiles in Babylon were the future of Israel, while those left in Judah were the bad fruit (Jer. 24). This could have led the Zadokites to see themselves as the future of the priesthood, especially with Ezekiel saying that they had remained faithful while the other priests had gone astray with Israel.

1. Stephen L. Cook, “Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israelite Priesthood,” JBL 114 (1995), 193-208. [back]