Deborah - W. - Rooke-Zadok's - Heirs - The - Role - and - Development - of - The - High - Priesthood - in - Ancient - Israel (2000) PDF

Oxford Theological Monographs
Editorial Committee
J. Day P. Fiddes D. Macculloch
R. C. Morgan O. O'donovan K. Ware
Oxford Theological Monographs
‘WORKING THE EARTH OF THE HEART’

The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and
Language to AD 431
Columba Stewart, OSB (1991)
THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST

Ernst Käsemann's Interpretation of Paul's Theology
David V. Way (1991)
BEAUTY AND REVELATION IN THE THOUGHT OF

SAINT AUGUSTINE
Carol Harrison (1992)
THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON
Geoffrey Mark Hahneman (1992)
CHRISTOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY

Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius,
and Athanasius
J. Rebecca Lyman (1993)
KIERKEGAARD AS NEGATIVE THEOLOGIAN

David Law (1993)
EARLY ISRAELITE WISDOM

Stuart Weeks (1994)
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD FROM ORIGEN TO

ATHANASIUS
Peter Widdicombe (1994)
RIGHT PRACTICAL REASON

Aristotle, Action, and Prudence in Aquinas
Daniel Westberg (1994)
JOHN NEWTON AND THE ENGLISH EVANGELICAL

TRADITION
between the Conversions of Wesley and Wilberforce
D. Bruce Hindmarsh (1996)
ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS
POEMATA ARCANA
C. Moreschini and D. A. Sykes (1997)
Zadok's Heirs
The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel
Deborah W. Rooke
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Deborah W. Rooke 2000
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2000
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data applied for
ISBN 0–19–826998–6
Preface
The present work is a revision of my doctoral thesis, which was submitted to the University of Oxford in 1996 to be
examined by Professors H. G. M. Williamson and J. R. Bartlett. As is always the case with such works, many people
have assisted both directly and indirectly (and, dare I say it, both wittingly and unwittingly) in its genesis, so that
singling out specific individuals for public acknowledgement is a rather invidious exercise. Nevertheless, there are
those without whose particular contribution neither the thesis nor the book would have seen the light of day. In the
first place, I owe a lifelong debt of gratitude to Revd Dr Rex Mason, formerly Old Testament tutor at Regent's Park
College, not only for his own inspired teaching of the Old Testament, but also for suggesting to me, in a chance
encounter one dull Friday afternoon in 1990, that I should consider undertaking graduate study. It was a life-changing
moment, although neither of us would have recognized it as such at the time, and to the extent that I have succeeded
thus far his judgement is vindicated and, I hope, rewarded. Regent's Park has a tradition of excellence in Old
Testament study, and it is a privilege to have become a part of that tradition—though I suspect that H. Wheeler
Robinson would not altogether approve! Secondly, but by no means less importantly, Dr Sue Gillingham performed
the delicate four-year task of midwifery for the burgeoning thesis with consummate skill. Our meetings were always a
joy; she was and still is unfailingly supportive and stimulating both academically and personally, even when under great
pressure of time and work. I can think of no happier arrangement which could have been set in place for what was
both an exciting and a daunting venture, and my successful completion of the thesis is as much her achievement as it is
mine. Thirdly, of course, sincere and still rather incredulous thanks are due to the committee of the Oxford
Theological Monographs series for their willingness to accept the thesis for publication, and to the external reader
whose penetrating comments have served to strengthen the end product considerably. Finally, Dr John Day has been
the overseer of the metamorphosis from thesis to book; his eye for detail and his
vi PREFACE
encyclopaedic bibliographical knowledge have been invaluable, as has his thorough and helpful criticism of the entire
manuscript. I can honestly say that, in the best possible sense, the finished product would not have been the same
without him. There are, of course, bound to be shortcomings in any work which is its author's first sortie into the
academic arena, but to the extent that this work falls short it is my responsibility and not that of those mentioned, from
whose expertise I have benefited immeasurably.
Three matters of format are worth mentioning. In order to make the book more accessible to non-specialists, Hebrew
and Greek have for the most part been both transliterated and translated. However, where the argument depends
upon terminology in the the original language, terms have been used in transliteration without an accompanying
translation; and where transliteration and translation would be too cumbersome or awkward, for example, in phrases of
more than about six words, translation alone has been used. Secondly, the bibliographical details in the footnotes have
been designed for use in conjunction with the complete bibliography at the end of the book. Authors and works are
cited in full the first time they appear; thereafter, authors are cited by surname alone, unless initials are necessary to
distinguish them from another author cited in this book, and in the cases where more than one work by the same
author has been used in the course of this study, works are cited by abbreviated titles. In this way, it should be possible
to identify unambiguously full details of any citation when consulting the bibliography. Finally, where English
translations of French and German originals are not otherwise attributed, they are my own.
This book is dedicated to two people in particular—to my parents, who have always loved and supported me and
encouraged me to explore my own potential. Over the last ten years since my father's death, that exploration has made
me into a very different person from the daughter he would have known, but I like to think that he would be proud of
me now, as he was then. His influence has been a major factor in the present direction of my life; my only regret is that
he did not live to see it. By contrast, my mother has been a constant partner in the exploration, as we struggled
together and separately to reorientate ourselves after my father's death. In many ways, this book is the fruit of that
reorientation, and neither would have happened without the mutuality
PREFACE vii
and loving companionship which we share. I can pay her no greater tribute than to say that we are the closest of
friends. I dedicate the book to them both, in a paraphrase of the words with which Claude Debussy dedicated the
piano suite ‘Children's Corner’ to his daughter Chouchou: ‘A mes chers parents, avec les tendres excuses de leur fille
pour ce qui va suivre.’
Deborah W. Rooke
Trinity Term 1998
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Abbreviations xi
Introduction 1
PART I TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF HIGH PRIESTHOOD
1. High Priesthood According to the Priestly Writer 11
PART II HIGH PRIESTHOOD TO THE END OF THE EXILE
2. High Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History 43
3. Mysterious Melchizedek 80
4. Ezekiel: A Vision of Hierocracy? 104
Part II: Summary 120
PART III HIGH PRIESTHOOD IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD
5. High-Priestly Power in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 125
6. Ezra and Nehemiah: The High Priesthood in Fifth-Century Judah 152
7. The Elephantine Papyri 175
8. High Priesthood in the Books of Chronicles 184
9. After the Canon: the Later Persian Period 219
Part III: Summary 238
PART IV HIGH PRIESTHOOD FROM ALEXANDER TO POMPEY
10. The Hidden Years: High Priesthood under the Ptolemies 243
11. The Maccabean Conquest: Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees 266
12. The Hasmonean Dynasty: John Hyrcanus and his Successors 303
Part IV: Summary 325
Conclusion 328
x CONTENTS
Bibliography 331
Index of Textual References 354
Index of Proper Names 374
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Ag. Ap.Josephus, Against Apion
AJSLL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
AP Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century, ed. A. Cowley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923)
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew–English Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 3rd emended edn. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1987)
BJ Josephus, The Jewish War
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament
BT Babylonian Talmud
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAT Commentaire de L'Ancien Testament
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBSC Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CSCT Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
DH Deuteronomistic History
EQ Evangelical Quarterly
ET English translation
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testamentes
GK Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition by A. E. Cowley
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)
xii ABBREVIATIONS
HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IB The Interpreter's Bible, 12 vols. (New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952–7)
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
INJ Israel Numismatic Journal
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JR Journal of Religion
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement series
JSPS Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LXX Septuagint, ed. Alfred Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979)
MS(S) manuscript(s)
MT Massoretic Text
NCB New Century Bible
NEB Die Neue Echter Bibel
NETR Near Eastern School of Theology Theological Review
n.s. new series
ABBREVIATIONS xiii
NTSupp Novum Testamentum Supplement series

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OT Old Testament
OTG Old Testament Guides
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën
RB Revue Biblique
REJ Revue des Études Juives
RSV Revised Standard Version
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
TBC Torch Bible Commentary
TGUOS Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSupp Vetus Testamentum Supplement series
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Introduction
The high priest of Judaism is an exotic and mysterious figure. Introduced into the wilderness of the book of Exodus
with his elaborate ceremonial dress and exalted degree of sanctity, he has an aura of other-worldliness about him which
is epitomized by his role on that highest of holy days, Yom Kippur. Yet despite his apparent significance for the
spiritual welfare of his community, the high priest has a surprisingly low profile during the period covered by the
canonical literature. According to the present biblical narrative he disappears from view after the period of the
settlement, resurfacing for certain only in the post-exilic period and bringing with him the question of where (or
whether) he was during the monarchy. Neither is his position during the post-exilic period much clearer; although the
high priesthood definitely existed, the status of the high priest is surprisingly ambivalent, a fact which is often disguised
by the security of accepted wisdom on the subject. From the time of Wellhausen it has been assumed that once the line
of Davidic descendants fell into obscurity or otherwise failed, the high priest moved into the position of being the
highest-ranking native authority figure in the Judaean community, thereby emerging from his spiritual enclave into the
arena of government and politics. The following selection of quotations serves to illustrate the continuing prevalence
of this assumption.
The hierocracy towards which Ezekiel had already opened the way was simply inevitable. It took the form of a
monarchy of the high priest, he having stepped into the place formerly occupied by the theocratic king.1
Who was the chief of the Jewish state? In the early days of the Return we find a civil and a religious chief ruling side
by side, Zerubbabel, a descendant of the old royal family, and Joshua the high-priest. . . . But this double headship
did not go on. The house of David disappears
1
Julius Wellhausen, ‘Israel’, in Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), 427–548 (p. 495).
2 INTRODUCTION
from sight. The high-priest presently holds the supreme office without a rival.2
The days of the Second Temple mark the time of the ever-increasing power of the high-priest, until he becomes
virtually, and in some cases officially also, civic as well as religious leader.3
Since the Restoration the High Priest was the religious as well as the secular leader of the people.4
When King Cyrus of Persia issued his decree in 538 BCE permitting the Jews to return to their homeland, thousands
left Babylonia. . . . The Jews were divided into two factions. There were those who desired to organize the new
community as a monarchy; they followed Zerubbabel, because he was a descendant of King David, scion and
symbol of the royal family. Others, however, wanted the new community to be under religious leadership; they
chose as their leader Joshua, a descendant of the high priestly family. The latter party triumphed, Zerubbabel
vanished as a political factor from Judaea, and Joshua became not only the high priest in the rebuilt Temple but the
sole leader of the Jews.5
Political independence and the institution of an independent monarchy had now ceased to exist and the Temple . . .
had again become the real centre of Israelite life. . . . This led to the priestly element in Israel acquiring an
importance which it had not had hitherto. The first priest of the Temple in Jerusalem now became the head of all
Israel: he became the ‘High Priest’.6
We know that after the Exile, the high priest reached the stage of exercising in Jerusalem and in Judah the quasi-
monarchic function of head of the Israelite community.7
2
Edwyn Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-Priests (London: Edward Arnold, 1904), 5.
3
N. H. Snaith, ‘The Priesthood and the Temple’, in A Companion to the Bible, ed. T. W. Manson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1939; repr. 1945), 418–43 (p. 426).
4
Solomon Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), 170.
5
Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), Introduction, 1–2.
6
Martin Noth, Geschichte Israels, 2. Auflage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 284–5: ‘Jetzt war das staatliche Eigenleben und die Einrichtung eines selbständigen
eigenen Königtums dahingefallen; und der Tempel . . . war wieder zu dem eigentlichen Zentrum des israelitischen Lebens geworden. Damit gewann nun zugleich das
priesterliche Element in Israel eine Bedeutung, die es bisher nicht gehabt hatte. Der erste Priester des Jerusalemer Tempels wurde nun zum Haupt von ganz Israel; er wurde
zum “Hohenpriester”.’ (ET The History of Israel, trans. S. Godman, 2nd edn., rev. by P. R. Ackroyd (London: A. & C. Black, 1960; repr. 1965), 314–15).
7
R. Tournay, ‘Le Psaume cx’, RB 67 (1960), 5–41 (p. 20): ‘On sait qu'après l'exil, le grand prêtre en vint à exercer à Jérusalem et en Juda les fonctions quasi monarchiques de
chef de la communauté israélite.’
INTRODUCTION 3
Once the monarchy had disappeared, all this royal paraphernalia was appropriated to the high priest. . . . The high
priest became the head of the nation, and its representative before God, as the king had been in days gone by. But it
was only gradually that this idea of the high priest as head of the nation took shape. . . . Under the Hasmoneans, this
ideal became a reality: the eight heads of this dynasty . . . were both high priests and heads of the Jewish nation.
They also took the title of king, probably from the time of Aristobulus I (104–103 BC).8
The restored community of Judah was more a church than a state. No longer a monarchy, it became a hierocracy.
The high priest, therefore, acquired much of the dignity that had formerly belonged to the king. . . .With the
disappearance of the house of David, the high priest becomes the undisputed head of the Jewish state, supreme in
the civil as in the ecclesiastical realm.9
For [Zechariah], as for Haggai, Zerubbabel is the servant of Yahweh, the ‘Branch’ of David's line . . . , but Joshua
the high priest is more prominent here than in Haggai's oracles. This is a pointer to the growing influence of the
high priest in the affairs of the Palestinian Jewish community, of which, in time, he became the civil as well as the
religious head.10
It was the priestly line which came to the fore and they were seen as divinely appointed rulers of the community and
administrators of the temple, guarantees of a future messianic ruler who would ‘build’ the temple in the sense of
‘building up the community of God's faithful people’.11
It is generally thought that the establishment in Jerusalem of a theocratic regime, that is to say, the holding of both
civil and religious authority by the same person, goes back to the Persian period.12
8
R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de L'Ancien Testament, 2 vols. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1958–60), ii. 271: ‘Lorsque la monarchie eut disparu, cet appareil royal passa au grand
prêtre. . . . Cela signifie que le grand prêtre devenait le chef de la nation et son représentant devant Dieu, comme avait été le roi. L'idéologie royale du grand prêtre ne s'est
d'ailleurs développée que peu à peu. . . . Sous les Asmonéens, l'idéal devint une réalité: les huit chefs de cette maison . . . furent à la fois grands prêtres et chefs de la nation
juive et, probablement à partir d'Aristobule Ier , en 104–103 av. J. C., ils prirent le titre de rois.’ (ET Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961), 400–1.)
9
R. Abba, ‘Priests and Levites’, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. and supplement (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1962–76), iii (1962), 876–89 (p. 878).
10
G. W. Anderson, The History and Religion of Israel, New Clarendon Bible (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 156–7.
11
Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977; repr. 1980), 63.
12
Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, ‘Le régime théocratique juif a-t-il commencé à l'époque perse, ou seulement à l'époque hellenistique?’, Semitica 32 (1982), 93–6 (p. 93): ‘On
considère généralement que l'instauration à Jérusalem d'un régime théocratique, c'est-à-dire le cumul par un même personnage des pouvoirs laïque et religieux, remonte à
l'époque perse.’
4 INTRODUCTION
It seems clear that the role of the high priest achieved certain prominence in the early postexilic period.13
It was an innovation that the Ptolemies refrained from installing a governor in Judaea. This led to the high priest
becoming a political representative of the community to the king (prostates), extending his function of leadership
from the priestly college to the council of elders, and now also taking over the political leadership (Sirach 50. 1–4).14
In the period of the First Temple, Israel and Judah were monarchies. Although there was a high priest, the major
civil and even cultic official was the king. Throughout most of the period of the Second Temple, however, the high
priest took on an increasingly prominent role. Judah during most of that time could be best characterized as a
theocracy. That is, even when it was under foreign domination, as it usually was, the high priest was the main figure
of government within Judah itself. He was also the representative of the nation to the foreign overlord.15
Whatever Zechariah may have meant, Zerubbabel did not fulfil the hope that he would rule as a Davidide. Indeed,
chapters 7 and 8 never mention him. Ironically, once the Temple was completed, it was the high priest who rose in
status in the absence of any indigenous, secular authority.16
It is clearly a common understanding, then, that during the post-exilic period the high priest became the substitute for
the monarch and as such sooner or later rose to prominence in the civil sphere, a view which is expressed even in the
most recent publications, as evidenced by the last quotation given above. But there are difficulties with this
presentation, not the least of which is the lack of substantial evidence for it until the middle of the second century
when the Maccabean priests clearly did combine political and military leadership of their people with the highest
religious office in the country. It should also be noted that not all scholars
13
David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1985), 189.
14
Rainer Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, 2 vols., ATD Supplement Series, 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), ii. 593: ‘Neu war jedoch,
daß die Ptolemäer darauf verzichteten, einen Statthalter in Judäa einzusetzen. Dies führte dazu, daß der Hohepriester in die Position des politischen Repräsentanten des
Gemeinwesens gegenüber dem König (prostátēs ) einrückte, seine Leitungsfunktion vom Priesterkollegium auf den Ältestenrat ausdehnte und nun auch die politische
Führung übernahm (JesSir 50, 1–4).’ (ET A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. John Bowden, 2 vols. (London: SCM Press, 1994), ii. 535.)
15
Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM Press, 1994), 74.
16
Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995), 79.
INTRODUCTION 5
subscribe to the picture of the high priest as a civil ruler in earlier times; thus, in the opinion of Morgenstern,
The anointing of this chief priest of the Jerusalem sanctuary, no doubt with the sanction, and not improbably even
with the conscious purpose, of the Persian government, now stamped his office as the recognized successor to the
former kingship and him as the official native head of the Jewish people; but he was no longer a political head; he
was instead the theocratic head of the ‘community of Yahweh’.17
The present study is therefore an examination of the role of the high priesthood in the life of ancient Israel, and it will
address in particular the question of how the high priesthood developed in the post-exilic period. The study employs
what might be called the historical critical method of analysis; in other words, it attempts to analyse the selected sources
in a way which will enable the distillation of any historical content which is relevant to the project at hand. It is not a
full-scale anthropological or sociological study, nor is it a purely literary study in which the assumed impossibility of
getting behind the final form of the material or of recovering any factual historical information means that prime
importance is laid upon individual reader response to the final form. Rather, it assumes that there is a certain amount
of factual information to be gleaned and inference to be made from the sources, while at the same time acknowledging
that the way in which the information is presented will reflect a range of distorting factors which must be taken into
account if a reasonably accurate interpretation of the material is to be produced. The other major characteristic of the
study is that it is confined to sources which are seen to have a precise bearing on the Jewish high priesthood, because the
intention is not to deal with high priesthood as a generic or comparative religious phenomenon, but only with the
specific manifestations of high priesthood in the Israelite and Judaean context.18
The study is divided into four major parts. It begins in Part I 5
17
J. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood’, AJSLL 55 (1938), 1–24, 183–97, 360–77 (p. 187).
18
Ch. 3 on Melchizedek and Ch. 7 on the Elephantine papyri could be seen as exceptions to this principle, inasmuch as Melchizedek is assumed to be a Canaanite figure and
the Elephantine papyri are examined for indications of a high priesthood apart from the one based in Jerusalem. However, the aim of both chapters is to use the admittedly
non-Judaean material to elucidate the nature and workings of the high priesthood in Jerusalem, so that despite the inclusion of this comparative material the overall thrust of
the study remains unchanged.
6 INTRODUCTION
with an examination of the Priestly writings (‘P’), the part of the Old Testament where the model of high priesthood is
set out most explicitly, in order to ascertain the nature of the office as portrayed in P. This is an important first step,
because the scholarly tendency has been to interpret references to high priesthood elsewhere in the Old Testament in
the light of the perceived picture of high priesthood in P. It is therefore vital that P's picture of the high priesthood is
correctly established, so as to avoid the distorting influence which an incorrect assessment of P will inevitably exert on
interpretations of the high priesthood outside the Priestly corpus. Parts II–IV then trace the development of the office
in three major stages, as follows. Part II covers the pre-exilic and exilic periods from the settlement down to the end of
the Exile, and has three sections. The first of these is an investigation of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic
History, where the main intention is to determine whether or not the high priesthood existed during the pre-exilic
period, and if it did, the nature and extent of its jurisdiction. The second section is a consideration of the Melchizedek
figure in Gen. 14: 18–20 and Ps. 110: 4, inasmuch as Melchizedek represents the combination of royal and priestly
authority in one individual. This section comes after the Deuteronomistic History as a comment on it, on the grounds
that the Melchizedek passages in question are considered to date from the monarchic period. The final section of Part
II is a discussion of the prophecies of Ezekiel, a source where there is a good deal of priestly material and a plan of
restoration which advocates a position of particular prominence for the Temple and its personnel. The question is
whether or not this represents a move towards hierocracy, and the answer which is given will of course have
implications for the position of the high priesthood during the exilic period to which the book is dated.
Part III covers the Persian period from the Restoration to Alexander's conquest of Palestine in 332 BCE, and has five
sections: an examination of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, where the position of the high priest during
the Restoration period is assessed; a section on Ezra and Nehemiah, which deals with the nature of the by now re-
established community in the mid-fifth century BCE to see how far the high priest's power has developed; an
investigation of the Elephantine papyri, which are contemporary with the events and context of Ezra–Nehemiah in the
fifth
INTRODUCTION 7
century BCE and which mention the high priest at Jerusalem as well as another temple on the island of Elephantine
itself; an analysis of the books of Chronicles, which are a post-exilic treatment of the pre-exilic period covered in the
Deuteronomistic History and which show a distinctive priestly bias in their presentation of Temple ritual; and finally,
an examination of the evidence provided by the Jewish historian Josephus and by provincial Judaean coinage for the
position of the high priesthood in the late Persian period. Part IV covers the Greek period from Alexander's conquest
to the fall of Jerusalem to Pompey in 63 BCE, and has three sections: a discussion of what can be gleaned from the
scant sources covering the Ptolemaic period about provincial administration and the high priest's part in it, and then
two sections for the Seleucid period—an analysis of the Maccabean revolt and rise to power which was spearheaded by
a priestly family, and finally a discussion of the Hasmonean dynasty of so-called priest-kings down to the time of the
Roman conquest.
At the end of Parts II, III, and IV, conclusions will be drawn concerning all the material dealt with in the course of that
section; and after the conclusions for Part IV, overall conclusions will be drawn as to the nature of the high priest's
position in ancient Israel. It is hoped that the arguments which are presented and the conclusions which are drawn will
be found convincing; but perhaps more importantly than that, it is hoped that they will be found challenging, since it is
very often by accepting and answering challenge that new insights can be gained. If this study succeeds in either of
these ways, it will have achieved its aim.
Part I Towards an Understanding of High Priesthood
1 High Priesthood According to the Priestly Writer
Although the high priesthood appears on a number of occasions in a variety of sources, its most explicit presentation is
to be found in the Pentateuch, in the so-called Priestly materials (usually designated by the acronym P).19 The
designation ‘Priestly’ arises from the great interest which these materials display in the cult and its proper functioning,
and a prominent feature of that interest is their inclusion of detailed legislation concerning the nature and duties of the
high priesthood, together with several narratives which illustrate the high priest's position in the community. No other
canonical source depicts the high priest in such detailed terms, and so an assessment of P's depiction is a vital
component in any study of the high priesthood. However, P's depiction is significant not only because of its detailed
information on the high priesthood, but because of its undoubted influence on conceptions of the high priesthood in
general, since where the high priest appears in other less detailed sources, these references have (not unnaturally) been
19
This is not the place for an elaborate defence of a documentary, fragment or source hypothesis of Pentateuchal origins; suffice it to say that whether P was originally a
document, fragments or a source, or even a layer of redaction, its broad demarcation as a distinct body of tradition within the Pentateuch is legitimate on the grounds of its
characteristic concerns as well as correspondences of style and vocabulary throughout the material. The aim here is to ascertain what light if any P can shed on the high
priesthood, something which can be accomplished despite uncertainty as to the exact process by which the several elements in the Pentateuch were combined into their
present format. For more detailed discussion on whether or not P forms a self-contained source, see F. M. Cross, ‘The Priestly Work’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 293–325; Rolf Rendtorff, Dasüberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin and New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 1977), 141–2, 160–3 (ET The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. John J. Scullion, JSOTS 89 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 169–70,
191–4); Klaus Koch, ‘P—Kein Redaktor!: Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung’, VT 37 (1987), 446–67; J. A. Emerton, ‘The Priestly Writer in Genesis’,
JTS n.s. 39 (1988), 381–400; William H. C. Propp, ‘The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?’, VT 46 (1996), 458–78; Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth
Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 196–221. Of these scholars, Cross and Rendtorff view P as a layer of redaction, whereas the others
view it as an independent source of some kind.
12 TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF HIGH PRIESTHOOD
understood in the light of the perceived concept of the high priest in P. Hence, the results of an assessment of P's
position may well have implications for how references to the high priest in other sources should be understood. For
these two reasons, therefore—P's value in itself as a source of detailed information on the high priesthood, and its
influence on conceptions of the high priesthood in general—an examination of P forms the first stage of the current
enquiry.
In its present form, P is usually dated to some time during the Exile or soon after, for several reasons. In the first place,
its stipulations were apparently known to and regarded as binding by the writer of Chronicles, whereas the comparative
laxity of the books of Samuel and Kings which were a major source for Chronicles seems to indicate that P's detailed
legislation was either not in force or not regarded as binding when the earlier works were composed.20 This points to a
date between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles as the time when P along with the rest of the Pentateuch became widely
circulated and accepted. Also, from the assumption of Noth's concept of Pentateuch plus Deuteronomistic History
whereby the books Joshua to 2 Kings form a unit composed on the basis of Deuteronomistic theology,21 it follows that
the Pentateuchal materials do not continue into Joshua in an organized form; hence, P has no narrative of the
occupation of Canaan, ending instead with the people of Israel poised on the edge of the promised land but not quite
having reached their final destination. This would reflect the position of the Babylonian exiles awaiting re-
establishment in their own land, implying that P should be dated at a time during the exilic years when a new future
seemed promised but was as yet unattained.22 The circumstances
20
There are a number of examples of the Chronicler altering his source to bring it into line with P's prescriptions. Two such examples can be found in the story of Jehoiada
and Joash repairing the Temple (2 Chr. 24: 1–14; 2 Kgs. 12: 2–17 (ET 12: 1–16)) and in the description of Zadok and his brother priests offering the daily sacrifice at Gibeon
(1 Chr. 16: 39–40—cf. Exod. 29: 38–42). For further details, see Ch. 2 on the Deuteronomistic History and Ch. 8 on the books of Chronicles.
21
Noth, ‘Das deuteronomistische Werk (Dtr)’, in Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943), 3–110 (ET The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 15
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) ).
22
Some disagree that P has no narrative of occupation and have argued for the existence of Priestly materials in Joshua, thereby implying a date for P at which tenure of the
land was a reality, whether pre-exilic or post-exilic. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P’, CBQ 38 (1976), 275–92, and John E. Petersen, ‘Priestly Materials in
Joshua 13–22: A Return to the Hexateuch?’, HAR 4 (1980), 131–46.
THE PRIESTLY WRITER 13
under which such expectation would most naturally arise would be the appearance of Cyrus the Persian, as testified by
the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah; hence, it seems reasonable to date P to the period between Cyrus' rise during the
550s and his edict allowing the exiles to return and rebuild the Temple in 538 BCE (2 Chr. 36: 22–3). This would give a
working date for P's compilation of c.550–540 BCE.23
However, there can be no doubt that much of P's cultic and legal material in particular is a good deal earlier than the
date at which it was finally collated and promulgated in its present form. The body of material which has the general
designation P shows signs of being composed of various different strata, and includes a number of smaller originally
independent collections of legal matter, a feature which can be seen most clearly in the structure of
23
Although an exilic or post-exilic date for P has been the most commonly accepted view, there is a significant minority of scholars who argue for its date in the pre-exilic
period. Menahem Haran, ‘The Law-Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and its Relation to the Priestly School’, HUCA 50 (1979), 45–71, argues that P is a product of the pre-
exilic priesthood, but that it was driven from prominence by the excesses of Manasseh and was not restored until the time of Ezra (pp. 66, 67, 69). See also Haran, Temples
and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978; repr. with corrections Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 140–8, and ‘Behind the Scenes of History:
Determining the Date of the Priestly Source’, JBL 100 (1981), 321–33, where Haran argues for P as the ideological basis of Hezekiah's reform. Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic
Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982), and
‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen’, ZAW 100 Supplement (1988), 88–100, argues that the language
of P belongs to the pre-exilic rather than to the exilic or post-exilic periods, and Ziony Zevit, ‘Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P’, ZAW 94 (1982),
481–511, uses historical, linguistic, and literary data to argue for a preexilic date of composition. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991),
13–35, builds on the work of his student Israel Knohl in dating the so-called Holiness Code of Lev. 17–26 at the end of the eighth century and the main body of P prior to
that; Knohl himself, in The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995), 199–218, dates H to the middle of the
eighth century and assigns the development of P to the preceding two centuries. However, Blenkinsopp, ‘An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly
Material in the Pentateuch’, ZAW 108 (1996), 495–518, convincingly challenges these attempts to ‘back-date’ P as being motivated by the desire to rescue P from the
negative assessments it received at the hands of nineteenth-century scholarship, and offers a critique of the lines of argumentation used to defend the idea of a pre-exilic
dating, concluding that they are unsatisfactory. He admits that this is not an automatic validation of a post-exilic dating, but suggests that it is possible to counter earlier
scholarship's negative evaluation of P without necessary recourse to a pre-exilic dating, adding that a more positive view of P in general would provide a less contentious
environment in which to discuss the issue of P's chronology (pp. 517–18).
Leviticus.24 Hence, the impression is given of pre-exilic material which has been worked into the greater structure of P,
material which may well include some of that concerning the high priest-hood.
In examining the Priestly material, the aim is to establish how the elevated priestly figure who is usually thought of as
the high priest fits into the society which P describes, and whether this figure is portrayed as a political ruler as well as a
religious figure-head. The picture of Israelite society presented by P in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers is of the
Israelites in the wilderness as a cultic community gathered around and centred on a shrine, which via its ritual serves as
the people's channel of communication with the deity. There is a great sense of God's holiness and power, and a
corresponding sense of human sinfulness and unholiness, which somehow have to be reconciled with each other if the
cultic community is to be meaningful; reconciliation is achieved by stipulating ‘degrees of holiness’, and defining the
people and objects which partake of each degree. An important part of this system is the ‘three-tier’ system of
priesthood. All cultic personnel are designated ‘holy’ as opposed to the ordinary members of the community, but
within the ‘holy’ class the Levites are the least holy and function as shrine attendants and priests' assistants, the priests
(the sons of Aaron) are more holy and are allowed to carry out ceremonies involving the altar which stands outside the
tent shrine, but only the supremely holy high priest, represented by the figure of Aaron, is allowed to enter the tent
shrine at all, and even for him, entry to the innermost part of the shrine is strictly limited. The high-priestly figure for
whom ‘Aaron’ is a symbol is therefore seen as part of a system of holiness whereby the gap between
24
The following units of legislation are clearly visible in Leviticus: chapters 1–7 (presentation of offerings), 8–10 (ordination of priests), 11–15 (purity regulations), 16 (Day of
Atonement), 17–26 (the Holiness Code), 27 (vows and tithes). Both Leviticus 1–7 and 11–15 can be seen to be secondary insertions because they interrupt the flow of the
narrative, as indicated by the fact that in each case the verses immediately preceding and following the unit of legislation run on from each other in terms of sense. See Noth,
Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948), 7–8 (ET A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1972), 8–9), and Philip J. Budd, Leviticus, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1996), 12–20. The original independence of
the units in Leviticus from their present context is also indicated by their content, something which is particularly true of the Holiness Code where the regulations fit the
circumstances of a settled life in Israel rather than those of a nomadic society or an expatriate community in Babylon—see for example Lev. 19: 29, 33–4; 25: 29–31, 44.
human and divine is bridged, but within which the boundaries are quite distinct, a structure which Gorman sees as
expressing a theology of cosmos in terms of separation of classes of items from each other.25 Any blurring of the
boundaries—an inevitable result of sin—threatens the created order, and if not rectified will result in Yahweh's being
driven from his dwelling place among the people, which in its turn will result in their downfall since it is his presence
that secures their well-being.26 Of course, not only does this mean that unclean things must be kept away from clean
things, but also that clean things must be kept away from unclean things, and holy from unholy (cf. the purity rules for
priests in Lev. 21: 1–22: 9); hence, there are certain areas in which ‘Aaron’ as a part of this cosmos cannot be involved
because he is too holy and involvement with them would defile him.
The context in which the high priesthood appears is thus a cultic context, and from the rigorous structuring of the
community as a whole it is fair to assume that the high priest will have a clearly defined position within it which reflects
its cultic nature and which will become apparent upon investigation of the relevant material. In P as a whole there are
three types of material, namely, legislative, narrative, and genealogical material, and this is a division which also
characterizes the material relating specifically to the high priesthood. The legislative material on high priesthood comes
largely in Exodus and Leviticus, while the relevant material in Numbers is largely narrative with one short piece of
genealogy. Some of it is presented in terms of the figure of Aaron, and later of Eleazar, whereas other material speaks
of ‘the anointed priest’ or uses some other descriptive phrase which clearly refers to a priestly figure who is set apart
from the other priests in some way. For present purposes, legislative, narrative, and genealogical material will be
examined in turn and then overall conclusions will be drawn.
The legislative material is by far the largest category of material on the high priesthood, as well as being the type of
material in which the high priesthood first appears, and so it seems the logical category with which to begin the detailed
study. However, there is one important observation which should be made before
25
Frank H. Gorman, Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTS 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
26
Ibid. 40–5.
becoming involved in the minutiae of the regulations: all the legislative material in P, including that which deals with the
high priesthood, is shown as being imparted by Yahweh to Moses, who is the appointed mediator between the deity
and the community.27 This is presumably because any material which comes via Moses is regarded as having the stamp
of divine authority, and the claim of such authority is being made for the legislation. In this way the detailed provisions
concerning the high priesthood are themselves shown as a part of the divine ordering of the community. However, the
very fact that the instructions for the high priesthood are communicated via a pre-existing authority figure who never
loses his authority even when Aaron has been inducted as high priest implies already that for all its significance the high
priest-hood is in some areas at least secondary to other structures in the community.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the high priesthood is introduced by instructions for the office-holder's clothing and
induction; in fact, the description of Aaron the high priest's ceremonial garments (Exod. 28: 1–43; also Exod. 39: 1–31
and Lev. 8: 5–9) is the first element of the instructions for the priesthood as a whole, instructions which come as the
second major area of cultic provision immediately after the directions for constructing the Tabernacle and its
furnishings (Exod. 25: 10–27: 21). This juxtaposition of Tabernacle and personnel, especially the close juxtaposition of
high priest and Tabernacle, implies a strong connection between the two which also comes out elsewhere in the
legislation and will be noted where appropriate.
Turning to the high priest's garments, it is reasonable to assume that this kind of ceremonial clothing will have some
kind of significance or symbolism, and so if the significance can be determined it may enable a better understanding of
the office and its duties. In general terms, the garments as a whole distinguish their wearer from the other priests and
are thus a sign of status (cf. Lev. 21: 10; Num. 20: 22–9), and their overall purpose is given in Exod. 28: 3 as
(le qadde šô le kahanô-lî, ‘to consecrate him to serve me as priest’), that is, to express the wearer's holiness
and priestly status which enable him to come closer than anyone else in the community to Yahweh. That this is indeed
their purpose is borne out by
27
In the legislation concerning the high priest there are two exceptions to this principle, both of which will be discussed below.
an examination of the individual items of the costume. The ephod (Exod. 28: 5–14; 39: 2–7), which in this context is
presumably a priestly garment,28 is made out of the same kind of material as the veil of the Tabernacle ( ,
ḥōsēb—Exod. 26: 31; 28: 6), thereby underlining its wearer's close connection to the Tabernacle and accompanying
ceremonial, as well as its own superlative holiness29—an obvious expression of the principle of consecration for
priesthood. The blue robe with pomegranates and bells around its skirts (Exod. 28: 31–5) is a variation on the theme
of a well-to-do person's garment;30 although the significance of the bells and pomegranates has been variously assessed,
it is indisputable that they are primarily religious motifs.31 Here they form a vital part of
28
Elsewhere the term appears to refer to a cultic image (Judg. 8: 27; 17: 5) or a tool for divination (1 Sam. 23: 9), as well as a priestly garment (1 Sam. 2: 18; 22: 18). Haran,
Temples and Temple-Service, 167–8, claims that a major component of the high priest's ephod is beaten gold, cut into strips and interwoven in the fabric; it is therefore
appropriate to regard this ephod too as a golden ephod, making it ‘the very same ephod as that referred to in non-priestly sources’ (p. 168).
29
Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 160–1. Haran argues that the material of the ephod differs from that of the veil in that it is not ornamented with cherubim and contains a
large amount of gold not present in the veil; however, the fabric mixture apart from the gold is still the superlatively holy blend of all kinds of wool and linen with general
ornamentation (pp. 167–8). In its manifestation as an elaborate part of the ceremonial priestly regalia the ephod is probably a relatively late development from the priestly
‘linen ephod’ (1 Sam. 2: 18; 22: 18).
30
Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, ATD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 183 (ET Exodus, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1962), 224);
R. E. Clements, Exodus, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 183. Haran, ‘Priesthood, Temple, Divine Service: Some Observations on Institutions and
Practices of Worship’, HAR 7 (1983), 121–35, points to the use of the colours blue, purple, and gold in the high priest's vestments as ‘salient royal emblems’ (p. 123). On
this view the colour of the robe would make it a royal garment.
31
Many scholars have seen the bells as originally an apotropaic device against demons; so Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, HKAT 1.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1903), 244; Georg Beer, Exodus, HAT 3 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1939), 142; Noth, Exodus, 183 (ET, 224); J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, NCB (London:
Oliphants/ Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971), 284; Josef Scharbert, Exodus, NEB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), 111. S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, CBSC
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911; repr. 1918), 308, Hyatt, 284, and Robert L. Cate, Exodus, Layman's Bible Book Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman
Press, 1979), 117, regard the bells as a way of enabling those outside the Tabernacle to hear the high priest moving about inside and know that all was well; Frank Michaeli,
Le Livre de L'Exode, CAT 2 (Neuchâtel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1974), comments that the bells ringing when the high priest entered and left the shrine would
indicate the beginning and end of the service (p. 252). Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 217–18, 223 n. 23, and John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987),
388, see in the bells a way of ministering to the deity. The pomegranates are probably a symbol of the life or fructifying power of Yahweh (Baentsch, 244; Cate, 118;
Durham, 388). C. Houtman, ‘On the Pomegranates and Golden Bells of the High Priest's Mantle’, VT 40 (1990), 223–9, suggests that pomegranates and bells together
were intended to create a pleasing atmosphere which would draw Yahweh's favourable attention to the high priest and therefore to Israel.
the equipment of one who is to serve in close proximity to the deity, despite the fact that both symbols doubtless have
their origins in a religious milieu far removed in time and concepts from those of the Priestly writings. The gold plate
on the high priest's head-dress ( , ṣîṣ—Exod. 28: 36; 39: 30; Lev. 8: 9) is intended to absorb the guilt caused by any
inadvertent flaw in the sacrificial offerings.32 Elsewhere the term (nēzer, ‘crown’—Exod. 29: 6; 39: 30; Lev. 8: 9) is
used as a synonym for the term (ṣîṣ), possibly signifying that the gold part of the head-dress was a diadem or
crown rather than simply a plate.33 The term (ṣîṣ) itself literally means a blossom or flower, and may indicate a
flower-shaped plate or flowers engraved on a plate or diadem;34 if this is the case, it may be compared with the
Egyptian use of the flower in ritual contexts as a sign of vitality and life-force,35 a most appropriate symbol for the high
priest of Yahweh the ever-living Lord of life and a powerful sign that not even the pollution and guilt incurred from a
flawed offering can cause the high priest's death. All three of these items are restricted to the high priest's garments as
opposed to the normal priestly garments, and it can be seen that all three epitomize the principles of holiness and
priestly service which are doubtless characteristic of the office.
Three items in particular from the high priest's garments are often regarded as ‘royal’ elements and made the basis for
speculation that the high priest moved into the place of the monarch during the post-exilic period.36 First, the twelve-
stoned breastpiece inside which the Urim and Thummim rest (Exod. 28: 15–30) is apparently a cross between a pouch
to hang round the priest's neck as a container for the sacred lots and a royal pectoral.37 Secondly, the turban ( ,
miṣnepet—28: 37, 39) is often thought
32
Baentsch, 245.
33
See Hyatt, 284–5, on the gold item as a diadem or crown.
34
Michaeli, L'Exode, 247; Scharbert, Exodus, 111; Milgrom, 511–12; John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1992), 107.
35
A. de Buck, ‘La Fleur au front du grand-prêtre’, in OTS 9 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951), 18–29.
36
Haran, ‘Priesthood, Temple, Divine Service’, 123–4, uses the high priest's ceremonial costume to argue for the high priest as in effect the Priestly equivalent of the monarch.
See also Michaeli, L'Exode, 249.
37
Noth, Exodus, 181–2 (ET, 222–3); Michaeli, L'Exode, 215; Scharbert, Exodus, 111.
to be an indicator of royal prerogative transferred to the high priest,38 because the only place where the word is found
outside the context of high-priestly garments is in Ezek. 21: 31 (ET 21: 26), where it occurs in parallelism with the
term ‘crown’ ( , ʽaṭạrâ) in an oracle addressed to the prince of Israel.39 Thirdly, it was noted above that the gold plate
may have been a diadem or crown ( , nēzer), which would certainly seem to imply that its wearer enjoyed the
privileges of royalty.40 However, these items need not indicate the high priesthood's assumption of royal position and
privilege. This is most evident in the case of the diadem; although the term (nēzer) certainly has royal significance in
some contexts (e.g. Ps. 132: 18), the root (nzr) is concerned with consecration and setting apart, as for example in
the case of the Nazirite (Num. 6: 1–21). Hence, its use in the context of the high priest's garments is just as likely to be
an indicator of his holy status as it is of his royal prerogative. In fact, it could well be argued that the reason for the use
of the root (nzr) in royal contexts is because of the sacral connotations of Israelite monarchy, so that its joint use in
respect of both king and priest is because of the priestly aspects of the monarchy rather than because of supposed
royal aspects of the priesthood. Neither is the breastpiece an unequivocal indicator of the high priesthood's royal
status; it certainly resembles a royal breastpiece, but it is made from the same kind of material as the ephod (Exod. 28:
15), which gives it the same priestly connotations as the ephod has of holiness and links with the Tabernacle. It also
contains the sacred lots, which have never been a royal responsibility but always a priestly one (cf. Deut. 33: 8; 1 Sam.
14: 3, 18–19). Finally, although the turban does appear once as part of the prince of Israel's clothing in Ezek. 21: 31
(ET 21: 26), there is nothing to indicate why the reason for both king and priest sharing the same head-dress should be
the priest's royal status rather than the king's priestly status; the turban could well be a primarily priestly item, as is the
case for the diadem and the breastpiece. Indeed, the eleven other occurrences of (miṣnepet) are all in P and all
refer to the high priest's garments, so that sheer weight of evidence argues for
38
Noth, Exodus, 185 (ET, 226); Hyatt, 284–5.
39
The designation ‘prince’ ( , nāśî ) here is certainly to be understood as a royal title. See Ch. 4 below on Ezekiel.
40
Baentsch, 244; Beer, 142; Michaeli, L'Exode, 253; Haran, ‘Priesthood, Temple, Divine Service’, 123.
its primary association with priesthood rather than with royalty. For all their splendour, therefore, the high priest's
ceremonial garments give no indication that the high priest was anything more than a cultic figure, however great his
importance to the cult's proper functioning.
The next relevant piece of legislative material is the ordination procedure, described in Exod. 29: 1–37 and depicted in
Lev. 8: 1–36, after which the first sacrifices are carried out by the newly inaugurated priests (Lev. 9: 1–24). The
procedure involves dressing and anointing Aaron, dressing his sons, and then offering the required sacrifices over a
period of seven days during which time the ordinands must remain in the precincts of the Tabernacle. The main point
of interest for the present purposes is the question of anointing; Aaron is shown as being anointed at his institution
(Exod. 29: 7; Lev. 8: 10–12), and all but three of P's descriptive titles for the main priestly figure mention anointing (see
below). However, there are also several occasions where the priesthood as a whole is said to be anointed, and the
overall ratio is fourteen references to one priest in particular being anointed (seven of which are titles)41 to seven
references to the whole priesthood being anointed.42 The ordination procedure, though, seems to distinguish between
pouring holy anointing oil on Aaron's head (Exod. 29: 7; Lev. 8: 12) and sprinkling both Aaron and sons and their
garments with a mixture of the anointing oil and blood from the altar (Exod. 29: 21; Lev. 8: 30); this would allow for all
priests to be anointed while at the same time distinguishing one priest in particular as the anointed priest.43
As with some of the items of the high priest's regalia, the oil of anointing is often interpreted as a sign of royal
prerogative transferred to the high priest in the post-exilic period,44 because it is thought to serve the same purpose as
royal anointing, which was to equip the person anointed with extra life-force and energy for
41
Exod. 29: 7, 29: 29, 40: 13; Lev. 4: 3, 4: 5, 4: 16, 6: 13 (ET 6: 20), 6: 15 (ET 6: 22), 8: 12, 8: 30, 16: 32, 21: 10, 21: 12; Num. 35: 25. See also the comments below on
terminology.
42
Exod. 28: 41, 29: 21, 40: 14–15; Lev. 7: 36, 8: 30, 10: 7; Num. 3: 3.
43
Hartley, 112. Compare Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1889; repr. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967), who
argued that the sprinkling of Aaron's sons could not be viewed as anointing, which consisted of pouring oil on the head (p. 25).
44
Baentsch, 246, 248; Michaeli, L'Exode, 257; Scharbert, Exodus, 113.
carrying out the appointed tasks.45 However, Milgrom argues that the anointing of the high priest was not to endow
him with divine attributes as in the case of royal anointing, but to effect a change of status which would enable him to
function in the sacred realm;46 in other words, it was qualitatively different from a royal anointing, a rite of
sanctification rather than a rite of empowering. The idea that royal anointing was distinct from priestly anointing is
supported by the observation that references to ‘the anointed one’ without further qualification allude to the king,47 a
usage which in itself implies that royal anointing was something specific and distinctive. Rabbinic exegesis too saw a
difference between the anointing of king and priest; according to the Babylonian Talmud, kings were anointed in the
shape of a wreath, whereas priests were anointed in the shape of the Greek letter chi,48 although of course the Talmud
dates from a considerably later age than P. P's picture of the anointed priest should not therefore be interpreted in
terms of hierocratic kingship but rather in terms of sanctification for ritual and cultic responsibility.49
Three apparently quite mundane matters which are Aaron's responsibility are the burning of incense on the altar of
incense and trimming the Tabernacle lamps every morning and evening (Exod. 30: 1–10), and the arrangement of the
shewbread each sabbath (Lev. 24: 5–9). Assuming that ‘Aaron’ here means the
45
Noth, Amt und Berufung im Alten Testament: Rektoratsrede an der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 1958, Bonner Akademische Reden 19 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein,
1958); repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 3rd enlarged edn. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966), 309–33 (pp. 321–2) (ET ‘Office and Vocation in the Old
Testament’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 229–49 (pp. 239–40)). See also Aubrey R. Johnson,
Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 2nd edn. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 14–16.
46
Milgrom, 553–5. Budd, Leviticus, 137, remarks that Aaron's anointing takes place in the context of a series of anointing rites involving the whole Tabernacle and its contents,
thereby incorporating Aaron as a part of this holy realm.
47
So, for example, 2 Sam. 1: 14; Lam 4: 20. The only exception to this pattern is in Ps. 105: 15, where (ʼal-tiggeû bimešîḥāy, ‘do not touch my anointed ones’)
refers to the nation of Israel, but even here the anointing has prophetic rather than priestly overtones, judging from the second half of the verse, which reads
e e
(w lin bîʼayʼal-tārēʽû, ‘and do not harm my prophets’). (The same verse appears at 1 Chr. 16: 22, as 1 Chr. 16: 8–22 is a quotation of Ps. 105: 1–15.)
48
BT Horayot 12a.
49
Houtman, ‘On the Function of the Holy Incense (Exodus xxx 34–8) and the Sacred Anointing Oil (Exodus xxx 22–33)’, VT 42 (1992), 458–65, argues that both the
incense and the anointing oil were used to characterize places and people as belonging to Yahweh by means of fragrances which were regarded as his special fragrances.
one who was head of the priesthood, and that that person was effectively the high priest, Haran argues that these
duties are his because they take place inside the Tabernacle, where he is the only one sufficiently holy to enter,50 whilst
Milgrom suggests that concentrating the cult of the sanctuary in high-priestly hands was because of ‘the fear that
ministrations with the lampstand (light), table (bread) and altar (incense) by all of the priests . . . might lead to the belief
that the purpose of these rites was the “care and feeding” of the God of Israel’.51 That the provision of the shewbread
in particular had been long established in Israel is suggested by 1 Sam. 21: 2–7 (ET 21: 1–6), and it is difficult to
envisage the reason for the observance if it did not originate with some sense of needing to provide for the god's
welfare.52 Although there is no hint of anything so mundane in P, that is more probably because by that time the
concept had been abandoned anyway rather than because P was trying to prevent it becoming established, as Milgrom
suggests. Hence, the connection of the high priest with the Tabernacle seems to provide a better rationale for his being
allocated these duties, a rationale which once again underlines his supreme cultic importance but gives no hint of
broader responsibility.
A more significant task reserved for the priest who has been set apart by specific anointing is to make atonement either
for himself or for the whole community when an unwitting sin has been committed (Lev. 4: 1–21). Three times the
passage uses the term ‘the anointed priest’ ( , hakkōhēn hammāšîaḥ—4: 3, 5, 16), and despite the fact that on
five other occasions the passage simply refers to ‘the priest’ ( , hakkōhēn—4: 6, 7, 10, 17, 20) it must mean one
specific priest as defined by the anointing, firstly because both of the rites enumerated require ‘the priest’ to enter the
tent of meeting, and secondly because both rites describe a figure who is
50
See Karl Elliger, Leviticus, HAT 4 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), 69–70; Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 206–21, 226–7.
51
Milgrom, 54. By contrast, Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 218–19, argues that the daily complex of Tabernacle ceremonial has precisely the significance of providing for
the deity's needs.
52
So Budd, Leviticus, 331. Roy Gane, “ ‘Bread of the Presence” and Creator-in-Residence’, VT 42 (1992), 179–203, suggests that the shewbread ritual in its present form
was intended to restrict anthropomorphic concepts of the deity by having no accompanying libations and giving no indication that the bread was in any sense consumed by
Yahweh, while at the same time asserting the presence of the creator Yahweh in the Tabernacle and affirming the covenant between him and Israel.
an embodiment of the community in some way: his sin affects the whole community (Lev. 4: 3),53 and his intervention
is required for their communal sin (Lev. 4: 13, 16). That there is only one priest of whom this is true is demonstrated
by the Day of Atonement observances, where the officiating priest who is to enter the tent of meeting and make
atonement for the whole community is defined as the one anointed in his father's place (16: 32).54 This very close
connection between priest and people is reminiscent of that between monarch and people, in that the pre-exilic
nation's fortunes rose and fell with the integrity or otherwise of their kings, and the king was an embodiment of the
people he ruled.55 To that extent, therefore, the anointed priest can be said to be functioning here in a royal role.
However, once again the role is specifically sacral rather than political, and is no ground for claiming the transfer of
political power to the high priesthood in the absence of a monarch.
However, Aaron's next appearance brings him down to the level of his sons. Following the destruction of Nadab and
Abihu for offering ‘strange fire’ before the Lord (Lev. 10: 1–7), there comes the first of only two occasions on which
Yahweh speaks directly to Aaron,56 giving him and his sons the instruction to distinguish between holy and profane,
clean and unclean, and to teach the people all the statutes given via Moses (10: 8–11). The passage is notable in that
despite being addressed to Aaron it does not single him out in the duties; rather, the plural forms (bebōʼakem,
53
Baentsch, 322; Elliger, Leviticus, 68; Rendtorff, Leviticus, BKAT 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985 –), 152; Hartley, 59.
54
Rendtorff, Leviticus, 155–6, argues that in Lev. 4: 1–21 ‘the priest’ and ‘the anointed priest’ are to be differentiated, on the grounds that the blood-rite was a bipartite matter
whereby the animal was killed and the blood was sprinkled by two separate parties (cf. Lev. 1: 5; 9: 8–9, 18). Rendtorff also argues that when the anointed priest brings his sin
offering (Lev. 4: 3–4), he is effectively functioning as a worshipper, not a priest; hence, he needs another priest to perform the blood manipulation for him. Therefore it is the
anointed priest who brings the blood to the tent of meeting, but another priest who carries out the sprinkling rite. However, this exegesis is unconvincing on two counts. In
the first place, nowhere else is any other priest apart from the high priest allowed to enter the tent of meeting; but on Rendtorff's interpretation this is precisely what would
have to happen, because the blood sprinkling takes place inside the tent. In the second place, there seems to be no reason why the high priest should not make atonement for
himself without the aid of another priest, since he is perfectly able to do it on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16: 6, 11). It therefore seems much more logical to understand ‘the
anointed priest’ and ‘the priest’ as one and the same.
55
Cf. 1 Kgs. 14: 15–16; 2 Kgs. 13: 2–3; 20: 1–6; 21: 10–12; 23: 26–7.
56
The other is in Num. 18: 1–24.
‘when you [pl.] come’), (tāmutû, ‘you [pl.] will die’), and (ledọrōtêkem, ‘for your [pl.] generations’) (10: 9)
indicate that the duties described are to be carried out by the priesthood as a whole, of which Aaron too is a part. In
fact, the main thrust of the passage is probably nothing to do with Aaron as set apart from his sons for specific priestly
duties, but with Aaron as priestly progenitor, and its emphasis is on defining a particular priestly class (presumably over
against another potential priestly class), along with its duties which are entirely concerned with cultic matters. Neither
does the passage give Aaron or the priesthood any authority of their own; Moses is still the only one through whom
the laws are given (10: 11), and the task of the priests is simply to make the laws known to the people.
The ceremonies carried out for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), Aaron's tour de force, are enshrined in what is
universally agreed to be a complex and composite piece of legislation with a long history, during the course of which
several different rites have been combined. Milgrom argues that the rite was originally an emergency procedure to
cleanse the sanctuary from defilement, and that the significance of an annual atonement for the whole people was a
later development.57 The present ceremony may well be connected with the New Year rites, given that it comes within a
few days of the Feast of Tabernacles and that P marks the first of the seventh month as a feast day (Lev. 23: 24–5) and
the tenth of the seventh month—Yom Kippur itself—as the day when the Jubilee year is to be declared (Lev. 25: 9). As
far as the high priest is concerned, the rites once again demonstrate his two cardinal characteristics: his close
connection with the Tabernacle, inasmuch as he is the only one allowed to enter it for the atonement ceremonies, and
his representative function on behalf of the people as a whole. The two stages of the rites—sanctuary cleansing and
atonement for the people—can be observed in the high priest's clothing. For the sanctuary cleansing he wears the linen
garments common to the rest of the priesthood (Lev. 16: 3–4), although he still wears the turban instead of the caps
worn by the ordinary priests, presumably as a sign of his consecration and therefore his qualification to be in the
holiest place. The gold plate would also protect him from any inadvertent flaw in the offerings, a precaution which
would be even more necessary on this occasion
57
Milgrom, 1061–3.
than at other times because of the solemnity of the rite. Once the cleansing is over, however, he dons the high-priestly
garments to complete the day's ceremonies by offering a burnt offering on behalf of himself and the people (Lev. 16:
23–5). The implication of the change in clothing is that when he is wearing the ceremonial garments he is functioning
directly in a representative capacity for the people, and this can be seen from the other occasions on which he is
specifically required to officiate rather than an ordinary priest, which are discussed above. Once again, all his duties are
cultic; even his representative function on behalf of the community, which could be seen as royal, is doubtless sacral, as
remarked above. Hence, the ceremony which epitomizes the duties of the high priesthood epitomizes them in sacral
and not political terms, thereby giving a strong indication of the fundamentally non-political nature of the office.
The Law of Holiness (Leviticus 17–26) includes a section on priestly purity (21–2), which in turn includes six verses
specifically on purity for the anointed priest who wears the ceremonial garments (21: 10–15): he is forbidden to
observe mourning customs or assist in the burial of anyone at all, even his own parents,58 and may marry only ‘a virgin
of his own people’ (21: 14). There seems to be a well-developed theology of separation here, whereby holiness and the
ultimate impurity of death are quite incompatible,59 and even the slight association with death entailed in marrying a
priest's widow, something which is allowed for the ordinary priests, is intolerable for this priest.60 Because of the
incompatibility of death with the holiness of an ever-living God, ritual contamination from participation in burial rites
would render the anointed priest unable to carry out the Tabernacle's daily ceremonial, which is a symbol of the eternal
ever-present God and must therefore continue regardless of human death.61 The
58
There is an interesting echo here of the Nazirite, who is also forbidden to participate in burial rites for close relatives during the period of his vow because ‘all the days of his
separation he is holy to the Lord’ (Num. 6: 6–8).
59
See Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTS 106 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 128–30, for comment on the priestly marriage
and mourning legislation in Lev. 21: 1–15.
60
The desire for absolute purity of descent for the high priesthood would also have been a factor in this stipulation (Hartley, 349; Budd, Leviticus, 303).
61
Jenson, 111–12, comments on the daily ceremonial as part of the Tabernacle's symbolism of life, which is an appropriate representation for ‘the living God who abides for
ever’ (p. 112).
contamination would also make him unable to act where required in atonement ceremonies for the people. Presumably
there was some arrangement for deputizing in the event of unavoidable defilement, but this apparently did not cover
deliberate defilement incurred by carrying out burial rites. The characteristic designation of this priest in terms of
anointing and garments (21: 10) underlines both the extent to which he is set apart for holiness and the incompatibility
of such a status with death which is its exact antithesis.
Although, as already noted, much of the material in Numbers where Aaron (and later Eleazar) appears is narrative
material, there are also two passages of legislative material which are of relevance. First, following the incident of the
budding rod (Num. 17: 16–28 (ET 17: 1–13)), there comes the second of the two occasions on which the Lord
addresses Aaron personally instead of via Moses (Num. 18: 1–24), which may well be a way of underlining the Lord's
choice of Aaron as portrayed in the preceding narrative. Numbers 18 is concerned with who should come into what
proximity to the Tabernacle, stipulating the portions of offerings which are due to both priests and Levites; on the
whole it is a gathering together of details spread throughout the sacrificial legislation in Leviticus, making it reiteration
rather than new material.62 Its interest for the present purposes is in its similarity in tone to Lev. 10: 8–11, the other
place where Aaron alone is addressed: in both places Aaron appears in a representative capacity, receiving the
instructions on behalf of the whole priest-hood of which he is the progenitor. As is the case in the Leviticus passage,
instructions are given to Aaron in the second person plural; in Num. 18: 1 he is told, ‘You and your sons with you shall
bear ( , tiśʼû) iniquity in connection with your priesthood’, and in 18: 5, ‘You shall attend ( , ûšemartem) to the
duties of the sanctuary and the duties of the altar.’ The plural verbs in each case imply that the instructions refer to a
communal priestly responsibility in which Aaron is included, rather than simply recounting Aaron's personal duty;
from this it can be inferred that whatever additional or distinctive duties Aaron may have by virtue of being high priest,
his basic identity is that of a priest like any other.
62
Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, ATD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 118 (ET Numbers, trans. James D. Martin, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1968,
1980), 133–4), sees the chapter as originally independent and a late addition to P.
However, the overt thrust of the passage is about defining the correct division of cultic duties between priestly classes
rather than having anything to do with Aaron as a chief-priestly figure or with non-cultic responsibilities for him. The
fact that Aaron is here addressed three times in the course of twenty verses, in answer to the Israelites' plea addressed
to Moses (17: 28 (ET 17: 13)), contrasts strongly with other instances of Moses alone being the contact person for the
Lord even when Aaron and Moses are addressed together by the people,63 and is no doubt to be accounted for by the
desire to stress the prerogative of the Aaronide priesthood over against the Levites.
The other relevant piece of legislation in Numbers deals with the death of the high priest as the signal for the
accidental killer to return home (35: 22–34), a provision which does not occur in the passage's Deuteronomic parallel
(Deut. 19: 1–13). It is probably to be interpreted as having ritual significance; seeming as it does to indicate the end of
an epoch, it can be seen as an expiatory event by which the death of the high priest atones for the blood shed, so
ending the need for the avenger of blood to continue pursuing the killer.64
The legislative material also includes a number of descriptive terms for the chief priestly figure, some of which have
already been mentioned in the course of the discussion, but which it is useful to consider all together in more detail.
They are as follows:
Lev. 4: 3, 5, 16
(‘the anointed priest’)
Lev. 6: 15
(ET 6: 22) (‘the priest anointed after him from among his sons’)
Lev. 16: 32
(‘the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest after his
father’)
Lev. 21: 10
(‘the priest who is great/senior/eldest among his brothers, upon

