Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your careful review of the evidence. But I do not accept 
that your interpretation is the only possible one. You write: "In this 
matter I agree with the Welhhausenian School", and it is perhaps this 
school which has led you to presuppose that Israelite religion was 
simpler and less organised in earlier periods than later, when in fact 
this does not (if I remember rightly) accord with the picture 
elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In the 21st century we should not 
be relying on 19th century speculative schools and ignoring the 
results of 20th century archaeology.

I would suggest an alternative line of approach which equally well 
explains the evidence. The original Israelite religion, as promulgated 
at Sinai, made a clear distinction between the priests, of the one 
particular line of Aaron, and the Levites who were a wider group of 
(perhaps) ethnic origin. This distinction broke down during the 
chaotic period of the Judges, leading to such aberrations as a Levite 
being appointed priest at Dan, and perhaps even of a non-Levite Samuel 
becoming involved in priestly duties. Records of the original system 
remained, but were largely ignored for many centuries until they were 
rediscovered in Josiah's time. At that point an attempt was made to 
restructure the cultus according to those ancient rules (in much the 
same way as some modern Christian groups seek to reconstruct the 
church on a New Testament model, rejecting nearly two millennia of 
development and, in some eyes, decline - there are surely modern 
Jewish groups with the same sort of agenda).

I doubt if I can prove that my suggestion is better than yours. But it 
is at least a rational and viable suggestion, and as such it 
invalidated your "a distinction which could not have arisen before the 
Josianic Reform of 621".

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Ethics of our Profession
Author:  <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il> at Internet
Date:    16/02/2000 10:31


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

<snip>