Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 2 Samuel 8:18 “khmym”

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • To: Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin AT biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 2 Samuel 8:18 “khmym”
  • Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 00:00:45 -0500

It seems to me that Psalm 110 comes into play here as well, since it
specifies a non-Aaronic priesthood as having YHWH's approval. Interesting
stuff.

Sent from my iPad
Donald R. Vance
dvance AT oru.edu
donaldrvance AT mac.com

On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin AT biu.ac.il> wrote:

> While it is true that according to the Priestly lay in the Pentateuch only
> Levites descended from Aaron can be priests, this does not seem to have
> been the historical reality of the pre-exilic period. Nowhere is there a
> genealogy that ties Eli to Aaron, and Zadok, who becomes priest in
> Jerusalem in David's day and is favored over Abiathar by Solomon, is only
> listed as a Levitical Aaronide in the post-exilic books of Ezra and
> Chronicles (and implicitly by Ezekiel as well). And of course, there is 2
> Samuel 8:18, but even more so Ex. 19:22, in which "the priests who approach
> the Lord" are told to sanctify themselves in preparation for the Mount
> Sinai revelation, whereas Aaron and his sons are only told that they are
> going to be appointed as priests in chapter 28. So what priests?
>
> There are several possible approaches, not all mutually exclusive. One is
> to assume that "Kohen" has a wider semantic range than "priest", and can
> also be used for "official", "elder" or "leader". This is certainly true in
> modern Hebrew, in which while a Jewish "Kohen" is always a descendent of
> Aaron, non-Jewish clergy are often referred to by the same term (although
> there are specific terms for specific religions as well), but the term
> "Kehunah" and the verb "lekhahen" mean "to hold office", for secular
> officials as well.
>
> Another approach is to assume that while Mosaic Law proscribes that only
> Aaronide Levites can be priests, many non-Aronides "usurped" the position.
> For example, since Jeroboam I expelled the Levites from his kingdom, all
> northern priest must have been non-Aaronides. Eli and Zadok "must have
> been" Aaronides, even if the text does not mention the fact. Of course then
> one would ask why the book of Samuel has no negative comment about David
> making his sons priests. And a third approach is that the Mosaic Law was
> actually written in the post-exilic period, when all Jewish priests were
> considered to be Aaronides. This, of course, depends on one's general
> approach to critical scholarship, which we will not discuss here.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what "David's sons were priests" means. The preceding
> 3 verses list David's chief officials, and the list is very specific and
> personal: Joab was over the army, Jehoshaphat was the recorder, Zadok and
> Ahimelech were Priests, Seraiah was the scribe, Benaiah was over the
> Cheretites and Peletites. And then, "David's sons were priests". Which
> sons? All of them? Permanently? Once? There's a lot the text does not tell
> us.
>
>
> As has been pointed out, in the 2 Chron. 18:17 parallel version, David's
> sons were "first at the hand of the king". The post-exilic Chronicler
> simply could not imagine that David's sons were actually priests, so he
> "reinterpreted" the text.
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:32 PM
> To: B-Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] 2 Samuel 8:18 “khmym”
>
> B-Hebrew haburim:
>
> This phrase, ובני דוד כהנים היו has always puzzled me. At first blush, it
> looks as if it is saying that David’s sons became priests. The problem is
> that in Israel’s religion, only the descendants of Aaron may become priests,
> so on the surface that seems to be an unlikely reading.
>
> Possible resolutions:
>
> כהנים had a broader meaning than just priest as we understand it, the
> position taken by the LXX which translated it as αυλαρχαι or palace
> officials.
>
> Another possibility is copyist error.
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page