whose head is poured the oil of anointing and who is ordained to
wear the garments’)
Num. 35: 25
(‘the great/senior/eldest priest who is anointed with the holy oil’)
Num. 35: 28 (twice)
(‘the great/senior/eldest priest’)
Num. 35: 32 (as textual variant)
(‘the priest’, variant ‘the great/senior/eldest priest’)
Summarizing the descriptions in terms of the characteristics they denote gives the following pattern:
Lev. 4: 3 Anointing
Lev. 4: 5 Anointing
Lev. 4: 16 Anointing
Lev. 6: 15 (ET 6: 22) Anointing; succession
Lev. 16: 32 Anointing; succession
Lev. 21: 10 Seniority; anointing; garments
Num. 35: 25 Seniority; anointing
Num. 35: 28 Seniority (twice)
Num. 35: 32 Seniority)
63
See, for example, Num. 15: 33–5, and Num. 27: 2–7, where Eleazar is high priest but the principle remains that Moses alone receives the directive from the Lord.
64
John Sturdy, Numbers, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 242; Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 384; Eryl W. Davies, Numbers,
NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995), 365–6.
The most prominent feature of these descriptive designations is anointing, which appears in seven of the ten, and if it is
assumed that the descriptions in Num. 35: 28 are abbreviations of that in Num. 35: 25, is implied in a further two.
Seniority occurs four times (five times including the textual variant for Num. 35: 32), hereditary succession to the
office from father to son appears twice, and ‘the garments’, presumably the ceremonial garments, only once. This
implies that anointing was indeed an important marker of office, perhaps from a time when it was the only marker of
office. Hereditary succession to the priesthood would have been the norm for any priest, so it is not really surprising
that there is little emphasis laid upon it in the context of the specialized priestly office. What is more surprising is the
sole mention of the garments; considering that P spends seventy-four verses describing their specifications, their
manufacture, and their placing on Aaron (Exod. 28: 2–39; 29: 5–6; 39: 1–31; Lev. 8: 7–9), it might be expected
that they would feature more prominently in the descriptions of the one who is to wear them. Even Lev. 21: 10 makes
the garments secondary to the anointing as characteristic of the priest; he is anointed and consecrated, after which he
can wear the garments which are presumably symbolic of the consecration. However, despite these specific
designations which occur, the only title ever used of Aaron himself is (hakkōhēn, ‘the priest’), making it difficult to
distinguish sometimes whether Aaron is acting in high-priestly capacity, whether the other individuals designated
(hakkōhēn) are anything apart from ordinary priests, or even whether ‘Aaron’ is a figurative way of referring to the
priesthood as a whole. When taken together with the occasions on which Aaron and his sons are referred to as a group
with no apparent distinction between them (e.g. Lev. 6: 1–2 (ET 6: 8–9); 7: 31, 35–6; 10: 6–11; 22: 2; Num. 3: 1–4; 6:
22–7; 16: 8–11; 18: 1–20), this too lends support to the notion of (hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘the great/senior/
eldest priest’) starting out as a comparative or relative designation which crystallized later into the more definite sense
of ‘high priest’.
Taking as a whole, then, the legislative material which concerns the high priest, it displays two characteristics which are
important for the present investigation. First, the legislation is all cultic legislation, detailing Aaron's duties and
importance in the cultic environment either specifically as high priest or as a member of the priestly class in general;
there is nothing which even implies, let alone specifies, any broader kind of responsibility for the high priest. Secondly,
all the legislation except the two sections already noted (Lev. 10: 8–11; Num. 18: 1–24) is addressed either primarily or
exclusively to Moses, so that, despite the high priest's cultic importance in the community, it seems that the real
authority of government and indeed of religious lawgiving lies with Moses rather than with Aaron. Admittedly the
priests are to teach the people of Israel the Law and enable them to distinguish between clean and unclean, but it is
according to what Moses has received in the first instance (Lev. 10: 11); the priests themselves, including Aaron, are
mere interpreters, not the direct recipients of divine revelation like Moses.
Having reached these conclusions on the basis of the legislative material, it is now necessary to see whether they are
borne out by an examination of the other two categories of material. Both
narrative and genealogical material on the high priesthood occur after the bulk of the legislative material already
discussed, presumably as a way of demonstrating what the legislation means in practice, but although the one relevant
piece of genealogy comes before the narrative material on the high priest, the narrative material will be investigated
before the genealogy, as it is the second largest category of material concerning the high priest-hood. The first narrative
pericope in which the high-priestly figure of Aaron appears is the offering of the Levites to the Lord (Num. 8: 5–22).
Here, as with other material describing the founding of particular institutions, the text gives prominence to Moses
rather than to Aaron. In the instructions for the ceremony, which are all addressed to Moses (8: 5), all the second
person verbs are in the singular (8: 6–15), and Aaron is not even mentioned until 8: 11 where his part in the ceremony
is described. In the summary of actions undertaken, Aaron is included and then dropped again, raising the suspicion
that he might be an insertion: ‘Thus did Moses and Aaron and all the congregation of the people of Israel to the
Levites; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses concerning the Levites, the people of Israel did to them’
(8: 20). However, the next verse records that Aaron was the one who offered the Levites as a wave offering before the
Lord and made atonement for them (8: 21).65 This could be because it was his duty as the anointed priest to make
atonement for large numbers of people (cf. Lev. 4: 13–21; 16: 15–25), but it seems more likely to be because he is
portrayed as progenitor of the priesthood to which the Levites were being given.66 Aaron therefore functions here as
the priest, as the epitome and representative of priesthood in general, in a way which both emphasizes his connection
with the rest of the priests and sets him apart from them. However, despite
65
Diether Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1: 1 bis 10: 10 literarkritisch und traditions-geschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970), 120, 122, 123,
argues that Moses rather than Aaron was originally the subject in 8: 21.
66
Budd, Numbers, 91–2, 93–4, regards the pericope as a way of reconciling Levitical and priestly tradition, so that although the subordinate Levitical status was recognized its
dignity was asserted and degradation of the Levites was avoided. ‘The older Levitical idea of Levites as those “given to Yahweh” is reinterpreted in terms of a gift to Aaron’
(p. 94). The idea of the Levites as a gift to Aaron would also account for them being referred to as a ‘wave offering’ (8: 21). According to Lev. 7: 34–6 the breast and right
thigh of sacrificial animals were to be waved before the Lord and then given to the priests as their special portion. Calling the Levites a wave offering therefore symbolizes
their consecration to be the priests' special assistants.
his important paradigmatic role in the ceremony, the fact remains that here again as elsewhere Aaron is subject to the
command of Moses who alone receives the divine revelation, and the pericope gives no indication of Aaron fulfilling
any wider leadership role in the community at large.
Two consecutive narratives in which Aaron has great prominence are those of the Korahite rebellion (Num. 16: 1–17:
15 (ET 16: 1–50)) and the budding of Aaron's rod (Num. 17: 16–28 (ET 17: 1–13)). The Korahite rebellion involves a
challenge to Moses' ruling on the position of the Levites as non-priestly personnel beside the Aaronide priests, and has
apparently been superimposed upon another older story of a challenge to Moses' leadership, but the Priestly strand in
the narrative is fairly easily distinguishable by its characteristic concerns of holiness and who should draw near to the
Lord, and by its method of testing the legitimacy of claims to priesthood by offering incense, which is reminiscent of
the Nadab and Abihu incident (Lev. 10: 1–7). The Priestly flavour is also apparent in the concern for proper disposal
of the extirpated rebels' censers which have now become ‘infected’ with holiness, as it were, and have to be dealt with
by a priest, thereby preventing others from incurring the same fate as the Korahites through misuse of holy items.67
The plague which follows the Israelites' dissatisfaction over Korah's fate and which is stayed by Aaron taking his own
censer and burning incense in the midst of the people (17: 6–15 (ET 16: 41–50)), together with the following episode
of Aaron's rod budding (17: 16–28 (ET 17: 1–13)), again confirm Aaron as the man of the Lord's choice.68 However,
despite Aaron's prominence in these two chapters, the thrust of the narrative concerns the whole priesthood and
therefore Aaron as its representative and progenitor, rather than Aaron in any specifically high-priestly capacity
(cf. Num. 17: 5 (ET 16: 40)). Indeed, although from a theological point of view both of these incidents,
67
The instructions for the altar in Exodus 27 dictate that it should be covered in bronze (27: 2); perhaps this incident is an aetiology for that particular requirement.
68
Leon Yarden, ‘Aaron, Bethel and the Priestly Menorah’, JJS 26 (1975), 39–47, suggests that the budding rod is the basis of the design for the menorah, which is to have
cups like almond blossoms and six branches from the one stem (Exod. 25: 31–6). This might also explain why tending the lamps was a duty reserved for the high priest
alone (Lev. 24: 1–4). Scharbert, Numeri, NEB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), 71, points out that the Hebrew word for blossom in 17: 32 (ET 17: 8) is the same as that
used in Exod. 28: 36 for the gold plate or flower which adorns the high priest's head-dress—‘eine wohl beabsichtigte Anspielung [certainly an intentional allusion].’
together with the Nadab and Abihu incident (Lev. 10: 1–7), serve as warnings not to try and function in a capacity
which has not been granted by divine decree, from a practical point of view they serve to affirm the priest–Levite
hierarchy as set out in P. This has led commentators to see in them the reflection of contemporary priestly power
struggles,69 and an attempt to resolve the struggles by investing the status quo presented in P with divine authority as
mediated by Moses,70 who appears throughout the P strand not as a candidate but as a facilitator and a conveyor of
instructions. His choice by the Lord is apparently unquestioned, and he is able to go in before the testimony three
times and come out unharmed (17: 22–6 (ET 17: 7–11)), to the place where Aaron can only go once a year with the
blood of sin offerings to make atonement. Once again, therefore, Aaron's significance and authority are limited to
particular areas of cultic competence, and even in those spheres they are subordinate to that of Moses.
Aaron's death on Mount Hor (Num. 20: 22–9) continues the pattern of Mosaic prominence. Even though Aaron is the
one to be taken, the commands concerning his demise are clearly for Moses alone, and the passage continues by saying
that ‘Moses did as the Lord commanded’ (20: 27). As with the initial induction of Aaron and his sons as priests Moses
is the one who supervises the transfer of power by placing Aaron's garments on Eleazar. There is no indication of any
other ceremonial to confirm Eleazar in his new role—no anointing, no sacrifice of purification, or ordination; the
garments (presumably the ornate ceremonial priestly garments) are taken as sufficient indication in themselves that
authority has been transferred.71 The thirty-day mourning period for Aaron's death is the same as that for Moses
himself (Deut. 34: 8).
69
G. B. Gray, Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903), 193; Noth, Numeri, 111 (ET, 123–4); Budd, Numbers, 182; E. W. Davies, 166–7.
70
The Korahite rebellion is particularly interesting in this respect, combining as it does a JE tradition of Dathan and Abiram's protests against Moses' civil authority with two
layers of P redaction, in which the Korahites protest against their inferior status beside the priests as ‘mere’ Levites and Korah himself complains about Moses and Aaron
being set apart as more holy than the rest in what is a holy nation anyway (Num. 16: 1–14). The narrative strands are very confused, but the end result is that all those who
complain, whether about priestly prerogatives or about Moses' leadership, are disposed of by supernatural means, thereby vindicating both Moses as leader and Aaron and
his sons as priests. No doubt it was just as important for P to have Moses vindicated as divinely appointed leader of Israel as it was to vindicate the Aaronic priesthood,
because Moses is the one via whom the whole of the Law, including that of the priesthood, is mediated to Israel.
71
Compare Elisha being indicated as Elijah's successor by the taking up of Elijah's mantle (2 Kgs. 2: 13–14), and the high priest Joshua being cleansed and reclothed but not
anointed (Zech. 3: 3–5).
Following his involvement with a census of the people taken in the plains of Moab (Numbers 26), Eleazar's first main
mention in his new role is at the commissioning of Joshua to be Moses' successor (Num. 27: 12–23). Eleazar is to
enquire for the new leader ‘by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord’ (27: 21), and (ʻal-pîw
yēṣ eʼû weʽal-pîw yābōʼû,
‘at his command they shall go out and at his command they shall come’). It is unclear at whose command
they (presumably the people) will go and come, whether at Joshua's or Eleazar's, but it seems reasonable to take it as
meaning that Joshua will consult with Eleazar and then give the command himself according to what the consultation
tells him; hence, the ultimate authority remains with Joshua.72 After his role in Joshua's commissioning Eleazar
reappears alongside Moses at the division of spoils of war among the people (Num. 31: 12–13, 21–4, 26, 29, 31, 41, 51,
54), and alongside Joshua under Moses' command in the allocation of the land (Num. 32: 2, 28; 34: 17). The story
about the war against Midian (31) might appear to be particularly bloodthirsty, and priestly involvement would seem
inappropriate. But the campaign is styled as executing the Lord's vengeance on Midian (31: 3), thereby presumably
making it a holy war, and once the spoils are brought back it is only appropriate that the priest should be involved in
the process of dedicating some of the booty to the Lord who would have enabled the victory. Yet here once again it is
not Eleazar the (high) priest but Moses who receives instructions from the Lord on how to proceed (31: 25–31), who
organizes the offering of tribute (31: 41–7), and to whom the officers of the army come with an additional voluntary
offering (31: 48–50). Eleazar's role seems to consist entirely of receiving items of tribute in accordance with the Lord's
instructions which have not even been given to him directly but have come via Moses (31: 31, 41). Eleazar is also
shown carrying out the priestly function given to Aaron in Lev. 10: 10–11, that is, instructing the people how to purify
themselves and the booty after the inevitable contact with corpses which would render them unclean (Num. 31: 21–4).
72
Interestingly, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vulgate make the verbs singular, giving the reading ‘at his command he will go out and at his command he will come in’. This
can only mean that Eleazar will give the command to Joshua, so that the priest has more authority than he does in the MT; however, the reading in the MT seems to be more
in line with P's picture of the chief priest, as discussed above.
However, as argued above, this is a generic priestly function which every priest is entitled to carry out, whether high
priest or not; and so whilst it is a perfectly appropriate duty for the high priest to carry out inasmuch as he is a priest
like any other priest, it can shed no light on the specifically high-priestly role and function.
Overall, then, whereas the legislative material concentrated mainly upon Aaron as the high priest and on his status and
duties as such, the picture which emerges from the narrative material, while by no means denying Aaron high-priestly
status (cf.Num.20: 22–9), seems more concerned to emphasize the aspect of Aaron's position which makes him the
founding father of the priesthood and his descendants the Aaronides the only legitimate priestly class. Once Eleazar
has succeeded Aaron, however, there is no longer the conjunction of serving high priest and founding father of
priesthood in the same individual; Eleazar can succeed his father only in the office of high priest, and so the narrative
changes its emphasis and starts to show Eleazar functioning as a high priest. However, here again there is no sense of
Eleazar having significant authority except in the cultic sphere, receiving the war spoils for sacrifice and laying down
instructions about ritual purification. In fact, the only occasion on which the narrative shows either Aaron or Eleazar
undertaking a distinctively high-priestly duty is when Eleazar is given the responsibility of enquiring of the Lord for
Joshua, using the sacred lots which are entrusted to the high priest alone (cf. Exod. 28: 30; Lev. 8: 8), since Eleazar's
issuing of instructions for sacrifice and purification is a part of the generic priestly remit given to the priesthood as a
whole of which the high priest is a part (cf. Lev. 10: 10–11). The narrative material therefore complements the
legislative material by focusing more on Aaron's shared relationship with his fellow priests than on the differences
between the high priest and the ordinary priests; in doing so it demonstrates the extent to which the high priest is a
priest like any other, but it thereby fails to provide much if anything in the way of new information about the
distinctive qualities of the high priest-hood as opposed to the ordinary priesthood.
Neither in the legislative material nor in the narrative material, therefore, is the high priesthood portrayed as anything
more than a cultic or sacral office; hence, it remains only to see whether this assessment is supported by the
genealogical material on the high priesthood. There is only one piece of Priestly genealogical
material, in Num. 3: 1–4. Although it is styled as a genealogy of Aaron and Moses, in fact only Aaron's sons are
mentioned, giving rise to the suspicion that Moses was a later insertion.73 This is in contrast with the more normal
occurrence of Aaron's insertion beside Moses, but probably arises from similar motives, namely the expectation that
when Aaron appears it is with Moses, and the desire for Aaron to benefit from the authority which such close
connection with Moses would give. Once again, it is questionable whether the material is really concerned with Aaron
as a chief-priestly figure; given its description of all the priests as ‘anointed’ (3: 3) and its emphasis on the deaths of
Nadab and Abihu (3: 4), followed by the setting aside of the Levites as priests' attendants together with the warning
that anyone else who draws near shall die (3: 10), this short genealogy seems to be more concerned with establishing
the prerogative of a whole priestly class than with promoting Aaron as a figure of especial importance by virtue of the
nature of his particular priestly office.74 Under these circumstances, therefore, the genealogical material can be said
neither to confirm nor to contradict the picture of the high priesthood already built up from elsewhere, not least
because the main thrust of the present passage concerns Aaron's sons rather than Aaron himself.
The picture of the high priesthood which is presented throughout P, then, is consistent in emphasizing the high priest's
importance in the cultic realm alone. There is no doubt that he does have an important role in the cultic community, as
evidenced by his garments, his anointing and his particular responsibility for community sin and atonement; but
despite his relative prominence he is not portrayed as the one who bears the ultimate responsibility of leadership in the
community.75 This is shown in two specific ways. First, although P contains no explicit legislation about the duties of
leadership such as that in Deuteronomy on the duties of kingship (17: 14–20), the laws on sin offerings make specific
provision for when a ruler ( , nāśîʼ) sins (Lev. 4: 22–6), thereby implying recognition of a class of people separate
from both the common
73
So N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, Century Bible New Edition (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 189; D. Kellermann, 46. By contrast Budd, Numbers, 28, interprets
the presence of Moses as due to the author's desire to remind his readers of Aaron's close connection with Moses.
74
Scharbert, Numeri, 19.
75
Baudissin, 28.
people and the priestly ranks. The same term is used throughout Numbers 7 and in Num. 17: 17, 21 of leaders from
each of the twelve tribes. Secondly, it is noteworthy that despite P's evident cultic focus and claims for priestly interests,
the ultimate human authority figure is the non-priestly Moses whose authority even surpasses that of Aaron the high
priest in legal and cultic matters (Num. 15: 32–6).76 It is Moses who receives the vast majority of legislation from
Yahweh, even that concerning the priesthood; the greater part of Leviticus (1–7; 12; 14: 1–32; 16–27), as well as all the
Tabernacle legislation in Exodus 25–31 and various snippets of legislation in Numbers (5–6; 8; 9; 15; 18: 25–32; 27:
5–11; 28–30; 35–6), are addressed to Moses alone. Although in some instances Moses and Aaron are apparently
addressed together, textual evidence often suggests that Aaron's name could be a later insertion,77 and there are only
two occasions on which Aaron alone is addressed apart from Moses. Indeed, it is striking how little Aaron is
emphasized as an active leadership force in the community. He never acts on his own initiative except in the matter of
the sin offering after the deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10: 16–20); he speaks only once in P, in the same incident,
and he is never portrayed without Moses, who dominates him and often tells him what to do (e.g. Num. 17: 11–15 (ET
16: 46–50)). The implication of this is that in P's scheme the priests are not natural leaders; because of the community's
cultic nature they obviously have an important role in it, but their role complements that of the nonpriestly leadership
rather than replacing it.78 Certainly for the high
76
Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus, ATD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 70.
77
See, for example, Lev. 15: 1–2, where the plural imperative addressed to both Moses and Aaron in 15: 2 is singular in the LXX; Num. 2: 1–2, 34, where both Moses and
Aaron receive the instructions which are to be relayed to the people of Israel, but the summary verse 34 proclaims that the people did everything that the Lord commanded
Moses and does not mention Aaron; and Num. 19: 1–3, where there is doubt as to the originality of Aaron in 19: 1 since 19: 2 is addressed to only one person ( , dabbēr
—‘you [sg.] say’; , ʼēleykā —‘to you [sg.]’), and the plural imperative in 19: 3 ( , ûnetattem —‘and you [pl.] shall give’) is rendered in the singular by the LXX and
some Latin MSS. The reason for such additions could be because the subject matter was thought to demand them (so perhaps in the case of Lev. 15: 1–2 and Num. 19: 1–3);
alternatively, they could arise from the desire to validate the Aaronide priesthood by showing its founder in close connection with Moses.
78
This is also the conclusion arrived at by Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (New York: Schocken, 1972), 184–6. The
conclusion is part of Kaufmann's ideologically motivated argument against the post-exilic dating of P, and is arrived at on the grounds that P does not reflect the hierocratic
ideal which is so often posited for Second Temple times: ‘P's camp is not a church, but an armed camp of the host of Israel’ (p. 185). For further discussion of the nature of
the post-exilic community and the high priest's position in it, see below.
priest, being allowed to come near to the holiest place, even if only once a year, and the necessarily exacting demands
of ritual purity that accompanied this and his other responsibilities at the shrine, would effectively cut him off from the
business of day-to-day administration within the community; hence, there would be a need for someone else to
perform the profane tasks of government.
However, there can be little doubt that Aaron's portrayal is intended to emphasize his importance in some way.
Despite his secondary position beside Moses in terms of the leadership of the community, his death is attended by the
same length of mourning as that of Moses, thirty days instead of the usual seven (Num. 20: 29); he is constantly
referred to as the progenitor of the only legitimate priesthood; he himself is set apart from his sons for a particular
kind of priestly service by means of his distinctive garments and his ordination ceremony (Lev. 8: 6–12); of all the
leaders of Israel Aaron's is the rod which blossoms to emphasize his divine election (Num. 17: 16–28 (ET 17: 1–13));
and throughout it all Moses is there with him, receiving the instructions for Aaron's preferment and putting them into
practice. The strong impression from this is that P is claiming the authority of Moses, the respected and revered
prophetic leader,79 for the institution of the Aaronide priesthood, presumably as a way of investing the arrangements
with divine authority. In terms of the ‘cosmos theology’ referred to earlier, P's claim is both general and specific—a
class of priestly functionaries is important for the proper cosmos of the society as a whole, and an Aaronide priesthood
with Levitical subordinates is the proper expression of cosmos within the priestly class. There is
79
Despite the complete absence from P of any regulations concerning prophecy (by contrast with Deuteronomy—cf. Deut. 18: 15–22), P's entire world of structured holiness,
including the instructions about the priesthood, is mediated to Israel by the prophetic figure of Moses. Even once the cultic apparatus is in place it is not Aaron the priest but
Moses the prophet to whom the people come when there is a problem, and who gives the definitive ruling from the Lord to cover the situation (e.g. Num. 15: 32–6; Lev. 24:
10–23; Num. 9: 6–14). Although P's compilation is dated at a time when it is generally agreed that prophecy was on the wane, which would imply that the kind of ritual
prescriptions found in P gained in importance as the guidance from other more charismatic sources dried up, for Moses the prophet to give such detailed and apparently
authoritative instructions, prophetic authority must still have been a reality of some sort. Maybe P came at a time of transition between prophetic and priestly authority, and
effectively used the former to substantiate the latter in a kind of ‘handing over’ procedure.
also a claim for the position of ‘Aaron’ himself beside the community's leaders; even though Moses names his own
successor to be leader of the people of Israel, one who is not a priest, but who according to the older traditions of
Exod. 24: 13 and 33: 11 was Moses' attendant on Sinai and at the tent of meeting, Joshua is only to be invested with
some of Moses' authority ( , mēhôdekā—Num. 27: 20), and this is epitomized by Joshua's need for Eleazar's priestly
mediation, unlike Moses who spoke with God face to face and received instructions direct from the Almighty. If
Joshua needs Eleazar to enquire of the Lord for him, the implication is that the high priest—that is, the legitimate
Aaronide high priest—will have an important role which is not to be disregarded. However, being required to fulfil a
religious function alongside the community's leader is not the same as being the community's leader, and so it must be
concluded that P's intention in giving Aaron and his descendants such prominence is not to claim that Aaron should
be the community's leader. Rather, it is to establish the place of the priesthood in the community and to ensure that the
Aaronides were those who were given the right to take it up.
That the high priest in P's scheme is not intrinsically a leadership figure in the same sense as Moses is also indicated by
his position in relation to the rest of the priesthood. It has already been noted that the high priest is closely connected
with the sanctuary, a connection expressed in his garments and the exclusive high-priestly duties which all require him
to enter the Tabernacle, but there seems to be nothing else distinctive that the high priest should do. Indeed, he seems
to have the same kind of everyday priestly responsibilities as the rest of the priests, as illustrated by the two occasions
on which Aaron is addressed instead of Moses and is given instructions for the priesthood as a whole which are
framed in the second person plural, thereby including Aaron himself in their remit (Lev. 10: 9–11; Num. 18: 1, 5). P
does not even show the high priest exercising his sole right to use the sacred lots, which supposedly form part of the
festal garments; Moses is the one who ascertains and transmits divine decisions, not Aaron with his Urim and
Thummim. Jenson suggests that decisions could have been mediated to Moses by Aaron via the lots,80 but this seems
out of character with the portrayal of Moses as the one who speaks with
80
Jenson, 118.
the Lord face to face. The sole mention of the lots apart from in descriptions of the high priest's garments is where
Eleazar is assigned to be Joshua's mediator before the Lord (Num. 27: 21), but here the point is presumably to draw a
contrast between Joshua who needed a mediator and Moses who did not,81 rather than to show the lots in use. In the
light of this it seems that Aaron's priesthood is quantitatively but not qualitatively different from that of the other
priests, in the sense that he does everything that they do and more besides rather than doing something completely
different from them: although his priesthood is more intense and more holy than theirs, he still functions as a priest,
not as a tribal ruler or governor or monarch. This is consistent with the comments made above on the title
(hakkōhēn haggādôl mēʼeḥāyw, ‘the priest who is great/senior/eldest among his brothers’—
Lev. 21: 10), and the logical conclusion is that the title reflects the status of the high priest as epitomized in P—he really
is simply primus inter pares with all the duties of an ordinary priest but with additional responsibilities for the Day of
Atonement and ceremonies involving the Tabernacle itself. In the light of all these points, it can be seen that the
indisputable prominence of the high priest in P is indicative of his power not as the head of a hierocratic state, but as
the chief cultic minister in a community which is also equipped with other mechanisms of government. There is no
support in P for the notion of the high priest as anything more than a cultic figure.
81
Baentsch, 639; E. W. Davies, 304.
Part II High Priesthood to the End of the Exile
2 High Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History
The history books Joshua to 2 Kings are the main biblical source for the history of Israel from the possession and
settlement of the land to the end of the monarchy under Babylonian conquest in 587 BCE. The books are usually
referred to collectively as the Deuteronomistic History (hereafter DH) because their general outlook accords with the
theology of the book of Deuteronomy, most characteristically in their support of the demand for centralized worship
as expressed in Deut. 12: 2–14. Since an organized, centralized system of worship is the context in which high
priesthood would most naturally appear, and given the close connection already noted in the Priestly writings between
the high priest and the Tabernacle which for P is Israel's sole legitimate place of worship,82 the Deuteronomist's
concern for the Temple as the nation's sole valid place of worship makes DH seem a natural source to explore for
information or at least hints about the high priesthood.
Although in the wake of the Pentateuchal Documentary Hypothesis early analyses sought to treat Joshua–2 Kings as a
continuation of the Pentateuchal sources,83 it was Noth who first claimed that they formed a unified work, put together
quite purposefully by a single author using very varied source materials but with the overriding aim of interpreting the
history of Israel from settlement to the Babylonian exile in the light of the principles enumerated in the book of
Deuteronomy.84 However, others considered that certain passages in the work were inconsistent with the idea of a
single author or redaction, and so the ‘double redaction’ theory grew out of suggestions made by nineteenth-century
scholarship. According to the theory, DH was originally a piece of
82
See Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
83
See A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile (London: SCM Press, 1983), 2, for a brief summary of some of the scholarship which adopted this
approach.
84
Noth, ‘Das deuteronomistische Werk (Dtr)’ (ET The Deuteronomistic History ).
44 HIGH PRIESTHOOD TO THE END OF THE EXILE
political propaganda supporting the Josianic religious reforms and presenting them as the means whereby Judah could
avoid the northern kingdom's then recent fate of subjection by foreign conquerors. When Judah in turn fell to the
Babylonians DH was revised during the exilic years to show that Josiah's reforms had failed to stem the tide of
apostasy of which exile was the inevitable culmination.85 The theory has proved popular, but it could never be
described as a consensus view, and the present view of the work seems to be divided, with some favouring single
authorship, some preferring double redaction, and still others speaking in terms of sources or multiple redactional
layers.86 Whatever view of the material is taken, however, it makes very little difference to an examination of the high
priesthood as it appears in DH, because, as will become clear in the course of the study, the priestly figures are
presented with a consistency which suggests that they have not been subject to alteration or reinterpretation at the
hands of redactors. For the purposes of this study, therefore, given the general consensus that the Exile is the terminus
ad quem for the work's final form, the whole of DH is taken as essentially exilic.
The aim in examining DH for information on the high priest-hood is twofold. First of all, in the light of the Priestly
picture of high priesthood laid out in the previous chapter, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not there was such a
high priest prior to the Exile; that is, whether or not there was a single priestly figure possessing a dignity and
importance exceeding that of all other
85
The idea of a two-stage process for the development of this history of Israel was first suggested by the Dutch scholar Abraham Kuenen in 1861. His introduction to the Old
Testament was translated into German as Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1887–92), and his ideas on the Deuteronomic
redaction of Israel's history are summarized in vol. I.2 (1890), 99–103. The theory was propounded in recent years by Cross, ‘The Themes of the Book of Kings and the
Structure of the Deuteronomistic History’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 274–89, and given comprehensive expression by Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the
Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).
86
There is a useful review of scholarship on DH in Mark A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, OBO 92 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 3–22. O'Brien himself analyses DH as a three-stage history of Israel's leaders from Moses to Josiah which was composed
using extensive source material and which was later subject to two further main stages of redaction, one in the early Exile blaming the conquest of Judah on the sins of her
last four kings, and a later one by a nomistic school once it had become clear that the monarchy would not be restored. This last redaction was a review of the whole history
to show Israel's continued disobedience culminating in exile, and enabled the authority of Deuteronomy to be preserved beyond Josiah's reforms and despite the Exile (pp.
288–92).
THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY 45
priests, and holding a unique position in and significance for the religion of the entire nation. Secondly, if there was
some kind of nationally recognizable senior priestly figure during the pre-exilic and more specifically during the
monarchic period, an examination of DH should assist in determining the precise nature of his position, and whether
there is any hint during this period of a precedent for priestly rule.
Before attempting to analyse specific texts, however, it would be as well to examine the ideology and intent behind the
Deuteronomist's work, and since the history is dependent upon the theology of the book of Deuteronomy it seems
logical to begin with an examination of Deuteronomy itself in so far as it relates to DH. Although Deuteronomy is
presented as the last words of Moses to the people of Israel, there is general agreement that its actual date in its present
form is considerably later than Moses. It is usually associated with the law-book discovered by Hilkiah in the Temple,
on which the subsequent Josianic religious reform was based (2 Kgs. 22: 8; 23: 1–23), and certainly a date somewhere
in the seventh century for the codification and promulgation of its legal contents would seem reasonable. As already
noted, the most characteristic feature of Deuteronomy's theological outlook is its emphasis on the principle of
centralized worship, a principle which is a cardinal demand of the Law as expressed in Deuteronomy (12: 2–14; 16: 2,
5–7, 15, 16; 17: 8–10; 18: 6–7; 26: 2). Prophetic authority is also important; Deuteronomy makes the prophets
messengers of God and uses the criterion of fulfilment to distinguish between true and false prophecy (18: 15–22). By
contrast with the Priestly documents, cultic legislation receives little attention in Deuteronomy, and the passages where
it does appear treat it in very general terms. Thus the only stipulations about ritual observances are the demand for
centralized sacrifice (12: 13–14, 17–18), the prohibition against consuming blood (12: 16, 23–4, 26–7), centralized
observance of the Passover sacrifice, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths (16: 1–17), and an enumeration of
the priests' portions of sacrificial offerings (18: 3–4). Neither is there evidence in Deuteronomy of a complicated
priestly hierarchy; the priests are said to belong to the tribe of Levi, but there is no clear distinction between priests and
Levites as classes of cultic functionary (17: 9, 19; 18: 1–8; 21: 5; 24: 8).87
87
Despite this disinterest in cultic observances, Gerhard von Rad, Das fünfte Buch Mose:Deuteronomium, ATD 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 16–19 (ET
Deuteronomy, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1966), 23–6), argues for the origins of Deuteronomy among priestly and Levitical circles on the grounds
of the familiarity displayed by the authors with a wide variety of sacral and religious material, together with the book's spirit of militant piety, which von Rad attributes to the
Levites.
However, in line with Deuteronomy's lack of priestly hierarchy, perhaps the most important characteristic of
Deuteronomy for the present purposes is that, despite its emphasis on centralized worship, nowhere in the book is a
high priest or a chief priest mentioned either by name or by title. On the contrary, there are two places in particular
where the lack of such a figure is quite striking. The first is in the legislation concerning cities of refuge for the
accidental killer (19: 1–13), which also appears in Num. 35: 9–34 and Josh. 20: 1–9 (both P); whereas P deems that the
killer shall be allowed to return home from the place of refuge after the death of the high priest, Deuteronomy makes
no mention either of a time limit for the killer's return home or of the high priest.88 The second such place is 18: 1–8,
where all the country Levites are authorized to come to the central sanctuary and minister if they so desire; if every
available Levite were a potential member of the Temple staff there would surely have been some need of hierarchy,
some central figure to keep control of who should serve and when, but none is indicated. It might be argued that there
is a reference to a chief priest in 17: 12, where the Israelite who comes to the central sanctuary for a judgment to be
rendered is warned against the presumption of not obeying ‘the priest who stands to minister there to the Lord’
( , hakkōhēn hāʽōmēd lešāret šām ʼet-yhwh), but there is no significant difference in this
phraseology from that in 18: 5 and 18: 7, where every Levite is given the right to come and minister in the name of the
Lord ( , laʽamōd lešārēt bešm-yhwh—‘to stand to minister in the name of the Lord’, 18: 5; . . . ...
, w šērēt b šēm yhwh . . . k kol . . . hal wiyyim hāʽōmedîm šām—‘and minister in the name of the
e e e e
Lord . . . like all . . . the Levites who are standing there’, 18: 7). The words cannot possibly refer to the discharge of
chief priestly duties as differentiated from other kinds of priestly duties; it is inconceivable that every Levite who came
to the central shrine could thereby have become a chief priest. The reference which most nearly approaches a mention
of
88
See the comments on the Numbers passage in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
the chief priest is in 26: 3, where the phrase ‘the priest who is in office in those days’ ( ,
hakkōhēn ʼ šer yihyeh bayyāmîm hāhēm) is used of the priest officiating at the chosen place of worship to whom the
a
offerings of first-fruits should be brought, but even here there is no real definition of who this priest might be and
what function he would have carried out.89 Of course, given that Deuteronomy is simply part of a larger legislative
whole contained in the Hebrew Bible, not everything will be dealt with in its few chapters; certainly it is not concerned
with the ritual prescriptions which characterize P, as its primary function is to address the community as a whole about
the lifestyle appropriate for those who are the people of God, and so its lack of specific detail concerning the
priesthood should not be too surprising. But the omissions just noted are interesting because they occur where a high
priest of some sort might well have appeared if he had had a significant enough role in the community, given the
presence of other figures of significance for the whole community, namely the king (17: 14–20) and the judge at the
central shrine (17: 8–12).90
Deuteronomy, then, stresses as the cornerstones of Israel's identity centralization of worship together with keeping the
Law, but makes no certain reference to a high priest or a chief priest at all. Turning to DH in the light of Deuteronomy,
it is no surprise to observe that there are distinct correspondences between the two, despite them being very different
kinds of literature. DH is a ‘theologico-political’ history of Israel, inasmuch as it has a theological message about the
fate and destiny of the children of Israel, a message which is communicated mainly by recounting the political events of
the period in question. This means that DH
89
Older commentators understood the reference as meaning the chief priest; see Baudissin, 89, Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 288, and H.
Wheeler Robinson, Deuteronomy and Joshua, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.), 186. G. Ernest Wright, ‘Deuteronomy’, in IB ii (1953), 309–537, compares
the position of the priest in Deut. 26: 3, whom he regards as the chief priest, with that of Eli in Shiloh (p. 484). By contrast, however, George Adam Smith, The Book of
Deuteronomy, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918), understood the reference to the priest as ‘probably collective . . . , not necessarily high-priest’ (p. 293).
More recently, Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1979), points out that the priest plays no real part in the ceremony and so regards 26: 3–4 as a late priestly
insertion, a corrective to the picture of the worshipper offering his own gifts to the Lord (p. 334).
90
One way of accounting for the omission of the high priesthood is to regard Moses as the high priest. However, in Deuteronomy Moses is clearly fulfilling a prophetic rather
than a priestly role (cf. 18: 15–20; 34: 10), and so to cite him as evidence for the high priesthood in Deuteronomy is unjustified.
deals mainly with the leaders of the people—Joshua, the judges, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, the kings of the
divided monarchy—and although there are glimpses from time to time into the affairs of individuals other than kings
and leaders it is usually because those individuals, who are nearly always prophetic figures, impinge upon the leadership
in some way.91
It is surely significant for an investigation of the position of the high priest during the pre-exilic period that in writing
the history of this period from a single overall perspective of leadership DH has adopted a royal point of view
tempered by prophetic intervention and not a priestly point of view, especially given the decidedly theological bias of
the work. No doubt the material included in the history depended on what was available in terms of records and ‘folk
memory’,92 but what was available is in itself indicative of what was preserved and remembered in the context of a
political history of Israel—either what was considered to be important, or what came out of circles educated and
influential enough to have kept records. The fact that royal memories rather than priestly ones seem to have been most
readily available to the writer and most suited to his purposes indicates that the priestly point of view would not have
been a natural one from which to write the history, either because there was not enough material or because the
priesthood simply did not have the same kind of significance for the country as the king did (the two reasons may well
be interlinked).93 However, in view of the theological nature of DH it appears that there is a third reason for the royal
perspective of the history: the monarchs were significant not only in political terms but in religious terms. DH
recognizes the need for a strong focal point for the people of Israel in order to counter the detrimental
91
Elijah and Elisha are good examples of such (prophetic) figures; whilst apparently not in any official position of leadership, they are shown to challenge and oppose or
support the kings of Israel, thereby throwing into relief the northern kingdom's apostasy by their own fidelity to Yahweh (e.g. 1 Kings 17–19; 2 Kings 1; 2 Kgs. 3: 4–27; 2
Kgs. 6: 8–23).
92
DH several times refers to chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah as sources for more information on the monarchs (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14: 19, 29), and it is conceivable that
access to such chronicles would have been available when DH itself was being prepared.
93
Against this it could be argued that P is written from a priestly point of view, thereby indicating that it was not an unnatural point of view to take. However, as already
pointed out, despite its priestly bias P does not advocate priestly leadership of the nation, and the very fact that P is interwoven with other sources which do not have a
priestly bias means that P appears as only one facet of an overall picture rather than as the main viewpoint from which the prehistory of Israel is presented.
effects of syncretism; however, that focal point is found not in the priesthood but in the monarchy together with the
prophets. Indeed, the king is closely associated with the Temple, which is itself emphasized as the focal point for
religious observance in the kingdom and is therefore an important vehicle of expression for Israel's identity as the
people of Yahweh; Solomon builds the Temple as the monarchy becomes established (1 Kgs. 6: 1–38), his successors
alter and repair it (1 Kgs. 15: 14–15; 2 Kgs. 12: 5–9 (ET 12: 4–8); 15: 35; 16: 10–18; 18: 15–16; 21: 5, 7; 22: 3–7; 23: 4,
6–7, 11–12), and it is eventually burned and plundered as the monarchy is defeated (2 Kgs. 25: 6–9). It is the monarch,
not a priest, who is responsible for ensuring centralization of worship at the Temple, presumably as part of his duty to
fulfil the demands of the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 17: 18–20; cf. 1 Kgs. 12: 26–33, 2 Kgs. 18: 1–6), and throughout
the books of Kings it is the monarchs who are deemed to have led the people into sin by allowing and even
encouraging non-centralized worship (e.g. 1 Kgs. 15: 26; 16: 13). This feature is remarked upon even if their reigns are
exemplary in other respects (1 Kgs. 15: 9–15). By contrast, the priests are neither condemned nor condoned in
connection with any religious policy, a reflection of their insignificance and lack of influence in the eyes of DH. In the
book of Judges there are several occurrences of the statement, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did
what was right in his own eyes’,94 the most striking example being at 17: 6 where Micah the Ephraimite has just made
