Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Gary:

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org> wrote:

> Karl, I think you mean "khnym."
>

Yes, an example of copyist error.

>
> In any case, here's a pertinent note from A.A. Anderson in the Word
> Biblical Commentary:
>
> The statement that David’s sons were priests is often altered or toned down
> in the versions (cf. G, Syr., Tg.). Already 1 Chr 18:17 calls them “chief
> officials” (הראשנים) next to the king or, perhaps, “… the elder sons of
> David … were next to the king” (cf. McCarter, 254). The reason for these and
> other changes may have been the wish to avoid the implication that there
> could have been legitimate non-levitical priests. No indication is given as
> to whether or not the priestly function of David’s sons was different from
> that of Zadok and Ahimelek (or Abiathar). In any case, this office of the
> sons of David was, apparently, a temporary arrangement (cf. 20:26; 1 Kgs
> 4:1–6).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gary Hedrick
> San Antonio, Texas USA
>

The tack taken by the LXX is that the sons became high palace officials.

Another thought that just came to mind is that “priests” in early Egyptian
history were members of the royal family, a sinecure for princes who would
never become pharaoh. (Hence, when Joseph married the daughter of the priest
of On, he married into the royal family to strengthen his loyalty to the
pharaoh.) Hence “priest” did not necessarily refer to a exclusively
religious cultic function, rather it included a royal function as well. Does
this make sense?

Karl W. Randolph.