Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Gen 12:8 Beth'el (Yigal)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gen 12:8 Beth'el (Yigal)
  • Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:31:15 +0200


>>>[..]
>>>Beth-lehem, Beth-anat, Beth-bamoth-baal, Beth-horon, Beth-dagan [..]
>>
>>The endurance of these towns' names suggests that the
>>names were born long enough in the Judahite tradition for
>>the religious aspects of the names to no longer have any
>>impact, as though those religious aspects were natural
>>and accepted, as against names of foreign deities which
>>would be changed had they been conquered and the names
>>found offensive.
>
>Are you imlying that they are NOT pre-Judahite/Israelite, but rather
>reflect Iron Age cults? Interesting, but there's no evidence.

I'm speculating on why these names were preserved. I
think the least complex explanation is that there was
nothing strange about the place names for those who
used them, presumably over a long period. I don't know
whether they were Israelite in origin or not, but I
think those who preserved the names found no problem
with them, either because they accepted/tolerated the
religious content or because they didn't understand,
though the latter is improbable.

>>[..]

>>>In Some cases we have some information on the deity
>>>worshiped there, in some we don't. Presumably, these names were not changed
>>>by the Israelites, even when we have no record that the cults themselves
>>>continued (that is, we have no evidence of Israelite sun-worship at
>>>Beth-shemesh, but the name was kept).
>>
>>I think the name of Samson is a good indication that people
>>in the Judahite tradition probably held to the sun god Shamash.
>
>Again, an idea, but there's no evidence of worship of Shamash. Remeber that
>the Samson story, while occuring in the Beth-shemesh area, makes no mention
>of the town - my guess on purpose.

At what stage of the telling was this though?

>Samson is probably called that (either
>by his parents or, assuming that he was only a literary figure, by the
>author) because he came from Beth-shemesh. My guess is that worship of
>Shamash there goes back to the Middle Bronze Age, although the quite
>extensive excavations have yet to reveal a cult site.

This seems reasonable, though cultic sites have been known
for their longevity.

>>>And third (or second,
>>>depending on your views on the relationship between the reality of the
>>>Monarchy and the composition of the Pentateuch), because of the site's
>>>importance in the Patriarchal narratives, especially those of Abraham and
>>>Jacob.
>>
>>One of the things which has bothered me long about Abraham
>>and Jacob: while the name Jacob is extremely common
>>throughout the tnk, Abraham is little known outside the
>>chapters of Genesis. While it is Abraham who is given the
>>covenant, it is only the children of Jacob for whom it is
>>applicable. The Jacob stories are much more primitive and
>>unflattering.
>
>This reminds me of Van Seters et al. Could be, though I'm not convinced.

As mine are somewhat fledgling thoughts, have you got
any references?

>>There is a process in biblical literature which seems to be
>>more and more evident to me: newer traditions are placed
>>before older ones to give them precedence: The "priestly"
>>creation comes before the more primitive dry world creation;
>>the priestly tradition of Melchizedek, which I understand to
>>have been a reflection of the Hasmonean king-priests (hence
>>the name "king of righteousness", tapping into the Zadok
>>rhetoric of the previous high priests), is placed before the
>>Aaronid traditions to give the Hasmoneans some legitimacy
>>after having usurped the high priesthood.
>
>Here I disagree, because I think that the Petateuchal traditions were in
>place way before the Hasmoneans.

I don't know why you necessarily think this, but I
was talking of individual modifications which took
place at different times. I think Melchizedek is 2nd
century BCE manifestation, whereas the Abrahamic
material was well established at that time, so that
Melchizedek could have been inserted within that
tradition.

>Nowhere is there a claim that the
>Hasmoneans illegitimately replaced the Aaronids/Zadokites (which by that
>time had been equated).

No, the Aaronids and the Zadokites were definitely
not equated. By the Hasmonean era the Zadokites had
departed for Egypt, which was around the time of the
Hellenistic crisis, when it was clear that the high
priesthood had been lost to them. Josephus who talks
about the foundation of the Oniad temple in Egypt in
a few places, seems to indicate a foundation date of
that time. This is consistent with the disappearance
of the sons of Zadok from Qumranic sources.

The sons of Zadok were the high priestly family from
the time of Ezekiel at least, when Aaron and his
sons didn't rank a mention, though there was a room
in his temple for other priests. (See Eze 40:45-46.)
While the other priests had control of the temple,
the sons of Zadok had control over the altar and were
the only ones with access to the presence of God.

Purity rules and strict marriage policies helped
maintain the exclusivity of the line of Zadok so that
it was quite compact, and their immigration to Egypt
was not a particularly complex event. When they
sought and received pharaonic protection, they simply
set up their own temple and carried on their priestly
traditions until the Romans destroyed that temple.

There are indications that the Boethusians were
descendents of the family, giving them good claim
on the high priesthood, making their selection by
the Herodians acceptable to most, though by that
stage the high priesthood was too heavily and
politically compromised.

As to the Hasmoneans, they were obviously not of the
Zadokite line, therefore not legitimately able to
serve before God. There's was the first overt
politicization of the high priesthood we have trace
of. All mention of the sons of Zadok immediately
stopped with their ascendency. The rhetoric turned
from Michael to Melchizedek (most DSS scholars want
to equate the two, but then they also want to believe
that the sons of Zadok is a metaphoric reference)
along with that second century manifestation of a
reintroduction of the use of El Elyon: the Hasmoneans
were the priests of the most High God -- though the
term crops up in other 2nd century works.

Bloodline was extremely important in those times as
can be seen by the maintenance of genealogies and the
employment of marriage laws for priests. This along
with the rhetocial innovations suggests that the
Hasmoneans were seen, and saw themselves, to have
been usurpers. (Note the strange and interesting
phrase used in 1 Macc 14:41 for the installation of
the Hasmonean family "until a true prophet should
arise", ie until something better came along, which
would have been unthinkable for the sons of Zadok.)

>At least in rabbinic sources, which are none to
>flattering of the Hasmoneans, the claim was that they had unjustly usurped
>the "crown" of monarchy (instead of the Davidides).

But the writer of the additions to the Assumption of
Moses (which says the Hasmoneans would be called the
priests of the Most High God) shows no respect for
them. Psalm of Solomon 18 seems also to say that they
were usurpers (at least of the throne of David):

They assailed us and thrust us out (they to whom thou
didst give no promise),
They took possession with violence... [18:5]

This is the middle first century BCE.

They are also obviously unworthy for the high
priesthood, as seen by PsSol 8.

Fortunately, I'm too tired to contniue.


Ian






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page