himself images and a shrine in his house, installing one of his sons as priest. Such behaviour is apparently improper but
excusable because there was no king to say what the correct behaviour should have been. This clearly implies that the
monarch has responsibility for his subjects' correct religious observances as well as being their ruler and administrator,
always of course in accordance with the demands of the Law; and where the king does not have the necessary
understanding or inclination to fulfil the Law's demands, the prophets (not the priests) are the medium of divine
chastisement,
94
Deut. 12: 8–11 speaks of how worship is to be carried out once Israel is at rest in the promised land; it will no longer be a case of ‘every man doing whatever is right in his
own eyes’ (12: 8), but of attendance at the central sanctuary to make offerings. Probably the Deuteronomistic editor of Judges interpreted the provision in Deuteronomy 12
as referring to the establishment of the monarchy and the building of the Temple, hence the remark that there was no king in Israel at the time when everyone was doing
what seemed right in his own eyes.
encouragement, interpretation, and revelation for the king (e.g. 2 Kgs. 22: 11–18).
DH corresponds to Deuteronomy, then, in its promotion of centralized worship and in its emphasis on the importance
of prophetic authority and guidance. A third important way in which DH corresponds to Deuteronomy is in its lack of
interest in cultic observance per se, and its tendency for desacralization of the ceremonies which do occur.95 A good
example of this desacralization is DH's treatment of the Ark of the Covenant. For DH, the Ark ceases to be
interpreted as an appendage to Yahweh's cherubim throne, becoming instead merely the receptacle for the Law tablets
given to Moses on Sinai (1 Kgs. 8: 9; cf. Deut. 10: 2, 5),96 the Law then being the medium via which the people are to
fulfil their true identity as Yahweh's people (1 Kgs. 8: 57–8, 61; cf. Deut. 10: 12–13). In the exalted theology of holiness
and separation expressed in the Priestly writings the idea of the boy Samuel sleeping in the very place where the Ark
was kept would be anathema (1 Sam. 3: 3; cf. Exod. 26: 33, Lev. 16: 2–3), but for DH no such scruples seem to apply;
and indeed, the Ark does not appear again in DH once it has been safely installed in the Temple under Solomon
(1 Kgs. 8: 1–13)—it is centralization of worship in the Temple which is important, not the cultic furniture as such.
Such a ‘low’ view of the cult and its manifestations inevitably has implications for the priesthood; there is no mention
of Aaron's rod budding to confirm his family claim to the priesthood (Num. 17: 16–25 (ET 17: 1–10)),97 and there is
little or no evidence of the priests being a clearly demarcated class set apart by demands of ritual and genealogical
purity in the way that they are in the Priestly literature. The only stipulation about the priesthood is that, as in
Deuteronomy, Levites are the preferred personnel to fill priestly appointments (cf.
95
Nicholson, ‘Deuteronomy's Vision of Israel’, in Daniele Garrone and Felice Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia
Editrice, 1991), 191–203, suggests that the desacralization in Deuteronomy can be understood in anthropological terms as a movement of revolt against the societal
divisions which had resulted from the monarchic regime, and as an attempt to reorientate Israel's ancient rites to promote a new sense of community and egalitarianism.
96
For two very different evaluations of the Ark, compare Exod. 25: 10–22 and Deut. 10: 1–5. In DH the Ark is specifically noted as containing ‘nothing except the two tables
of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt’ (1 Kgs. 8: 9).
97
According to one tradition, the rod which budded was kept in the Ark along with a pot of manna from the wilderness years (Heb. 9: 4).
Judg. 17: 1–13), but even this does not seem to have been strictly adhered to, at least not in the earlier period.98
This process of desacralization is also applied to the monarchy. DH is sometimes positive, sometimes negative about
the monarchy; it is introduced negatively inasmuch as it is seen to usurp God's rightful place at the head of his people
(1 Sam. 8: 4–9; 10: 17–19), and it must be carefully circumscribed to ensure that it does not exceed its lawful bounds (1
Sam. 12: 12–15; cf. Deut. 17: 14–20). It is true that there is the idea of the inviolability of the king's person because he
is the Lord's anointed (1 Sam. 24: 7, 11 (ET 24: 6, 10); 26: 9, 11, 16), and the promise to David that, despite necessary
chastening, his house will be established for ever (2 Sam. 7: 4–17). Yet although the covenant is reaffirmed with
Solomon (1 Kgs. 9: 1–5), there is also the threat of disaster upon both king and nation if they do not adhere to the
Lord's commandments (9: 6–9), and of course according to DH's interpretation of events this is precisely what
happens. In Deuteronomistic terms, the kings
98
In 2 Sam. 8: 18 David's sons are mentioned as priests, and this has caused a certain amount of controversy on the grounds that it was inappropriate for those who were not
of priestly descent to hold priestly office. The parallel narrative in 1 Chr. 18: 17 makes them into ‘chief officials in the service of the king’, and on the basis of this and other
versional readings which seem to suggest a different Vorlage from the present MT, G. J. Wenham, ‘Were David's Sons Priests?’, ZAW 87 (1975), 79–92, argues that khnym
(‘priests’) in 2 Sam. 8: 18 is a corruption from an original sknym which he renders ‘administrators [of the royal estate]’. However, others accept the text as it stands—see, for
example, Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica 35 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 103–5, and Carl Edward Armerding, ‘Were
David's Sons Really Priests?’, in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 75–86. In the light of the fact that there is no developed sacramental theology of priesthood in DH, it is quite understandable that
people other than those belonging to a strict class should be portrayed as being priests. Certainly the idea of royalty seems to have carried with it a certain amount of
sacramental significance, in which case presumably the sons of royalty would be obvious priestly candidates. But if priests were more functional than sacramental, not even
this need be of significance for the king's choice of priests—anyone who was competent and trustworthy could be a priest. Indeed, J. R. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors
at Jerusalem’, JTS n.s. 19 (1968), 1–18, argues that the succession of head priests in Jerusalem after Zadok was not necessarily genealogical, but that individuals of
particular ability were appointed to the position by the king (pp. 7–9, 17), which would seem to be an example of just this principle. Bartlett does, however, say that the
individuals would have been from priestly families (p. 17), so that there would have been some kind of restriction on who was appointed. For further discussion of the
functional nature of priesthood, see Deborah W. Rooke, ‘Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy’, in John Day (ed.), King
and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOTS 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 187–208.
are representatives of their people, promoters (or otherwise) of Yahwism, and examples of the religious observances to
be followed—‘defenders of the faith’—rather than highly sacral personages, in sharp contrast with the highly sacralized
notions of kingship expressed in some of the so-called royal psalms (cf. Ps. 2: 7; 72; 110: 1, 4). However, this should
not be allowed to detract from the very definite religious significance which the kings have. There is no doubt that they
are portrayed as fulfilling cultic roles (e.g. 2 Sam. 6: 12–19; 1 Kgs. 8: 14–66; 12: 26–13: 1; 2 Kgs. 16: 10–16), and just as
the priesthood and cult retain their religious significance despite being desacralized, the kings too remain an important
component in both the political and the religious life of Israel, a component which needs to be taken into account in
any assessment of the high priesthood.
Turning then to the question of what information DH provides about the high priesthood or its antecedents in the
pre-exilic period, the material contained in the work can be divided into two parts according to the ideology of
priesthood which it displays. According to the Priestly writings all priests were sons of Aaron, who was the original
‘high priest’ (Exod. 28: 1–3); Aaron's son Eleazar is portrayed as his successor (Num. 20: 25–9), and his grandson
Phinehas is represented by implication as the ancestor of the Zadokites, who are thought later to have monopolized
the Jerusalem priesthood in general and the high priesthood in particular (Num. 25: 10–13; cf. 1 Chr. 5: 29–41 (ET 6:
3–15)).99 This is the tradition reflected in the references to ‘high priests’ found in Joshua and Judges.100 The tradition of
priesthood which
99
In Num. 25: 13 Phinehas and his descendants are promised ‘the covenant of a perpetual priesthood’ because when an Israelite took a Midianite woman for a wife, thus
bringing the anger of the Lord on Israel, Phinehas killed them both, thereby stopping the plague caused by the divine anger. Although there is no specific mention in
Numbers 25 of the high priesthood or of Zadok (who of course does not appear until the time of the monarchy), it seems reasonable to interpret this ‘covenant of a
perpetual priesthood’ as referring to the high priesthood, since all sons of Aaron were priests anyway in P's scheme, and so making a specific covenant of priesthood with
one of those sons would be meaningless unless it signified something different from what was promised to all the others. Making Phinehas the ancestor of the high-priestly
line is in effect the same as making him the ancestor of the Zadokites, since, as already noted, the Zadokites later monopolized the high priesthood, and indeed in 1 Chr. 5:
34 (ET 6: 8) Zadok himself is included in the line of high priests who are the descendants of Phinehas.
100
Joshua 3 and 4 also contain several references to the priests responsible for carrying the Ark of the Covenant, but these are apparently Levitical priests (3: 3, 8, 13, 14, 17; 4:
9, 11, 16, 17, 18). This is in contrast with the Priestly tradition where it is the Levites, nonpriestly figures as opposed to the Aaronide priests, who carry all the Tabernacle
furnishings (Num. 1: 50). All the references to the high priesthood in Joshua are in the Priestly tradition.
characterizes the remaining books of DH is what might be termed the ‘Deuteronomic’ tradition, found in
Deuteronomy proper and taken up in the books of Samuel and Kings. It is either nonspecific about priestly descent, or
favours Levitical priests without mentioning any Aaronide descent.
Beginning then with the Priestly tradition of high priesthood, in the book of Joshua there are ten references which
should be considered. Eleazar the priest appears on five occasions: in 14: 1, 17: 4, 19: 51, and 21: 1, which simply list
him with Joshua in the process of land allocation to the tribes, and in 24: 33, which is the notice of his death. Phinehas
the priest, Eleazar's son, appears four times during a narrative about an altar set up by the transjordanian tribes which
is misinterpreted by the remaining tribes (22: 13, 30, 31, 32), although at this stage Eleazar is still alive, making it
unlikely that Phinehas should be regarded as a high priest. The tenth reference is to the death of the high priest as the
sign for the accidental killer to return home from the city of refuge to which he has fled (20: 6), which is a repeat of the
provision found in Num. 35: 25 and 35: 28. In the book of Judges there is only one reference to anyone who looks
remotely like a high priest, but that too is in line with the Priestly tradition: in Judg. 20: 27–8 Phinehas, son of Eleazar,
son of Aaron, is shown ministering before the Ark at Bethel. Most commentators accept that this is a late addition to
its present context,101 and as such it can be seen as an attempt to claim priority for the Aaronides on the basis of their
antiquity as a priestly caste and their equally ancient association with Bethel and the Ark, both of which had extremely
ancient sacred associations for the Israelites.
Although to accept the idea of the Deuteronomistic History is effectively to deny the continuation of Pentateuchal
sources beyond Deuteronomy in an organized form,102 there is no doubt
101
George F. Moore, Judges, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 434; James D. Martin, The Book of Judges, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 213; John
Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1986), 357; J. Alberto Soggin, Le Livre des Juges, CAT 5b
(Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987), 251. Jacob M. Myers, ‘Judges’, in IB ii (1953), 675–826, quotes a comment of W. F. Albright to the effect that the Phinehas here is
Phinehas II, the high priest, who was directing military operations against the Benjaminites by his oracles (pp. 818–19).
102
The question as to whether there is in fact Priestly material in Joshua is an open issue which does not affect the present discussion.
that the material on high priesthood in Joshua is in line with the Priestly tradition. The figure of Aaron the priest is
distinctive to P, Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, and does not occur in the literature assigned to DH outside the book
of Joshua; he is also unknown to Deuteronomy apart from in Deut. 10: 6, a verse which is widely regarded as an
interpolation.103 Although priests and Levites are both mentioned in Deut. 18: 1–8 there is no reference to Aaron in
that context, and indeed 21: 5 refers to the priests specifically as ‘sons of Levi’, not sons of Aaron. Aaron the man does
appear at Deut. 9: 20 and 32: 50, but in neither reference is he shown as a priest. In DH Jeroboam is not criticized for
appointing non-Aaronide priests but for appointing non-Levitical priests (1 Kgs. 12: 31), and nowhere else in DH
apart from in Joshua are the priests called ‘sons of Aaron’. Given then that the references to the high priest in Joshua
are in the Priestly tradition, they should be viewed in the light of the remarks made on the high priesthood in the
previous chapter, since they are entirely in line with what was said there; Eleazar and Phinehas only appear in cultic and
ritual contexts where priestly involvement would be expected (e.g. Phinehas and the altar of witness, Joshua 22), and
they are never shown as independent leaders, only in tandem with other leaders (Josh. 14: 1; 17: 4; 19: 51).
The rest of the material in DH concerning prominent priestly figures is characterized by the Deuteronomic tradition of
Levitical priesthood, and in the books of Samuel and Kings there are a number of major priestly figures who, like the
prophets, appear where they have some significant interaction with the monarchs or the leading figures which are DH's
main concern. The relevant references can be divided into four groups: those occurring in pre-Temple times,
consisting of Eli (1 Sam. 1: 9; 2: 11), Ahijah (1 Sam. 14: 3, 36), and Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21: 2 (ET 21: 1); 22: 20); those
during the rise of the monarchy, consisting of Abiathar (1 Sam. 22: 20–3), Zadok (2 Sam. 8: 17; 1 Kgs. 1: 24–6; 2: 35),
and Azariah (1 Kgs. 4: 2); those of the divided monarchy before the fall of Samaria, consisting of Jehoiada (2 Kgs.
11–12) and Uriah (2 Kgs. 16: 10–16); and those from the period after the fall of Samaria, consisting of Hilkiah (2 Kgs.
22–3) and Seraiah (2 Kgs. 25: 18). The
103
Driver, Deuteronomy, 118–21; Wheeler Robinson, 106–7; G. A. Smith, 133–4; G. E. Wright, 397–8; von Rad, Deuteronomium, 56 (ET, 79–80); Anthony Phillips, Deuteronomy,
CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 73–4; Mayes, Deuteronomy, 205–6.
main thrust of the discussion will concern these four groups of references.
Beginning then with what might be called the pre-Temple traditions, some of the first characters in the books of
Samuel are a priest and his family, namely Eli and his sons Hophni and Phinehas at the Ark shrine in Shiloh (1 Sam. 1:
3). The narrative's phrasing implies that neither the priests nor the shrine were unique; though these were the priests at
this particular shrine, and though this was evidently an important shrine because it was where the Ark was installed,
there were other shrines and other priests who would have had the same kind of position in their own context as Eli
and his sons had at Shiloh: (‘and there the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas,
were priests of the Lord’).104 All three men are shown serving as priests, with Hophni and Phinehas presiding at
worshippers' sacrifices, however inadequately (1 Sam. 2: 12–17), and Eli himself sitting outside the shrine ready to
receive consultations from worshippers when Hannah appears to make her prayer (1 Sam. 1: 9),105 and later on blessing
Elkanah and Hannah in the name of the Lord, something which is portrayed elsewhere as a priestly prerogative (1
Sam. 2: 20, 21; cf. Num. 6: 22–7, although this is probably later). In addition the boy Samuel is shown as ministering at
the shrine (lipnê ʽēlî, ‘before Eli’, 1 Sam. 3: 1), again implying that Eli has responsibilities at Shiloh alongside his
sons, most probably as the chief priest of the shrine.
In the light of the comment in 1 Sam. 4: 18b that at the time of his death Eli ‘had judged Israel for forty years’, the
question arises as to whether Eli had in fact had wider responsibilities of leadership, similar to those of the so-called
judges within the Israelite
104
The LXX at this point introduces Eli as a priest as well as his sons: καὶ ἐκɛι̑ Ηλι καὶ οἱ δύο υἱοὶ ατου̑ Οφνι καὶ Φινɛɛς ἱɛρɛι̑ς του̑ κυρίου, ‘And there Eli and his two sons
Hophni and Phinehas were priests of the LORD’. In the context this makes better sense than the MT. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel,
2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), quotes two suggestions which attempt to account for Eli's absence from the MT: either the reference to Eli as priest has
dropped out, or the story of Elkanah and his wives may once have been part of a larger whole in which Eli was introduced earlier, rendering his designation here as priest
unnecessary in the original source. If the latter is true, the LXX is supplying a corrective to what is now perceived as a lack (p. 6).
105
John Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 47. Peter R. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971),
23, speaks of the doorway as the customary place for the priest from where he could observe the sacrifices and the comings and goings of worshippers.
community, rather than simply being in charge of the shrine at Shiloh. Noth's opinion was that the notice in 1 Sam. 4:
18b is a post-Deuteronomistic addition intended to incorporate Eli into the succession of judges as Samuel's
predecessor, when in reality there were no grounds in the tradition for such an incorporation;106 others, however, have
argued that it is not impossible to see Eli as a minor judge.107 Certainly, ‘judging’ in the sense of deciding disputed cases
via divination of some sort would not be incompatible with a priest's duties, and so to that extent Eli could perhaps be
said to have judged Israel. However, apart from this half-verse there are no other indications in the text that outside
the Shiloh shrine Eli held the kind of leadership responsibilities which would be comparable with those held by the
other judge figures; and indeed, he does not even appear consistently as an authoritative figure in matters concerning
the shrine. When the people of Israel are defeated in battle by the Philistines, the elders of Israel decide to send to
Shiloh for the Ark and bring it into battle with them against the Philistines (1 Sam. 4: 3–4). Eli is not consulted over the
plan; he gives no advice or even permission concerning the Ark's removal; the people apparently just come and take it.
If the pre-Deuteronomistic tradition really did understand Eli as a judge in the sense of one who was a leader of Israel
as well as the chief priest of Shiloh, this lack of reference to his authority even in the area which was his primary
responsibility seems inexplicable; and if there is no sense of him needing to be consulted about the matters which
according to the tradition as it is preserved fell most closely under his jurisdiction, the likelihood of him having been
viewed as a figure of authority not only within but outside that priestly area of jurisdiction seems minimal. In addition,
when the messenger arrives with the news of Israel's defeat and the Ark's capture, he does not come straight to Eli but
gives his tidings to the whole town before approaching Eli (1 Sam. 4: 12–14). Evidently Eli was not regarded as
sufficiently important to be the first recipient of the messenger's news, which might have been expected had he held a
significant position of leadership such as that of judge within the
106
Noth, ‘Das deuteronomistische Werk (Dtr)’, 22–3 (ET, 22–3).
107
Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher, 2. Auflage, ATD 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 36–7 (ET I & II Samuel, trans. John Bowden, OTL
(London: SCM Press, 1964), 49–50); Cody, 71–2; Mauchline, 74; Robert P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1986), 97.
community. Nor is there any indication from 1 Samuel 1–3 that Eli exercised any responsibility outside the shrine at
Shiloh, since all of that material is based at the shrine, and in so far as Eli appears in it he does so in his capacity as
priest of Shiloh. It therefore seems much more probable that the comment about Eli as judge is an addition for the
kind of reasons suggested by Noth rather than an accurate reflection of an ancient tradition about Eli.
The oracle of judgment in 1 Sam. 2: 27–36, prophesying the downfall of the Elide house and its replacement by what
can only be a Zadokite line of priests,108 has a triple significance. It provides divine legitimation of the Zadokites' rise to
prominence, an important consideration in view of Zadok's obscure and possibly non-Israelite origins;109 it promises an
association between this new priestly house and the monarchy, thereby making them royal servants; and it therefore
implies a shift in the centre of religious gravity from Shiloh to Jerusalem where both the monarchy and the Zadokites
were based, a shift which is epitomized in the eventual removal there of the Ark away from Shiloh (2 Sam. 6: 1–19). It
is in the relationship between the three elements of monarch, priest, and Temple that DH's understanding of the focus
of national and religious identity is expressed, and their joint prophetic introduction at this stage is an important
indication of their significance in the subsequent narrative. The description of Eli's father having been chosen in Egypt
to be priest (1 Sam. 2: 27–8; cf. Exod. 28: 1) implies that the Elides were of Aaronide lineage,110 and so the prophecy
may also contain overtones of an Aaronide versus Zadokite dispute,111 especially since the Aaronide
108
The passage is often regarded as a Deuteronomistic addition—see Hertzberg, 26, 28 (ET, 37, 39); P. Kyle McCarter, Jr, I Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980),
92. Mauchline, however, regards the passage as possibly having an historical kernel which originally referred to Samuel, but which has been revised and reinterpreted to
make Zadok the faithful priest (p. 56), while Nelson, ‘The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History’, VTSupp 43 (1991), 132–47, regards 2: 35 as the only
major Deuteronomistic addition to the passage (p. 136).
109
See below for a discussion of Zadok's origins.
110
Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses of Early Israel’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 195–215, cites the view of Wellhausen that the Elides claimed descent from Moses rather
than from Aaron (pp. 196–7).
111
See Cody, 146–74, for a discussion of the relationship between Aaronides, Levites, and Zadokites. Passages which are indicative of tension between the three groups include
legislation for Levitical priestly rights in Deut. 18: 1–7, the so-called Zadokite stratum in Ezek. 44: 9–31, the genealogies of 1 Chr. 5: 27–6: 66 (ET 6: 1–81), and the Korahite
rebellion in Num. 16: 1–17: 26 (ET 16: 1–17: 11). Evidently all three groups considered themselves to have a claim to priestly status and rights, and it seems highly likely that
much of the tension between them was caused by the centralization of worship which rendered the non-Zadokite priesthoods of shrines outside the Jerusalem Temple either
illegitimate or unemployed or both. In addition, if the so-called Jebusite theory of Zadok's origins (which is discussed below) is accepted, Zadok's lack of Israelite descent
could well have been a factor in the dispute between Zadokites and Levites. In this context, it is surely significant that in castigating the Levites for going astray, reducing
a e
them to cultic functionaries rather than priests, Ezekiel's Zadokite stratum refers to the Zadokites themselves as ‘Levitical priests’ ( hakkōh nîm hall wiyyim,
Ezek. 44: 15), thereby concealing any foreign ancestry (although Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 17, comments that the Zadokites were in fact Levites who simply
classified themselves as sons of Zadok because of their links with Jerusalem where Zadok had served as David's priest). From the later genealogies it seems that although an
agreement was reached whereby Zadokites were regarded as a subgroup of the Aaronides who were a subgroup of the Levites, so that all Aaronides were priests, the
Zadokites retained the right to the senior priestly position (the high priesthood), and the non-Aaronide Levites never did win a share of priestly rights in the Temple once
their own non-centralized shrines had been destroyed. See the comments on the genealogies in Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
priests have been linked with the northern kingdom (notably Bethel),112 and Shiloh in the hill-country of Ephraim is a
northern shrine. Both the dispute itself and this particular prophecy may reflect the view that the northern shrines and
priests were idolatrous and destined for destruction, a view which would certainly accord with the Jerusalem-centred
Deuteronomistic theology.
It could be argued that Samuel, who is emphatically styled as a judge and therefore a political leader of some sort
(1 Sam. 7: 6, 15–17), is also presented as a priest; this would be especially true of his early days at the Shiloh sanctuary,
where he is shown ministering to the Lord under Eli and wearing a linen ephod, the garment which is generally
considered to be the sign of a priest (1 Sam. 2: 18).113 But he is never actually called a priest, and in his adult career he is
consistently styled as a prophet rather than a priest. He is said to have been known by all Israel as a prophet
( —nābîʼ, 1 Sam. 3: 20), and he is referred to as a man of God (1 Sam. 9: 6, 7, 8, 10) and a seer
(1 Sam. 9: 11, 18, 19), as well as being depicted as the head of a group of prophets (1 Sam. 19: 20). Indeed, despite its
superficially priestly overtones, the main point of the childhood
112
See R. H. Kennett, ‘The Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood’, JTS 6 (1905), 161–86; Theophile James Meek, ‘Aaronites and Zadokites’, AJSLL 45 (1929), 149–66 (p.
149); Francis Sparling North, ‘Aaron's Rise in Prestige’, ZAW 66 (1954), 191–9.
113
Henry Preserved Smith, The Books of Samuel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 19; Hertzberg, 25 (ET, 35); Mauchline, 52; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco,
Tex.: Word, 1983), 25; Gordon, 82. See also N. L. Tidwell, ‘The Linen Ephod: 1 Sam. ii 18 and 2 Sam. vi 14’, VT 24 (1974), 505–7. Cody, however, argues that the linen
ephod was not necessarily an exclusively priestly garment, but one which could be worn by anyone who was considered to be ritually in the presence of God (pp. 75–8).
narrative similarly seems to be to show Samuel as a budding prophet, inasmuch as he receives the word of the Lord,
like few others at that time, and communicates it to Eli (1 Sam. 3: 1–18). The comment which rounds off this episode
is one which reinforces the idea that Samuel's calling was prophetic rather than priestly—the narrative states that the
Lord ‘let none of his words fall to the ground’ (1 Sam. 3: 19), precisely the criterion by which a true prophet is to be
known (Deut. 18: 21–2).
It is also said that in his judging Samuel made a regular circuit between Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and Ramah (1 Sam. 7:
16–17). This again would seem to indicate that he did not hold the office of priest, since it is unprecedented for a priest
to make such a regular circuit from location to location in the exercise of his duties. Other priests depicted in the text
are based at one place or with one group of people at a time, since they served either as shrine guardians like Eli and
his sons, or as priests to a particular group of people, like Ahijah (1 Sam. 14: 3) and Abiathar (1 Sam. 22: 22–3).114 It is
true that the Levite in Judges 17–18 moves from being priest at Micah's shrine to being priest at the Danite shrine
(Judg. 17: 12; 18: 19–20), but this is effectively a change of job; he does not alternate between serving at Micah's shrine
and serving at the Danite shrine, in the way that Samuel moves from place to place in the course of his judging duties.
Samuel's portrayal is in many ways reminiscent of that of Moses; he is shown as a leader who inspires respect and a
certain amount of apprehension (1 Sam. 16: 4), as well as being both a prophet and a judge. Indeed, he can very easily
be seen as the prophet like Moses who is promised in Deut. 18: 15–20, raised up from the people in order to convey to
them the word of God. He therefore should not be regarded as a priest or a high priest, nor as an early precedent for
priestly or high-priestly rule, since the mature Samuel is never actually shown being a priest.
The next priest who appears after the Elides of Shiloh is Ahijah, Saul's priest (1 Sam. 14: 3, 18, 19, 36). Although he is
supposedly descended from the Elides he has no apparent attachment to any shrine, but in the narrative he serves as
Saul's chaplain, qualified to manipulate the sacred lot and enquire of the Lord at Saul's bidding. He is shown with Saul
and his men on the battlefield, and
114
See below for detailed discussion of both of these priests.
his responsibilities begin and end with them. Ahijah is not a leader; he is a member of the royal entourage with
expertise in a particular area, by virtue of which expertise he commands respect, but he has no authority of leadership
or command. Although (assuming the text in 14: 36 is correct)115 he can advise on a course of action, Saul is the
ultimate authority, as is shown by his command to Ahijah to suspend consultation of the oracle at a moment of
increasing unrest (14: 19) and then his building of an altar to prevent the people from sinning by eating meat from
which the blood had not been properly offered to the Lord (14: 33–5). The priest is not mentioned in connection with
the altar; rather, it seems to be Saul's responsibility to ensure that the matter is properly dealt with, a view which
corresponds to the remarks made earlier on the nature of kingship in DH.
The other main priestly figure in the pre-Temple period is Ahimelech, the priest of Nob (1 Samuel 21–2),116 who
unwittingly aids David in his flight from Saul and thereby incurs Saul's wrath, resulting in the slaughter of all the priests
of Nob except Ahimelech's son Abiathar. Even assuming that Ahimelech is the chief priest of the sanctuary, something
which is never stated, his position as a priest does not make him a leader in any other sphere; his is a local priestly
responsibility like that of Eli at Shiloh. In fact, the picture given of the priest is of someone who is unaware of the
machinations of government, so that it is possible for David to lie to him about the secret business Saul had
supposedly sent him on (1 Sam. 21: 3 (ET 21: 2)), and not be doubted; this points away from the idea of Ahimelech
being at the heart of the country's leadership. Also, Ahimelech is clearly accountable to Saul, as demonstrated by the
king's peremptory summons to him and the equally peremptory death sentence when Saul finds Ahimelech's defence
of his actions unsatisfactory (1 Sam. 22: 12–17).
There are, however, features of Ahimelech's portrayal in
115
Hertzberg, 92 (ET, 116), suggests that originally Saul himself was shown initiating the oracle enquiry as befitted a devout king, but a later compiler who was unsympathetic
towards Saul altered the narrative so that the oracle enquiry was the priest's suggestion in order to show Saul in a bad light. H. P. Smith, however, is of the opinion that ‘The
emendation of the text to make Saul the subject is arbitrary’ (p. 121). Certainly there seems to be no textual and not much commentary support for the emendation.
116
Like Ahijah, Ahimelech is the son of Ahitub (1 Sam. 22: 20), and commentators have suggested that Ahimelech is Ahijah by another name. See Hertzberg, 144 (ET, 179);
Mauchline, 150; Ackroyd, Samuel, 110. McCarter, I Samuel, 349, considers the two priests brothers.
1 Samuel 21 and 22 which seem at first sight to indicate that he might have been a high priest in the Priestly sense of a
single, exalted priest with unique and national significance in the context of his people's religion. The first of these
features is the incident with the shewbread (1 Sam. 21: 5–7 (ET 21: 4–6)). According to Lev. 24: 5–9, not only is the
shewbread reserved for the priests alone to eat (24: 9), it is to be set out before the Lord by ‘Aaron’ (24: 8), apparently a
figure of speech for the high priest. From this it might be inferred that Ahimelech's dealing with the bread means that
he is the contemporary equivalent of ‘Aaron’, that is, the high priest of all Israel. Ahimelech is also described as using
the sacred lot, something else which P associates with the high priest alone (Exod. 28: 30; Num. 27: 21). Although
Ahimelech is not shown actually using the lot in the narrative, he claims to have enquired of the Lord for David,
presumably by means of the lot, on many occasions (1 Sam. 22: 15). However, his possession of the lots cannot be an
indication that he is the high priest of the whole country, since he is one of eighty-five persons bearing the oracular
ephod who are slaughtered by Doeg the Edomite on Saul's command (1 Sam. 22: 18).117 It is impossible for all eighty-
five ephod-bearers to have been the high priest; hence, the inescapable conclusion is that in this context ephod-bearing
is not a function of any significance when trying to determine relative positions in the priesthood or what such
positions might involve. This is of course despite the fact that the description of the high priest's clothing in Exod. 28:
5–30 includes an ephod together with Urim and Thummim, items which are omitted from the ordinary priests' garb
(cf. Exod. 28: 40–3). Hence, if Ahimelech's association with the sacred lots cannot be taken to mean that he was the
high priest, neither should his dealings with the shewbread be interpreted as an indicator of high-priestly status.
In these pre-Temple days, then, it is impossible to speak of high priesthood with any real conviction. Although it is an
open
117
Despite the rendition of many English translations at this point, the verb (nāśāʼ ) used here with the ephod is never used in other contexts with the meaning ‘wear’.
The LXX also omits the designation ‘linen’ of the ephod here, so that the priests are described as αY ροντας ἐφουδ (airontas ephoud, ‘bearing the ephod’)—probably a more
accurate reflection of the original meaning than the MT and the English translations. See also P. R. Davies, ‘Ark or Ephod in 1 Sam. xiv.18?’, JTS n.s. 26 (1975), 82–7,
where the necessity of translating (nāśāʼ ) as ‘bear’ is used as part of the argument that the term ‘ephod’ has been substituted for ‘ark’ wherever the divining tool is
referred to (pp. 85–6).
question as to how accurate the events described may be in historical terms, the general principles of the priesthood's
working are probably realistic. The priests are portrayed very much as religious functionaries, consulting the oracle and
presiding at sacrifices offered in sanctuaries, but none of them has the national or representative significance which
would warrant the title ‘high priest’. Certainly there would have been local senior priests or chief priests in the
sanctuaries, but these are different from the high priesthood as later understood and as depicted in P.
The second stage of development is that evidenced in the traditions of the united monarchy, involving Abiathar,
Zadok, and Azariah. As the earliest of the three and therefore the closest of them chronologically speaking to the pre-
Temple traditions discussed above, Abiathar appears as a priest very much in the mould of Ahijah and Ahimelech.
Having fled to David after the massacre at Nob, he becomes David's priest during the period of Saul's pursuit of
David (1 Sam. 22: 22–3), and is shown relating to David's group in the same way as Ahijah did to Saul's group, namely
as their resident ephod consultant (1 Sam. 23: 6, 9; 30: 7; cf. 1 Sam. 14: 18–19, 36). Later on, once David establishes
himself as king in Jerusalem, Abiathar serves together with Zadok as priest throughout David's reign (2 Sam. 8: 17; 15:
24–9, 35–6; 20: 25), and is eventually dismissed from office after David's death by Solomon for taking part in an
attempt to enthrone David's eldest son Adonijah instead of Solomon (1 Kgs. 2: 26–7).
Although Abiathar's entire priesthood is shown as taking place during the monarchic period, it spans two distinct
phases of that period, what might be termed the primitive monarchy and the more developed monarchy. It was not
until the establishment of Jerusalem as capital that the period of the monarchy was really differentiated from that of the
Judges, and there began to accrue a new administrative system of which the priests were inevitably a part, resulting in
eventual change to the priesthood's working in the capital. There are two main changes which occur during Abiathar's
incumbency; first, the sacred lots fall into disuse as prophecy comes more to the fore. Abiathar is the last priest shown
manipulating the lots, and they do not reappear at all during the monarchy. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly,
the monarchy itself appears as a priestly office within the terms of DH's non-sacral theology of both king and priest
(cf. 2 Sam. 6: 14–19),
something which is bound to affect the nature of the priesthood alongside it.
It is extremely doubtful whether Abiathar was a ‘high priest’ in any way. During the early part of his association with
David, Abiathar's influence was confined to the faction with which he aligned himself, and his main task seems to have
been consulting the ephod for them to ensure that their planned undertakings were in line with God's will, in the same
way that Ahijah was Saul's priest and would arguably have had more claim than Abiathar to being ‘high priest’ at that
time because he was the king's priest. Although Abiathar's flight to David is doubtless symbolic in the narrator's mind
of Yahweh's abandonment of Saul the priest-killer in favour of David who was destined to become the country's most
powerful person, Abiathar himself is simply not shown as having influence on a wider scale by virtue of any priestly
office he held. Even when he eventually becomes the king's priest, he is not the sole holder of the office; he is joined by
Zadok once David has established himself in Jerusalem, and since there is no hint of centralized worship during
Abiathar's period of office he would not have had the significance of being the most important priest of the country's
only legitimate shrine. Even the fact that as a priest he is an important person in Adonijah's attempted coup is no
indication that his priesthood was in any way distinctive; he is significant as a priest, but not as the priest.
Zadok is the figure with the most significance in terms of later developments, but ironically he is also the most
enigmatic. He appears in the text without preamble as part of a list of David's court officials (2 Sam. 8: 17), where he is
styled a son of Ahitub and named as priest alongside Ahimelech son of Abiathar. Zadok's genealogy in this verse has
long been recognized as problematic, not least because, as is evident from the foregoing and subsequent narratives, the
priest who served with him was Abiathar the son of Ahimelech rather than Ahimelech the son of Abiathar. In its
present state, too, the genealogy seems to imply that Zadok was an Elide (cf. 1 Sam. 14: 3), which contradicts the
prophecy in 1 Sam. 2: 27–36 that the Elide line is to be cut off and replaced by another priestly clan. As the subsequent
narrative shows, Zadok was not cut off, but later ousted the Elide Abiathar to become the sole priest of the royal
house (1 Kgs. 2: 27, 35). In the light of these inconsistencies, many scholars prefer to emend 2 Sam. 8: 17 in the
light of 1 Sam. 22: 20 to read ‘Zadok and Abiathar son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub were priests’.118 However, although
there is general agreement that the names Abiathar and Ahimelech have become reversed, some scholars defend the
original reading of Ahitub as Zadok's father.119 One such scholar is Cross, who argues that there is no reason why the
Ahitub named as Zadok's father should be identified with the Elide Ahitub; hence, Zadok's genealogy cannot be
dismissed as fictitious on the grounds that he is listed as a descendant of the priestly house which he is destined to
replace, since it was never the intention that his lineage should be traced from Eli.120 However, it must be said that in a
context where the names Abiathar and Ahimelech are known to represent figures from the Elide lineage, and the name
Ahitub also corresponds to one known from that same lineage (cf. 1 Sam. 22: 20), the balance of probability favours
the identification of all three with those already known to be Elides. That is certainly the natural inference, and had the
author at this point intended another non-Elide Ahitub to be understood, it would surely have been made clear.121
Zadok, then, is genuinely without accurate genealogy in this tradition, and a number of ingenious scholarly attempts
have been made to reconstruct his origins. Two broad approaches to the problem of Zadok's origins have dominated
scholarship in recent years. The first is the so-called ‘Jebusite hypothesis’, whereby Zadok is regarded as a pre-Israelite
priest of El Elyon in Jerusalem who was appointed by David to his new regime in order to cement relationships
between the native Jebusite population and the incoming Israelites. Although the idea was first suggested by
Mowinckel in 1916,122 and was taken up and developed by Bentzen,123 its best-known exponent is probably Rowley.124
Hauer
118
See, for example, Driver, Notes on Samuel, 283; H. H. Rowley, ‘Zadok and Nehushtan’, JBL 58 (1939), 113–41 (p. 114); Hertzberg, 240–1 (ET, 292, 293–4); Mauchline,
237.
119
For example, H. P. Smith claims that emendation is ‘not supported by any document’ (p. 309). More recent defenders of Ahitub's place in the text include McCarter, II
Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 253–4, 255, and A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1989), 137.
120
Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses’, 196, 211–14.
121
So A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals, FRLANT 89 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965), 105.
122
S. Mowinckel, Ezra den Skriftlærde (Kristiania: Universitets Forlaget, 1916), 109 n. 2.
123
A. Bentzen, ‘Zur Geschichte der Ṣadoḳiden’, ZAW 51 (n.s. 10) (1933), 173–6.
124
Rowley, ‘Zadok and Nehushtan’.
too offers his support to the idea by providing an explanation of the reason for Zadok's rapid preferment; based on
the picture of Zadok the ‘young man mighty in valour’ in 1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28), he argues that Zadok was a
Jebusite nobleman who deserted to David with a group of followers when he saw that capture of the city was
inevitable, and was rewarded by preferment in the new order.125
Although the Jebusite thesis has proved popular, it has also attracted a good deal of criticism,126 not least because it
lacks direct evidence and is built entirely on inferences from the text.127 It is also regarded as inexplicable that David
should invite a pagan priest to become part of his new administration, when other indications are that David was an
ardent supporter of the ancient Israelite tribal traditions and of Yahwism.128 In the light of these and other difficulties,
attempts have been made to defend Zadok's Israelite origins, notably by Cross, who argues that Zadok was a member
of the Aaronide priestly house from the southern shrine of Hebron, whilst his fellow-priest Abiathar was from the
northern shrine of Shiloh; this meant that priesthoods from both the north and the south were represented at the new
central shrine in Jerusalem.129 Cross's view of Zadok as an Aaronide is followed by Olyan, who like Hauer sees 1 Chr.
12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) as an ancient tradition telling how Zadok came over to David at an early stage; Olyan,
however, in contrast with Hauer, uses the pericope as the basis for his suggestion that Zadok is the son of the
Aaronide Jehoiada.130
The basic question seems to be whether or not there is reliable information in the text as to Zadok's lineage. If there is
not, then the way is open for suggestions such as the Jebusite hypothesis, suggestions which will of necessity be largely
circumstantial. If, however, there is accurate information on Zadok's origins to be gleaned from the text, then it should
be used as the foundation for whatever view of his lineage is propounded. Indeed, a significant feature of the
arguments for Zadok as an Aaronide is that they
125
Christian E. Hauer, Jr, ‘Who Was Zadok?’, JBL 82 (1963), 89–94.
126
For a wide-ranging summary of criticisms of the theory, see Saul M. Olyan, ‘Zadok's Origins and the Tribal Politics of David’, JBL 101 (1982), 177–93 (pp. 179–83).
127
Olyan, 179.
128
Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses’, 210; Olyan, 181–2.
129
Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses’, 207–15.
130
Olyan, 185–90.
argue for genuine information on Zadok's origins having been preserved in texts which have usually been regarded as
untrust-worthy or corrupt, whilst, as Cross rightly observes, the linchpin of the Jebusite hypothesis is the claim that
Zadok is without reliable genealogy.131 Cross himself uses his claim that the Ahitub who is named as Zadok's father
need not be the same as the Elide Ahitub, in order to argue that Zadok does in fact have a genealogy which deserves to
be taken seriously,132 and which therefore implies that he is an Israelite. However, the weakness of such a position has
been noted above, and indeed Olyan, who supports Cross's conclusion that Zadok was an Aaronide, declares himself
at variance with Cross on this point, believing that the more sceptical view of the genealogy in 2 Sam. 8: 17 is the more
credible one.133 Olyan also criticizes Cross's other arguments for Zadok's Aaronide status; he notes that despite Cross's
proposal there is no concrete evidence for the priestly city of Hebron as an Aaronide centre, and points out that the
notion of Zadok as a priest of Hebron makes the later revolt of Absalom, also Hebron-based (cf. 2 Sam. 15: 7–12),
very difficult to understand, especially given that Zadok sided with David during the revolt. ‘If Hebron had indeed
been Aaronid and Zadok its representative, why would it serve as the center for a major revolt against David?’134
Despite his criticisms of Cross, however, Olyan himself goes on to maintain that Zadok is an Aaronide on the basis of
1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8).135 This is Olyan's equivalent of providing Zadok with a genealogy which deserves to be
taken seriously. 1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) come in the middle of a list of the members of all twelve tribes who
transfer their allegiance to David at an early stage (1 Chr. 12: 24–39 (ET 12: 23–38)), and in these two verses the young
man Zadok and the Aaronide Jehoiada are named as two of those who brought contingents of personnel along with
them to join the Davidic cause.136 Olyan argues that within the list as a whole 1 Chr. 12: 25–30 (ET 12: 24–9) are an
ancient tradition, distinguishable from their immediate Chronistic context because of the small numbers of the
contingents from the tribes
131
Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses’, 211.
132
Ibid. 212–14.
133
Olyan, 177.
134
Ibid. 184.
135
See also the comments on this passage in Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
136
Ibid. 185, 189.
named within them.137 Regarding 1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8), where Jehoiada and Zadok appear, Olyan maintains
that the antiquity of this tradition too is ‘attested to by the small numbers listed and the fact that Zadok is only a
subordinate of Jehoiada, and not himself the leader of the Aaronid group’.138 He also claims that 12: 29 (ET 12: 28),
which supposedly shows Zadok as a subordinate, ‘could not have come from the hand of the Chronicler, who
generally tends to emphasize Zadok's leadership of the priest-hood’, and his overall conclusion is that ‘1 Chr 12: 25–30
[ET 12: 24–29] provides the critic with valuable information pertaining to the origins of Zadok’.139 However, there is a
major difficulty with this assessment. The young Zadok brings with him not rank-and-file contingents like the other
