Sam, Chr & Josephus (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Fri Mar 16 01:15:13 EST 2001

>No, I did catch all your evidence the first time and answered it. I dealt
>with the list of high priests as well, in a previous posting. You may not
>agree with my answers, but you cannot claim that I was not interested in
>your evidence. Obviously my eye is no more inerrantist than the rest of me.

On the high priestly line, first, you might like to read Sara Japhet's commentary on
Chronicles. It does give certain analyses of chapters 6 and 9 in line with mine and
you'll get them from a "reputable scholar".

But as you were not prepared to contemplate the Ezra traditions outside the one
found in the OT/HB your response on that matter was inadequate. It was dealing with
the matter without knowing what there was to talk about. Here it is again, with some
extra considerations.


         1Esdr 8:1    Ezra 7:1-3   2Esdr1:1

         Aaron        Aaron        Aaron
         Eleazar      Eleazar      Eleazar
         Phineas      Phineas      Phineas
         Abishua      Abishua      Abishua
         Bukki        Bukki        <Borith>
         Uzzi         Uzzi         Uzzi
            |         Zerachiah    <Arna>
            |         Meraioth     Meraimoth
            |         Azariah      Azariah
         Amariah      Amariah      Amariah
            |            |         <Eli>
            |            |         <Phineas>
            |            |         <Ahijah>
         Ahitub       Ahitub       Ahitub
         Zadok        Zadok        Zadok
         Shallum      Shallum      Shallum
         Hilkiah      Hilkiah      Hilkiah
         Azariah      Azariah      Azariah
         Seraiah      Seraiah      Seraiah

Here again is the growth of the high priestly line in that tradition. You can see
that there is only one copy of the sequence "Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok" in each list
and that each list appears to be an expansion of the previous one. The 1 Esdras list
can be either of the two as found in 1 Chr 6. There is not enough evidence for one
to choose where it should be placed. However, the expansion as found in Ezra 7 adds
Azariah before the sequence which precludes the first one in 1 Chr 6 (there is no
Azariah before the first sequence). This doesn't mean of course that it was a second
Zadok that the redactor of Ezra contemplated. It could just as easily still have
been the one Zadok found in the 1 Esdras Vorlage. However, by the expansion of the
list found in 2 Esdras 1 adding the sequence "Eli, Phineas, Ahijah" before Ahitub,
we have clear evidence that the Ezra tradition saw only one Zadok in the high
priestly lineage, the famous Zadok of Davidic times.

There are in fact two genealogies for Zadok supplied in the OT/HB, one in Chr 6 and
the other in 1 Sam. The writer of the 2 Esdras list included the 1 Sam data into his
genealogy. See 1 Sam 14:3 for each of the names included (giving us the fragment
"Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahijah"), as well as 2 Sam 8:17, which gives the relation of
Zadok as son of Ahitub. The 2 Esdras redactor has merely reversed the order of the
last two names ("Ahitub, Ahijah") so as to rationalise the data. He plainly saw that
the Zadok being dealt with in the list he has inherited is the Davidic Zadok. There
is no reason to believe that that wasn't so for the earlier lists as well,
especially as we have a strong tradition about the first and nothing about the
second found in the 1 Chr 6 list.

We therefore have a tradition that went through three versions, each without
knowledge of the evidence in 1 Chr 6, yet in a comparison between Ezra and Chr
linguistic analyses indicate that these two works were written in the same speech
community (this is the David Talsher analysis contra that of Japhet, and Japhet
sidestepped the issue in her commentary). This means we have to explain why the Ezra
tradition didn't know about the information in 1Chr 6.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list