Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Let me point out that in all this discussion, Ian has ignored my 
twice-repeated
comment that in the Ancient Near East the king could assume the functions of 
priest.
I didn't invent this; it's documented; and I've written on it regarding the 
Ugaritic
mythological texts.
In similar fashion, Julius Wellhausen, in his zeal to demonstrate that the 
sacrificial
cult in Judaism was late and a deviation from the pristine Israelite religion 
(and
therefore, as a 19th-century German Protestant theologian, to demonstrate the 
Catholic
cult and ritual were late and a deviation from the original and pure 
Christianity),
ignored the already-known evidence from the ANE that the pomp and 
circumstance of the
temple cultus were quite ancient, and that the Israelites didn't have to 
invent it.
It wasn't until some 50 years later that Yehezkel Kaufmann, in his Religion 
of Israel,
demonstrated the fallacy of Wellhausen's arguments, and persuaded many 
scholars that
at least the description of hte cult ion the Priestly Code could be early.
Are we going to have to wait another 50 years until someone demonstrates the 
fallacies
in the arguments of the Copenhagen School?
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel

Ian Hutchesson wrot

> Ian:
> >We have the conflict between David who has his priests and David who is a
> >priest. The most logical way to resolve this conflict is to say that the
> >David the priest flowered under the Hasmoneans.
> >
> >PK: By what system of logic?
>
> We have a historically verifable situation with the Hasmoneans: their coins
> indicate the dual role. As to David, all you can do is guess. This is of
> course one of the problems you have trying to make sense out of documents
> whose connection with the events they relate is unknown.
>
> >Another logic might suggest that the
> >record of David as priest-king was partly suppressed by later
> >advocates of a solely Levitical priesthood. Or more simply, David was
> >the chief priest and Nathan etc his assistants.
> >