groups listed, but twenty-two (śārîm), ‘commanders’, from his father's house. In fact, he is the only figure in the
whole pericope of 1 Chr. 12: 24–39 (ET 12: 23–38) who brings with him only (śārîm) and has no other companies
of personnel. The obvious explanation as to why all the men from Zadok's father's house are depicted as (śārîm)
is that it is a way of emphasizing Zadokite pre-eminence in some sphere, and, given the context of Levites and
Aaronides in which Zadok appears here, the natural sphere would be that of the priesthood. This seems even more
marked in view of the fact that 1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) can be seen to reflect the Chronistic schematization of
the priesthood, with Levites mentioned first as the most numerous and least exalted class, the ‘prince’ ( , nāgîd)
Jehoiada of the house of Aaron mentioned next with fewer personnel, and finally Zadok, shown as the most exalted
person, obviously from a house of commanders, and accompanied only by commanders. The idea that this represents
‘ancient tradition’ seems highly dubious.
In itself, though, the age of the tradition says nothing about Zadok's genealogical origins, and so, in order to account
for Zadok's origins, Olyan uses 1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) to link Zadok directly with the Aaronides by
interpreting the phrase ‘his [i.e. Zadok's] father's house’ in 12: 29 (ET 12: 28) as signifying Jehoiada's house, and setting
the (śārîm) of Zadok in
137
Ibid. 185–7.
138
Ibid. 188. The idea of Zadok as Jehoiada's subordinate comes from interpreting the term (naʽar, ‘lad, young man’), which is applied to Zadok in 1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12:
28), in the sense of ‘aide’; see Olyan, 188 n. 50.
139
Olyan, 188 n. 50.
parallelism with the contingents of Jehoiada as their commanders.140 In this way, Zadok becomes the son of Jehoiada
the Aaronide prince and part of his contingent. However, this seems quite arbitrary; Olyan offers no real justification
for his interpretation, and in the absence of any such justification Hauer's opinion that ‘his father's house’ is a
designation of anonymity is much more plausible, because it is the sense in which the text would most naturally be
read.141 Olyan's proposal is reminiscent of those which try to link Zadok with the Ark by making him the ‘anonymous
brother’ of Uzzah in 2 Sam. 6: 3;142 in both instances, it is inexplicable that if the identity of the individual supposedly
referred to by the anonymous designation were known it should not be stated, especially given the importance of
Zadok for subsequent generations of the priesthood.
It seems, then, that Olyan's attempt to identify in 1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) an ancient tradition which shows
Zadok as an Aaronide is unsuccessful. Given its reflection of later schematization within the priesthood, the passage in
1 Chr. 12: 28–9 (ET 12: 27–8) cannot safely be regarded as ancient tradition, and the notion that it represents Zadok as
the son of Jehoiada the Aaronide is purely conjectural. There may not, as Olyan claims, be any evidence in this
particular text for the Jebusite origins of Zadok;143 however, neither does it provide any reliable evidence for Zadok's
Aaronide origins. Olyan's remaining ‘indirect evidence’ to support his Aaronide scenario is circumstantial,144 and
without the basis of firm genealogical information behind it he is on no stronger ground than the proponents of the
Jebusite hypothesis. Despite Olyan's efforts to identify Zadok's lineage, the origins of this enigmatic priest remain
obscure.
The Jebusite hypothesis of Zadok's origins has been severely criticized, largely because of its circumstantial nature and
because of the apparent inexplicability of certain assumptions which it involves. However, the assumption that David
appointed a non-Israelite priest to a high position in his administration is no more inexplicable than the failure to link
Zadok clearly and credibly to the Israelite priesthood if he was known to be an Israelite, which is the scenario
demanded by an Aaronide or Levitical theory of
140
Olyan, 188–9.
141
Hauer, 91, 92.
142
See n. 69 below.
143
Olyan, 189.
144
Ibid. 189–90.
Zadok's origins. Indeed, the very inexplicability of some aspects of the Jebusite hypothesis paradoxically point to them
having a greater degree of probability than they are credited with by their detractors. It may well seem inexplicable that
David should have appointed a non-Israelite priest to such an important position; on the other hand, it is utterly
explicable that later orthodoxy should have expunged traces of this ‘inexplicability’ as far as possible, hence the lack of
direct evidence for any such connection. Although some of the more elaborate aspects of the Jebusite hypothesis may
well seem unconvincing,145 the fundamental notion that Zadok represents a strand of the indigenous non-Israelite
religious milieu is surely not far from the truth.146
Whatever Zadok's origins, though, he became a key figure in the genealogical contest whereby Jerusalemite priests
claimed precedence from the time of the late monarchy onwards.147 He certainly served as an important priestly figure
throughout David's reign, and upon David's death gained the favour of Solomon by supporting the young man's claim
to the throne against Solomon's rival and elder brother Adonijah. However, it is unclear whether or not he actually
served in the Temple. 1 Kgs. 4: 1–5 gives a rather garbled list of officers from Solomon's reign, listing Azariah son of
Zadok as priest (4: 2) as well as Zadok himself along with Abiathar (4: 4),148 a situation which is impossible to reconcile
with the
145
For example, the identification of Zadok with the priest-king Melchizedek defeated by David in his conquest of Jerusalem (Bentzen, 174); and the attempts to link Zadok
with a Jerusalemite deity called Ṣedeq (Roy Rosenberg, ‘The God S.edeq’, HUCA 36 (1965), 161–77).
146
Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, 103–4.
147
See n. 30 above.
148
Attempts have been made to account for this apparent duplication of office-holders by following a textual variant and interpreting the word (4: 3) after Azariah's
name, which is rendered as a personal name ‘Elihoreph’ in the RSV, as , i.e. a title meaning ‘over the year’, perhaps referring to the individual in charge of the
calendar or simply the ranking officer of the court for that year who may or may not have been a priest. See James A. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1951), 113–16, and J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 56. Also, Azariah's title (hakkōhēn, ‘the
priest’—4: 2) is missing from the LXX which lists Αζαριου (‘Azariou’) together with Έλιαρɛφ (‘Eliareph’) and Αχια (‘Achia’) as γραμματɛι̑ς (grammateis, ‘scribes’—4: 2–3).
However, it is quite likely that Azariah became Solomon's priest instead of Zadok or Abiathar, given that they would have served with David for over thirty years each and
cannot have been young men any more by the time of Solomon's accession—quite apart from Solomon's dismissal of Abiathar. Hence, it seems logical to allow Azariah his
priesthood, rather than to try and make him something else in order to retain Zadok and Abiathar as the priests.
narrative, which expressly states (1 Kgs. 2: 26, 27) that as soon as Solomon secured the throne he deposed Abiathar
from priestly office because of his support for the rival Adonijah. If the narrative is correct, the mention of both
Abiathar and Zadok in the list of Solomon's officers may be an historical note, or an inclusion for the sake of
completeness, without having any factual basis for the period to which it supposedly refers; it must then be assumed
that Azariah was the one who served in a significant priestly capacity during the majority of Solomon's reign. The
Chronicler for his part seems to know of the tradition that Azariah rather than Zadok served in Solomon's Temple; in
the genealogy listing the preexilic chief priests, it is noted concerning Azariah son of Johanan son of Azariah son of
Ahimaaz son of Zadok, (‘it was he who served as priest in the house which
Solomon built in Jerusalem’, 1 Chr. 5: 36 (ET 6: 10)). The note has presumably become attached to the wrong Azariah,
judging from the text in 1 Kgs. 4: 2, but the tradition seems clear that Zadok himself did not actually serve in the
Temple.
In fact, considered in the light of other priestly figures, it is difficult to tell what is characteristic about Zadok's
priesthood. He is listed as David's priest along with Abiathar in 2 Sam. 8: 17 and 20: 25; during Absalom's rebellion he
is shown bringing the Ark to David with Abiathar and a group of Levites (2 Sam. 15: 24–9),149 and then again with
Abiathar taking the Ark back to Jerusalem where the two act as David's ‘plants’ to keep him informed of events in the
city (2 Sam. 15: 35–6; 17: 15); he and Abiathar are David's emissaries to the elders of Judah to win back their support
after the rebellion (2 Sam. 19: 12 (ET 19: 11)); and he is omitted from Adonijah's attempted throne-snatch but
commissioned by David to anoint Solomon as the legitimate heir to the throne (1 Kgs. 1: 5–48). Solomon installs him
in place of Abiathar (1 Kgs. 2: 35), but beyond that there is no indication of what if any his priestly
149
It seems that the original text has been disturbed at this point, since the Levites do not appear elsewhere in the books of Samuel and are evidently anachronistic, and
Abiathar's appearance is ungrammatical and almost an afterthought. Either Abiathar was removed from the text and replaced by the Levites, only to be reinserted at a later
date, or the whole passage was composed with Zadok alone by a strongly pro-Zadokite author, and Abiathar was later inserted to reassert his position as joint priest with
Zadok. The second person forms in verses 25–9 are also inconsistent, sometimes singular and sometimes plural, giving the impression of a text confused by later tampering.
See H. P. Smith, 344, 345; Driver, Notes on Samuel, 315; Mauchline, 273; McCarter, II Samuel, 370; A. A. Anderson, 204.
position is during Solomon's reign, as noted above. Zadok is never shown with an ephod in the way that Abiathar is
(1 Sam. 23: 6, 9; 30: 7), and although he appears with the Ark in 2 Sam. 15: 24–9 he does not accompany it either when
David attempts to bring it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6: 1–19)150 or when Solomon installs it in the new Temple (1 Kgs. 8:
1–66).151 However, as a priest it seems important that he is present to anoint Solomon and legitimate his claim to the
throne of Israel, in the way that Adonijah invites Abiathar to his attempted coup and later on Jehoiada is present at the
anointing of young Joash (2 Kgs. 11: 12).
Zadok seems to be something of a transitional figure. As already mentioned, neither he nor any of his successors is
shown bearing an ephod, and it seems that this coincides with the increased prominence of prophecy.152 David no
longer relies on the old-fashioned method of divination by sacred lot, but receives direct messages from Nathan and
Gad, his seers (2 Sam. 12: 1–15; 24: 11–13, 18), and this becomes a pattern in the rest of the narrative—the
anonymous ‘men of God’ who appear at intervals as well as the named prophets of whom the most famous are Elijah
and Elisha, giving direct verbal guidance instead of indirect signs via the lot.153 Zadok is not an ephod-bearer, and
neither does he appear as priest of his own shrine in the fashion of Ahimelech or Eli, because of his particular relation
to the king. The Temple is not yet built; there is supposedly some sort of tent shrine where the Ark is kept, but
150
It has been argued that the two references in 2 Sam. 6: 3, 4 to ‘Ahio’ (‘his brother’?) are covert references to Zadok as Uzzah's brother, which would give Zadok a more
consistent link with the Ark and perhaps clarify his position somewhat. See Karl Budde, ‘Die Herkunft Ṣadok.’s', ZAW 52 (1934), 42–50, and Rowley, ‘Zadok and
Nehushtan’, 120–3. However, it is difficult to see why Zadok should be referred to in such an obscure way, especially as it would presumably have been beneficial to the later
Zadokite descendants to show their eponymous ancestor as closely interwoven with their own traditions as possible. The later Aaronide genealogies indicate how important
it became that Zadok was seen to be incorporated in just this way, whether or not his origins were in reality Israelite.
151
As in 2 Samuel 6, no named priest is shown with the Ark in 1 Kings 8, and it is simply ‘the priests’ who carry it and place it inside the Temple (8: 3, 4, 6, 10, 11). If the Ark-
bearers were significant figures it is difficult to see why the tradition should not have preserved their names, since at least three priests are named in the list of Solomon's
officials (1 Kgs. 4: 1–5). However, the focus of the episode is on Solomon's own priestly function, to the inevitable detriment of the priesthood.
152
According to P. R. Davies, ‘Ark or Ephod?’, it also coincides with the return to Israelite territory of the Ark, which was the real divining instrument (p. 86).
153
Cf. the blessing of Moses (Deut. 33: 8–10), which starts with the priests' lot-bearing function but ends with them as teachers and cultic functionaries. See the discussion of
this in Cody, 114–20.
Zadok is never shown there and no information is given about any ceremonial that takes place there.154
But despite the obscurity surrounding Zadok's priesthood, it is perhaps possible to surmise what made him distinctive.
There can be no doubt that the establishment of the monarchy in Jerusalem and the transportation there of the Ark, as
well as the subsequent building of the Temple, marked a new departure for the life of Israel in general, including its
priesthood. Abiathar was one of the last ‘pre-Jerusalemite’ priests, whereas Zadok was the first Jerusalemite priest and
Azariah was apparently the first Temple priest. The high priesthood as depicted in P was surely the outcome of a
Temple-based, highly centralized form of religion, and so in any attempt to plot the high priesthood's development,
Zadok must be regarded as an important figure along the way. It was surely not without good reason that the later
Temple priest-hood claimed descent from him, seeing in him the beginning of their own tradition, which was at once
continuous with and distinct from the earlier one.155 Although neither Abiathar nor Zadok was in the position to have
the nationwide significance of the later high priests, both because of the presence of the monarch as a focus of religious
identity and because centralization of worship simply did not exist as yet, Zadok's entire priestly career as recorded in
DH was associated with Jerusalem and the established monarchy. In this way he was different from Abiathar who had
served as a roving lot-bearing priest in the days of the primitive monarchy before coming to Jerusalem, so that Zadok
really was the first of a different class of priest. Even though he may not actually himself have served in the Temple,
Zadok's association with Jerusalem and the monarchy marks the transition from local chief priest to central chief
priest, which is the vital first step if a high priesthood is to emerge. The question is to what extent that development
continued under his successors.
In the traditions associated with the rise of the united monarchy, then, the potential foundations for a high priesthood
are laid in
154
Rowley, however, suggests that Zadok was the priest of the Jebusite shrine where the Ark was placed when it was first brought to Jerusalem, presumably at Gibeon as noted
in 1 Chr. 16: 39 (‘Zadok and Nehushtan’, 123–8).
155
An example of the sense of both continuation and distinction between the earlier and later traditions is in the so-called Zadokite stratum of Ezekiel 40–8, which refers to the
Zadokites as ‘Levitical priests’ in Ezek. 44: 15, but distinguishes them from the ‘Levites’ in 44: 10.
that a major royal shrine is established in the capital and a priest and his family are installed there. In the light of this it
is not surprising that the clearest examples of chief priests in DH are to be found in the third and fourth groups of
traditions, those of the divided monarchy and the lone southern kingdom, since they come at a stage in the history
when the Temple and its attendant ceremonial had become more firmly embedded in the country's religious
consciousness, and had had the chance to develop a formal and specific structure. To begin, then, with the traditions
from the time of the divided monarchy, Jehoiada (2 Kgs. 11: 12) is the most active and independent figure of all the
chief priests, taking drastic action to preserve the infant king Joash from slaughter and then to install him on the throne
with the help of the palace and Temple guards. Jehoiada apparently has authority over the captains of the guards
(2 Kgs. 11: 4–9), but whether it is simply a moral or personal authority, or an authority by virtue of his position as a
high-ranking priest or a royally appointed servant, or even just the respect for the clergy that (some) people feel even
today, is not specified. It may have been that by showing them the young king, Jehoiada was effectively invoking the
guards' loyalty to the throne, so that their course of action was clearly to cooperate with him as he too was acting out of
the same sense of loyalty. Given that the situation was an unusual and even desperate one, though, it is perhaps unwise
to draw too many ‘general’ conclusions from it; in times of emergency the normal patterns of responsibility and
authority are often disrupted and replaced with others. However, from the next chapter, which describes Jehoiada's
part in the Temple maintenance attempts, the priest is evidently subordinate to the monarch, and although Jehoiada
may well have had the responsibility of educating the young king (2 Kgs. 12: 3 (ET 12: 2)), even acting on his behalf
until Joash became of age, it was not a permanent position of authority. That he had some responsibility for the fabric
of the Temple is indicated by the fact that he is summoned along with the rest of the priests to account for the lack of
repairs to the Temple (12: 8 (ET 12: 7)), and he is the one (assuming hakkōhēn haggādôl—‘the great/senior/
eldest priest’, in 12: 11 (ET 12: 10) does refer to Jehoiada)156 who has to count the monies deposited in the box for
156
This is the first occurrence of the title (hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘the great/senior/eldest priest’), indeed of any title for the main priestly figure beyond
(hakkōhēn, ‘the priest’), to be found in DH. The title itself is usually thought to be post-exilic, and its appearance here and in 2 Kings 22 and 23 is often interpreted as a late
addition. See Montgomery, 429; N. H. Snaith, ‘The First and Second Books of Kings’, in IB iii (1954), 1–338 (p. 251); J. Robinson, The Second Book of Kings, CBC
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 118; G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,
1984), ii. 492; T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 153. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988),
suggest that the title may have coexisted with that of (kōhēn hārōʼš, ‘the head priest’) in the late first Temple period (p. 138). Elsewhere it occurs in Haggai,
Zechariah 1–8, Ezra, Nehemiah, and in Num. 35: 25, 28, 32, where it appears to be a shortening of the longer description in Lev. 21: 10. For further discussion of the
terminology used for the high priest, see Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer, Ch. 5 below on Haggai and Zechariah, and Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
repairs, along with the king's secretary. The Chronicler, perhaps finding this an inappropriate job for the high priest,
gives Jehoiada his own officer to correspond with the king's secretary, and the two minions are the ones who count the
money while the king and Jehoiada distribute it (2 Chr. 24: 11, 12).
Uriah (2 Kgs. 16: 10–16) is less well-defined than Jehoiada, being shown as the recipient of Ahaz's instructions for a
new altar and apparently more than happy to carry them out exactly. Commentators point out that there is no need to
interpret the new altar as the sign of a new religion;157 Ahaz still apparently plans to offer the usual Yahwistic sacrifices
on it,158 and Uriah is not criticized for his obedience to the king's instructions.159 This is another example of DH's
indifference to cultic prescriptions for their own sake, as well as demonstrating the chief priest's subordination to the
king and his very practical responsibility for matters of fabric in the Temple.160 However, Ahaz's instructions to Uriah
as to how to use
157
John McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, SBT Second Series 26 (London: SCM Press, 1973), 7; Morton Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the
Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBL Monograph Series 19 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), 73–7; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, ii. 538–9; Hobbs, 216. The altar may
have been a sign of vassalage to Assyria (McKay, 8, 11; John Gray, I & II Kings, 3rd rev. edn., OTL (London: SCM Press, 1977), 635; Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter
Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 366–9; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, ii. 538), although J. Robinson, The Second Book of Kings, 150, and Cogan
and Tadmor, 193, suggest that it had more to do with the demands of fashion than of vassalage. Wolfgang Zwickel, ‘Die Kultreform des Ahas (2 Kön 16, 10–18)’, SJOT 7
(1993), 250–62, suggests that Ahaz's actions were part of a cult reform whereby the king introduced the regular burnt offering into the Jerusalem cult and destroyed items
of Temple paraphernalia which bore images, but that his actions were discredited by later polemic because he did not attempt to eradicate cultic activity which took place
outside Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs. 16: 2–4).
158
Cogan and Tadmor, 192.
159
Cogan and Tadmor, 189. See also Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter’, 9–10.
160
So Hobbs: ‘The king would have had the role of “chief executive officer” of palace, city, and temple, and the priest would have been the immediate subordinate in charge of
the temple and one who took orders from the king in matters of temple management’ (pp. 217–18).
the new altar do seem to indicate that the priest had sacrificial duties to carry out as well as purely practical ones. It is
instructive to note that the first sacrifices carried out on the new altar are performed by Ahaz himself, as was the case
with Solomon's dedication of the new Temple and altar (1 Kgs. 8: 5, 62–4), and Moses' consecration of the wilderness
altar (Lev. 8: 10–17), yet another indication of the chief priest's subordinate position and conversely of the king's
authoritative position in the overall cultic sphere.161 Once again, it seems that the chief priest is more of a functionary
than a sacral personage, who can perform specific tasks but who needs the authority of the king to establish the means
and parameters for his function.
This third group of references, then, shows the chief priests as royal servants responsible to the monarch for the
exercise of their Temple duties, which include the very practical considerations of Temple maintenance as well as
sacrificial duties. As before, there is no indication of the priests having authority in any other areas, or even
independent authority in Temple matters; in each case it is the monarch who initiates the repairs or alterations which
the priest is then given the responsibility of carrying out.
Moving on to the fourth group of chief priests, namely those who appear after the fall of Samaria, Hilkiah
(2 Kgs. 22, 23) appears as the chief priestly figure during the reign and the reforms of Josiah. His portrayal is
remarkably similar to that of Jehoiada in 2 Kgs. 12: 11 (ET 12: 10). Like Jehoiada he is given the title
(hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘the great/senior/eldest priest’—22: 4, 8; 23: 4); like Jehoiada he is responsible for the money put
into the chest for repairing the house of the Lord, which he is to count in association with the king's secretary Shaphan
(22: 3–4). Like Jehoiada and Uriah, too, he is subordinate to the king, apparently not having the authority to bring
before the king on his own the book he had found, but having to give it to Shaphan to pass on (22: 8–10). Nor does
Hilkiah have any apparent authority in the book's interpretation or validation, but is sent as part of the delegation to
161
Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, ii. 539; Cogan and Tadmor, 185. John Skinner, I & II Kings, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.), in commenting on the pericope as a
whole, remarks, ‘The passage illustrates . . . the absolute control exercised by the king over the temple and its worship’ (p. 370).
the prophetess Huldah (22: 14) to receive a direct oracle from the Lord. This is in contrast to the idea of priests as
guardians of the received will of God as expressed in the Law, an idea found in Lev. 10: 10–11 and Deut. 17: 18; 33:
9b–10; it is, however, in line with the stress on prophetic authority which occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy and DH.
Once the correct course of action has been established, Hilkiah is party to Josiah's reforms, bringing out of the Temple
the vessels manufactured for use in idolatrous worship and handing them over for destruction (2 Kgs. 23: 4);
presumably he would have seen nothing wrong with the vessels or their use prior to Josiah's drive for purgation.
However, Hilkiah himself gains no new powers or responsibilities because of the reform; indeed, his position is
apparently no more affected by it than it was by the fall of Samaria, both of which events might be expected to raise the
profile of the Jerusalem chief priest by leaving the Temple as the one legitimate functioning centre of Yahwism. But
Hilkiah's continued subordination points once again to the overriding importance of the monarch rather than the chief
priest as the centre of national identity and the highest religious authority in the country.
Indeed, the picture given of these last three priests is remarkably consistent: they are all closely connected with the
king, taking orders from him concerning their own duties in the Temple and showing loyalty and obedience towards
him, and they all have responsibility for Temple maintenance and probably administration. This latter is consistent with
the later picture given in Nehemiah of the ‘ruler of the house of God’ ( , negid bêt hāʼelōhîm—Neh. 11: 11),
and also with the priest who is ‘appointed over the rooms of the house of our God’ ( (nātûn beliškat
bêt-ʼelōhênû—Neh. 13: 4), a designation which some have felt to be too prosaic for the high priest.162 But it is no more
prosaic than the chief priest who counts out money for repairs to the Temple or who is responsible for making a new
altar. Like the pre-monarchic priests, the monarchic chief priests were effectively servants, not leaders, and though they
doubtless had responsibility for the other priests who served in the Temple (cf. 2 Kgs. 12: 8 (ET 12: 7)) they do not
necessarily appear as men with the ability to govern a country—or as a natural focus for the people's expectations and
identity.
162
See the discussion of this reference in Ch. 6 below on Ezra and Nehemiah.
Seraiah (2 Kgs. 25: 18) is the last chief priest in DH, and his sole appearance is in this single mention of his name as
one of those captured and executed by Nebuchadnezzar after the fall of Jerusalem.163 Presumably the point of
disposing of the chief priest and his associates was to disable the religious institutions of Judah, emphasizing the
powerlessness of Judah's God in the face of Babylon's and thereby quashing the morale for a rebellion. As one of the
king's loyal officers, too, the chief priest may well have been seen as a threat to Babylonian domination in the way that
Jehoiada had successfully dethroned Athaliah earlier on in order to set the rightful heir Joash on the throne (2 Kgs. 11:
1–20). Given the other people who are taken into captivity at the same time as the priests (2 Kgs. 25: 19), it certainly
seems that the idea was to purge the old administration to make way for the new, as it was presumably considered
unlikely that those with strong loyalty to their own king would be content to serve a Babylonian master. Seraiah's title is
of interest here; unlike Jehoiada and Hilkiah earlier on he is called (kōhēn hārōʼš, ‘the head priest’).164 This is the
one occasion in DH when a chief priest is mentioned without any immediately obvious interaction with the king (who
by this time had already been deported to Babylon—2 Kgs. 25: 7), but it is at the end of a section dealing with
Nebuzaradan's destruction of the Temple, so the priest is probably mentioned here because of his connection with the
Temple.
It seems, therefore, that by the end of the pre-exilic period there had been little development towards the model of
high priesthood whereby one priest was the focus of religious significance in a way which eclipsed every other priest.
Certainly the building of the Temple and the appointment of what were effectively royal priests to serve in it were
important developments; but these men were chief priests who had no independent powers of leadership and were
effectively under royal authority and responsible to the monarch in every sphere, including the cultic sphere to which
their own responsibilities were confined. This is because it is clear even from DH with its non-sacral and rather
negative view of monarchy
163
The passage 24: 18–25: 30 is repeated almost word for word in Jer. 52: 1–34, including mention of Seraiah and the other priests.
164
Montgomery, 429, 563–4, assumes that it is an old title. The LXX equivalent is ἱɛρέα τὸν πρω̑τον (hierea ton prōton, ‘the first priest’). See n. 75 above on terminology for the
high priest.
that the king was the focal figure and the ultimate authority in both political and religious matters, so that there was
neither sufficient incentive nor suitable conditions for a high priesthood in the Priestly sense to develop alongside the
monarchy. Nor is there any hint that the monarch's position as the focus of identity faded once Jerusalem had fallen;
the notice about Jehoiachin's release from prison (2 Kgs. 25: 27–30), whether it is an expression of hope or despair at
what is effectively only a partial release, is evidence for continuing interest in the king's fate even in the middle years of
the Exile.
However, the picture of the monarch as the country's most important political and religious authority is only part of
the reason for the surprisingly low profile of the chief priests in DH; the other major factor is the question of
centralization of worship. Given the assumption that the high priesthood as epitomized in P really only developed in
conjunction with the Temple at Jerusalem and was the product of a more centralized and regulated system of religious
observance, it is surely no accident that only towards the end of 2 Kings do individuals appear who bear any
resemblance to high priests in this sense, together with any kind of official titles. The whole message of DH is that
worship was not centralized throughout the land, despite centralization being the will of Yahweh; the high places were
not removed, and the northern kingdom had its two major shrines which Jeroboam had promoted as well as several
others from pre-monarchic days. Although there was doubtless a kind of ‘shrine hierarchy’ whereby some shrines were
more prestigious than others, and Jerusalem would presumably have been one of the more prestigious locations at
which to worship, there was probably no overriding influence of any one particular location despite the attempts of
both Hezekiah and Josiah to dismantle the shrines outside Jerusalem. Indeed, Jerusalem's claim to Yahwistic religious
prestige and importance does not appear before David's conquest of the city and was probably deliberately cultivated
as a neutral answer to all the tribes' former allegiances, in order to unify them around an acceptable central point.
Other sites such as Shiloh and Bethel had much more ancient and ingrained claims on the people's religious affections,
and so it is not really surprising that the idea of centralized worship at Jerusalem took some time to become
established. In fact, it seems highly likely that Jerusalem's overriding religious
importance was never fully realized before the Exile. The last effort at centralization under Josiah took place barely
forty years before the final destruction of Jerusalem, but the evidence from the staccato narrative of 2 Kgs. 23: 31–24:
20 suggests that the reform was ephemeral. The verdict on each of the last four kings of Judah following Josiah is,
(wayyaʽaś hārāaʽ beʽênê yhwh, ‘and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord’, 2 Kgs. 23: 32, 37; 24: 9, 19), which
would presumably include the failure to adhere to the precepts of Yahwism and a lack of respect for the Temple and its
proper ceremonial. Evidence from the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel also suggests that their fellow-citizens continued
in their idolatrous ways undeterred.165
The overall conclusion from DH, then, even allowing for the evident theological bias of the work, is that the lack of
effective centralization of worship throughout the pre-exilic period, combined with the monarch's role as both political
and religious head of state during the monarchic period, means that it is not possible before the Exile to speak of the
high priesthood as it appears in P. Instead, there would have been numerous shrines and many chief priests, of which
the shrine and chief priest at Jerusalem would doubtless have become the most prestigious, particularly after the fall of
the northern kingdom; but even the Jerusalem chief priest would have been secondary to the monarch, since it was the
monarch who fulfilled an equivalent role to that of the high priest in P's scheme as the representative of the nation
before God. However, there is some similarity between the high priest in P and the chief priest in DH, inasmuch as
both are portrayed as cultic officials whose duties are confined to the cultic sphere and who appear to have no wider
responsibilities.
This, then, was the position leading up to the Exile, at which point the old order was rudely shattered. However, before
moving on to examine the consequences of exile for Judaean society in general and the high priesthood in particular, it
will be illuminating to examine the figure of Melchizedek.
165
See for example Jer. 7: 1–34 and Ezek. 8: 1–11: 12.
3 Mysterious Melchizedek
Melchizedek is one of the most enigmatic figures in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. He makes only two brief
appearances in the Old Testament, in Gen. 14: 18–20 and Ps. 110: 4, but he is the subject of an extensive midrash on
high priesthood in Hebrews 5–7, and he also appears in the Qumran scroll IIQMelch as a heavenly judge and deliverer
who presides over the final judgment.166 Melchizedek's relevance to the present study of the high priesthood is that in
his Old Testament appearances he is called both a king and a priest, and could therefore provide a model or a
precedent for the high priesthood as a political office exercising ruling power as well as bearing religious and cultic
responsibility.167 The conjunction of royal and priestly office in the same individual is a model found in the Canaanite
city-states which preceded the Israelite occupation of the land,168 and is part of the concept of
166
See Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1997), 500–2. The legend of Melchizedek's miraculous birth
and ascension is recounted in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 71–2.
167
In addition, the ‘-zedek’ element in Melchizedek's name has caused him to be linked with Zadok, who like Melchizedek was an enigmatic priestly figure of the monarchic
period and whose supposed descendants eventually claimed exclusive rights to the high priesthood. See the discussion of Zadok's origins in Ch. 2 above on the
Deuteronomistic History, and Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen. 14 and Ps. 110)’, in W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1950), 461–72.
168
John Gray, ‘Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice’, VT 2 (1952), 193–220, analyses the model of Canaanite kingship given in the Keret and Dan el sagas as
compared with the model illustrated by historical texts from Ras Shamra, and concludes that by the time of the historical texts much of the king's authority had devolved on
to other professional classes. This includes his priestly authority, of which some was vested in the priestly caste of one of the royal clans, although he still exercised a certain
amount of it himself (p. 218). Although Gray's point is that the influence of Canaanite kingship as the model for the Israelite monarchy was less than is often claimed
because it was past its zenith by the time of the Israelite occupation of Canaan, his picture of a Canaanite king with priestly rights who is supported by a class of professional
priests accords well with that given in the OT texts of the Israelite monarchs. The comparison can therefore stand, although with the reservations noted about the strength
of Canaanite influence.
MYSTERIOUS MELCHIZEDEK 81
‘sacral kingship’ prevalent in the ancient Near East, whereby the monarch was viewed as the god's supreme
representative and even in some cases his embodiment in the midst of the people.169 Although some of the more
mythological aspects of sacral kingship are absent from the Israelite concept of monarchy,170 there can be little doubt
that the sacral model was the one upon which it was based, and that there was therefore a definite priestly component
to it. There is evidence in the books of Samuel and Kings of monarchs performing priestly functions,171 and the work
of scholars such as Mowinckel and Johnson has produced from the psalms evidence of cultic observances and a grand
autumnal festival in which the king played a pivotal part by virtue of his special relationship with Yahweh and as the
people's representative.172 The question for the present context is how, or indeed whether, this joint king-priest model
as epitomized in Melchizedek relates to the high priesthood of later times.
The figure of Melchizedek has generated a good deal of comment among OT scholars. In the words of Fred L.
Horton,
169
For a brief overview of the subject, including a bibliography, see Henri Cazelles, ‘Sacral Kingship’, ABD v. 863–6.
170
One of the most important features of the Israelite model is that Israel never saw her kings as Yahweh's embodiment; instead, the monarch was seen as becoming Yahweh's
adopted son on the day of his coronation (Ps. 2: 7). For a study of this concept, see Gerald Cooke, ‘The Israelite King as Son of God’, ZAW 73 (1961), 202–25.
171
It seems likely on the basis of the accounts in 2 Sam. 6: 1–19, 1 Kgs. 8: 1–66, and 1 Kgs. 12: 32–13: 1 that the monarch would have functioned in a priestly capacity during
the autumnal festival, leading processions and offering sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the community. The parallel passages in the books of Chronicles (1 Chr. 15: 1–16:
3; 2 Chr. 5: 2–7: 10) display alterations which fit with the contemporary Levitical priestly ideology, but they still retain the vestiges of the monarch performing priestly
functions; however, in later passages in Chronicles (e.g. 2 Chr. 26: 16–20) priestly functions are restricted to priests alone. The Chronicler's presentation of kingship and high
priesthood is discussed in detail in Ch. 8 below.
172
The details of the festival, particularly the king's role in it, are much disputed. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, 2 vols. (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1962), i. 61–2, sees the king as quite naturally being chief priest of the nation, and on this basis he argues that the Davidic monarch would have played a central
role in the festal complex surrounding the autumnal New Year celebrations (pp. 128–30), but he does not specify the nature of this role any further. A. R. Johnson, 102–28,
134–6, argues for a more complex and specific monarchic role in the New Year festival, involving the king's ritual humiliation and eventual restoration; and in similar vein
John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 2nd edn. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 172–81, argues for the monarch having a wide-ranging cultic role, including his participation
in rites of atonement for the whole nation which would have involved him being ritually humiliated and restored. Others, however, remain sceptical of this kind of
reconstruction; see for example J. Day, Psalms, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 105–6.
Melchizedek is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament in passages involving extreme difficulty in text,
language, and date. The difficulty in understanding the references to Melchizedek in these passages is further
increased by the fact that in both passages primary interest does not focus upon Melchizedek but upon some other
figure . . . . The lack of certainty in the dating of these two passages, which has led to their being assigned variously
to dates ranging from pre-Israelite times to the period of the Maccabees, has provided a fertile ground for theory-
building and speculation.173
Under these circumstances, in order to determine whether or not the Melchizedek model has any relevance for the
high priesthood, it will be necessary to decide how Melchizedek's appearance should be interpreted in each of the two
OT texts which mention him. This will involve an examination and assessment of the critical issues surrounding the
texts, so as to make clear the basis on which the final interpretation is being made. Once both texts have been
examined individually and interpretations suggested, their significance for the high priesthood will be assessed.
The reference to Melchizedek in Gen. 14: 18–20 will be examined first, inasmuch as it is traditionally understood to be
the place where Melchizedek's identity is given, in contrast to Psalm 110 which simply uses the name Melchizedek
without any further elaboration. Gen. 14: 18–20 is a reference which in the light of Horton's comment quoted above
could well be described as a troublesome reference in a troublesome chapter. It has often been remarked that these
three verses stand out from their context as having no integral connection with the verses immediately preceding or
following them, actually interrupting the flow of the account of Abram's meeting with the king of Sodom.174 However,
that is not the only peculiarity of Genesis 14. Although the chapter is ostensibly about Abram's encounter with and
defeat of five petty kings who had attacked Sodom and other cities and carried off Abram's nephew Lot, Abram
himself does not appear until verse 12; also, the style of narration changes between verses 1–11 and
173
Fred L. Horton, Jr, The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 12–13.
174
So Driver, The Book of Genesis, 4th edn., Westminster Commentaries (London: Methuen, 1905), 166; Robert Houston Smith, ‘Abram and Melchizedek’, ZAW 77 (1965),
129–53 (p. 130); Emerton, ‘The Riddle of Genesis xiv’, VT 21 (1971), 403–39 (p. 408); Bruce Vawter, On Genesis (London: Cassell and Collier Macmillan Publishers,
1977), 197; Robert Davidson, Genesis 12–50, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 33.
verses 12–24, from being dry, annalistic recording to being the more lively narration of a folk-tale or an epic
adventure,175 thereby giving the impression of a composite piece of writing. In addition, the chapter as a whole does not
easily conform to any of the supposed documentary sources of the Pentateuch,176 and the picture of Abram as a
reasonably well-off princely character with 318 servants born in his household at his disposal to pursue Lot's captors
does not accord with the picture of him elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives (e.g. Genesis 23).177 Equally, his
introduction in 14: 13 as Abram (hāʽibrî, ‘the Hebrew’) implies that he was unknown before chapter 14,178 which
in the present context is incorrect—he has just appeared in the preceding verse, to say nothing of the earlier narratives
in chapters 12 and 13.179 In the light of all these peculiarities, most commentators view Genesis 14 as being composed
of several different sources, among which the Melchizedek unit is a source on its own. Westermann is the exponent of
one such approach; he sees three distinct sections in the chapter—verses 1–11, 12–17 with 21–4, and 18–20.180
Although the opposite view is taken by Wenham, who argues for the chapter's unity, and particularly the unity of verses
18–20 with their
175
Skinner, Genesis, 2nd edn., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930), 255, 256; Emerton, ‘Riddle of Genesis’, 404–7; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–50, BKAT 1/2
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977–82), 222 (ET Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Scullion (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg; London: SPCK, 1985),
189).
176
Driver, Genesis, 155; Skinner, Genesis, 256; Cuthbert A. Simpson, ‘Genesis’, in IB i (1952), 437–829 (p. 590); von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, 5. Auflage, ATD 2–4
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 147 (ET Genesis, trans. John H. Marks, rev. edn. by John Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1972; repr. 1979), 175); A. S.
Herbert, Genesis 12–50, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1962), 32; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 105; Westermann, 221 (ET, 188);
Davidson, 33. An attempt by M. Astour to align the chapter with Deuteronomic sources has been refuted by Emerton (‘Riddle of Genesis’, 404–6).
177
Skinner, Genesis, 255; Simpson, 590; von Rad, Genesis, 147 (ET, 175); R. H. Smith, 138; Vawter, 185–6; Davidson, 32.
178
Skinner, Genesis, 265; Westermann, 235 (ET, 197).
179
Francis I. Andersen, ‘Genesis 14: An Enigma’, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and
Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 497–508, concludes, ‘The total effect is strange’ (p. 506).
180
Westermann, 223 (ET, 190). See also von Rad, Genesis, 149–50 (ET, 178–9); Speiser, Genesis, 106; Davidson, 33–5. Emerton, ‘Riddle of Genesis’, 427–32, reviews seven
different theories about the chapter's composition and eventually comes to the same conclusion that there were three basic sources, although with added detail about minor
interpolations and glosses (pp. 437–8); in ‘Some Problems in Genesis xiv’, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch, VTSupp 41 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), 73–102 (pp.
101–2), he defends his analysis of 1971, making only minor modifications to it which do not affect the present argument.
immediate context, largely on the basis of structural and verbal reminiscences,181 the attempt does not carry conviction
and is severely criticized by Emerton.182 The most satisfactory conclusion is still that the Melchizedek pericope of 14:
18–20 is basically unconnected with its context, and so any attempt at interpretation must take that into account.183
Assuming that 14: 18–20 is an interpolation into its immediate context, then, the next question which presents itself is
the purpose of the interpolation. However, in order to answer that question there are two further interlinked questions
which need to be resolved first, and which are likely to be of relevance for the question of the high priesthood: the
question of Melchizedek's identity, and whether Salem ( ) is in fact Jerusalem, as has traditionally been assumed. The
questions arise because attempts have been made both to interpret the term ‘Melchizedek’ as something other than the
proper name of a king, and to interpret the term ‘Salem’ as referring to somewhere other than Jerusalem, or even as a
term meaning ‘in peace’ or ‘allied to’. On the question of Melchizedek's identity, Del Medico ingeniously claims,
‘Neither the author of Gen. 14, nor the author of Ps. 110 was thinking of a king called Melchizedek’,184 arguing instead
that the name Melchizedek ‘originates from a misreading of the texts’, and that where it occurs in Gen. 14: 18 ‘it is a
question . . . of a descriptive term applied to the king of Sodom’.185 Certainly others have attempted to translate Psalm
110 without recourse to the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, as will be demonstrated below, but Del Medico is the
only one who tries to excise him from Gen. 14: 18. The general consensus is that in Genesis 14 at least Melchizedek is
181
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 304–7. Wenham concludes that the chapter is ‘a substantial unity, part of the larger Abram–Lot cycle, with a
number of glosses that may be ascribed to a J editor’ (p. 307).
182
Emerton, ‘Some Problems in Genesis xiv’, 80–4.
183
J. Gordon McConville, ‘Abraham and Melchizedek: Horizons in Genesis 14’, in Richard S. Hess, Gordon J. Wenham, and Philip E. Satterthwaite (eds.), He Swore an Oath:
Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, Tyndale House Studies (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994), 93–118, while referring to 14: 18–20 as an ‘interruption’ (pp. 113, 116), argues
that ‘the Melchizedek episode has been carefully placed’ (p. 113). However, he relies for this assessment of Gen. 14: 18–20 upon Wenham's arguments noted above, and
seems unaware of Emerton's criticism of them.
184
H. E. Del Medico, ‘Melchisédech’, ZAW 69 (1957), 160–70 (p. 160): ‘Ni l'auteur de Gen. 14, ni celui du Ps. 110 n'ont pensé à un roi du nom de Melchisédech’.
185
Ibid. 169: ‘son nom provient de la lecture erronée des textes, . . . il s'agit . . . d'un qualicatif donné au roi de Sodome’.
a person, specifically the king of Salem. But where or what is Salem?

