Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

Dear Ian,
I disagree that the people of pre-Exilic Judah were
polytheistic. I don't know that the figurines represented
Ashera or that they were worshipped. I don't know who
wrote the grafitti on the Kuntillit Adjrud pithoi. I can tell
you tho that there was only one matzevah at Arad, the
other one you see in all the photos was part of the wall
and had fallen into the cella area.
All the polemics that you read in Ezekiel, etc. are just their
way of explaining the disasters. The temple was captured,
the people deported -- ERGO they must have worshipped
other gods.
liz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson
> Sent: Thu, February 27, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Priestly Stratum
>
>
> Liz Fried wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Ezekiel is a fixed point:
>
> Or might be if you could date it. (-:
>
> > 1) According to Ezekiel only the descendants of Zadok
> > are allowed to approach the altar.
> > 2) Ergo (?) the priests who approached the altar in
> > the post-exilic period were the descendants of Zadok.
>
> (Noting that the other priests had control
> of the house.)
>
> > 3) We all know who Zadok was, right? He was the one
> > who kicked out Abiathar in the time of Solomon.
>
> Though that's what the tradition indicates,
> the reality is not so clear. But note what
> the sons of Zadok say in CD 5:2-5 -- it was
> their eponymous ancestor who found the book
> (of the law) some time after David and
> Solomon! This is a tradition which is
> contrary to the current biblical one on the
> time of Zadok and on he discover of the
> book. How does one explain it? At the moment
> the DSS tradition seems to me to have been
> the older one which died with the sons of
> Zadok. As it was a priestly tradition it was
> not held by the "secular" tradents of late
> Sam/Kings.
>
> > 4) Ergo (?) they had the priesthood all along, the entire
> > pre-exilic period.
>
> With the glorification of the lost holy land
> regained it's not strange that even priests
> extended their lineage back before the exile.
> If you'd like I'll plot the evolution of the
> priestly genealogy again. One thing is certain
> it still isn't sufficient to cover the time
> it's meant to.
>
> > 5) Ergo (?) Ezekiel was not creating anything new.
> > 6) Ergo (?) they were the ones who wrote the P stratum,
> > whenever it was written.
>
> Well, they are probably responsible for most
> of the Torah. They had control of the
> literature for several centuries.
>
> Now as to when, I think there is enough of
> a case that the pre-exilic religion was
> polytheistic. Not just because of sites
> such as Kuntillat Ajrud, but because of the
> temple at Arad with its double altar,
> because of the high place at Malhah just
> outside Jerusalem and because of the
> numerous "Asherah" figurines found in the
> city, all around the time of the "Josian
> reforms". The repudiation of Asherah was
> after the exile. Remember Ezekiel still
> complaining about worship under every
> green tree.
>
> > If so, why is there not one word about Zadok in
> > the entire Pentateuch?
>
> For the same reason that Jerusalem is not
> directly mentioned, but then Aaron is a
> surrogate for Zadok (just as Melchizedek
> is for the Hasmonean priest-kings).
>
> > Why suppose that they are
> > pretending to be descendants of Aaron?
> > Why would they have created a fiction about Aaron,
> > when they could have created any fiction they wanted?
> > Why didn't they just have one of Aaron's sons be named Zadok???
>
> He was a son of a son of a son of a...
>
> But then the relationship between Zadok and
> Aaron is basically the same as that between
> Aaron and Levi. It was to this latter's
> progeny that the priesthood was given, then
> suddenly to only one specific descendant,
> and while they "kept" their priestly
> position, it was only the sons of Zadok who
> could approach the altar, which I gather
> refers to the ability to perform the whole
> burnt offering. The sons of Aaron could
> perform the other sacrifices.
>
> > Why doesn't P refer to the sons of Zadok instead of to the sons of
> > Aaron?
> >
> > I am definitely missing something here.
>
> You're not the only one.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew