Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Peter,
The books of Judges, Samuel and Kings do not make any distinjction between
Priests and Levites. In Jud. 17, an itinerant Levite looking for a job finds
one at Micah's private shrine, and lated becomes the founderof the priestly
house at Dan. All Priests are Levites and all Levites can be Priests.
This situation is reflected in the writings of the First Temple Prophets,
who frequently mention priests, but never Levites.
(At the very earliest stage, a Levite seems to be merely a professional
class and not a tribe. The Levite of Jud. 17, for example, is "from the
clans of Judah", Samuel, and Ephraimite, becomes an apperentice at the
Shiloh shrine, and later officiates as a priest. For the author of
Chronicles, which was written after the appearance of the Torah, this is
intolerable, and so he invents a Levitical genealogy for Samuel)
The Josianic Reform puts all the non-Zadokite (Jerusalemite) priests out of
work. Though, according to 2 Kings 23, they are all brought to Jerusalem and
"eat bread" along with the Jerusalem priests, they become indigent in many
cases. This is reflected in the laws of Deuteronomy including the Levites
along with the widows an orphans as the poor, and other Deuteronomic laws
providing economically especially for the Levites.
Ezekiel 44-45 writes that only the Zadokite priests of Jerusalem may offer
sacrifices; the other Levites may not. As a former priest in the Temple of
Jerusalem himself, he is loking out for the vested interests of his own.
Those who served at other shrines may not officiate as priests in Jerusalem.
The distinction made between priests and Levites in the Priestly material of
the Pentateuch relfects this historical process and stands at the end of it.
In this matter I agree with the Welhhausenian School, though other material
in P is of First Temple origin, demonstrably so in the case of the Priestly
Blessing).
Sincerely, Jonathan D. Safren

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 11:12 PM
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re[2]: Ethics of our Profession


Dear Jonathan,

You wrote: "a distinction which could not have arisen before the
Josianic Reform of 621".

Why?

Please give arguments not from silence. Also bear in mind that there
is no a priori reason to assume that the surviving accounts of the
Josianic reform are more reliable than those of the giving of the
Pentateuch.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Ethics of our Profession
Author:  <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il> at Internet
Date:    14/02/2000 11:27


Dear Ken,
Your assessment of the position of the "Copenhagen school" concure with mine
in many respects.
However, there still remains internal evidence in the Torah for a
post-exilic redavtion.
For example, there is the distinction made between Priests and Levites, a
distinction which could not have arisen before the Josianic Reform of 621,
and which is first reflected, outside the Torah, in Ezekiel. We thus have to
push the final redaction forward into the very last days of the Kingdom of
Judah, at least, or the Babylonian Exile (where Ezekiel lived), if not the
beginning of the Persian Period.
Spinoza's idea that Ezra wrote the Torah is still a pretty good guess (but
only that).
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren


-----Original Message-----
From: kdlitwak [mailto:kdlitwak AT concentric.net]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 2:11 AM
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Ethics of our Profession

<snip>


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.