As already noted, the traditional interpretation is that Salem is another name for, or the same name as, Jerusalem in
pre-Davidic times,186 and support for this interpretation is often taken from Ps. 76: 3 (ET 76: 2) where Salem is
paralleled with Zion, thereby implying the identification of Salem with Jerusalem;187 hence, Melchizedek is the pre-
Davidic, pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem. However, R. H. Smith, building on a suggestion made by Albright that
(šlm) should be emended to (šlwmw) and rendered as an adjective meaning ‘allied to him [i.e. Abram]’, uses his
own interpretation of the Melchizedek episode as a basis for suggesting that (šlm) as it stands can be interpreted as
an adjective meaning ‘submissive under the terms of a covenant’.188 Melchizedek thus appears as a vassal king who
covenants with Abram to avoid a military encounter with him. Again, Smith is a lone voice in proposing such an
interpretation of the term (šlm), but several others have argued that Salem refers to a location other than
Jerusalem, most commonly Shechem, on the basis of an alternative strand of tradition.189 The proposal is supported by
an appeal to Gen. 33: 18 which reads (wayyābōʼ yaʽaqōb šālēm ʽîr šekem) and is usually rendered
‘Jacob arrived safely at the city of Shechem’; however, the appearance of the term (šālēm) in the context of a
reference to Shechem suggests that it is either another name for Shechem or a town close to Shechem.190 It is also
commonly pointed out that the fourteenth-century Amarna texts refer to Jerusalem not as Salem but as Urusalim,191
and elsewhere in the OT the pre-Israelite name for the city appears as Jebus (cf. Judg. 19: 10, 11; 1 Chr. 11: 4, 5). The
only other place where
186
This interpretation appears in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon XXII.13, and is assumed by Josephus (BJ vi. 438; Ant. i. 180–1).
187
Driver, Genesis, 164; Simpson, 596; von Rad, Genesis, 151 (ET, 179); Herbert, 34; Speiser, Genesis, 104; Westermann, 241 (ET, 204); Davidson, 38.
188
R. H. Smith, ‘Abram and Melchizedek’, 141–5.
189
Emerton, ‘The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis xiv 18)’, in Studies in the Pentateuch, 45–71 (pp. 47–50), gives a review of the traditions associating Salem with
Shechem. Recent support for the theory comes from Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, 3, JSOTS 233 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 86–8.
190
John G. Gammie, ‘Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14: 18–20’, JBL 90 (1971), 385–96 (pp. 390–1).
191
Driver, Genesis, 164; Skinner, Genesis, 268; Gammie, ‘Melchizedek Tradition’, 389; Horton, 39–42; Vawter, 198; Westermann, 241 (ET, 204).
the name (šālēm) appears is in Ps. 76: 3 (ET 76: 2), as already mentioned, but Horton points out that the parallel
drawn there between Judah and Israel could well be intended to contrast the southern and northern kingdoms, thereby
being an example of antithetic rather than synonymous parallelism. If that is the case, ‘Zion’ would refer to the major
city of Judah and ‘Salem’ to the major city of Israel, rather than Zion and Salem being poetic synonyms.192 Emerton,
however, having presented a review of all the arguments mentioned thus far, thinks that the weight of all the evidence
still points to the identification of Salem as Jerusalem.193 Certainly the Melchizedek reference in Ps. 110: 4 loses its force
if Salem in Gen. 14: 18 is not understood as Jerusalem;194 Ps. 110: 2 speaks of the one whose sceptre the Lord will send
forth from Zion, implying a setting in Jerusalem, so that to introduce a reference to the king of another city in 110: 4
seems rather incongruous. An intermediate line of argument is pursued by Gammie, who claims that the association of
Melchizedek and Jerusalem is secondary, and that the tradition found its way to Jerusalem from Shechem via Shiloh
and Nob along with the priesthoods as they migrated from one location to the next;195 but this has no material effect on
the interpretation of Gen. 14: 18–20 because, as Vawter observes, whatever the origin of the tradition (and it may well
not have been Jerusalem), Salem in the present context undoubtedly refers to Jerusalem.196 Melchizedek should
therefore be regarded as a pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem, in accordance with the traditional understanding.
A decidedly more mythological interpretation of Melchizedek is offered by Barker, who argues that the Melchizedek
figure in the OT should be interpreted in the light of the Melchizedek
192
Horton, 38 n. 4, 49–50.
193
Emerton, ‘The Site of Salem’, 69–70. Von Rad, Genesis, is of the opinion ‘daß der volle Name der Stadt absichtlich vermieden wurde, weil er zu stark mit den spezifischen
Glaubensvorstellungen der späteren Zeit verbunden war. Auch Salem ist also ein künstlicher Name’ (p. 151) (ET, 179: ‘that the full name of the city was intentionally
avoided because it was too closely associated with the specific ideas of faith of a later period. Salem too therefore is an artificial name.’).
194
A. Dillmann, Die Genesis, 5. Auflage, KHAT 11 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886), 239 (ET Genesis, trans. W. B. Stevenson, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), ii. 49);
Skinner, Genesis, 268; von Rad, Genesis, 151 (ET, 179); M. Delcor, ‘Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JSJ 2 (1971), 115–35
(p. 117).
195
Gammie, ‘Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition’, 385–96.
196
Vawter, 197, 198.
of IIQMelch, inasmuch as the Qumran text reflects a complex of ideas originating in the mythology of Jerusalem's
ancient royal cult; hence, the writer of Gen. 14: 18–20 may have known Melchizedek as a powerful heavenly redeemer
like the Melchizedek of IIQMelch, which was why tribute was due to him from Abram.197 This is in complete contrast
to the analysis of the relationship between the canonical and the Qumran Melchizedek figures offered six years
previously by Kobelski, who argues, ‘There is no reason to suspect that Melchizedek was thought to be an angel in the
tradition of Gen. 14: 18–20; however, there are several elements in the passage in Genesis that may have suggested to
the author of IIQMelch that Abram's meeting with Melchizedek was an encounter with an angel.’198 More recently,
however, Cockerill has argued on the basis of differences between the portrayal of Melchizedek in IIQMelch and in the
OT texts that the writer of the Qumran scroll did not intend to identify the angelic figure it portrays with the
‘canonical’ Melchizedek, but was using the designation ‘Melchizedek’ in its literal sense as ‘King of Righteousness’
rather than as a proper name.199 On this interpretation there is no intrinsic link between the Qumran and OT texts, and
hence no possibility of the OT Melchizedek appearing as an angelic figure. Of course, all these interpretations are to a
greater or lesser extent speculative, and can only be judged on intrinsic probability rather than certainty, but it seems
that there are two pitfalls which would make any given interpretation less likely: that of trying to explain the
significance of Melchizedek (wherever he appears) entirely in terms of the surviving references, since they are so few
and undeniably obscure, and that of complete dissociation of the surviving references, given that they all appear within
different branches of the same general faith-community. The second of these is particularly pertinent for Cockerill's
interpretation, since IIQMelch shows great familiarity with and indeed quotes from several portions of the Old
Testament. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that even if the OT Melchizedek references were as
some have argued quite late,
197
Margaret Barker, The Older Testament (London: SPCK, 1987), 255, 257.
198
Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresša, CBQ Monograph Series 10 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 52.
199
Gareth Lee Cockerill, ‘Melchizedek or “King of Righteousness’ ”, EQ 63 (1991), 305–12 (pp. 311–12).
dating from the post-exilic era, the Qumran writer would have been unaware of them; hence, to suggest that he would
have intended or would even have been able in the context of a scriptural exposition to use the designation
‘Melchizedek’ without recalling in some way its biblical associations seems rather naïve.
Additionally, the apparent differences between the Qumran and the canonical Melchizedek may be due as much to the
lack of surviving information about the canonical figure as to any deliberate distinction being drawn between them by
the Qumran writer, so that Cockerill's argument for dissociating the two figures is not very convincing. It seems more
likely that the earlier tradition (that is, the pre-Qumran Melchizedek tradition) would have been taken up and
reinterpreted by the later writer; on this assumption it is possible to account for the differences between the two whilst
maintaining some sort of continuity between them. It should not, however, automatically be assumed that the links are
close enough to allow a unique and direct track from one to the other, so that it is possible to read back an
interpretation of Melchizedek from Qumran to Genesis as Barker does; the fact that there are differences between the
two figures implies that the tradition as a whole was much broader than the surviving material, and what has been
preserved could well be several different reflexes of a tradition whose ultimate basis no longer exists. Hence, it seems
safest to say that there are links between the canonical and the Qumran Melchizedeks, but the differences between
them are a warning not to make the links too exclusive; hence, the presence of an angelic Melchizedek in IIQMelch is
not of itself a reason to postulate an angelic Melchizedek in Gen. 14: 18–20.
On the basis, then, that Gen. 14: 18–20 is an interpolation involving a pre-Israelite priest-king of Jerusalem, the
question of its purpose can now be examined. Given its lack of real connection with its immediate context, it is most
probably an aetiological insertion of some kind, and this in turn raises the question of what it is attempting to explain.
Van Seters argues that the Second Temple priesthood used the Melchizedek pericope as a legitimation of their own
claims to royal prerogative at the start of the Hellenistic period when the political situation eventually allowed such
claims to become explicit, and as a result he dates the interpolation at the end of the fourth century BCE.200 However,
this is
200
John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975), 308. A similar line is taken by Michael C. Astour, ‘Melchizedek’,
in ABD iv. 684–6, who claims that the pericope ‘reflects and legitimizes the aspirations of the high priests of Jerusalem, who in the Persian period strove to be on a par with
the secular governors of Judea, proclaimed the ideal of theocracy in the Priestly Code, and finally achieved secular power in the Hellenistic age’ (p. 684). Barker, The Older
Testament, also dates the pericope in its present form to the post-exilic period; however, her view is that Melchizedek represents an indigenous rather than a Canaanite
element, and that the whole pericope concerns the clash of the ancient traditions as represented by Melchizedek with the more recent post-exilic innovations as represented
by Abraham (p. 253).
unconvincing on two counts: if the figure of Melchizedek does originate from a Canaanite era and milieu and was
known to do so it is difficult to accept that the Second Temple priesthood would employ such a model for their own
legitimation when they were so concerned with purity and separation from their surroundings.201 If on the other hand
Melchizedek was not well-known as a Canaanite priest-king it is difficult to see exactly what impact he would have had
on the populace at large when used as a legitimating figure for contemporary equivalents. More credible is the thought
of those who see certainly an ancient tradition at the heart of the pericope,202 and probably its early monarchic
formulation in the present text.203 An aetiological interpolation needs to come at a time and into a milieu in which the
references are comprehensible and relevant, and the time when the Melchizedek portrayed in Gen. 14: 18–20 would be
most relevant is the early pre-exilic period when Israel's relationship with indigenous elements of the population was
still a matter of concern. Given that Melchizedek is king of Jerusalem, the specific locus of that concern would
probably be Jerusalem soon after David's conquest of the Jebusite city; hence, it would seem to be a matter of
promoting conciliation
201
Skinner, Genesis, 269–70; Emerton, ‘Riddle of Genesis’, 419; Gammie, ‘Melchizedek Tradition’, 386.
202
Dillmann, 232 (ET ii. 35); Skinner, Genesis, 270; Herbert, 34–5; R. H. Smith, 131; Delcor, ‘Melchizedek’, 119; Davidson, 34, 35. Loren R. Fisher, ‘Abraham and his Priest-
King’, JBL 81 (1962), 264–70, claims that ‘the Genesis tradition represents an historical milieu’ (p. 269), and suggests that ‘the encounter between Malkisedeq and
Abraham could have taken place during the period of Hittite interpenetration (14th and 13th centuries)’ (p. 270). However, although the setting of the episode may well be
historically credible, it should not necesssarily be taken to indicate the historicity of the events themselves; aetiology is by no means tied to historicity, and indeed may well
function more effectively without it. In the present instance the pericope fulfils its aetiological function regardless of whether Melchizedek was an historical personage and
his meeting with Abram actually occurred; the important factor is whether or not the Melchizedek tradition had any significance for its intended audience.
203
Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok’, 466; Westermann, 245–6 (ET, 207); Emerton, ‘Some Problems in Genesis xiv’, 101.
between the two elements of the population, since there had supposedly been friendly relations between them at some
time in the past as represented by the figures of Abram and Melchizedek.204
On this understanding, then, the use of Melchizedek in Gen. 14: 18–20 has no direct significance for either royal or
priestly models of leadership in the Israelite community, but is rather a means of encouraging peaceful cohabitation
and co-operation between two ethnic groups who have found themselves thrust together as conquerors and
conquered in the same city. Hence, the next step is to determine whether Melchizedek's appearance in Ps. 110: 4 has
any more significance than the Genesis pericope for the high priest-hood.
Psalm 110 has proved to be just as difficult to interpret as Genesis 14, largely because of textual corruption in its
verses 3, 6, and 7. However, from verses 1 and 2 the psalm appears to be addressed to a ruler of some kind in
Jerusalem, and the reference to a sceptre in verse 2 implies that the ruler had royal status and power. Hence, the
question is how the promise of eternal priesthood in verse 4 with its reference to Melchizedek relates to the opening
glimpse of an aggressive, militaristic ruler in Zion. Fortunately there is no textual corruption in verse 4, so that the
obscurity of the reference is not compounded by uncertainties over the exact consonantal reading. In order to interpret
the psalm, exegetes have tried to identify a ruler in Jerusalem in whom the joint prerogatives of kingship and
priesthood were vested, an attempt which has given rise to a range of ideas and a corresponding range of proposed
datings for its original context. There are three basic options for the psalm's dating: Maccabean, post-exilic, or
monarchic, and for all of these it has been argued that a joint priest-king figure could be identified. The options will
now be
204
J. W. Bowker, ‘Psalm cx’, VT 17 (1967), 31–41 (pp. 39–41); Emerton, ‘Riddle of Genesis’, 421–5; John C. McCullough, ‘Melchizedek's Varied Role in Early Exegetical
Tradition’, NETR 1.2 (1978), 52–66 (pp. 53–4). Emerton in particular gives a very thorough and convincing presentation of this point of view. Other explanations for the
purpose of the aetiology include the legitimation of the tithe paid to the Jerusalem Temple, whether pre-exilic (Skinner, Genesis, 269; Westermann, 244 (ET, 206)) or post-
exilic (Delcor, ‘Melchizedek’, 120); bolstering the royal claims of the Davidides and justifying their priestly function against those who might try and make Abrahamic
descent a rival and more important claim for authority (Davidson, 34); and legitimizing the continuing priesthood of Zadok the Jebusite in the newly captured Jerusalem
(Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok’, 470—see below for discussion of this idea).
examined in turn to see which is the most likely milieu for the appearance of the priest-king in the name of
Melchizedek.
As noted above, the latest proposed dating for the psalm is the Maccabean period. However, although Duhm was
convinced that the opening letters of verses 1–4 formed the acrostic ‘Simon’, and therefore dated the psalm
accordingly as a hymn about the Hasmonean priest-king,205 such a late date finds very little scholarly favour these
days.206 The most telling piece of evidence against it is the fact that the whole psalm is phrased as a prophetic oracle,
even beginning with the words (neʼum yhwh), a phrase meaning ‘oracle of Yahweh’ which is found in the historical
and prophetic books but nowhere else in the Psalter. Given that prophecy is generally supposed to have ceased by the
Hasmonean era, and that Simon's own appointment was ‘until a faithful prophet should arise’ (ἕως του̑ ἀναστη̑ναι
προφήτην πιστόν, heōs tou anastēnai prophētēn piston—1 Macc. 14: 41), it is most unlikely that a psalm addressed to him or
about him would begin with such an overtly prophetic form of expression which is unusual to the point of
nonexistence in the rest of the Psalter.207
205
Bernhardt Duhm, Die Psalmen, KHCAT 14 (Freiburg, Leipzig and Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1899), 254–5. English commentators who followed Duhm at
the beginning of this century include W. Cobb, The Book of Psalms (London: Methuen, 1905), 317–18; T. Witton Davies, The Psalms, II, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. &
E. C. Jack, 1906), 223, 225; and R. H. Charles, ‘The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Introduction’, in R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament, II: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 282–95 (p. 282).
206
An exposition of the Maccabean acrostic and dating theory for Psalm 110 is presented by Marco Treves, ‘Two Acrostic Psalms’, VT 15 (1965), 81–90 (pp. 85–90). Treves
regards both Psalms 2 and 110 as containing Hasmonean acrostics and lists a number of other scholars who accept the acrostic ‘Simon is terrible’ for Psalm 110 (p. 86 n. 2).
However, Bowker points out some of the difficulties with the ‘Simon’ acrostic, not the least of which are that it requires the first line of the psalm to be omitted and does not
lend itself to any credible metre for the psalm ‘without drastic emendation’ (p. 31). Treves has repeated his views more recently in The Dates of the Psalms: History and Poetry in
Ancient Israel (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1988); however, an even more recent adherent of the theory is Astour, who cites the supposed acrostic along with ‘the
warlike atmosphere of the psalm’ as evidence for the psalm's Maccabean origin (Astour, ‘Melchizedek’, 685). An early protest against the idea of Maccabean psalms in
general is made by Moses Buttenwieser, ‘Are There Any Maccabaean Psalms?’, JBL 36 (1917), 225–48, who argues that the standard of Hebrew in the supposedly
Maccabean psalms is inconsistent with a dating for them at a time when Hebrew had died out as a spoken language. Buttenwieser's argument also excludes the possibility of
archaising, which might be appealed to in support of a late dating.
207
Hermann Gunkel, ‘Psalmen’, in Hermann Gunkel and Leopold Zscharnack (eds.). Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd edn., 5 vols. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1927–31), iv (1930), cols. 1609–27 (col. 1619) (ET The Psalms, trans. Thomas M. Horner, Facet Books Biblical Series 19 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967; repr.
1989), 23); E. R. Hardy, Jr, ‘The Date of Psalm 110’, JBL 64 (1945), 385–90 (p. 386); A. Caquot, ‘Remarques sur le Psaume cx’, Semitica, 6 (1956), 33–52 (p. 50). Hardy
also discounts the possibility that the phrase was used as a literary device and could therefore be later than might at first appear, on the grounds that the style of the psalm ‘is
marked by rugged vigor rather than by sophisticated literary artifice’ (p. 386).
An attempt to date Psalm 110 in the Maccabean period without reference to the supposed acrostic has been made by
Gerleman.208 He argues that the whole psalm is put in David's mouth, and that instead of being a royal psalm it is to be
understood as a rather cryptic summary of important events in the tribal history of Judah which resulted in the tribe's
pre-eminence. Although the psalm follows the rather florid and allusive style of other ancient poetic accounts of the
tribe such as Gen. 49: 8–12 and Deut. 33: 7, Gerleman argues that its dating is late, because the allusion to
Melchizedek and his priesthood only makes sense in the context of a high priest who is also head of the nation. The
Melchizedek allusion can also be linked to the rabbinic tradition which identifies Melchizedek with Noah's son Shem
and makes Tamar his daughter, thereby associating Melchizedek with the tribe of Judah. From this Gerleman
concludes that the psalm is a composition of the Maccabean era, intended to legitimate the position of the ruling
Hasmonean high priesthood, although he does not link it with a specific individual.209
Gerleman's exegesis is certainly ingenious, and indeed there is evidence to support the idea that the Hasmoneans used
the psalm in some way to legitimate their position. However, there are a number of difficulties with the overall
proposal. First, Maccabean or Hasmonean use of the psalm is not the same as a Maccabean date of composition, and
cannot be used as evidence for such a date. Secondly, although Gerleman supposedly rejects the traditional
interpretation of the psalm as a royal psalm, a psalm about the tribe of Judah and its ruling prerogative is effectively a
royal psalm by another name. Admittedly a psalm about Judah is concerned with the whole tribe, whereas a royal
psalm is addressed to an individual member of the tribe (namely the monarch), but both have in view the legitimation
of rule by members of the same
208
Gillis Gerleman, ‘Psalm cx’, VT 31 (1981), 1–19.
209
Ibid. 19: ‘Wir müssen uns damit begnügen, den Psalm als Erzeugnis der makkabäischen Epoche anzusehen.’ (‘We must content ourselves with viewing the psalm as a
product of the Maccabean era.’)
group. Thirdly, and most importantly, whether the psalm is a royal psalm as traditionally understood or a poetic
celebration of the tribe of Judah, its effect is to legitimize members of the tribe of Judah in their exercise of leadership.
But the Hasmoneans were not members of the tribe of Judah; they were Aaronide priests, and so were presumably
regarded as members of the tribe of Levi. This makes it very difficult to see why someone would compose what is on
Gerleman's reading such an obscurely allusive piece of writing about a tribe with which the Hasmoneans were
unconnected in order to legitimize Hasmonean leadership. The Hasmoneans' own use of the psalm apparently
consisted of an appropriation of the Melchizedek priesthood, in order to validate their own rise to high priesthood
without being of high priestly lineage;210 however, this is not the same as using the psalm to validate their position of
political leadership. Indeed, the only way in which Gerleman can link the Maccabees to the psalm in terms of their
political aspirations is by drawing an analogy between their rise and that of the Judahites as supposedly portrayed in the
psalm, an analogy so minimalist that its validity is in doubt. On Gerleman's reading, the only points of contact between
the Maccabees and Judah is that both groups rise from a quiet existence in the south of the country via warlike exploits
to a position of power and leadership, and Melchizedek is supposedly a covert reference to Mattathias, the founding
father of the Maccabees.211 Gerleman does not explain why, according to his interpretation, two of the psalm's seven
verses, roughly a quarter of the whole composition, are taken up with allusions to Judah's illicit union with his
daughter-in-law Tamar and its results, when this is completely irrelevant to the Maccabees and provides no analogy
whatever for their circumstances. Assuming, too, that Gerleman's reading of Psalm 110 is correct, even if the psalm
were used in the rather obscurely analogical fashion which he proposes, this would surely indicate that it was a pre-
existing source which had been appropriated with less
210
See A. J. B. Higgins, ‘Priest and Messiah’, VT 3 (1953), 321–36 (p. 325); Jakob J. Petuchowski, ‘The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek’, HUCA 28 (1957), 127–36
(pp. 131–4); Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 131 n. 154. This usage is entirely consonant with the
understanding of Psalm 110 as a royal psalm intended to validate the king's priestly prerogatives even though he was not of priestly lineage, an interpretation which will be
discussed below. For a full discussion of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans, see Chs. 11 and 12 below.
211
Gerleman, 19.
than complete success for a new situation, rather than being a purposeful composition intended to provide
recognizable validation for a contemporary state of affairs. Like the arguments of the ‘acrostic school’, therefore,
Gerleman's arguments for a late dating of Psalm 110 are ultimately unconvincing.
Other dates earlier in the post-exilic period have also been suggested. Tournay, for example, uses supposed linguistic
reminiscences between Psalm 110 and Chronicles and Qoheleth to place the psalm at around the end of the Persian
period and the beginning of the Hellenistic period,212 arguing that it is a composition of the Jerusalem high priesthood:
‘There is doubtless there an echo of the claims of the ruling priesthood.’213 However, as with Van Seters's attempt to
date the Melchizedek pericope of Gen. 14: 18–20 to the fourth century BCE, the use of a Canaanite prototype seems
inappropriate to the period; as Kraus remarks, the later the date the more unlikely it is that reference should be made
to a pre-Israelite figure.214 Hence, the very presence of Melchizedek the Canaanite priest-king militates against such a
late dating for Psalm 110. In addition, the later the psalm is dated, the more difficult it becomes to account for the
extremely poor condition of the text, whereas an earlier dating allows more scope for textual misunderstanding and
corruption to have occurred over a longer period of transmission.215
A date in the late sixth century BCE is posited by Schreiner, who sees in the psalm the induction of Joshua son of
Jehozadak to the high priesthood. Schreiner suggests that the psalm is the reworking of an older text following
Zerubbabel's disappearance, to provide legitimation for a new kind of office whereby religious and secular power
became concentrated in the hands of the high priest Joshua as the head of the community, and he links the psalm with
the notoriously controversial vision of the crowns in Zech. 6: 9–15,
212
Tournay, 5, 8–9, 19, 29. One of the examples of late usage which Tournay cites is the phrase , (ʼal-dibrātî ), because its nearest parallels in the canon are in Job and
Ecclesiastes. However, as will be discussed below, the form (dibrātî ) is the survival of an old genitive and is therefore early rather than late linguistically speaking.
213
Ibid. 38: ‘Il y a là sans doute un écho des prétentions du souverain sacerdoce.’
214
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, II, 3. Auflage, BKAT XV/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966), 756 (ET Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C.
Oswald (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1989), 347).
215
Hardy, 386–7. Horton, 24, 26, notes that the LXX translates the same consonantal text as is given by the MT, so that the Hebrew was probably already corrupt by the time
of the Greek translation.
maintaining that Zech. 6: 11, 13 illustrates the transfer of kingly rights and insignia to the high priest.216 It is certainly
true that Joshua is called son of Jehozadak, and the ‘-zadak’ element in his patronym could be taken to be of the same
family as Zadok and Melchi-zedek, which would account for the mention of Melchizedek in the psalm and the
emphasis on the priestly office. However, Zech. 6: 13 goes on to speak of the priest who will be alongside what is in
Schreiner's view Joshua's throne, and of peaceful understanding between them both; this implies that priest and ruler
are two separate offices, as there is no obvious reason why a ruling priest would need another priest by his throne.
Zech. 6: 13 also implies some sort of past conflict between the enthroned and the priestly parties, giving the impression
that they represented two different sections of the community.217 Under these circumstances it seems unlikely that the
psalm would fit Schreiner's proposed context. In addition, the remarks made above about the ideology and textual
corruption of the psalm being incompatible with a later date also apply to Schreiner's interpretation.
It is noteworthy that all these attempts to date Psalm 110 in the post-exilic period start from the assumption that either
the high priest's power in the community had increased significantly from its pre-exilic level, or that the high priests
were attempting to establish a broader power base. The failure of these interpretations is not in itself evidence against
the high priesthood as a political power in the post-exilic period, but it certainly amounts to a reduction of the evidence
which can be cited in support of such assertions.
The third and remaining option for the date of the psalm, then, is sometime in the monarchic period. Gunkel classified
the psalm as a royal psalm, specifically a coronation psalm,218 and this still seems to be a popular interpretation,
although there are various opinions as to the precise nature of the enthronement depicted. Kissane, for example,
argued that the psalm describes
216
Stefan Schreiner, ‘Psalm cx und die Investitur des Hohenpriesters’, VT 27 (1977), 216–22. Goulder follows a similar line (p. 88).
217
Barker, ‘The Two Figures in Zechariah’, HeyJ 18 (1977), 38–46 (pp. 43–5), links the crowning of Joshua in Zech. 6: 9–15 with his cleansing in Zech. 3: 1–10 and the ‘sons
of oil’ in Zech. 4: 14 to argue that Joshua as leader of the southern priesthood was the enthroned figure and that the party with whom he should live in peace was the
northern priesthood. For discussion of this idea, see Ch. 5 below on Haggai and Zechariah.
218
Gunkel, ‘Psalmen’, cols. 1619, 1620 (ET, 23, 24).
the inauguration of the Messianic reign rather than that of the earthly Davidic king.219 However, it is doubtful whether
there was a messianic hope before the end of the monarchy, whereas arguments have been put forward for Psalm 110
having a Canaanite background, which implies that it is of ancient origin.220 Further, Higgins points out that it is almost
unheard of for kingship and priesthood to be vested in the same person in Jewish eschatological thinking,221 whereas
the psalm shows precisely that the king (verse 2) and the priest (verse 4) are one. Kissane's interpretation is therefore
unlikely on the grounds of both dating and ideology. Hardy favours a date in the early monarchy on the grounds that
priest-kingship implies a less-than-developed formal separate priesthood, and he interprets the Melchizedek reference
as legitimating the amalgamation of Jerusalem's Jebusite and Israelite populations under an Israelite monarch by
making the monarch the divinely appointed successor to the Jebusite priest-king.222 Several other commentators also
favour an approach which sees the psalm as legitimation or celebration of David's take-over of the Jebusite kingship,223
and this type of interpretation is certainly consistent with the evidence of the psalm's Canaanite background and
ancient text, together with the royal, priestly, and prophetic characteristics in its content. It is also consistent with the
overall picture of monarchy in the Psalms, where as noted above there is far more emphasis on the sacral aspects of
kingship than there is in the Deuteronomist.224
219
E. J. Kissane, ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 110’, Irish Theological Quarterly, 21 (1954), 103–14.
220
Helen Genevieve Jefferson, ‘Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?’, JBL 73 (1954), 152–6.
221
Higgins, 321, 325, 333. Higgins also claims that ‘even when the psalm [110] was understood to refer to the Messiah, Melchizedek was regarded as a priestly figure other than
the Messiah himself ’ (p. 326).
222
Hardy, 387, 389–90.
223
Caquot, ‘Remarques’, 50–2; Kraus, 755, 756, 761 (ET, 347, 351); Artur Weiser, Die Psalmen, II: Psalm 61–150, 7. Auflage, ATD 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966), 478; Eaton, Psalms, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1967), 261, 262; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 101–150, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977), 66, 68; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 85; Th. Booij, ‘Psalm cx: “Rule in the Midst of your Foes!’ ”, VT 41 (1991), 396–407
(p. 406).
224
For comments on the Deuteronomistic view of kingship, see Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History. In a highly sacral interpretation of Psalm 110, Barker, The Older
Testament, 255–60, argues for a correlation between the role of the ancient kings of Jerusalem and the Melchizedek figure in IIQMelch, so that the Melchizedek priesthood
referred to in Ps. 110: 4 was part of the old royal cult and ‘Melchizedek was one aspect of the role of the king in his embodiment of the Spirit of Yahweh’ (p. 257). Very
probably, being ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ was an aspect of the royal role which arose from the king's status as adopted son of the deity, but to regard the king as
embodying the Spirit of Yahweh seems to go beyond the available evidence for sacral kingship in Israel.
There have also been a number of more unorthodox suggestions regarding the psalm's setting, which have had a
corresponding effect upon Melchizedek's role in it. Gammie proposes that the psalm was a prophetic liturgy appointed
to be used after the Autumnal Festival when there was a delay in the rains, and its recital would perhaps have involved
the king carrying out symbolic acts of pot-shattering to resemble the sound of the thunderstorms which when they
came were seen as Yahweh visibly exercising righteous judgement on his enemies as well as vindicating his king.225 In
this setting Gammie sees no room for Melchizedek; his rendering of verse 4 is
Thou art a priest for ever

