Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter Kirk wrote:
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.

[JSafren] First of all, if there were only one possible interpretation,
there would be no scholarship!
I'm always ready to hear new views, like them or not, and have changed my
own views often, when given convincing evidence or arguments.
Secondly, I'm not at all denying that Israel was heir to ancient tradition
of cultus comon throughout the ANE. This was ignored by Wellhausen because
of his preconceived notions (read Moshe Weinfeld's excellent analysis of
Wellhausen's mentality; he published several articles on it in the early
'80s, both in English and Hebrew).
I think Yehezkel Kaufmann was right when he claimed that both the elaborate
temple cultus and the simple folk cultus existed at the same time. Wherever
there were temples (Shechem, Dab, Bethel,Shiloh,  Arad) or large bamot -
"high places" -  (Gilgal,Giv'on) there were functionaries with elaborate
rituals; while in al the villages there were simple altars or small bamot
where anyone could offer sacrifice (Gideon in Jud. 6; Ex. 20).

[PKirk] 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.

[JSafren] Then how do you explain the "Levite of a Judahite clan" in Jud.
17? How do you explain Israelite kings offering sacrifices at a time when
there was already an official priesthood? How do you explain David's sons
being priests? (Priesthood was a prerogative of kings in the ANE; I compared
the biblical and Ugaritic evidence on this subject in a Hebrew article
published in Beth Miqra in 1976).

[PKirk] 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).

[JSafren] I wish I had the time to present a more thorough refutation of
your claim. But let me point out that
the "rediscovery, as you claim, of the ancient rules led to the
centralization of cult as written in Deut. 12, and this stands in direct
contradiction to the altar laws of Ex. 20 and Lev. 17, from which we learn
that altars may built wherever YHWH "mentions His name", and may be built of
earth. This very well fits the conditions of the Sharon Plain, where I live,
and the various valleys, where there is no stone to built altars.
The presupposition of this verse (in Ex, 20) is that many altars may be
built. Even the ancient Rabbis understood this passage in this way.
Secondly, we learn from Lev. 17 that profane slaughter is forbidden; all
animals meant to be eaten must be brought to an altar (except for game
animals). The presupposition of this passage is that altars are readily
available to alll, even in the most remote places - in part, because anyone
can build an altar and offer sacrifice, in line with Ex.. 20.

[PKirk]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".

[JSafren] It's a rational suggestion, Peter, but not viable.
I got to sign off.
Would someone care to carry this discussion further? I have exams to grade
and grades to hand in no later than today!

Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College