Because I have spoken righteously, my king.226
In Gammie's eyes, therefore, the verse is to be interpreted as a prophetic assurance that the king's ritual actions are
acceptable to Yahweh and that his priestly status remains untainted in the eyes of the Almighty. The interpretation is
certainly ingenious, and if correct would render the whole Melchizedek debate in relation to Psalm 110 invalid.
However, it suffers from two weaknesses. The first is that there is no obvious reason why Gammie's translation of
verse 4 should be preferred to the traditional rendering. Gammie claims that ‘parallelism suggests that our rendering is
more correct than the usual rendering’, and then gives examples of other royal psalms where the king is addressed
directly and where Yahweh swears by an aspect of himself.227 However, there is no internal parallelism in the structure
of Psalm 110 to suggest that this type of rendering is preferable to the traditional one, and internal structural criteria
are just as important as external ones when trying to ascertain alternative readings. Nor is the excision of Melchizedek
vital to Gammie's interpretation of the psalm's context; his suggested scenario would stand just as well with the
traditional rendering as with his alternative, so that there is neither a structural nor an interpretative incentive to
remove Melchizedek.
225
Gammie, ‘A New Setting for Psalm 110’, Anglican Theological Review, 51 (1969), 4–17.
226
Ibid. 13.
227
Ibid. 13 n. 27.
The second weakness of Gammie's proposal is that he interprets the element (ṣedeq) in the phrase
(malkî-ṣedeq) as an adverb, an interpretation for which he claims support from supposedly similar usages in Deut. 1: 16,
Jer. 11: 20, and Prov 31: 9.228 However, not only are all three of these supporting examples probably much later than
Psalm 110, especially if the psalm is dated to the early monarchic period with possible Canaanite elements, but they
also appear to be examples of a specific idiom, (šāpat̄ ṣedeq), in which (ṣedeq) appears as an adverbial
accusative immediately following the verb (šāpat̄); the phrase as a whole apparently means ‘judge righteously’. In
Ps. 110: 4, however, not only is the verb (šāpat̄) absent (Gammie's proposal involves regarding (dbrty) as the
first person singular of (dibbēr, ‘he said’), which is therefore the verb to which the adverbial accusative would
relate), but the supposed qualifying adverb (ṣedeq) is clearly separated from its verb by the element (malkî).
This cannot be explained as poetic licence, because both Jer. 11: 20 and Prov 31: 9 are poetry, and yet the phrase
(šāpat̄ ṣedeq) appears there in the same form as it does in the prose of Deut. 1: 16, that is, with the adverbial
element immediately following the verb.229 Gammie's attempt to cite these references as grammatical parallels to Ps.
110: 4 is therefore ill-founded, which means that his attempt to remove Melchizedek from Psalm 110 must be deemed
invalid not only on structural and interpretative grounds but also on grammatical grounds.
Two other scholars whose interpretations have resulted in Melchizedek being excised from the psalm are Del Medico
and Dahood. Basing himself on an Akkadian parallel, Del Medico interprets the psalm as a pre-battle liturgy, addressed
to the king standing ready with his armies and spoken by a priest who carries out ritual acts to ensure victory before
urging the king forward with the words, ‘You are the priest-king of all creation; attack, I have commanded it, make
justice prevail!’230 The approach is certainly inventive, but the translation prêtre-roi, ‘priest-king’, for (kōhēn, ‘priest’)
begs too many questions for it to be tenable. If
228
Gammie, ‘A New Setting for Psalm 110’, 13 n. 27.
229
BDB gives no instances of the adverbial use of with See the entry for on p. 841.
230
Del Medico, 169: ‘C'est toi le prêtre-roi pour l'univers; attaque, ai-je ordonné, fais régner la justice!’
the king himself is a priest there would be no need for another priest at his side to perform the liturgy on his behalf;
also, it would make more sense for the king's warrior qualities to be invoked at the start of a battle, rather than his
priestly ones. Finally, the idea of a priest-king here seems to come from the Melchizedek ideology lurking at the back of
Del Medico's mind, even if he does deny it, given that the Hebrew text of Ps. 110: 4 speaks only of a priest, not a
priest-king.
Dahood for his part takes the psalm as a tenth-century royal psalm, probably composed to celebrate a military victory,
and translates verse 4 together with what is usually taken as the first line of verse 5:
Yahweh has sworn

and will not change his mind;
You are a priest of the Eternal
according to his pact;
His legitimate king, my lord,
according to your right hand.231
Dahood claims that the traditional rendering creates insoluble problems of interpretation which are presumably
eliminated by his suggested approach, but neither the problem nor the solution are particularly convincing. Simply
because there is difficulty in understanding the significance of the Melchizedek reference is no reason to translate it
away in a fashion which is scarcely less opaque than the original.
The most widely favoured interpretation, then, seems to be that the psalm belongs to the monarchic era, probably as
part of a ceremony of installation for the monarch, perhaps even originally for David, and that in this context at least
the reference to Melchizedek should be understood to have relevance as a personal name rather than as an adjectival
phrase or anything else. This interpretation accounts most readily for the psalm's characteristics as a whole, and it also
has the advantage of allowing the psalm to be related to the accounts of the monarchy's emergence and consolidation
which have survived in 1 and 2 Samuel. Evans highlights some of the tensions which seem to have existed at the start
of the monarchy, including the inevitable mixed feelings always
231
Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 101–150, AB 17A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 112. Commentary on the text and translation of verses 4–5 is on pp. 116–18.
engendered by a radical break with foregoing tradition, and suggests that Saul in particular suffered from his role as
king being misunderstood or poorly defined.232 Under those circumstances, part of David's genius would have been in
clarifying the monarch's role, particularly in the area of religious observance which seems to have been so problematic
for Saul (1 Sam. 13: 8–14; 14: 31–5; 15: 10–23). It is not hard to imagine that when David conquered Jerusalem,
Melchizedek the priest-king would have been a figure familiar to Jebusite culture on whom David could have drawn as
a model for his own kingship; the reference to Melchizedek in Ps. 110: 4 would then be a result of the desire (and the
necessity) during the early monarchy to clarify the monarch's position by giving him prophetic approval for the priestly
as well as the ‘kingly’ aspects of his role.233 However, Melchizedek's value as a model or precedent would have been
limited to the period during which the Israelite monarchy was establishing itself. Once the monarchic role was firmly
established there would be no further need for an appeal to an outside figure, and this would explain why Melchizedek
does not recur elsewhere in the OT.
This also suggests a more accurate way of interpreting the phrase (ʽal-dibrātî malkî-ṣedeq), a phrase
which is inaccurately rendered by the LXX κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μɛλχισɛδɛκ (kata tēn taxin Melchisedek, ‘according to the
order of Melchizedek’). The English translations have generally perpetuated the error by translating the Greek
rendering rather than the Hebrew, although that is understandable because the form (ʽal-dibrātî) does not
occur elsewhere. According to BDB, (ʽal-dibrat) is found three times in Ecclesiastes with the meaning ‘because
of, for the sake of ’, and Job 5: 8 has (dibrātî) in the sense of ‘my cause, my suit’; but (ʽal-
dibrātî malkî-ṣedeq) is then rendered ‘after the order, or manner, of Melchizedek’, which does not seem consistent with
the other renderings.234 However, if (ʽal-dibrātî) is taken as the survival of an old construct form in accordance
with GK §90 (l), so that (ʽal-dibrātî
232
William Evans, ‘An Historical Reconstruction of the Emergence of Israelite Kingship and the Reign of Saul’, in W. Hallo, J. Moyer, and L. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context
II—More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 61–77 (pp. 65–70).
233
Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok’, 469, 470, suggests that the psalm was composed specifically for the occasion of David's inauguration as master of Jerusalem.
234
BDB, 184 col. a.
malkî-ṣedeq) can be rendered ‘because of ’ or ‘for the sake of ’ or ‘on account of Melchizedek’,235 it gives the sense that
David or the Davidic monarch was not simply the successor to Melchizedek inasmuch as he was the next person to
hold supreme office in Jerusalem, but rather the style of Melchizedek's kingship determined the style of his own—he
too would be a priest-king, because the model on which the monarchy was built was Melchizedek the priest-king, and
therefore he was priest because he was king. The emphasis is therefore subtly shifted from one of continuity between
pre-Israelite and Israelite to one of discontinuity despite the incontrovertible fact of assimilation and borrowing from
Jebusite culture and cultus.
In view of all this, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that (malkî-ṣedeq) in both Gen. 14: 18 and Ps. 110: 4 is a
proper name; aside from the points just discussed it is so much more difficult to account for the explosion of
eschatological speculation surrounding a figure by the name of Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not understood to be
a personal figure of some sort.236 Del Medico's proposal that the same phrase (malkî-ṣedeq) is used with a
completely different meaning in each case, neither of which is a personal name, is unacceptable; indeed, the only way in
which he can support his thesis is by emending the MT of Gen. 14: 18 on the basis of the Targum of Jonathan, so that
he is dealing with two different readings rather than the same one in each case.237 Melchizedek in both instances is a
personal figure, and from the foregoing discussion it is reasonable to understand him as the same figure in each case,
namely king of Jerusalem. However, this is no ground for the interpretation offered by Rowley, who makes precisely
the opposite mistake from Del Medico by arguing that not only is Melchizedek the same individual, but he has the
same function in each case. According to Rowley, Gen. 14: 18–20 is the aetiological legitimation of Zadok's continuing
Jebusite priesthood in David's newly captured Jerusalem, and Psalm 110 describes the ceremony whereby David was
confirmed as master of the city and Zadok as its priest, in which Ps. 110: 4 is David's confirmation of
235
So Booij, 401–2.
236
It is useful here to draw a comparison with Enoch, whose sole appearance is in the genealogy of Gen. 5: 18–24, but in whose name a good deal of apocryphal literature was
likewise generated in later times. Had Enoch not been thought of as a person, the later literature would never have been generated.
237
Del Medico, 162. BHS notes no variants for in either Gen. 14: 18 or Ps. 110: 4.
Zadok's priesthood while the other verses of the psalm are Zadok's recognition of David's kingship.238 In this way ‘the
two passages are linked not alone by the name of Melchizedek but by a common use of that name’, and given that both
passages tend to be linked independently with the Davidic age, ‘it would be more natural to find a common use’.239
Certainly the character of Melchizedek is the same in each case, but to go so far as to give Melchizedek the same
significance in both passages is excessive. Although it is probable that both passages do come from the early
monarchic milieu because that is the context in which they are most readily comprehensible, they seem to express two
separate aspects of Jebusite–Israelite relations at that time: first, in Gen. 14: 18–20 Melchizedek as representative of the
people of Salem (Jerusalem) acknowledges Abram's conquest as God-given, while Abram the Hebrew acknowledges
the priestly aspect of Melchizedek's kingship by giving him the tithe. At this point Jebusite and Israelite are seen as two
cultures which recognize and acknowledge each other's strengths but which exist separately side by side. However, in
Psalm 110 David combines the two traditions in his person, when as an Israelite who like Abram has conquered by the
grace of God, he takes on the monarchy à la Melchizedek together with its priestly significance.240 Rowley's attempt to
try and force the elements into a rigid scheme of individual identifications is un-warranted, and assumes a level of
interdependence between the two pericopes which is unjustifiable. Melchizedek is the same character in Gen. 14: 18 as
in Ps. 110: 4, but his significance in each case must be taken from the context in which he appears.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, then, Melchizedek's significance in both the OT references is that he is first
and foremost a king who is also a priest, not a priest who is also a king.241 In Gen. 14: 18, whether the words
(malkî-ṣedeq melek šālēm) are interpreted as a reference to the king of Salem, to a king
238
Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok’, 466–70.
239
Ibid. 472. See also Rowley's short note ‘Melchizedek and David’, VT 17 (1967), 485.
240
An additional weakness of Rowley's interpretation is that it is unconvincing to view Ps. 110: 4 as referring to Zadok. It makes much better sense to take the whole of Psalm
110 as referring to the king, rather than linking the Melchizedek reference in Ps. 110: 4 to another priest when the rest of the psalm is most naturally taken as referring to the
monarch. Additionally, Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is a king as well as a priest, so the reference to him in Ps. 110: 4 is surely meant to evoke the idea of someone who is
likewise a king and a priest, rather than just being a priest as Zadok was.
241
So Delcor, ‘Melchizedek’, 121, 123 n. 2.
of peace, or to a king allied with or subservient to Abram, the reference is to a king who is then subsequently shown to
be a priest as well. Similarly, in Psalm 110 the warlike imagery and implication of military foes subdued together with
the reference to the sceptre in verses 1–2 all seem to be more appropriately images of a monarch rather than of a
priest, and the priestly aspect of the monarch's office is not introduced until verse 4. This suggests very strongly that in
each case the person concerned is priest by virtue of being king, not king by virtue of being priest. In view of this and
of the other considerations discussed in the course of this study, the Melchizedek material does not of itself furnish
evidence for claims to power made by the post-exilic high priesthood, since both Melchizedek pericopes originate
from a monarchic milieu, and the specific reference to priesthood in Psalm 110 is intended to justify the king's priestly
prerogatives rather than to offer monarchic or quasi-monarchic status to a priest. That being the case, Melchizedek as
he appears here has little if anything to say concerning the development of the high priesthood in later times; rather, he
confirms the generally accepted pattern of the king as chief priest at the start of the Israelite monarchy.
4 Ezekiel: A Vision of Hierocracy?
The prophet Ezekiel was a prophet of the transitional period in the life of Judah which was both caused by and known
as the Exile. The dates and the descriptions of events given in the book which bears his name link his writings to the
early part of this period (1: 2; 17: 11–21; 23: 22–34; 24: 1–2; 33: 21; 40: 1), and although there is some evidence of
redaction, particularly in chapters 40–8, there has been relatively little interference with the overall composition,242 so
that the book can be taken as basically a product of the exilic years.243 The reason for including the book of Ezekiel in
an investigation
242
At the beginning of this century the book's literary unity was seriously questioned and the text atomized by analyses of supposed strata which were detected within it. See
Rowley, ‘The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study’, in Men of God (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1963), 169–210, and Henry McKeating, Ezekiel, OTG
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 32–41. However, in a significant proportion of more recent Ezekiel scholarship, this approach has given way to a conception of the text
which views it as a generally integrated whole, without being blind to the secondary developments within it. For a useful summary of the range of positions on the
authorship and unity of Ezekiel, see Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSupp 56 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 3–7.
243
Broadly speaking, there are three major variants on the dating of Ezekiel. The most conservative position is represented by Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), who concludes ‘that the dates of the book are in line with the contents of its oracles; that nothing in the book requires transgressing its
explicit chronological boundaries’ (p. 17). This would mean that the book in its present form dates from the period 593–571 BCE , namely the period of Ezekiel's prophetic
activity. A somewhat lengthier process of composition is advocated by Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1–24, 2. Auflage, BKAT 13/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1979) (ET Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1979) ), who argues that the present text is the result of a process of
development and redaction which took place after the latest of the dates cited in the text (pp. 104*–114* (ET, 68–74)). This process is most clearly reflected in the Temple
vision of chapters 40–8, which Zimmerli locates against a background of the anticipated return to Judah (pp. 108*–109* (ET, 70)), and indeed he posits a first edition of
Ezekiel which may have lacked chapters 40–8 (p. 112* (ET, 73)). In his detailed analysis of chapters 40–8, Zimmerli suggests that some of the constituent elements in these
chapters may date from the very end of the exilic period or even the beginning of the Restoration period (Ezechiel 25–48, 2. Auflage, BKAT 13/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 1248–9 (ET Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1983), 553)), but he still regards the overall
composition as effectively exilic. A third approach is to see a significant proportion of the book, most particularly material in the Temple vision, as dating from the post-
exilic period; thus, Steven Shawn Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), puts forward the thesis that the Temple vision
of chs. 40–8 is a product of the Restoration period in its present form (pp. 13–14, 18). However, a later dating for this section does not affect the comments made below on
the ethos of the vision, and in fact would strengthen the arguments presented concerning the place of the high priesthood in it. For the purposes of this study, comments will
be made on the basis of an overall exilic dating, since that is the generally accepted terminus a quo for the book as a whole, and therefore the dating for which the arguments
presented must be valid. For further comments on the Temple vision see n. 7 below.
EZEKIEL: A VISION OF HIEROCRACY? 105
of the high priesthood is because of its heavily cultic and priestly bias; Ezekiel was himself a priest (1: 3), and was
‘strongly influenced by an ethic rooted in priestly modes of expression’.244 This is evident from the fact that much of
the book's message is expressed in ritual and cultic terms. Israel's sin is epitomized in its desecration of the Temple
with idolatrous worship (8: 3–16); the impending doom is encapsulated in the image of the glory of God leaving the
Temple, driven away by the abominations taking place there (10: 4, 18–19); and there is no distinction made between
cultic and moral sin, or between cultic and moral righteousness (18: 5–9; 22: 6–12, 26; 33: 25–6). Conversely, the hope
of restoration is epitomized in chapters 40–8 by the picture of a rebuilt Temple to which the glory of God returns
(43: 1–5), and of these nine chapters seven of them (40–6) are spent giving detailed specifications for the new Temple,
including the measurements of the building and its compounds, arrangements for the personnel who are to serve
there, and rules for offering sacrifices.245 Indeed, as
244
Koch, Die Profeten, II: Babylonisch-persische Zeit (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1980), 91: ‘Darüber hinaus führt Ezechiel seine Argumentation so eigenständig durch, ist auch
viel stärker von einer der priesterlichen Sprache verhafteten Ethik bestimmt, so daß von einem bloßen Nachsprechen der Worte seines Kollegen keine Rede sein kann.’ (ET
The Prophets, II: The Babylonian and Persian Periods, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1983), 85.)
245
These chapters contain many reminiscences of the Priestly writings, and there is evidently some kind of link between the two. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2.
Ausgabe (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1883), 402–3 (ET Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885),
379–80), assumed that Ezekiel, the Holiness Code, and P were subsequent steps of development of the same material, and Ezekiel's priority over P was taken as read in
much subsequent scholarship, for example, John Bowman, ‘Ezekiel and the Zadokite Priesthood’, TGUOS 16 (1957), 1–14 (pp. 1–5). More recently, however, Haran,
‘The Law-Code of Ezekiel’, 62–6, argues for the priority of P over Ezekiel, but regards both as products of the same priestly school; and Tuell, 139–45, argues for the
probable chronological priority of P, but regards both Ezekiel and P as variants of a common tradition. Certainly as far as defining the link between P and Ezekiel is
concerned, whatever their relative dating (and overall it seems more likely that Ezekiel would have preceded the final form of P), the idea of the two as variants of a common
tradition is a more satisfactory concept than the idea that they must proceed from one another in some fashion. This is particularly true given the acknowledged antiquity of
much of the material in P, and the naïveté of assuming that everything in the canon is explicable solely in terms of other parts of the canon without reference to other
sources which may not have survived.
was noted in the Introduction, Wellhausen saw the book as opening the way for what he viewed as the subsequent
hierocracy. Ezekiel is therefore an important source to examine in the context of an investigation of the high
priesthood, since if Wellhausen's assessment of both Ezekiel and the restoration community is correct, that
community's high priest would have had a key role which it might well be expected would be foreshadowed in Ezekiel.
The picture which emerged from the discussion in the previous two chapters was that up to the time of the Exile
Judah had been a monarchy where the sacral king was both religious and political head of the nation, and the chief
priest in Jerusalem was his subordinate to whom he delegated responsibility for areas concerning the Temple and its
administration. However, with the Exile the social structures of Judah were dismantled and the community
dismembered; both king and chief priest were removed and the Temple was destroyed in order to disable both the
administrative and the religious mechanisms of Judah. In addition, the upper classes were deported, thereby depriving
the country of its native leadership in order to prevent national identity from reasserting itself (17: 12–14; cf. 2 Kgs. 24:
11–16; 25: 8–12, 18–21). This is the scenario of disorder and destruction into which the prophecies contained in
Ezekiel 34–48 of a new community were delivered, a scenario where the previous norms had been destroyed and
where it would presumably have been possible to posit whatever kind of structures seemed appropriate for the
renewed community in the light of the disaster that had overtaken the old one. The question for the present study is
therefore how the structure of the community propounded in the visions of restoration in Ezekiel relates to that of the
pre-exilic community, and in particular whether there is any evidence that Ezekiel and his school were championing
over and above any other form of government the establishment of a hierocracy where the government would be in
the hands of the priesthood and headed by the high priest.
However, before attempting any detailed commentary on the text, there is one important principle to be noted which
applies to the entirety of the material in Ezekiel dealing with Israel's promised new future: the basis of all the visions of
renewal is
restoration, which is expressed in the purging and cleansing of the evil from the pre-existing order to make it worthy of
Yahweh. Hard, rebellious hearts are softened and inclined to keep Yahweh's Law, putting an end to idolatrous
abominations (36: 26–7; 37: 23); the havoc wrought by the powerful upper classes is put right (34: 7–10); the divided
monarchy of pre-exilic times is reunited (37: 15–19); the scattered tribes from both north and south are brought back
to the land of Israel (37: 21); a new David is raised up to be the focus of unity for the whole nation (37: 24); and most
importantly, the Temple is restored to become the literal and metaphorical centre of the community which lives in
prosperity and harmony around it (37: 26–8; 48: 8–22). In other words, the same elements are included in the
prospective post-exilic society as were included in the pre-exilic society; the visions speak not of replacement by a
completely new order, but of restoration and of continuity with what has gone before, despite some inevitable changes
which arise out of the need to correct and prevent abuses.
This principle of restoration can be seen particularly clearly in the final vision of 40–8, where several important themes
which occur in the earlier part in the book are brought together: the city of Jerusalem, which was burned and its people
slaughtered in the judgement scenes (9: 1–10: 2), but which is ultimately restored and named (yhwh šāmmâ,
‘the Lord is there’—48: 35); the Temple, also defiled and destroyed (8: 5–16; 24: 21) but restored to even greater
prominence as part of the new order (40: 5–42: 20; 48: 8–10); the monarch, the shepherd of God's people (34: 23–4;
44: 3; 45: 7–9, 17, 21–5; 46: 1–18; 48: 21–2), who will not repeat the abuses of his forerunners (21: 30–1
(ET 21: 25–6); 22: 6); the priesthood, not free from indictment (22: 26) but an essential part of the restored Temple
(44: 9–31);246 and the land (12: 19–20; 20: 6, 28, 42), the reallocation of which symbolizes unity, sanctity, and justice
among the people as well as recalling Yahweh's original covenant with the patriarchs (45: 1–8; 47: 13–14; cf.
Gen. 15: 7; 17: 8). The land allocation in 47: 13–48: 29 recalls the land allotment after the Exodus and conquest
(Josh. 13: 15–19: 51); and the inclusion of city,
246
The fact, too, that it is Zadokite priests who claim the right to be installed in the new Temple is an indication of the desire for restoration of the previous status quo, the
balance of which would undoubtedly have been disturbed by the exile of many Jerusalem Zadokite priests and their replacement by other priestly families at the Jerusalem
shrine. See Nigel Allan, ‘The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile’, HeyJ 23 (1982), 259–69.
Temple, and crown lands as adjoining portions in a single strip of land which is specifically set apart for the purpose
between Judah to the north and Benjamin to the south (48: 8–22) reflects the importance of all these three elements in
the traditions of Judah.247 Thus, even a superficial examination of the writings indicates that they do not advocate a
fundamental departure from the previous social structures; rather, they are seeking to preserve the best of them and
alter the rest so that the ideal of a community focused on Yahweh can be realized.
The principle of restoration rather than innovation in the community structures can also be shown to be at work at the
level of specific texts, and it is the aim of this study to demonstrate how it operates in the passages which describe the
community's leadership and overall structure. The passages in question are the references in chapters 34 and 37 to the
leadership of the restored community, and the vision of restoration in chapters 40–8 with its detailed picture of the
new Temple-centred community, including the proposed duties of its priests.248 If a move away from the previous
monarchic order towards a hierocratic one were being championed or even hinted at for the restored community, these
247
Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1990), 284.
248
The vision of restoration in chs. 40–8 is still a source of debate among scholars as to its continuity with the rest of the book and its overall composition. Textually speaking it
is certainly the most contentious section, and the general view is that several hands have been at work to bring it to its present form. See for example G. A. Cooke, The Book
of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 427–9; Hartmut Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, Beiträge zur
historischen Theologie, 25 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957), 108–15; Walther Eichrodt, Der Prophet Hesekiel, 2 vols., ATD 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965–6), ii (1966), 373 (ET Ezekiel, trans. Cosslett Quin, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1970), 530–1); John W. Wevers, Ezekiel, Century Bible New Series
(London: Thomas Nelson, 1969), 296; Zimmerli, Ezechiel 25–48, 1240–9 (ET, 547–3). By contrast, however, Greenberg, ‘The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of
Restoration’, in James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1987), 215–36, argues that the entire vision is the
work of Ezekiel, on the grounds that the irregularities normally used to determine separate strata are well within the norms of ancient Near Eastern principles of literary
composition, and that the vision is internally coherent and in line with ideas and values found earlier in the book (pp. 215, 222). Tuell (pp. 10–12) summarizes the
conclusions of Gese, who argued for three separate strata of expansion, dealing with the ns'î, the Zadokites, and the land division, but in his own analysis Tuell argues for ‘a
single, purposive redaction’ of an original vision of Ezekiel (p. 18), which was accomplished by means of three major insertions at 43: 7b–27, 44: 3–46: 24 and 47: 13–48: 29
(p. 75). Duguid for his part regards both the nāśîʼ stratum and the Zadokite stratum of Gese's analysis as a myth (pp. 27–31, 87–90). For present purposes, the probability
of literary strata and secondary accretions in the vision is acknowledged, but as noted above (n. 2), the whole will be treated as effectively a product of the exilic years.
passages would be the ones where the differences from the old order and the details of the new would appear most
clearly. However, it is arguable that the picture given by the passages is one of a return to the previous norms (although
with some modifications) rather than the establishment of a completely new set of norms such as would be required if
the nation were to be reconstituted as a hierocracy governed by its priests. Each set of references will be examined in
turn, in order to build up a picture of the social structure which they envisage, and then overall conclusions will be
drawn.
First, then, the texts dealing with the community's leaders in chapters 34 and 37 will be discussed. It is notable that in
the very first message of restoration, after the fall of Jerusalem has been reported in 33: 21, the figure of David the
shepherd appears as the leader of the restored community (34: 23, 24), appearing also a little further on in 37: 24, 25.
Commentators are divided as to whether the David references are part of Ezekiel's own message or a later addition
possibly made by the ‘school of Ezekiel’;249 however, their very presence shows the abiding power of the concept of the
divinely appointed Davidic monarchic line, and is a warning against rushing to claim the emergence of a hierocratic
society too quickly. The thrust of ‘David's’ presence in the oracles here is of return to a tried and tested pattern, one
which had become corrupt along the way but which was seen as basically God-inspired. The Davidic theology had not
been abandoned, but a new expression of it needed to be found which would be true to its original spirit.250 There is no
intimation here that the priestly establishment, in whatever form it existed at the time of the Exile, was
249
A. B. Davidson and A. W. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, rev. edn., CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916), regard the Davidic references as original
(p. 273). G. A. Cooke sees the references in 34: 23–4 as part of a later supplement to 34: 1–16 (p. 372, 373), and those in 37: 22–5 as integral to the original text (pp. 398,
402–3). Wevers (pp. 261, 280) and Allen, Ezekiel, (pp. 159, 163) see all the references as part of later additions. Zimmerli regards the Davidic references in chapter 34 as
later additions but from Ezekiel himself (Ezechiel 25–48, 844 (ET, 219–20)), the reference in 37: 24 as from the school of Ezekiel (Ezechiel 25–48, 912 (ET, 275)) and the
one in 37: 25 as later still (Ezechiel 25–48, 913 (ET, 276)); Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974),
commenting on 34: 23–4, remarks, ‘That a descendant of the Davidic line should have had a place in Ezekiel's expectations of the future is natural enough’ (p. 232); and
commenting on 37: 24a attributes ‘this expansion of verses 20–3’ to ‘Ezekiel or one of his followers’ (p. 253).
250
So Jon Douglas Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 66–8.
to take upon itself responsibility for the government of the country because the kings had failed. Certainly the
monarchs are castigated for their abuse of their position (21: 30–1 (ET 21: 25–6); 22: 6, ?25, 27), but the thought does
not automatically follow that they should be replaced by priests. Indeed, from the vision of the abominations in the
Temple (8: 5–16) the priests too were implicated in the sin of the nation and had failed just as badly to maintain the
standards of their God (22: 26). The idea seems to be to start again with a renovated version of what is regarded as a
divinely ordained pattern, not to establish something completely new and unfamiliar.251
That this is the case can be seen in the title by which ‘David’ is referred to: in 34: 23, 24 and 37: 25 he is called
(nāśhatiʼ, ‘prince’), a title which is also used for the community's leader in the Temple vision of 40–8. The question is to
what extent the designation (nāśîʼ) as opposed to (melek, ‘king’) implies a difference in the nature of the rule
which will be exercised. Eichrodt observes that Ezekiel tends to use the term (melek) for the Babylonian king and
(nāśîʼ) of rulers of smaller states, and supposes that the avoidance of the term (melek) for the new king of
salvation was because of its unfavourable associations with foreign despots;252 Lemke similarly thinks that Ezekiel used
(nāśîʼ) because of the possible negative connotations of (melek).253 Speiser argues that the ancient Israelite term
(nāśîʼ) was originally applied to an elective office of leadership and that its significance in the context of Ezekiel is
that the (nāśîʼ) was elected by God,254 while Greenberg calls the term a royal epithet and regards its presence in
Ezekiel as ‘an archaism drawn from the priestly legislation . . . (which) is typical of Ezekiel's antiquarian tendency’.255
Certainly
251
E. Hammershaimb, ‘Ezekiel's View of the Monarchy’, in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario a.d. vii id. Nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis discipulis amicis
dicata (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), 130–40 (p. 140); Caquot, ‘Le Messianisme d'Ézéchiel’, Semitica, 14 (1964), 5–23 (p. 23).
252
Eichrodt, ii. 331–2 (ET, 476–7). Carley notes that the term ‘king’ tends to be used of the rulers of Babylon and Egypt, whereas ‘the term “prince” seems intended by Ezekiel
normally to indicate the rulers of comparatively small kingdoms, as opposed to those of great empires’ (p. 253.) However, as Hammershaimb points out (pp. 132–3) and as
will be discussed below, this is not a hard and fast distinction, as (melek ) is also used of kings of Israel.
253
Werner Lemke, ‘Life in the Present and Hope for the Future’, in Interpreting the Prophets, 200–14 (p. 208).
254
Speiser, ‘Background and Function of the Biblical nāśîʼ ’, CBQ 25 (1963), 111–17.
255
Greenberg, ‘Ezekiel's Program of Restoration’, 229 n. 35.
the fact that Ezekiel returns to using the term for the country's leadership after a period of monarchy seems to indicate
a definite statement about the kind of rule the new head of state is to have; but to deny that head of state any royal
characteristics would be a mistake. In 37: 22 the term (melek) is used quite freely of the leader of the reunited
people, and indeed in 37: 24 it is used of David, whereas in 37: 25 David is referred to by the alternative term
(nāśîʼ). Although as already noted there are doubts as to whether David himself was originally mentioned in the text, it
can be argued that the use of (melek) is original in 37: 22 at least, because of the correspondence with
(mamlākôt, ‘kingdoms’) later on in the verse, which would be entirely lost if (nāśîʼ) were to replace (melek).256
Assuming then that both the term (melek) in 37: 22 and the term (nāśîʼ) in 37: 25 are original, they appear as
equivalents of each other; and whether or not the David references in 37: 24, 25 were a subsequent addition, whoever
was responsible for them evidently had no sense of a distinction between David as (melek) and David as
(nāśîʼ). Hence, however the term (nāśîʼ) is finally interpreted, it should not be seen as a rejection of the idea of a
royal figure in the renewed community.257
However, the idea of a (Davidic) royal figure to head the new community could be seen as conflicting with other
passages which seem to have a decidedly negative view of the monarchy, not least because chapters 34 and 37 are the
only places where David himself is mentioned, despite the fact that mention of him elsewhere would appear to have
been appropriate. For example, chapter 20 details Yahweh's choice of Israel and the people's constant apostasy,
referring to the Egyptian captivity, the wilderness years, the Lawgiving, and the conquest of Canaan, but making no
mention of the monarchy, let alone David or any supposed covenant with him. If the chapter is, as it seems, a review of
Yahweh's faithfulness in the face of the people's unfaithfulness, the ‘Davidic covenant’, whereby Yahweh was
supposed to have stayed his hand for David's sake despite the wickedness of the people and the monarch, would have
been an excellent example to use, and would add all the more fuel to Ezekiel's fire of deserved judgement heaped
256
G. A. Cooke, 402; Zimmerli, Ezechiel 25–48, 905, 912 (ET, 269, 275). Wevers, 280, 281, regards the references to the king in 37: 22, 24 as secondary.
257
Duguid, 25, 33.
upon his fellow-countrymen's heads. However, no earthly monarch appears in chapter 20; instead, 20: 33 declares, ‘As
I live, says the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, I will be king
over you ( , ʼemlôk ʽalêkem).’ At first sight this could easily be taken as a rejection of the monarchy, which
makes the references to the Davidic (melek) or (nāśîʼ) in 34: 23–4 and 37: 22–5 seem out of place. However, in
its context 20: 33 appears as Yahweh reclaiming from the idols of wood and stone the right to rule over his people,
rather than rejecting the appointed royal line; in other words, it is primarily concerned with the people's religious
allegiance and not with the question of whether the monarchy was a valid or corrupt part of society's structure,258 and
should not therefore be read as anti-monarchic.
None the less, 20: 33 does raise two questions, which may well answer each other: the question of how Yahweh's
kingship over his people is to be expressed, and the question of how the references to human ‘kingship’, Davidic or
otherwise, fit in with the idea of Yahweh's kingship. The simplest explanation is that the (melek) or (nāśîʼ)
appears as the agent of divine rule in the community. Levenson sees a link between the figure of David in 34: 23–4 and
the (nāśîʼ) figure of 40–8, arguing that the ‘shepherd’ image describes an apolitical messiah who is to all intents and
purposes Yahweh's puppet, having no authority of his own but simply being the vehicle through which Yahweh
himself rules the people;259 and in a similar vein, commenting on the (nāśîʼ) figure in 34: 23–4, Lemke remarks that
to the Israelite mind there would be no necessary contradiction between the idea of Yahweh ruling the people and the
king as his human agent, because according to the Jerusalem theology the kings were seen as extensions of Yahweh's
kingship.260 Certainly in practical terms there would have to be a human figure of some sort as the mediator of
Yahweh's rule over his people, and so to that extent there need be no contradiction between the rule of a monarchic
figure (a Davidide) and the rule of Yahweh in Israel.261 But once again the important point for present
258
Although of course a monarch's religious allegiance could and did influence that of the people, so that it is impossible entirely to separate monarchy from religion.
259
Levenson, 75–107.
260
Lemke, 208.
261
Hammershaimb, 137. Similarly, Levenson comments, ‘Human kingship is a sign of the vassalage of all Israel to YHWH the suzerain in an eternal covenant’ (p. 97).
Levenson's comment is an important reminder that even though the monarch is present as the mediator of divine rule in the community, the ultimate authority still remains
with Yahweh rather than with the human ruler; indeed, Ezekiel's message is introduced with an affirmation of Yahweh's kingship in the vision of 1: 4–28. There is a tension
between the ideas of the (nāśîʼ ) as Yahweh's chosen instrument and as his subordinate, and the temptation to overemphasize the role of the human ruler should be
avoided.
purposes is that the mediator of Yahweh's rule is to be the royal figure, not the priestly figure; the new regime is to be a
sanctified version of the old, not a departure from the principles on which the community had been based for the
previous four hundred years.
The picture of the restored community's leadership in chapters 34 and 37, then, shows the reinstating of a monarchic
figure who is effectively the instrument of Yahweh's rule over the people. However, the question is how this fits with
the Temple vision of 40–8, which shows a society where the Temple and its Zadokite regime are the focal points of the
whole structure. Indeed, although the detail given in these chapters creates the superficial impression of
comprehensiveness, seven of the nine chapters (40–6) are concerned solely with matters which affect the Temple either
directly or indirectly. The stipulation of just measures, for example (45: 10–12), is immediately followed by the amounts
of produce to be set aside for offerings (45: 13–15), and the prohibition of the (nāśîʼ) taking land from any of the
other citizens (46: 18) means that the people's ability to furnish produce for the offerings will not be impaired due to
them losing their means of agricultural production.262 This limited focus of the material makes it difficult to ascertain
precisely what kind of society is being portrayed; none the less, there are some clues which can be used to gauge the
general ethos, if not the specific format, of this new Israel.
The most important clue is the position of the (nāśîʼ) and his relationship to the Temple in the new society.263 It is
unquestionable that the pre-exilic Temple had monarchic associations, since it was under the monarchy that the
Temple had been built and had achieved national religious significance; the fact that a Davidic monarch had been
allowed to build it would have been interpreted as divine validation of the monarchy as embodied in him and his
262
Allen, Ezekiel, 270.
263
Greenberg, ‘Ezekiel's Program of Restoration’, thinks that there are not enough data to allow ‘large inferences regarding the chief's status’ (p. 229 n. 35), but one area where
there are data is in the relation of (nāśîʼ ) and Temple. Hence, it is not unjustified to draw conclusions on this.
line.264 Temple and monarch were also both symbols of national unity, since both had arisen as institutions covering all
twelve tribes of Israel, and indeed both are envisaged as being restored along with the original twelve-tribe system in
the new age of God's salvation. However, the vision of restoration in Ezekiel 40–8 shows a redefinition of the
relationship between the Temple and the monarchy. The past connections between them are downplayed and actually
loosened, so that the result is no longer a royal Temple but rather Yahweh's Temple. Instead of the sanctuary being
there for the monarch, the monarch is there for the sanctuary; Temple defines monarch rather than monarch defining
Temple. This is achieved in three important ways. First, the monarchic figure is consistently referred to as the
(nāśîʼ), and the only context in which the term (melek) is used is to refer to the pre-exilic monarchs who are
criticized for defiling the Lord's name by their cavalier attitudes towards the original Temple (43: 7–9). Secondly, the
(nāśîʼ) is to be kept at bay from the Temple, which is to be located out of the city and surrounded by a holy
enclosure where only the priests can live, although the royal portion of the land is next to that of the priests (43: 7–9;
45: 1–6; 48: 21–2).265 Thirdly, the part of the (nāśîʼ) in the sacrificial observances is strictly limited, and he is not
allowed to perform priestly functions or have any more access to the Temple than the rest of the people (46: 1–3).
Indeed, the privileged position of the priesthood next to the sanctuary in the holy grounds (45: 1–4) and the detailed
legislation for their status and duties (44: 15–31), far more than are there for the (nāśîʼ), gives them a prominence
in the context which seems to overshadow that of the (nāśîʼ) and which could easily be taken as implying their
elevation to his detriment.
Under these circumstances, it would be easy at first glance to agree with Koch when he comments, ‘How allergic the
prophet is
264
This link between monarch and Temple continued at least into the Restoration period. Both Haggai and Zechariah link the Davidide Zerubbabel with the Temple, Haggai
making the rebuilt Temple the prerequisite for Yahweh's elevation of Zerubbabel (Hag. 2: 20–3), and Zechariah showing Zerubbabel's participation in the Temple
refoundation and rebuilding. See Ch. 5 below on Haggai and Zechariah for more details.
265
The idea of a ‘holy enclosure’ around the Temple where only priestly personnel are allowed to live is reminiscent of the plan for the Israelite camp in the wilderness (Num. 1:
47–2: 31), where only the Levites are allowed (in fact, commanded) to encamp in the immediate vicinity of the Tabernacle and all the other tribes are to encamp around the
Levites in a square facing the Tabernacle.
towards the monarchy, and how deeply the evil role played by the pre-exilic kings sticks in his memory’.266 However,
once again the temptation to dismiss the monarchy as having no place in the restored community should be resisted, as
there are still important indicators of the monarch's significance in the new era. As Skinner emphasizes, ‘It must not be
supposed that the prince is a personage of less than royal rank, or that his authority is overshadowed by that of a
priestly caste.’267 First, he is allowed to stand in the east gate to observe the priests offering the sacrifices he provides
(46: 2,12). Normally the gate is to be kept shut because it is the one through which the glory of the Lord returned to
the Temple (43: 4–5; 44: 1–3); the fact that the (nāśîʼ) is allowed to stand there does imply a link between his
position and the returned glory, and a certain sacral significance for him. Indeed, Hammershaimb argues that 45:
16–17 shows some of the original monarchs' priestly functions being bestowed upon the (nāśîʼ) but that an anti-
monarchic strain among Ezekiel's disciples has reduced the (nāśîʼ) to a secular leader in other parts of the vision.268
Secondly, the (nāśîʼ) is associated with the maintenance of just weights and measures (45: 10–12); Tuell points out
that elsewhere in the ancient Near East this was a typically royal duty.269 Thirdly, if the new order is to be interpreted as
a proto-hierocracy, it would be expected to have a high priest somewhere in its ranks; however, no mention is made of
a high priest, or indeed of any other individual figure who could be a focus for the community's leadership apart from
the (nāśîʼ). This is despite the fact that the high priest-hood is usually thought to have been confined to those of
Zadokite
266
Koch, Profeten, 118–19: ‘Wie allergisch der Profet gegen die Monarchie ist, wie sehr die üble Rolle der vorexilischen Könige in seiner Erinnerung haftet, zeigt gleich der erste
Satz in betreffenden Abschnitt: “Nicht werden fürder meine Nasis mein Volk bedrücken!” (45, 8).’ (ET, 113.)
267
Skinner, The Book of Ezekiel, The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton,1895), 447. See also Haran, ‘The Law-Code of Ezekiel’, 57 n. 24; Duguid, 50–8. Allen,
Ezekiel, notes that although the Temple agenda of the final vision meant that the role of the monarchic figure could not be developed as fully as might be expected from the
material in chapters 34 and 37, the hints which are given are consonant with the earlier material (p.213). The conclusions drawn above about the role of the (nāśîʼ ) in
those chapters can therefore be applied to the (nāśîʼ ) in the Temple vision.
268
Hammershaimb, 139. The comment is based upon the use of the verb in 45: 17b, translated by the RSV as ‘he shall provide the sin offerings, etc.’, but which
Hammershaimb argues would originally have meant to prepare the offerings and later on to offer them.
269
Tuell, 111.
descent,270 so that given the strong pro-Zadokite strain in the Temple vision (e.g. 44: 15–31), if the pro-Zadokite
redactors were concerned to secure their own privileges and particularly the privilege of leadership, it would seem to
have been an obvious move to insert some kind of stipulation to the effect that they alone were entitled to hold the
senior priestly position. However, there is no such stipulation, and bearing in mind the Zadokites' history as royal
priests in the pre-exilic era, as well as the royal character of the (nāśîʼ), the Zadokite stratum can be seen not as
advocating the overall supremacy of the priesthood, but as a claim for the Zadokites to retain their former privileges of
service alongside the monarch or his equivalent in what is now the only Temple in the land. In that case, the absence of
a high priest implies that the (nāśîʼ) as a monarchic substitute was a more important focus of leadership than the
priesthood, and once again the vision in chapters 40–8 can be seen as a vision for restoration of the previous
monarchic order rather than a picture of a proto-hierocracy. However, this is a conclusion e silentio, which might be
strengthened or refuted if it were possible to determine why the high priest does not appear.271
The absence of the high priest from Ezekiel has generated various explanations. One of the more inventive is offered
by Tuell, who as part of his argument for dating the Temple vision in its final form from the early Restoration period
suggests that after the messianic speculations attaching to Zerubbabel caused his disappearance from the public eye
because of pressure from the Persians, mention of Joshua, that is, the high priest, was suppressed
270
Despite Bartlett's argument in ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 6–11, that there is little evidence for an hereditary line of actual Zadokites as chief priests before the Exile, the fact
that subsequent priests took on the mantle of Zadok would make it legitimate to call them ‘sons of Zadok’ regardless of their biological descent. As discussed in Ch. 2
above on the Deuteronomistic History, there certainly was a priestly group associated with Zadok which was based at the Jerusalem Temple, and this would have led quite
naturally to their association with the chief (and later high) priesthood since it too was associated with the Temple.
271
Duguid follows up a comment made by G. A. Cooke (Ezekiel, 502) to argue that there is a chief priest in Ezekiel, since ‘the priest’ who carries out the purification ritual for
the sanctuary in 45: 19 is the chief priest as understood in pre-exilic terms (pp. 63–4). However, as argued at the end of Ch. 2 above, a pre-exilic chief priest is different
from a post-exilic high priest, and certainly if the only chief-priestly figure in Ezekiel is one who is conceived of in pre-exilic terms, that is, as an officer and subordinate of
the royal leader, then it is most unlikely that Ezekiel was attempting to portray him as the head of a hierocratic society. Indeed, Duguid himself argues later on that the
Zadokites are not conceived as ruling over the people in a hierocracy (p. 83).
on the grounds that Joshua's close alliance with Zerubbabel might make him too a target for Persian rancour.272
However, if that was the case, it says very little for the high priest as a real focus for the community; if Joshua in
particular or the high priest in general had been a focus for Judah's hopes it is unlikely that he would have been swept
aside quite so easily. Mention of the (nāśîʼ) is not suppressed, after all, and this is the title given in 37: 25 to David
who, like Zerubbabel in Hag. 2: 23, is called ‘my servant’ by Yahweh. The Davidic associations of (nāśîʼ) in this
context would surely demand that the title be tactfully removed to prevent false and, for the Persians without doubt,
dangerous expectations building up among the restoration community.273 If the high priest were a focus for the
returned exiles' hopes it is incredible that he could have been removed without trace, and if he was not a focus for
them he cannot have had the kind of prominence in the national consciousness that is often attributed to him in the
early Restoration period.274
Alternatively, it could well be objected—and indeed, it is true—that not every possible detail, or even every expected
detail, has been included in the vision of restoration in 40–8. Greenberg points to several ‘notable omissions’ from the
vision of the Temple structure, warning that ‘omissions cannot serve as a warrant for negative conclusions—unmen-
tioned, therefore absent.’275 A little further on, having drawn attention to the extensive legal omissions in the vision as
compared with the priestly legislation, he states, ‘Since such omissions cannot imply annulment, we must suppose
Ezekiel to be highly selective, treating only of those topics in which he sought to effect revisions.’276 Hence, by this
reasoning the fact that the high priesthood has been omitted from the vision of
272
Tuell, 147.
273
This point is strengthened by Tuell's own argument that the title (nāśîʼ ) disappeared after the time of Sheshbazzar because it had become associated with the royal line
as a way of recognising its ancient cultic and honourable past, but those such as Sheshbazzar who bore it sought to claim dynastic and imperial rights which the Persians
were unwilling to grant. Hence, the title perished with the line, and no further Davidide or (nāśîʼ ) was forthcoming (pp. 117–20). If the title (nāśîʼ ), which in
Tuell's argument was later acknowledged to be seditious, was not suppressed from Ezekiel, there seems to be no reason to suppress mention of the high priest, who up to
this point has nowhere appeared as a central figure of community identity.
274
For a discussion of the position of the high priest in the Restoration period, see Ch. 5 below on Haggai and Zechariah.
275
Greenberg, ‘Ezekiel's Program of Restoration’, 225, 226.
276
Ibid. 233.
restoration should not be taken as an indication that it would not exist in the new community; rather, it can be
interpreted to mean that Ezekiel had no desire to alter its specifications from those which appear in P.277 But once
again, the logic is self-defeating if employed for the purpose of claiming an influential high priest-hood dating from
around this era. It was argued above that the high priest in P has no political powers at all, being an entirely cultic
figure;278 if Greenberg's interpretation of the relationship between P and the vision of restoration is correct, then the
omission of the high priesthood presumably means that Ezekiel or his school knew of the purely cultic office which is
detailed in P but saw no need to alter its specifications in any way, and therefore saw no reason for such an
unprecedented step as extending the high priest's powers of jurisdiction into spheres of life outside that of the Temple
in order to make him a political leader.279 This is entirely in line with the tenor of all the visions of hope in Ezekiel: as
already remarked, they are visions of restoration, of renewing and replacing what was there before, not visions of
something completely new and unheard of, despite the opportunity for such innovation which was provided by the
destruction of Exile. Hence, the political and administrative powers remain with a non-priest, and the priests remain
confined to their pre-exilic role of servicing the sanctuary and teaching the Law.
A third option is that adopted by Levenson, who argues that the nature of the community envisaged by Ezekiel and
the definition of the monarchy which it includes is such as to make a high priest unnecessary because the community
would be ‘so fundamentally liturgical and sacral in nature that the Davidid, politics having vanished, could only be a
liturgical figurehead like the high-priest of the era when politics and monarchy still existed’.280 Whether or not the
Temple vision implies an apolitical society is open to
277
Baudissin, 128–9, argues that Ezekiel's omission of the high priest is quite deliberate, because he does not want to limit the power of the nāśîʼ who is a highly sacral figure.
278
279
Greenberg's analysis requires that P in its final form be dated before Ezekiel. If, however, the final form of P is dated later than Ezekiel, in line with the majority of scholarly
opinion, the same logic against Greenberg's argument can still be applied: since Ezekiel puts forward no legislation which would boost the position of the chief priest from
his preexilic status of subordination to the monarch as evidenced in DH, the assumption must be that Ezekiel was not interested in effecting a change in that status.
280
Levenson, 143.
question, but from the discussion of Ezekiel presented above it can certainly be argued that Levenson's analysis is in
line with the principle of ‘restoration rather than replacement’ which it has been demonstrated is at work in many of
Ezekiel's ideas. Rather than claiming kingly power for the high priest, Levenson is effectively arguing that the monarch
is to have a heightened sacral responsibility, so that in this vision of the new society the high priest is eclipsed by the
monarch rather than vice versa. But once again, the net result is that the (nāśîʼ) remains the most important figure
of government in the new community, while the high priest has no role of leadership, indeed, no apparent role at all.
It therefore seems that in both its general tenor and its specific details the book of Ezekiel is not a manifesto for
priestly rule in the restored community. Rather, its vision of restoration is based firmly on the pre-exilic structures of
society, to the extent that the old pan-Israelite ideologies of Temple, land, and monarchy are retained and given pride
of place in the new society. Certainly there are changes from the old order in how these ideologies manifest themselves
in the vision, most particularly in the separation of the monarchic figure from the immediate vicinity of the Temple,
but they are recognizably the same ideologies, and not even in the overwhelmingly Temple-centred chapters 40–8 is
there evidence to suggest that they were to be abandoned for anything else. In particular, there is no evidence that
Ezekiel is propounding a hierocratic society under the rule of the high priest instead of the monarchic type of society
which had obtained before the Exile, since the monarchic figure continues to be pictured as head of the restored
community whilst the high priest is entirely absent from this utopian vision.
Part II: Summary

In the light of the foregoing three studies, the position of the high priesthood during the pre-exilic and exilic periods
can be summarized as follows. During the pre-exilic period, the high priest-hood as seen in P did not exist as such;
rather, the nearest equivalent to it was the chief priesthood at the Jerusalem Temple. This chief priest was not a figure
of civil authority, nor even of supreme religious or cultic authority; instead, as a royal official, his position was one of
responsibility for practical matters concerning the Temple and its fabric, while it was the monarch himself who had
overall responsibility for the cult and its worship, and who also had what might be termed high-priestly responsibilities
as the nation's representative before God. The presence of a sacral monarch meant that there was neither reason nor
incentive for the development of a strong independent high priesthood, because the position which such a high
priesthood would fill was already occupied by the monarch.
An additional factor which would account for the relatively low profile of the pre-exilic chief priesthood as compared
with the high priesthood in P was the lack of overriding influence of the Jerusalem shrine. Certainly the site was
prestigious, and was revered as the abode of Yahweh (cf. Ps. 48: 2–4 (ET 48: 1–3)), but it was by no means the only
site of worship. Throughout the preexilic period there were numerous shrines all over the country in both the northern
and the southern kingdoms, and some of the sites (e.g. Shiloh, Shechem, Bethel) had pre-monarchic religious
associations far older than those of the Jerusalem Temple, which gave them equal and possibly even greater claim to
the people's religious affections. Hence, until centralization at Jerusalem was achieved, there would be no real incentive
or opportunity for the chief priesthood there to develop beyond a localized role which, despite the prestige of being an
office in the royal household, was none the less fairly limited in its scope. However, the attempts at
PART II: SUMMARY 121
centralization under Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18: 1–6) and Josiah (2 Kgs. 22: 3–23: 25) did little if anything to raise the profile
of the chief priest, first because throughout the entire period the monarch retained his headship of both the nation's
political and its religious life, and secondly, because according to DH both Hezekiah's and Josiah's reforms were
overturned by the monarchs who followed them. There would therefore have been no chance for the chief priesthood
to develop into the kind of unique and prestigious office shown in P, because the Temple simply did not have the kind
of exclusive claims to the nation's religious allegiance that would enhance the status of the Temple officers; and there
would certainly be no development of chief-priestly powers in areas apart from that of Temple-based functions,
because even those functions were subordinate to the overriding authority of the sacral monarch.
Neither did the Exile result in an abandonment of the concept of monarchy in favour of high- or chief-priestly power.
According to Ezekiel, one of the most cultically based and Temple-centred prophetic books in the canon and one
which dates from the exilic years, the ideal society for the new era should be entirely focused on the Temple. The
Temple itself has pride of place in a holy portion of land in which only the priests and Levites can live, and the
legislation which accompanies the vision of the Temple is all to do with proper ritual procedure. However, the high
priest appears nowhere, while the figure of the monarch is an integral part of the new order; admittedly he is rather a
subdued figure by comparison with his pre-exilic predecessors, but he is there in the kind of capacity which implies that
he still has important sacral significance. In fact, throughout the prophecies of restoration in Ezekiel the emphasis is
precisely on restoration, in other words, on replacing what was there originally, but in a form freed from the corruption
and the potential for corruption which had characterized it prior to the Exile. The reduced position of the monarch is a
good example of this principle.
It should also be pointed out that Ezekiel shares the same general ethos as the Priestly writer, in that both display the
same kind of concern for proper degrees of holiness and correct order within the cultic community. However, the
discussion of P above showed that despite its very strong cultic emphasis, P does not portray the high priest as the
overall head of the community;
rather, Moses is the legislator and ruler, while the high priest is the chief cultic personage.281 If hierocracy is not even
advocated by P, for whom the high priest is such a seminal figure, it is very difficult to regard Ezekiel as advocating
hierocracy when the high priest as portrayed in P does not even appear in the book. Instead, for Ezekiel as for P there
is another significant figure in the community to whom the responsibility of government outside the specifically cultic
arena should fall, namely the (nāśîʼ). Ezekiel must therefore be regarded not as championing priestly power in place
of the monarchy, but as claiming rights and setting out conditions of service for the priesthood alongside the monarch in
what has now become the land's only shrine.
It seems, therefore, that the pre-exilic chief priest was a purely cultic official who was clearly subordinate to the sacral
monarch, and that the projected post-exilic society was envisaged in terms of a restoration of the monarchic order,
which implies a still-subordinate chief priest, rather than in terms of a hierocracy with a high priest at its head. With
these conclusions in mind, it is now appropriate to turn to the evidence for the post-exilic society and see whether the
position of the high priest in the non-monarchic society of later times either is or becomes significantly different from
that of the chief priest during the monarchy and its aftermath.
281
Part III High Priesthood in the Persian Period
5 High-Priestly Power in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
Having examined the position of the high priesthood in the preexilic and exilic periods, it is now appropriate to see
what effect the changed circumstances of the post-exilic period had upon the office. Certainly at first glance the
circumstances of the reestablished community appear highly favourable for the development of a hierocracy, inasmuch
as many of the factors which would previously have restricted or prevented the development of high-priestly power
had changed. There was no longer a monarch to dictate Temple policy and act in a cultic capacity as national
representative and chief priest; the Temple was by now the one legitimate shrine in the country; and the area of
concern itself was effectively the province of Judah, so there was a smaller area over which to exercise control and
conversely a greater chance of exercising that control. Precisely how the high priesthood developed under these
circumstances is the question which will be addressed throughout the remainder of this study.
These next five chapters are devoted to a study of the circumstances and events of the Persian period, during which
the exiles returned from Babylon to Judah and re-established the Temple and cult, remaining under Persian rule until
they were brought under Greek sovereignty by Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire in 332 BCE. The
earliest sources available for the Persian period are the prophecies contained in the books of Haggai and Zechariah
1–8,282 where some of the most specific and apparently most complimentary descriptions of the high priest-hood
outside the Priestly writings are to be found. Hence, they are an obvious choice of material with which to begin an
examination of the post-exilic high priesthood.
282
Whereas the book of Haggai is fairly obviously a unity, the book of Zechariah falls into two distinct parts, the second of which (chs. 9–14) apparently dates from a much
later period than the first and is unconnected with it. For the present purposes, namely, considering the Restoration period and what information contemporary
documentation can provide on the high priesthood at the time, chs. 9–14 are therefore irrelevant.
126 HIGH PRIESTHOOD IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD
The books of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 are two of the most precisely dated and datable pieces of prophetic literature
in the canon. Not only do they give exact information in the text as to when they were written, their content is such as
to make quite plausible their purported dating in the early Restoration period.283 Although Ackroyd comments that the
very exactitude of the dating, particularly in Haggai, makes it proportionately more likely to be unreliable, on the
grounds that ‘later amplifications of historical material tend to be more precise in their detail than the earlier records’,
he admits that there is no proof either way, and that the burden of proof is on those who would dispute the dates, at
least in respect of the years given for the prophetic activity.284 In the absence of a better alternative, therefore, Haggai
and Zechariah 1–8 should be dated in the Restoration context in which the books themselves claim to fit.
As the ‘prophets of the Restoration’,285 Haggai and Zechariah were active in Judah among the returned exiles at a time
when the community was still attempting to establish itself in the rather trying circumstances of return, Haggai offering
encouragement particularly for the task of rebuilding the Temple, and Zechariah assuring the returnees that the Lord
was still jealous for his chosen city of Jerusalem.286 Concerning the prophets themselves there is next to no
information. Haggai is given no genealogy, but is known in the book which bears his name simply as Haggai the
prophet, a designation which is repeated in Ezra 5: 1 and 6: 14. Zechariah by contrast does have a short genealogy; he
is referred to in Ezra 5: 1 and 6: 14 as son of Iddo, and in Zech. 1: 1, 7 as son of Berechiah son of Iddo, although ‘son
of Berechiah’ may be an
283
The prophets Haggai and Zechariah are also mentioned in the book of Ezra in the context of the Restoration period (Ezra 5: 1), but since the account in the book of Ezra
post-dates the books of Haggai and Zechariah and is probably dependent upon them for its information, this mention is of little value in historical terms.
284
Ackroyd, ‘Studies in the Book of Haggai’, JJS 2 (1952), 163–76 (pp. 172–3).
285
Mason, ‘The Prophets of the Restoration’, in R. Coggins, A. Phillips, and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),
137–54 (p. 137).
286
Cf. Peter Marinkovic, ‘Was wissen wir über den zweiten Tempel aus Sach 1–8?’, in Rüdiger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger, and Helmut Utzschneider (eds.), Konsequente
Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag, OBO 126 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 281–95, who
argues that unlike Haggai, Zechariah's main aim is not the rebuilding of the physical Temple but the reconstitution and organization of the people of Yahweh in Jerusalem.
HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 1-8 127
addition.287 An Iddo is named in Neh. 12: 4 as one of the priests who came to Judah with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and
in Neh. 12: 16 Zechariah is named as the head of the house of Iddo in the time of the high priest Joiakim, Joshua's
successor. Although the purported dating for the book of Zechariah makes it unlikely that the men in Nehemiah 12
are the same as those mentioned in Zech. 1: 1, the idea seems to be to evoke the thought that Zechariah was also a
priest, as had been Jeremiah and Ezekiel before him. Making Zechariah a son of Iddo, the man who returned from
exile with Zerubbabel and Joshua, may also be a way of stressing his connection with the exiles and therefore giving his
words the authority of a true member of the community.
The book of Haggai will be examined first, because chronologically it is apparently the earlier of the two and because
its interpretation is less problematic than that of Zechariah. According to the text, Haggai had a ministry of only three
months, from the sixth to the ninth month in the second year of Darius (Hag. 1: 1; 2: 10), that is, in the year 520 BCE.288
As already remarked, whether or not the exactitude of the dates is accepted as being historically reliable there seems
little doubt that the general context which they set is compatible with the rest of the book's contents. The book
preserves six short oracles set in an editorial framework which specifies times and people and describes the reaction to
Haggai's preaching;289 the first five oracles are to encourage the people to
287
Hinckley G. Mitchell, John Merlin Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 82; D. Winton Thomas,
‘The Book of Zechariah 1–8’, in IB iv (1956), 1053–88 (p. 1053); Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, II: Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, 6.
Auflage, ATD 25 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 99; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 27; Henning Graf Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und
Maleachi, ATD 25.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 32. Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi, KAT 13.4 (Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1976), 67, is followed by D. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 128) in suggesting that ‘son of Iddo’ in Ezra 5: 1 and 6: 14 could also
signify ‘grandson’, thereby eliminating any contradiction between the two genealogies. J. R. Porter, ‘Son or Grandson (Ezra x. 6)?’, JTS n.s. 17 (1966), 54–67 (pp. 57–8),
argues that ‘son’ here indicates membership of a generic grouping rather than a specific family relationship.
288
Elliger, Propheten, 84, suggests on the basis of Hag. 2: 3 that the shortness of Haggai's ministry was because he was an old man and soon died. However, Rudolph, Haggai,
regards the idea of Haggai being an old man as ‘ein falscher Schluß’ (‘a mistaken inference’) (p. 21).
289
Material which is regarded as oracular is 1: 2, 1: 4–11, 1: 13b, 2: 3–9, 2: 11–19, and 2: 21–3. Framework material is 1: 1, 1: 3, 1: 12–13a, 1: 14–2: 2, 2: 10, 2: 20. See Ackroyd,
‘Studies’, and Mason, ‘The Purpose of the “Editorial Framework” of the Book of Haggai’, VT 27 (1977), 413–21 (p. 414). A more recent treatment of the structure of the
book of Haggai is Michael H. Floyd, ‘The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai’, VT 45 (1995), 470–90. Floyd argues that there is deliberate
ambiguity concerning the boundaries between the narrative and the oracular material, so that although original oracles have been used as source material it is impossible to
separate them neatly from the ‘framework’, because the book of Haggai is effectively a piece of historiography arrived at by a process of composition and paraphrasing
rather than simply an edited collection of oracles. Floyd's analysis is certainly illuminating, although it has little material effect on the arguments to be set out below, because
whether the oracles were set in a framework as Ackroyd proposes or paraphrased into a continuous piece of historiography as Floyd argues, none of the ‘oracular’ material is
addressed to the high priest, who only appears in the framework or narrative material. The only possible exception to this is Hag. 2: 4, which will be discussed below.
proceed with rebuilding the Temple, and the sixth one is what might be termed a messianic prophecy directed at
Zerubbabel. The text has suffered remarkably little in transmission, and relatively little by way of interpolation or
corruption can be detected;290 the main exception to this is that according to a number of commentators 2: 15–19
seems originally to have belonged after 1: 15a, perhaps as an oracle given at the laying of the foundation stone for the
new Temple.291 There is also some uncertainty about the original format of the oracle in 2: 1–9, although this will be
addressed in the course of the discussion.
During the course of the book Joshua the high priest is referred to five times, in 1: 1, 1: 12, 1: 14, 2: 2, and 2: 4. The
first four references are in the narrative framework rather than being part of
290
In an intriguing and ingenious piece of textual criticism F. S. North, ‘Critical Analysis of the Book of Haggai’, ZAW 68 (1956), 25–46, attempts to demonstrate that the
basic narrative of the book of Haggai was only about a sixth of its current length, and preserved only three terse oracles: “ ‘Is it a time for you to live in your own houses,
while this house lies in ruins?’ ”, “ ‘Did any of you that are left see this house in its past splendour? Then what do you think of it?’ ”, and “ ‘Thus says the Lord: Ask the
priests for a decree.” So Haggai said, “If an unclean person touches anything, does it become unclean?” And they said, “Yes.” Then Haggai replied, “So is this people!’ ”
Although the very idea of an editorial framework implies interpolation and expansion of the original words, North's analysis is excessive.
291
So Thomas, ‘The Book of Haggai’, in IB vi (1956), 1035–49 (pp. 1043–4); Elliger, Propheten, 89–90; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 18; Samuel Amsler, ‘Aggée,
Zacharie 1–8’, in Samuel Amsler, André Lacocque, and René Vuilleumier, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie, CAT 11c (Neuchâtel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981), 11–125
(pp. 14, 28–9); Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 6: Haggai, BKAT 14/6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 41–2 (ET Haggai: A Commentary, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1988), 59–60). Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 17 n. a, suggests that the order of verses between chs. 1 and 2 may
originally have been 1: 14, 15, 13; 2: 15–19, 10–14, 1–9, 20–23. Some commentators, however, reject the proposed emendation; these include Horst, in Theodore H.
Robinson and Friedrich Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, HAT 14 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1938), 197; Rudolph, Haggai, 23; Reventlow, 17.
the content of the oracles themselves; the fifth reference in 2: 4 may be part of a genuine oracle, or it may be a
modification of an oracle originally addressed to the people as a whole which is now addressed to the leaders of the
community as well.292 In that case its reference to Joshua would also be part of the narrative framework, with the net
result that none of Haggai's words mention Joshua specifically.293 Joshua never appears on his own; whenever he is
mentioned it is always in second place after Zerubbabel, and on four out of the five occasions when he appears it is
between Zerubbabel and a formula designating the province's inhabitants either as the remnant of the people or once,
rather surprisingly, as the (ʽam hāʼāreṣ, ‘people of the land’—2: 4), a designation which in Ezra 4: 4 is used of
the surrounding peoples who oppose the rebuilding of the Temple. Joshua never appears without title and patronym,
on each occasion being referred to as (yehôšuaʽ ben-yehôṣādāq hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘Joshua son
of Jehozadak, the high priest’). Zerubbabel on the other hand, who is mentioned in the five places where Joshua
appears and additionally in 2: 21 and 2: 23, appears twice without his title (peḥâ, ‘governor’—1: 12; 2: 23), once
without his father's name (2: 21) and once with neither patronym nor title (2: 4).
It is very easy to assume that the fact that Zerubbabel and Joshua are nearly always mentioned together is an indication
of the high priest's authority, and that his joint rule with the governor is firmly established. However, there are a
number of reasons why such an interpretation is by no means certain. First, the limited scope of the material makes it
impossible to determine from it with any certainty the roles fulfilled by Zerubbabel and Joshua in the community.294
Although in the eyes of whoever was responsible for the joint address they apparently occupy equivalent positions as
the most important figures in their respective parts of the community, this need not imply that their actual authority in
practical
292
Mason, “ ‘Editorial Framework’ ”, 416; D. Petersen, Haggai & Zechariah 1–8, 65; Reventlow, 11.
293
Horst, in Robinson and Horst, 203.
294
Cf. Rudolph, Haggai, 31–2: ‘Über das gegenseitige Verhältnis der beiden leitenden Männer erfahren wir bei Haggai nichts; nur ist festzustellen, daß da, wo beide zusammen
genannt werden, immer Serubbabel voransteht.’ (‘We learn nothing from Haggai about the relationship of the two leading men to each other; the only certainty is that where
both are mentioned together, Zerubbabel always stands first.’)
terms was equivalent. As already noted, Joshua is never mentioned alone, nor is he ever mentioned without full
identification in terms of descent and office, something which suggests that he was not as well-known in the
community as Zerubbabel, and which would therefore point away from his having any significant authority in civil
government over against Zerubbabel. Elliger suggests that the phrase (ben-yehôṣādāq hakkōhēn
haggādôl, ‘son of Jehozadak, the high priest’) in 2: 4 after Joshua's name together with the exhortation to all the people
to ‘take courage’ is an addition;295 the implication of such a reading is that originally Zerubbabel and Joshua (sic) would
have been addressed together in an oracular saying which was then expanded to include the people.296 However, the
important point for present purposes is that even though Joshua may have had an oracular saying addressed to him,
the narrator still felt the need to explain who ‘Joshua’ was, again implying some uncertainty over Joshua's identity and
position in the community. Indeed, given that Joshua appears to be the first individual in canonical sources to bear the
title ‘high priest’ ( , hakkōhēn haggādôl), the constant repetition of his name and title may be part of the process
whereby the new office was established.
Alternatively, the continued stress on Joshua's lineage and identity as the eldest son of the Zadokite Jehozadak may
have been to claim his right to the position of high priest, if, as is implied by the vision of Zech. 3: 1–10, there was
apparently some opposition to him taking on the high priesthood.297 Under those circumstances, the forms of address
in Haggai would serve to affirm the belief of whoever wrote them that Joshua was fully entitled to serve as high priest;
but this again is not very informative about Joshua's potential for exercising civil power in the community. In fact, it
would tend to indicate precisely the opposite, that the main concern was Joshua's fitness for cultic responsibility,
inasmuch as the disputes about purity implied in the lineage arguments pertain
295
Elliger, Propheten, 91. Similarly, Reventlow, 20.
296
Contra Mason, D. Petersen, Reventlow (see n. 11 above).
297
See below for further discussion of Zech. 3: 1–10. Allan, ‘The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile’, suggests that this opposition would have come from
Levitical priests of outlying shrines who had maintained services at the Temple site whilst the Jerusalem Zadokites had been in exile, and who were unwilling to relinquish
their right to altar service once the Zadokites (of whom Joshua was the chief) returned after the Exile.
very specifically to cultic service and are less relevant if at all to the function of governor.
In addition, Haggai's prophecies are almost entirely concerned with rebuilding the Temple, something in which the
high priest would be expected to take a lively interest, given that it has already been demonstrated how the pre-exilic
chief priesthood came into being in the context of the Temple and the cultic mechanisms which arose during the
monarchy, and remained closely connected with the Temple.298 Hence, Joshua's appearance with Zerubbabel in a
Temple context cannot justifiably be taken to indicate that the high priesthood had acquired any power beyond that
bestowed by his cultic responsibilities, since it is the context in which the high priest would logically be expected to
appear and indeed the only context in which he is portrayed as functioning in any of the sources up to this point.
Secondly, the point already made about the lack of direct reference to Joshua in the oracular parts of the book is in
contrast to the dramatic final prophecy addressed to Zerubbabel (2: 20–3); apparently some sort of eschatological
saying but one which certainly forsees an independence for Judah which she does not currently possess under Persian
domination, it styles Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel alone, as Yahweh's signet ring, his chosen one.299 That bias in itself is
an indicator that at the time of Haggai's preaching the idea of high-priestly ascendancy was by no means prominent in
every mind; in fact, as is the case for the preaching of Ezekiel, the thought behind the prophecy seems to be that of
restoring the status quo, of somehow returning to the pre-exilic pattern of society, not of instituting something new.300
The image of a signet ring is used in Jer. 22: 24 of Jeconiah king of Judah, in the context of Yahweh's castigation of the
unworthy Judaean rulers;
298
See Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History.
299
Floyd sees the variations in form of address to Zerubbabel noted above as creating ‘a growing contrast between Zerubbabel and Joshua, so as to prepare for the qualitatively
different position that is assigned to Zerubbabel at the climatic conclusion to the narrative (ii 23)’ (p. 482).
300
In this context it is worth bearing in mind that not even the Priestly writer is in fact advocating a hierocracy, but is rather claiming recognition of the high priest's rightful
place in the community as an important cultic figure alongside other civil leadership structures. There is therefore no precedent at this stage for a hierocratic regime, and in
fact every encouragement to think in terms of a non-hierocratic government, since the priests were not even claiming for themselves the right to rule. See the discussion in
Ch. 1 on the Priestly writer and Ch. 4 on Ezekiel above.
the signet ring is to be torn off, and the king given into the hands of the Babylonians. Haggai's prophecy is in effect a
reversal of that process, whereby the nations themselves are to be overthrown and the signet ring reclaimed and set
once more in its rightful position. This certainly does not seem to be the indication of a burgeoning hierocracy where
the high priest was poised to take over at the earliest possible opportunity; in fact, precisely the opposite.301 Of course,
when Haggai originally prophesied, Zerubbabel rather than Joshua by his very presence would have been the natural
focus of attention as the rightful leader of the people, since as long as Zerubbabel remained in circulation the hope of
somehow restoring the Davidic line would have been kept alive.302 Hence, it is understandable why Joshua might not
have featured very largely in the oracular material. However, difficulties arise when a later editor is postulated for the
oracles who would have embedded them in their present framework either by reproducing them verbatim or by
paraphrasing them along with other material to produce a continuous piece of historiography. The thought might well
be that Joshua's appearance in the narrative alongside Zerubbabel points to the high priest's increased prominence by
the time of the editing process; but if the high priest really had gained in power and prominence it is unlikely that he
would need full identification each time he was mentioned. Beuken's identification of a ‘Chronistic milieu’ as the circle
out of which the final edition of Haggai may have arisen would push its date forward to the end of the fifth century at
the earliest;303 if Beuken is correct, then the implication is that not even by about 400 BCE had the high priest gained
sufficiently in influence and general acceptance to be presented in the throwaway style of familiarity. The presentation
of the high priest in Haggai then has to be viewed
301
See Elliger, Propheten, 97; Reventlow, 30–1.
302
R. J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), argues that Haggai's hopes for Zerubbabel are unspecific and that it should not simply be
assumed that Haggai was thinking in terms of a restored Davidic monarchy; instead, dual leadership of the community was needed (pp. 35, 36). However, the points still
remain that Joshua is not addressed in any of the oracles except possibly in 2: 4, and even that would not have been an address to him alone; that the book concerns itself
largely with Temple-rebuilding which was an inevitable concern of the high priest; and that it is difficult to see how the signet ring image together with the presumed Davidic
descent of Zerubbabel would not indicate some sort of hope for monarchic restoration. See also the discussion below on the supposed diarchy in Zech. 4: 10–14.
303
W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp N.V., 1967), 19–20.
more as a manifesto for recognizing his proper position alongside the civil authorities or as a description of what was
considered to be appropriate cultic practice by the time of the final edition, rather than as a description of a high
priesthood with greatly increased powers.304
The third reason for being dubious about the increased importance of the high priest at an early date is the lack of
evidence for it in later materials. Meyers and Meyers argue that the Temple was an important fiscal and administrative
centre ‘like all temples in the ancient world’;305 hence, Temple restoration was a way for the Persians to foster local self-
rule. The high priest therefore gained an importance which was linked with the Temple's non-cultic functioning in the
community and with the diminution of Zerubbabel's royal powers by comparison with the pre-exilic monarchs, so that
Joshua became a high-ranking internal administrative officer while Zerubbabel's main responsibility was liaison with
the Persian authorities.306 However, even granted that Achaemenid fiscal policy was channelled through local
sanctuaries, the high priest does not seem to have benefited from it in terms of his position in the Judaean
community.307 Turning to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is little if any evidence of the high priest as an
important official in their descriptions of the fifth-century Judaean community, either from the Persian or from the
Jewish point of view.308 Despite the fact that there is no longer any indication of a Davidic heir such as Zerubbabel in
the province who could serve as a focus of identity and hope for the people, the Davidide's place does not appear to
have been taken by the high priest; both Ezra and Nehemiah show a surprising absence of references to the high priest
apart from in the context of
304
Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, remarks that the presentation of Haggai's words has affinities with the outlook found in the Priestly writer and the Chronicler (pp.
9–10). This in itself militates against the idea that Haggai views the high priesthood as a major vehicle of civil leadership in the community, since both P and the Chronicler
emphasize the cultic importance of the high priesthood whilst allowing it no civil power. For more details, see Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer and Ch. 8 below on the
books of Chronicles.
305
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 37.
306
Ibid. 38, 39.
307
See Joachim Schaper, ‘The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration’, VT 45 (1995), 528–39. Schaper makes no reference to the high
priest in the context of the collection of imperial taxes, but argues that specific officials who were civil servants directly responsible to the Persian king would have been
appointed for this area of Temple activity (p. 534).
308
All these issues are discussed fully in Ch. 6 below on Ezra and Nehemiah.
specifically Temple- or priest-centred matters, even to the point of omitting him from the Lawgiving organized by Ezra
and the resulting covenant to keep the Law (Neh. 8: 1–10: 40 (ET 10: 39)). The fact too that Nehemiah was sent all the
way from Babylon to initiate and supervise the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls because there was apparently no one else
with sufficient concern or authority to do it is incompatible with the idea of the high priest as a high-ranking internal
administrative officer. Indeed, both Ezra and Nehemiah seem perfectly free to enter the province and carry out quite
fundamental reforms which the high priest is presumably unable or unwilling to tackle, and the reforms are carried out
with no apparent reference to—even despite—the high priest. If the high priest was as important a figure as Meyers
and Meyers claim there would have been at least some nominal acknowledgement of his position. It is inconceivable
that over the century or so between the early Restoration period and the time of Ezra and Nehemiah high-priestly
power had bloomed and faded, and there is no clear evidence after that of a high priest with substantial authority until
Maccabean times,309 nearly four hundred years on from the early Restoration period. It is surely worth reiterating, too,
that the period of disorganization immediately following the return would have been no time for new developments,
since the community was concerned first with its own survival and secondly with a restoration of the previous status
quo. Haggai's prophecies seem to have been precipitated by a general attention to the first of those aims to the neglect
of the second, even on the part of governor and high priest, so it is difficult to believe that the elaborate reorganization
implied by Meyers and Meyers' reconstruction could have taken place so quickly—especially as the Temple upon
which the high priest's status would depend had not yet been rebuilt.
A further reason for doubting the swift emergence of the high priest as a civil authority figure is the fact that at the
time of the original oracles prophecy was still alive and could be influential in the community, in contrast with later
times when its voice faded and diverged into the apocalyptic and theocratic streams of Jewish thought.310 This once
again indicates that the old pattern had not
309
For more details, see Ch. 11 below on the Maccabees.
310
See Otto Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959) (ET Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1968) ); Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1975).
yet been superseded, making it additionally unlikely that in the eyes of his fellow-Judaeans at least Joshua would have
been a candidate for the acquisition of remarkable new responsibilities so quickly. Prophetic authority could still exceed
that of either governor or high priest—another reminder of pre-exilic days and a warning that although the nature of
the community was changing, it had not yet changed beyond recognition, so that it should not be forced into an
alternative mode too quickly.
It seems then that there is no evidence in Haggai for the high priest's acquisition of civil power, or indeed for the
hierocratic tendencies which would lead to such an acquisition. The only context in which Joshua appears is that of
Temple rebuilding, a natural and inevitable area of concern for the high priest, and the final oracle of 2: 20–3 seems to
advocate a return to a monarchic society in which Zerubbabel, not Joshua, would be the ultimate authority figure.
Hence, Joshua's concerns and responsibilities remain firmly in the cultic realm, as was shown to be the case both for
the pre-exilic chief priests and for the high priest of P. The next step is therefore to see if the same is true in Zechariah.
According to the dating formulae provided in the text, Zechariah's ministry was longer than the three months
supposedly covered by Haggai's oracles; it began ‘in the eighth month, in the second year of Darius’ (1: 1), and
continued on through ‘the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month . . . in the second year of Darius’ (1: 7), and ‘the
fourth year of King Darius, . . . in the fourth day of the ninth month’ (7: 1), that is, 520–518 BCE. The overall tone of
the prophecies is of Yahweh's jealousy for Jerusalem, a theme into which the high priest can be seen to fit by virtue of
being part of the Jerusalem establishment. The time markers divide the book into three sections, and the material
which is of interest for the present purposes occurs in the so-called night vision of 1: 7–6: 15, which corresponds
exactly to the section of text falling between the second and third dating formulae. In contrast to the book of Haggai
where the high priest is barely mentioned in the oracular material, two of the series of eight episodes related in Zech. 1:
7–6: 15 specifically involve the high priest Joshua—an emphasis which is not altogether surprising, given Zechariah's
own priestly status. In the first of these (3: 1–10) Joshua is shown as standing in the heavenly court in filthy clothing
with the accuser on his right hand, but the Lord dismisses the accuser and orders
the filthy clothing to be replaced by clean garments and a turban, presumably representing the regalia of the high
priesthood. Joshua is then granted oversight of the Temple and access to the heavenly court on condition that he walks
in God's ways and keeps his charge. The scene ends with an oracular promise to bring ‘the Branch’ and to remove
iniquity from the land. The second episode (6: 9–14) is more contentious in interpretative terms. Zechariah is to ask
three of the exiles for silver and gold from which he is to make a crown (or crowns) and crown Joshua (perhaps
originally Zerubbabel), giving to him an oracle concerning ‘the man whose name is the Branch’ who is to build the
Temple and rule with a priest at his side in peaceful co-operation with him. The crown (or crowns) are then to be
placed in the Temple as a reminder to those who were named at the beginning of the vision.311
In addition to these two episodes where Joshua is mentioned by name, there is usually thought to be a covert reference
to Joshua and Zerubbabel in the episode of chapter 4, where two olive trees are shown standing either side of a golden
lampstand with seven seven-lipped lamps on top of it. From verses 10b and 14 it appears that the lampstand
represents Yahweh, while the olive trees, described in verse 14 as the two , (benê-hayyiṣhār, ‘sons of oil’) are
usually interpreted as standing for the two leading figures in the community, namely Zerubbabel and Joshua.312 The
RSV misleadingly translates the phrase (benê-hayyiṣhār) as ‘anointed’, a translation presumably derived from
the understanding that Zerubbabel as Davidic heir and Joshua as high priest would both have been anointed; however,
there are several arguments against such a translation. In the first place, it is an open question whether either
Zerubbabel or Joshua would have been anointed at this stage, Joshua because there was as yet no Temple to make
either the office of high priest or Joshua's installation as
311
E. Lipin'ski, ‘Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie’, VT 20 (1970), 25–55, argues for the plural reading (ʽaārôt, ‘crowns’) as an archaic or archaizing form of the
singular which was used to refer to items or beings with mythical or sacral connotations (pp. 34–5).
312
Driver, Minor Prophets, II, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1906), 204; Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, 165; Thomas, ‘The Book of Zechariah’, 1074; Elliger,
Propheten, 111; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 48; D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 231; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 205.
Meyers and Meyers, 275–6, regard the figures as generic governor and high-priest figures rather than as referring specifically to Zerubbabel and Joshua. This passage seems
to have been influential in some Jewish eschatological speculation which looked for two Messiahs, one of whom would be royal and one priestly. See Higgins, ‘Priest and
Messiah’, for discussion.
such meaningful or even possible, and Zerubbabel because it is unlikely that he would have been anointed unless he
were actually in a position to take up the kind of leadership of his people which the anointing would imply. However,
the vision could be regarded as in some sense predictive, in which case the actual contemporary status of the figures to
which it refers would be irrelevant. A more serious objection is the fact that the usual word for anointing oil is
(šemen), whereas the word (yiṣhār) which is used in 4: 14 does not refer to the oil used in anointing, but rather to
the fresh new olive oil that comes at the beginning of the harvest (cf. LXX οἱ δύο υἱοὶ τη̑ς πιότητος, hoi duo huioi tēs
piotētos—‘the two sons of fatness’). It has connotations of richness and bounty, of Yahweh's favour on his people, and
also of priestly tithes due from the people, rather than anointing. Although Köhler argued that the two terms were
interchangeable and that (yiṣhār) could therefore signify anointing oil,313 the only two verses he cited as evidence
(Deut. 8: 8; 2 Kgs. 18: 32) use the terms interchangeably in the context of agricultural produce; this shows that
(šemen) can have an agricultural connotation, but says nothing about (yiṣhār) having connotations of anointing.
Indeed, the only place where (yiṣhār) supposedly refers to anointing oil is Zech. 4: 14, and it seems unwise to take
it as such when the only grounds for doing so are a presupposed interpretation of what is undeniably an obscure
vision. It seems more likely that the (benê-hayyiṣhār) are a metaphor for the prosperity which the community
will enjoy under the dual prince-priest leadership, prosperity symbolized by a constant supply of oil which is necessary
for the continually burning lamps of the Temple.314
The first question to be answered about the high-priestly material in Zechariah is whether or not it is an integral part of
its present context. It has been suggested that both the episode of Joshua's cleansing (3: 1–10) and the episode with the
crowns (6: 9–15) are interpolations, since neither episode follows the question- and-answer format with Zechariah and
the interpreting angel which is displayed in the other episodes of the night vision.315
313
L. Köhler, ‘Eine archaistische Wortgruppe’, ZAW 46 (n.s. 5) (1928), 218–20 (pp. 219, 220).
314
Interestingly, (yiṣhār ) appears as one of the commodities upon which the Lord has sent a blight in Hag. 1: 11, although BHS marks it as a possible addition there.
315
Elliger, Propheten, 120; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 49–50; Reventlow, 32–3. See also Amsler, 18.
Moreover, both the cleansing and the crowning refer to recognizable individuals and have a somewhat more ‘real’
quality about them than the other episodes, which could mean that they are later than the other episodes, or are
perhaps from a different hand. For example, Redditt argues that all the Zerubbabel and Joshua material (3: 1–10; 4:
6b–10a; 6: 9–15) was added secondarily to a series of visions originally directed to the exiled community in Babylon,
thereby changing the thrust of the prophecy from an exhortation to return to Judah, to a ‘politico-theological treatise
for Judah and Jerusalem for the year 520 BC’. The supposedly secondary material therefore reflects the postulated
future roles of Zerubbabel and Joshua, and also evidences a reinterpretation of the term ‘Branch’ (usually regarded as a
royal or a messianic title) to refer to Joshua once Zerubbabel's disappearance and the failure to re-establish the
monarchy led to Joshua's elevation.316 However, a case can also be made for regarding the Zerubbabel and Joshua
material as integral to the whole, and this is the approach favoured by Halpern, who in a prolonged analysis sees the
whole cycle 1: 7–6: 15 as a Mesopotamian temple-reconstruction liturgy, ‘refracted through the lens of Israelite culture
and history’.317 With this overall scenario all the supposedly intrusive elements can be accounted for and made to fit as
part of the one complex. Joshua's change in clothing is equivalent to the temple-builder donning pure raiment,318 and
the Zerubbabel material in 4: 6b–10a, which is evidently intrusive in its present context, belongs after 3: 8, thereby
creating a block of oracular material in the centre of the vision, preceded by material describing preparation for the
Temple foundation and followed by material describing the consequences of foundation.319 The final episode with the
crowns refers to Zerubbabel, and is an ‘association of suzerainty with participation in the foundation rite’,320 a theme
also evident in the central block of oracular material.
When 1: 7–6: 15 is viewed in this way as a whole rather than as a
316
Redditt, ‘Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Night Visions of Zechariah’, CBQ 54 (1992), 249–59. In his commentary, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, Redditt claims that
Zechariah himself was responsible for this second edition (p. 42).
317
Baruch Halpern, ‘The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song’, CBQ 40 (1978), 167–90 (p. 189).
318
Ibid. 173.
319
Ibid. 179–80 and n. 60.
320
Ibid. 181.
series of individual episodes, its overall structure certainly suggests that the cleansing and crowning episodes are
integral to it rather than being secondary additions. The cleansing episode stands in fourth place, following three of the
more surrealistic episodes with their unworldly atmosphere, question-and-answer format, and interpreting angel, and
the crowning episode stands as a comment at the end of the series after a further four surrealistic episodes. In its near-
central position, the cleansing episode marks the transition from the first three episodes which portray Jerusalem as the
Lord's chosen city (1: 7–2: 17 (ET 2: 13)), to the remaining four episodes which are concerned with the Lord's
restoration of his city. Right at the start of the cleansing episode it is the same Lord who has chosen Jerusalem who
takes it upon himself to rebuke the accuser of the high priest (3: 2); Joshua's cleansing serves to guarantee the promise
of cleansing for the land, and is the first act in the overall cleansing process which continues in the following episodes,
where the lampstand symbolizes the presence of the Lord (4: 1–6a, 10b–14), the scroll and the ephah of wickedness
symbolize the cleansing of the city (5: 1–11), and the four chariots impatient to be gone (6: 1–8) are a reversal of the
first episode in which Zechariah sees the horsemen gather from patrolling the earth. Finally comes the crowning
episode, which on this analysis describes Zechariah's appropriate response to the Lord's promised choice and cleansing
of Jerusalem. The overall effect of the cleansing and crowning episodes in the sequence is thus to link the otherwise
rather out-of-this-world episodes with the realities of human existence in Jerusalem, thereby setting the perspective of
each by means of the other.
What, then, do the cleansing and the crowning episodes signify? Beginning with the cleansing episode, the adjective
translated ‘filthy’, (ṣôʼîm), which is used of Joshua's clothing in 3: 3, is only found here, and is from a root
containing ideas of excrement, vomit, moral impurity, or iniquity.321 By contrast, the descriptive term used for Joshua's
clean turban in 3: 5 ( , ṭāhôr), is an adjective found elsewhere largely with overtones of ceremonial or moral
cleanliness (e.g. Lev. 10: 10), or meaning ‘pure, unalloyed’, as for example of gold.322 Although only the turban is
described as ‘clean’, it seems to be a symbol for the complete garb, and the use of this adjective in particular indicates
that the cleansing is concerned
321
BDB, 844.
322
BDB, 373.
with ceremonial purity rather than with actual physical dirt or defilement—Yahweh is making Joshua ceremonially fit
to serve in the capacity of high priest. Rabbinic exegesis interpreted the uncleanness which is symbolically stripped
away from Joshua with the filthy clothing as defilement of the high-priestly family due to some of its members having
married foreign wives (cf. Ezra 10: 18); however, this would mean dating the episode several decades later than the
surrounding material, whereas it has just been concluded that it is integral to, and so contemporary with, the night
vision as a whole. Most modern commentators interpret the defilement as contamination picked up by living in an
unclean land,323 and this interpretation is preferable as not only can it be supported from the text itself (cf. 3: 3), but it
also reflects a concern contemporary with the rest of the episodes. In that case, the cleansing episode can be seen as a
divine cleansing and acceptance of Joshua as representative and heir of the high-priestly line, enabling the restoration
to continue without fear of further rejection because of a defiled priesthood.
Yet surely the restoration of the high priest has a greater significance, as the oracular material of 3: 6–10 would
indicate. Part of the anguish of exile was that there had been no Temple for the last seventy years, and as yet no
rebuilding had taken place, so there was no means of removing guilt from either the exiles or those left in Judah.
Under these circumstances Joshua's own divine cleansing represents the accumulated impurity being cleansed, because
it represents Yahweh's action to enable the restoration of the cult of which Joshua would be the head figure, and which
was the means of cleansing for the remainder of the community. The apparent symbolism of the high priest's
installation and the references to the seven-faceted stone, possibly the engraved metal plate of the high priest's head-
dress which was the reminder of his power to absorb guilt,324 can thus be accounted for by viewing the episode as
describing Joshua being prepared to fulfil his role as high
323
See, for example, Thomas, ‘The Book of Zechariah’, 1067–8; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 50; D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 195; Meyers and Meyers, 188;
Reventlow, 53; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 63–4.
324
See the discussion of the high priest's garments in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer. By contrast, Lipin'ski suggests that the reference is to the Galilean site known as Ain
et-Tabgha, from the Greek ʽEπτάπηγον or ‘Seven Springs’, and that the image is one of miraculous cleansing and therefore fertility brought about by the seven streams of
water (pp. 25–30).
priest.325 Yet for the cult to begin to function again, and to enable Joshua to carry out the role for which he has been
prepared—including having charge of the Temple courts (3: 7)—there must be a Temple, so that the vision is also an
implicit promise of the Temple's restoration. There is no doubt that the restoration of the Temple would be a very
important part of the restoration of Jerusalem, since the Temple would function not only as a symbol of continuity
between the pre- and post-exilic communities, but as the present community's legitimation.326 And yet even this does
not exhaust the episode's significance, because the promise of a restored Temple implies the promise of one who is
worthy to restore it. Joshua himself is not given the task of Temple-building, but as restored high priest he and his
friends are ‘men of portent’ (3: 8) that there will be one able to build the Temple, namely the Branch.
The title , (ṣemaḥ), ‘Branch’, perhaps more accurately ‘shoot’ or ‘new growth’, appears twice in Zechariah, at 3: 8
and 6: 13, and is usually interpreted as a royal or messianic designation.327 Although the word's basic meaning is that of
new growth in an agricultural sense, it is used in Jer. 23: 5 and 33: 15 as a metaphor for a future Davidic king. The
image seems to be that of a new shoot sprouting from the stump of a felled tree, and parallel imagery (though with
different vocabulary) is found in Isa. 11: 1 (the shoot from the stump of Jesse). However, , (ṣemaḥ) is not found in
a titular or a technical sense before Zechariah. Its appearance in Zechariah has been thought to refer either to
Zerubbabel,328 given that his name means ‘seed of Babylon’ in Akkadian, or to a future messianic ruler.329 A future
messianic interpretation is unlikely if the cleansing and crowning episodes where the title appears are regarded as dating
from the Restoration
325
Tidwell, ‘Wāʼōmar (Zech. 3: 5) and the Genre of Zechariah's Fourth Vision’, JBL 94 (1975), 343–55, suggests that the vision reflects the ritual preparation of the high
priest for the Day of Atonement celebrations (p. 353).
326
This is a concept which is very important in the books of Chronicles. See Ch. 8 below on Chronicles.
327
e.g. Reventlow, 55.
328
Driver, Minor Prophets, 198; Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, 187; Thomas, ‘The Book of Zechariah’, 1070; D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 210–11; Redditt, Haggai,
Zechariah and Malachi, 66.
329
Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 52; R. L. Smith, 200–1; Meyers and Meyers, 203: ‘the prophet is employing lively prophetic imagery to point to a future time when
kingship might well be reestablished.’
period, because at that time any monarchic hopes would tend to focus on Zerubbabel and the restoration of what was
left of the current Davidic dynasty, rather than projecting hopes for an ideal king into the future. In that case, given the
appearance of a royal title in a context which it has been argued concerns Temple restoration, and given that temple-
building was primarily a royal responsibility in the general ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu,330 the logical inference is
that , (ṣemaḥ) in 3: 8 refers to Zerubbabel.331 This is supported by the oracular insertion in 4: 6b–10a, which refers
quite clearly to Zerubbabel in the context of what has all the appearances of being a Temple-foundation ritual.332 It
would appear, then, that Joshua may be given charge of the Temple courts, but he is not given the royal prerogative of
building the Temple; hence, the cleansing episode cannot be interpreted
330
Antti Laato, ‘Zachariah 4, 6b–10a and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions’, ZAW 106 (1994), 53–69, points out that in Akkadian and Babylonian royal building
inscriptions temple-rebuilding is always shown as a project undertaken by the king, and the king is shown as an active participant in the process (pp. 57, 58). Laato also
remarks that the building itself was thought to guarantee the royal dynasty's establishment and well-being (pp. 60–1), a concept which is appropriate in the present context.
331
Some scholars have interpreted the term ‘Branch’ in Zech. 3: 8b as a reference to Joshua the high priest. Milos Bič, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine Auslegung von Sacharja
1–6, Biblische Studien, 42 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 38, regards the designation ‘Branch’ as a reference to a coming Joshua-figure who will appear
in the near future alongside Zerubbabel, and claims that Zechariah saw the Messiah as coming from the high-priestly line (p. 70); Coggins on the other hand thinks in terms
of the contemporary Joshua, and simply asserts, ‘In v. 8 Joshua is described as “my servant the Branch’ ” (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 46). However, these interpretations are
difficult to justify for two main reasons. In the first place, if it were to be understood that the Branch was Joshua, the message of the oracle would surely be, ‘Behold my
servant the Branch’, which would be a clear reference to a figure already depicted in the foregoing vision. However, the actual wording of the oracle is, ‘Behold I am bringing
my servant the Branch’, which implies that the Branch is a figure different from any of those depicted in the immediate context. In the second place, there is the question of
whether or not the Branch can legitimately be regarded as a priestly figure. As indicated in the discussion above, it seems extremely probable that ‘Branch’ is first and
foremost a royal designation, and there is no compelling reason to regard it as anything else in the present context; certainly neither Bič nor Coggins provides any such
reason. Hence, it seems much more satisfactory to regard the term ‘Branch’ as a reference either to a future messianic figure, or to Zerubbabel (as in the present discussion).
332
Halpern, 171–3; D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 240–4. D. Petersen, ‘Zerubbabel and Temple Reconstruction’, CBQ 36 (1974), 366–72, underlines the oracle's
stress on Zerubbabel as royal figure in the ceremony (pp. 366, 368, 370, 372). Joyce Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1972), 121–2, is followed
by Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 69–70, in arguing that the ceremony depicted would be one of completion rather than of foundation, but the association of
Zerubbabel with the act of Temple-building remains unchanged.
as claiming royal status or civil power for him. Rather, Joshua's preparation for the high priesthood is both his
preparation for cultic responsibility and a promise that the Temple will be rebuilt in accordance with the old order,
thereby anticipating the restoration of that old order.
In an interesting and inventive reinterpretation, Barker suggests that Zerubbabel only appears unequivocally in 4: 6ff.,
and that the other supposed references to him in Zechariah are based on the unjustified assumptions that ‘Branch’ is a
messianic or at least a royal title and that crowns are primarily a royal symbol.333 For Barker, Joshua is the community's
ruler who can claim the title ‘Branch’ in the visions of 3: 1–10 and 6: 9–15, and the two ‘sons of oil’ standing to left and
right of the lampstand in 4: 3 represent not Joshua and Zerubbabel in joint harmonious rule but the priesthoods of the
north and south, an interpretation derived from Ezekiel's use of the words which here indicate left and right to signify
north and south.334 In other words, Zechariah is recommending a priestly rule which pursues a policy of appeasement
towards Judah's northern neighbours rather than a policy of separation, as the way in which the harmony and
prosperity hinted at by the phrase ‘sons of oil’ will be achieved.335 The conclusion that ‘Branch’ is not necessarily a
messianic or royal title is based on its supposed titular usage in Jer. 23: 5 and 33: 15, and also in Isa. 4: 2, where the
branch of the Lord is part of a description of a new era of peace, prosperity, fertility, and the Lord's presence in
Judah.336 However, there are three points to be made in answer to this. In the first place, as remarked above,
Zechariah's usage of ‘Branch’ is the earliest example of the extension of Jeremiah's descriptive and metaphorical usage
into a title, and the only clear example of such usage in the OT; hence, to speak of titular usage apart from in
Zechariah is misleading. In the second place, Jeremiah's usage refers unmistakably to a royal individual; and in the third
place the usage in Isa. 4: 2 does not designate an individual of any kind, but is, in the words of Clements, ‘a reference to
the wonderful growth which Yahweh will cause to spring up in the age of salvation’.337
333
Barker, ‘The Two Figures in Zechariah’, 39–42.
334
Ibid. 42–5.
335
Ibid. 46.
336
Ibid. 41–2.
337
Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982), 54.
Hence, even though the elements in Isa. 4: 2–6 may correspond to the elements hinted at in Zechariah's picture of
restoration, a picture which Barker describes as ‘priestly’,338 there is no warrant for seeing in Isa. 4: 2 either the title
‘Branch’ or its non-royal usage, and for therefore denying the title its royal significance where it appears in Zechariah.
In a discussion of the cleansing episode of 3: 1–10, VanderKam proposes that the first, visionary section of the
episode (the de- and re-clothing) signifies the movement from guilty defilement to purity, and the second, oracular
section suggests an expansion of the high priest's role into areas which were formerly the preserve of the monarch or
the prophet, namely having charge of the Temple courts and being granted access to the divine council (3: 7).339
VanderKam concludes his article by saying, ‘The crucial fact about the chapter is . . . that it accents the central and
expanded roles of the high priest in postexilic Jewish society. In Zechariah 3 Joshua alone is the protagonist and he
does not share the stage with Zerubbabel.’340 However, in the light of the discussion above such a conclusion seems
unwarranted. VanderKam gives no indication of what he means by ‘central and expanded roles’, as to why making a
man a cultic official automatically makes him a ruler, or how giving him charge of the Temple courts automatically
gives him jurisdiction over any other aspects of government or administration. Additionally, VanderKam fails to take
any account of the reference to the Branch, Zerubbabel, in 3: 8. Nor is the high priest's role as startlingly new as
VanderKam makes out, given that the chief priests prior to the Exile already had a measure of authority over the
Temple. The pre-exilic Ahitub in Neh. 11: 11 is styled as ‘chief officer of the house of God’. When King Joash was
concerned about the lack of maintenance being performed on the Temple he summoned Jehoiada the priest for an
explanation (2 Kgs. 12: 5–8 (ET 12: 4–7)), and when King Ahaz wanted a new altar he sent the design to Uriah the
priest to have it made (2 Kgs. 16: 10–16).341 The leading priests had always been involved with the upkeep of the
Temple. Hence, the commission to Joshua in Zech.
338
Barker, ‘The Two Figures in Zechariah’, 41.
339
James VanderKam, ‘Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3’, CBQ 53 (1991), 553–70; see also Reventlow, 54.
340
VanderKam, ‘Joshua’, 570.
341
See the discussion of these incidents in Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History.
3: 7 is more of a quantitative than a qualitative promotion, extending his area of authority within the cultic sphere but
keeping it in that sphere—the logical step to take in a province where the ultimate ruling authority would henceforth
rest with a Persian appointee who may or may not have had a sympathetic concern for the Temple, and who may not
even have been a Jew. Indeed, by Nehemiah's time it seems that the high priest was still responsible for the Temple
courts (Neh. 13: 4), but this had done nothing to further his power in any other area of life—except that it put Eliashib
the high priest in a position to favour Tobiah the Ammonite by preparing a room for him in the Temple courts, a
move which may have had its own rewards.342
Turning from the cleansing episode to the lampstand episode (4: 1–6a, 10b–14), the two olive trees which are the ‘sons
of oil’ standing either side of the golden lampstand seem to indicate a joint leadership in the community, a leadership,
moreover, which is divinely sanctioned and which therefore leads to prosperity and blessing. Here again,
commentators have been quick to interpret the vision as an indication that the high priest now had a significant share
in the civil administration of the province. Petersen's opinion is not untypical: ‘Commentators uniformly view these
anointed figures as signifying the diarchic polity recoverable in the oracular material . . . Zechariah apparently thinks in
terms of joint civil-religious leadership . . . The visions . . . make clear that the high priest is to have an important
leadership role.’343 And yet the lampstand episode is quite unspecific; there are two figures, but they are not named, no
clue is given as to how they relate to each other or whether they are of equal status, and despite the RSV rendering of 4:
14 they are not ‘anointed’, as discussed earlier. Given the image of a lampstand which is a piece of Temple furniture, it
is a reasonable assumption that the two figures are the two who have appeared so far in the context of the Temple's
restoration, namely Joshua and Zerubbabel. But the exact nature of this ‘diarchic rule’ must be determined from the
surrounding material of the night vision, as Petersen implies. Following as it
342
See further in Ch. 6 below on Ezra and Nehemiah.
343
D. Petersen, ‘Zechariah's Visions: A Theological Perspective’, VT 34 (1984), 195–206 (pp. 204–5). This view is shared by Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in
Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, JSOTS 150 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 175–8. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter’, 5, 191–2, suggests that the two figures are Joshua who is the new
head of the theocracy of Yahweh, and the deputy chief priest.
does hard on the heels of the cleansing episode, the lampstand episode is a reminder after the cleansing episode's
emphasis on the high priest that there is another significant figure in the community who also has Yahweh's favour,
and that the proper working together of both figures as defined in the cleansing and crowning episodes (and also in the
oracular material of 4: 6b–10a) is essential for the community's well-being. The non-specific nature of the episode
means that it can be made to suit whatever interpretation of the diarchy is elicited from elsewhere in the night vision;
hence, although it does not necessarily contradict the interpretation proposed here for the cleansing episode and
therefore the scenario of a high priesthood without civil power, neither can it offer positive independent support for
the interpretation. But the same is also true for those who claim an increase in priestly power on the basis of the other
episodes of the night vision; the lampstand episode may not contradict such an interpretation, but neither can it offer
positive independent support for it.
The crowning episode (6: 9–15), however, is somewhat more explicit in its depiction of the two figures' relative roles.
Like the cleansing episode, the crowning episode contains the figures of the high priest and the Branch, and is
concerned (more overtly this time) with the Temple-rebuilding. The crowning episode has often been seen as evidence
of a growth in priestly power, on the assumption that the crown placed upon Joshua's head is a royal symbol, and
indeed many commentators subscribe to the idea that the crown must originally have been intended for Zerubbabel,
but that Joshua must have been substituted for Zerubbabel in the text following the latter's disappearance.344 However,
this theory has its difficulties. Although at first sight it makes better sense that it should be the royal Zerubbabel rather
than the priestly Joshua who is crowned and receives an oracle about a royal figure who will build the Temple and rule
with a priest at his side, it seems very awkward that the oracle in verses 12–13, which on this reading is spoken directly
to Zerubbabel about Zerubbabel, should be framed entirely in the third person, thereby implying that the recipient of
the oracle and its subject are two different people.345
344
Driver, Minor Prophets, 212–13; Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, 185–6; Thomas, ‘The Book of Zechariah’, 1080; Elliger, Propheten, 128, 129, 130; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi, 62–3; Amsler, 107–9; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 78–9.
345
See Albert Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre; Louvain: Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969), 285.
On balance, therefore, and in the light of the fact that there is no textual evidence for the proposed substitution of
names,346 it seems a better strategy to attempt to interpret the text as it stands, before having recourse to an emendation
which solves one perceived difficulty but which creates another.
When the passage is taken as it stands, the difficulty in reconciling the crowning of Joshua with an oracle concerning
the Branch makes it clear that the interpretations offered by exegetes have been based on a second assumption,
namely, that the main focus of the passage is on the figure who is crowned and his significance either in the present or
for the future; in other words, it is assumed that what is described is effectively a symbolic or proleptic coronation.
However, the difficulties can be relieved if the crown is understood not merely as an indicator of status for the one
upon whose head it is placed, and therefore an adjunct to the overall message of the episode, but as itself the
centrepiece of the episode. That this might indeed be the case is suggested by two factors: first, the fact that the
episode begins and ends with the crown, so that it becomes an element which is present throughout the message of the
episode; and secondly, the command to preserve the crown in the rebuilt Temple, which implies the crown's lasting
significance. On this approach, therefore, determining the significance of the crown is the key to understanding the
episode as a whole.
The first step is to ascertain the precise significance of the word ‘crown’. Although the term (ʽaṭārâ) which is
used here can and does indicate a royal crown, it is also used in a metaphorical sense as an indicator of honour or glory.
It could therefore perhaps be interpreted as signifying something which is metaphorically speaking a crown or glory in
the context of the restoration of Jerusalem. The question then arises as to what this metaphorical ‘crown’ might be,
and in the context of Zechariah 1–8 the most obvious answer seems to be the Temple, for several reasons. In the first
place, the crown is made out of silver and gold taken from exiles who have recently arrived from Babylon (6: 10–11).
Commentators suggest that these ‘exiles’ were envoys who had brought the silver and gold with them as a gift from the
Babylonian community in order to aid the Temple-rebuilding,347 and if that was the case, the
346
Reventlow, 71, 72.
347
Elliger, Propheten, 128–9; Amsler, 107; Reventlow, 71–2.
crown is made from material which was destined for the Temple and its restoration, thereby creating an immediate
association between the crown and the Temple. In the second place, instead of being given to the person upon whose
head it is placed, the crown is ultimately to be left in the Temple as a reminder to the exiles who brought the silver and
gold from which it was made (6: 14). Surely if the crown had particular significance for the personal status of the one
who was crowned, it would be given to him or would at least be deemed to be a reminder to him. It is difficult to see
why the crown should be intended to serve as a reminder to the exiles, not even to the inhabitants of Judah and
Jerusalem, if the purpose of the episode was to make a statement by means of the crown about the future ruler of
Judah. However, leaving the crown in the Temple has the effect of strengthening the association already made between
crown and Temple, since the gifts which were brought for use in the Temple-rebuilding and which were diverted to
fashioning the crown now find their resting place in the context for which they were originally intended, namely, that of
the Temple.
The associations between the crown and the Temple, therefore, are such that it seems possible to interpret the crown
as a symbol of the rebuilt Temple which is to be the glory of the restored city and people. This is also supported by the
references to the Branch as Temple-builder in 6: 12–13, so that the whole episode of 6: 9–14 becomes one about the
restoration of the Temple. The symbolic use of part of the exiles' gift to make a crown is a prophetic sign of
reassurance that just as this small part of the money they have brought has been made into an actual crown, the rest of
it will result in the building of a Temple which will be the crown of the restored Jerusalem. If, then, the crown
symbolizes the Temple which will be the ‘crown’ of the restored Jerusalem, the placing of the crown on Joshua is not
some kind of pseudo-coronation whereby he is granted extraordinary powers of leadership; rather, it is because the
high priest's close relationship with the Temple makes him an obvious candidate to represent in this prophetic
enactment the city and people whose consummation is achieved by rebuilding the Temple.348 Indeed, in a sense, the
Temple is Joshua's crown
348
For an assessment of Schreiner's view that Psalm 110 is the legitimation of Joshua as joint civil and priestly head of the nation after Zerubbabel's disappearance, see Ch. 3
above on Melchizedek.
as much as the city's, because it is in the Temple that he realizes the full glory of his position with his right to rule over
its courts (cf. 3: 7). The episode therefore also serves as an implicit confirmation that Joshua's cleansing as witnessed
by Zechariah has been achieved, and that the restoration process is set to move on to the rebuilding of the Temple.
The oracle which follows the ‘crowning’ of Joshua also makes the relationship of the two ‘sons of oil’ in the lampstand
episode more explicit: the Branch will rule with a priest by his throne (6: 13). This is inexplicable on the assumption
that the priest himself, presumably Joshua, is the Branch and therefore the ruler. It makes much more sense to assume
that the priest is not the ruler, and in the immediate context of Joshua and Zerubbabel, the oracle should therefore be
taken to mean that Zerubbabel is the Branch who is the ruler, and Joshua is the priest by his throne. When viewed in
this light it becomes clear that the oracle, along with the whole crowning episode, looks towards the imminent
restoration of the Temple, and with it the restoration of the former order of a monarchic figure with a priest at his side.
The picture of the high priest given by Zechariah, then, is of a figure for whom ritual purity is essential and is a gift
from Yahweh himself. Once purified, the high priest has charge of the Temple courts and is in the kind of immediate
contact with Yahweh that would normally be expected of a prophet rather than a priest, but there is no indication of
any responsibilities beyond the Temple precincts, and the responsibility of building the Temple is still with the royal
figure Branch. The lampstand episode is too ambiguous to be used independently as the basis for detailed conclusions;
and the episode with the crown makes the Temple precincts the main area of concern for the high priest, whilst
depicting a priest by the throne of the Branch, reminiscent of the pre-exilic chief priest and king relationship. Evidently
Joshua the high priest was significant enough to be mentioned in the visions, but he is not shown with significantly
more civil power than his pre-exilic predecessors—all his responsibilities fall within the sphere of cult and Temple.
Hence, it would seem that, as in the Priestly writings, the presence of the high priest is essential for the community's
cultic well-being, which is a factor in its general well-being, but that the responsibility for its government remains with
Zerubbabel or the equivalent governor figure.
In the exposition of both Haggai and Zechariah it has been assumed that the Temple has not yet been rebuilt, an
assumption which raises the question of whether there could be a high priesthood without a Temple. This is of
particular concern because all the indications from the pre-exilic material are that high priesthood is a Temple-based
phenomenon arising out of the joint influences of the cult, specifically the centralized cult, and monarchy. If it is
concluded that there could be no real high priesthood without the Temple, both prophets appear to be anachronistic in
their references to Joshua as (hakkōhēn haggādôl), which is usually regarded as the normal term for ‘high
priest’. However, Joshua seems to be the first individual in the canonical sources to bear the title (hakkōhēn
haggādôl), which although it appears in 2 Kgs. 12: 11 (ET 12: 10); 22: 4, 8; and 23: 4 with reference to Jehoiada and
Hilkiah was probably applied to them only retrospectively.349 In the context of Haggai and Zechariah, therefore, the
title might signify that Joshua was the next in line for the senior priestly position but was hitherto uninstalled. This
would fit in particularly well with the cleansing episode of Zech. 3: 1–10. Assuming from the genealogies and the
records of his return with Zerubbabel that Joshua was in exile, there must have been some awareness among the exiles
of his presumably Zadokite lineage, but if the message of the cleansing episode is that the whole land and people were
polluted because with the Temple destroyed there had been no means of lifting the pollution for the past seventy years,
Joshua surely cannot have had any cultic functions whilst in exile. He would have remained a chief-priestly figure
inasmuch as his descent marked him out for the position should the opportunity ever arise again for him to take it up,
but functionally speaking it would have been impossible for him to act as high priest in a cultic sense until the
Restoration had re-established order.350 In that case, the point of calling him (hakkōhēn
349
See Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History, n. 75. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter’, 360, claims that the first authentic occurrence of the term hakohen hagadol (sic ) is its
Aramaic equivalent in the Elephantine papyrus addressed to Johanan the priest at Jerusalem in 408 BCE . For further discussion, see Ch. 6 below on Ezra and Nehemiah, n.
15, and Ch. 7 below on the Elephantine papyri.
350
Cf. K. Galling, ‘Serubbabel und der Hohepriester beim Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem’, in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1964), 127–48, who argues that the ‘plummet’ ( , hāʼeben habbedîl ) in the hand of Zerubbabel is the Urim and Thummim which Zerubbabel will
give to Joshua on the day of his installation (cf. Lev. 8: 8), a ceremony which will take place once the Temple is completed (pp. 144–5).
haggādôl) would be to indicate his priority in the family, ‘the eldest priest’, rather than to designate any particular role or
function for him, given that there was no real sphere in which his distinctively priestly powers could be exercised until
the Temple was rebuilt. The fact that the Nehemiah memoirs describe Eliashib as (hakkōhēn haggādôl) at a
time when there quite clearly was a Temple in conjunction with which he exercised his duties would signify either that
the title stuck, or that it is basically an ontological rather than a functional designation, and cannot in itself provide any
information about the wider status of its holder.351
On the basis of the evidence from Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 for the position of the high priest in the early Restoration
period, then, it can only be concluded that there is no indication of a strong independent high priesthood at that stage.
Joshua's apparent obscurity, his need for full identification almost wherever he appears, his failure to appear once
without Zerubbabel in all the material discussed, and the limitation of the material to Temple contexts where the high
priest would be expected to appear, are a poor basis on which to posit the high priest's hierocratic rule. Rather, the
prophecies in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 indicate that at the start of the Persian period the high priest had no
jurisdiction outside the sphere of the Temple, nor do they show him acquiring any. If the growth of the high priest's
civil power to the extent required for hierocratic rule came about at all, it certainly did not happen during the time of
Haggai and Zechariah.
351
See also the discussion of terminology in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
6 Ezra and Nehemiah: The High Priesthood in
Fifth-Century Judah
Having reconstructed from Haggai and Zechariah a picture of the high priesthood in the Restoration period, the next
step is to attempt to ascertain how the office developed during the later Persian period. This is something for which
the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are an obvious source of evidence, since they deal with matters of government and
organization in the province of Judah, covering between them the period from the Restoration to the late fifth
century.352 However, the nature of the material contained in Ezra–Nehemiah is complex; the evidence from the
Septuagint suggests that at some stage the two books were a single work and that the Lawgiving in Nehemiah 8
belonged with the Ezra material, probably after Ezra 8.353 In addition it is generally agreed
352
The question inevitably arises as to whether or not Ezra and Nehemiah are to be regarded as the work of the Chronicler, and therefore as part of a greater whole. A fuller
discussion of the question is given below in Ch. 8 on the books of Chronicles; for present purposes, it is sufficient to say that separate treatment of Ezra–Nehemiah is
justifiable on the grounds that their subject matter concerns quite a different era and set of circumstances from that of Chronicles.
353
The LXX renders the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah together under the title of Esdras B, and although modern Hebrew texts separate the books under the names of their
respective chief protagonists this was not done until medieval times, despite the fact that a division between the two was recognized as far back as Origen and was
reproduced in Jerome's Vulgate. Additionally, the so-called Greek Ezra, LXX Esdras A, renders together 2 Chronicles 35–6, Ezra 1–10 plus an apocryphal tale about
Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah 8, thereby supporting the idea that Nehemiah 8 was originally part of the Ezra material. Modern commentators have adopted varying
approaches to the relationship between the works. Tamara C. Eskenazi, ‘The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book’, JBL 107 (1988), 641–56, uses
literary analysis to argue that Ezra–Nehemiah is a single work and separate from Chronicles. However, David Kraemer, ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993), 73–92, uses ideological analysis to argue that the works are two separate compositions: Ezra is a book focused on the Temple and built upon
priestly concerns, whereas Nehemiah is anti-priestly, concentrating on the city, the community, and the centrality of the Torah, and portraying Ezra as a scribe rather than as
a priest in chapter 8 (pp. 78–80). Hence, as well as regarding Ezra and Nehemiah as separate works, Kraemer regards Nehemiah 8 as integral to the Nehemiah material
rather than as a borrowing from the Ezra material. See also the discussion below concerning the appearances of Nehemiah and Ezra in Nehemiah 8.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 153
that Ezra–Nehemiah is composed of a number of clearly identifiable sources: lists of people and items,354 various
official documents,355 and the first-person narratives known as the Ezra memoir and the Nehemiah memoir
respectively, which may be excerpts from Ezra's and Nehemiah's own reports or editorial reworking of accounts which
themselves contain further sources. As well as the sources there is material composed by the author-compiler which
binds the whole together, so that the picture presented by the two books is almost certainly a composite one. This
must be borne in mind when attempting to reach any conclusions about the matters which they describe.
One of the most contentious areas of debate which affects any attempt to use the material presented in Ezra and
Nehemiah to reconstruct the history of the period, and therefore of the high priesthood's development during the
period, is the relative chronological order of the events which the two books describe. The debate centres on the
question as to whether Ezra or Nehemiah was the first to arrive in Jerusalem. From Neh. 2: 1 the date of Nehemiah's
arrival appears to have been 445 BCE, a date which is corroborated by the Elephantine papyri,356 and based on the text
as it stands, Ezra was traditionally assumed to have arrived in Jerusalem before Nehemiah, during the reign of
Artaxerxes I in 458 BCE. However, this dating raises several problems of interpretation: the apparent absence of any
reform supposedly undertaken by Ezra before Nehemiah's arrival (cf. Neh. 13: 23–7), the need to suppose that Ezra
waited until Nehemiah arrived thirteen years later before he read the Law to the people if both men were indeed
present at the Law reading (cf. Neh. 8: 1–8), and the presence of textual details (notably Ezra 10: 6) which suggest that
Nehemiah must have preceded Ezra. For these and other reasons numerous scholars have sought to place Ezra's
arrival after Nehemiah's.357
354
Ezra 1: 9–11; 2: 1–70; 8: 1–14; 10: 18–24; Neh. 3: 1–32; 7: 6–73; 10: 2–28 (ET 1–27); 11: 3–36; 12: 1–26.
355
Ezra 1: 2–4; 4: 7–22; 5: 6–17; 6: 6–12; 7: 12–26.
356
AP 30 (pp. 108–19), dated to 408 BCE , mentions Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem (line 18, p. 112), and according to the high-priestly genealogy in Neh. 12: 22 Johanan
was the grandson of Eliashib, who is shown as the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah (Neh. 13: 28). See Ch. 7 below for fuller discussion of the Elephantine papyri.
357
The majority of those who would place Ezra after Nehemiah locate him in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, i.e. 398 BCE . Proponents of this view include L. W. Batten, The
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T. ' T. Clark, 1913), 28–30; Raymond A. Bowman, ‘The Book of Ezra’, in IB iii (1954), 549–661 (pp. 561–3); Cazelles, ‘La
Mission d'Esdras’, VT 4 (1954), 113–40; Rowley, ‘The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’, in The Servant of the Lord, 2nd rev. edn. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1965), 137–68; Emerton, ‘Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 BC?’, JTS n.s. 17 (1966), 1–19; Michaeli, Les Livres des Chroniques, d'Esdras et de Néhémie, CAT 16 (Neuchâtel:
Delachaux ' Niestlé, 1967), 23–4, 288–96; L. H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, Century Bible New Series (London: Thomas Nelson, 1969), 19–21, 29–32;
Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, New Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 191–6; Coggins, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, CBC (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), 6–8; Geo Widengren, ‘The Persian Period. §2A: The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’, in John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell
Miller (eds.), Israelite ' Judaean History, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1977), 503–9. A smaller group of commentators, while still arguing for Ezra's arrival after Nehemiah's
first visit to Jerusalem, place him in 428 BCE , that is, between Nehemiah's two visits; so, for example, Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra, HAT 20 (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949), 65–71; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, AB 14 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), xxxvi–xxxvii, xlii–xlviii; John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edn.
(London: SCM Press, 1981), 391–402. However, supporters of the traditional view have never been lacking, and indeed more recent scholarship seems to be returning to
an acceptance of the biblical chronology whereby Ezra arrived in 458 BCE before either of Nehemiah's visits. See Ulrich Kellermann, ‘Erwägungen zum Problem der
Esradatierung’, ZAW 80 (1968), 55–87 (Kellermann dates Ezra before 448 rather than specifically in 458, but still before either of Nehemiah's visits); Koch, ‘Ezra and the
Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 173–97; Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 4–18; D. J. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1984), 16–24; Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, 2nd edn.
(London: SCM Press, 1987), 91–2; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 55–69; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (London:
SCM Press, 1989), 139–44; Klein, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of ’, in ABD ii. 731–42 (pp. 735–7). A different approach is taken to the problem of Ezra's dating by
Gunneweg, Esra, KAT 19.1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985), who observes that the dates which occur in Ezra form an internally consistent
framework which serves to parallel Ezra's mission with that of Nehemiah, and concludes, ‘Als noch fragwürdiger und willkürlich muß es darum erscheinen, die gebotene
Zahl 7 zu ändern, um eine historisch “bessere” Chronologie herauszubekommen’ (‘It must therefore seem even more dubious and arbitrary to alter the stated figure 7 in
order to arrive at a chronology which is historically speaking “better’ ” ) (p. 126).
However, Ezra and Nehemiah are never mentioned together in either book except where names have been secondarily
inserted (e.g. Neh. 8: 9; 12: 36),358 which implies that the men were in
358
See Batten, 28, 282, 357; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 148; R. A. Bowman, ‘The Book of Nehemiah’, in IB iii (1954), 662–819 (pp. 738, 796–7); Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah,
151, 201; Brockington, 167, 205; Coggins, Ezra and Nehemiah, 107, 109, 135; Gunneweg, Nehemia, KAT 19.2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1987),
113–14; and Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 288, 346. Clines, 185, 232, and Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 279, 371–2, consider the
Nehemiah reference in Neh. 8: 9 secondary, but concede the possibility of Ezra having been present at the dedication of the walls (Neh. 12: 36), a scenario which still means
that the two men would have carried out their respective tasks separately rather than in conjunction with each other as the present text infers. Derek Kidner, Ezra ' Nehemiah,
TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1979), 148, points out that in the LXX Nehemiah is present in Neh. 8: 9 and Ezra is present in Neh. 12: 36; however, this evidence is inconclusive
as the names could have been added to the text before the LXX was produced. See also n. 45 below.
Jerusalem at different times; this means that Nehemiah would not originally have been involved in Ezra's Law-reading
(Nehemiah 8),359 so there is no need to suppose that Ezra waited for Nehemiah's arrival before carrying out the Law-
reading. It can also reasonably be argued that Nehemiah's action against those who had contracted mixed marriages
must have had its basis in a reform such as the one carried out by Ezra to make any sense; and on these grounds,
together with those to be covered in the course of the discussion,360 the canonical dating of Ezra in 458 BCE has been
assumed for this study.
The book of Ezra will be examined first, since it appears first and its present position together with the stated date of
Ezra's mission are assumed to reflect the actual order of events. The material in the book falls into two parts: chapters
1–6, which set the scene for Ezra's arrival by describing the return to Judah and the efforts to rebuild the Temple in
the face of opposition from the surrounding peoples and officials, and chapters 7–10, the so-called Ezra memoir,
which gives an account of Ezra's mission in Judah. Almost all the references to the high priest in the book of Ezra
come in the first six chapters,361 where Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak are the two
named figures at the head of the community, leading the restoration; this corresponds with the picture given in Haggai,
which also deals with the Restoration period. However, the two works correspond not only in the names of the
community's leaders, but also in their relative positions. It was noted that in Haggai the high priest Joshua always
appears with Zerubbabel and in a secondary position to him, implying a lack of independent authority.362 Similarly in
Ezra 1–6, Jeshua appears in 2: 2, 3: 2, 3: 8, 4: 3, and 5: 2, and on four out of five of these occasions he is mentioned
after Zerubbabel. The only time when he is mentioned first is at the laying of the foundation for a new altar (3: 2), an
occasion on which the high priest would
359
See n. 2 above.
360
One very important textual detail which will be dealt with below is Ezra 10: 6, often used as an argument for Nehemiah's priority on the grounds that it links Ezra with the
son of the high priest of Nehemiah's day. See Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah (OTG), 62–4 for details.
361
Williamson, ‘The Composition of Ezra i–vi’, JTS n.s. 34 (1983), 1–30, argues for the separate composition of Ezra 1–6 as a unit which was then added to the combined
Ezra–Nehemiah memoir.
362
See Ch. 5 above on Haggai and Zechariah.
be expected to take priority.363 In addition there are two occasions on which Zerubbabel is mentioned without Jeshua,
implying that Zerubbabel was recognized as an authority figure in his own right in a way which was not true of Jeshua;
first, in 4: 2 the adversaries of Benjamin and Judah approach Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses, asking to be
allowed to join the building work. Jeshua is not specified in 4: 2,364 but he is named in 4: 3 as one of those who answer
the adversaries. Possibly because the question involves the Temple, the high priest has to be seen to have a part in the
answer, but given its subject matter, it is rather curious that the question should not have been addressed to him as
well. The second occasion on which the governor is mentioned without the high priest is in the decree of Darius that
the Temple-rebuilding project should be assisted, not hindered (6: 6–12); the duty of Temple-building is allocated to
the ‘governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews’ with no mention of the high priest. It is of course conceivable that
the high priest could count as one of the elders of the Jews, but if he was a specific authority figure in the eyes of the
Persian administration it is strange that he should not be mentioned, particularly in the context of Temple rebuilding.
However, there is also the question of the decree's authenticity; Blenkinsopp interprets the decree in its present form as
a free composition on the basis of an original historical decree rather than as a word-for-word report of the original.365
In that case, though, it is even more curious that if the high priest had been granted authority to act in a governmental
capacity he should not be mentioned, especially as Blenkinsopp regards the phrase ‘the governor of the Jews’ as an
addition by the elaborator of the decree; if the governor of the Jews could be added, then so could the high priest.
Hence, whether the decree in its present form is the original text or an adaptation of the original, the high priest is
apparently significant enough neither to Darius nor to the supposed Jewish editor to warrant specific mention.
363
Gunneweg, Esra, 71.
364
Jeshua is absent from the MT and from the LXX Esdras B 4: 2, but is present at this point in the narrative in LXX Esdras A 5: 65. However, Esdras A shows evidence of
being more interpretative in its renderings than Esdras B, laying more emphasis on the high priest (see below on the priest with Urim and Thummim), and so it is probably
unwise to use Esdras A as a basis for amendment of the MT. In any case, the fact that two different versions of the Greek have been preserved from approximately the same
era indicates the complexity of the tradition, and is a warning against rash harmonizations.
365
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 126–7.
It is perhaps also worth noting that nowhere in these six chapters is Jeshua given the title (hakkōhēn haggādôl,
‘the high priest’), despite the fact that it was apparently current in the Restoration period (Hag. 1: 1, 12, 14; 2: 2, 4;
Zech. 3: 1; 6: 11) and also in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3: 1; 13: 28).366 Indeed, nowhere is Jeshua given any title
other than his patronym, and there is only one instance in Ezra 1–6 of a title or description which might be thought to
indicate the office of high priesthood. This is the puzzling verse 2: 63 at the end of the list of returnees, repeated
almost exactly from Neh. 7: 65,367 where those unable to prove their priestly ancestry are forbidden ‘to partake of the
most holy food until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim’. Urim and Thummim, the priest's sacred
lots, seem to have faded from use after the early monarchic period, and by the end of the pre-exilic period they had
become associated with the high priest, that is to say, the senior priestly figure who would have been the high priest's
pre-exilic counterpart.368 The general consensus of opinion, based on that of Jewish rabbinic teaching, is that they were
missing altogether from the Second Temple.369 This makes
366
In addition, the term's Aramaic equivalent (kāhanāʼ rabbāʼ, ‘the great priest’) appears in the Elephantine papyri. See Ch. 7 below for discussion of the papyri.
Sara Japhet, ‘Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah’, ZAW 94 (1982), 66–98, and 95
(1983), 218–29, observes that neither Zerubbabel nor Joshua are given their titles in Ezra 1–6, and attributes this phenomenon to a process of democratization which was
projected back on to the Restoration period by the eventual author of Ezra 1–6 some 150 years later (pp. 87, 88–9, 220). The absence of titles should not therefore in itself
be interpreted as evidence for the lack of importance of either of the figures in question (pp. 86–7). However, even allowing for such a tendency, the fact still remains that
Jeshua always appears along with Zerubbabel and nearly always in second place after him, whereas Zerubbabel appears on two occasions without Jeshua, implying that
Zerubbabel had an authority greater than that of Jeshua. Gunneweg, Esra, attributes the lack of titles for both Zerubbabel and Joshua in 3: 2 to the spontaneous and
informal nature of the commencement of building works; all Israel are involved as ‘brothers’, and the only authority is the law of Moses (p. 72).
367
Williamson, ‘Composition’, 2–8, argues that the list of returnees in Ezra 2: 1–70 is dependent on the same list in Neh. 7: 6–73 as part of a process of composition in which
the author-compiler of Ezra 1–6 worked from a copy of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah in substantially its present form. Williamson dates the completion of Ezra 1–6 to the
early Hellenistic period (pp. 29–30). See also Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 11–13; Michaeli, Chroniques, 262
368
See Exod. 28: 30, Lev. 8: 8, and the discussion of the high priest's garments in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
369
Mishnah Soṭah 9: 12 names the Urim and Thummim as missing from the Second Temple. Modern commentators seem to base their own denial of Urim and Thummim in
Second Temple times on this—see for example Herbert Edward Ryle, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893; repr. 1907),
32; R. A. Bowman, ‘Ezra’, 586; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 20; Brockington, 65; Clines, 59; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 92.
the reference to them in Ezra 2: 63 rather curious, given that the list of returnees is usually thought to be a kind of
census borrowed from some time after the initial return, when the land had been more extensively resettled and the
community had re-established itself,370 presumably without Urim and Thummim. There are two main interpretations
of Ezra 2: 63: either the reference to Urim and Thummim is ‘proverbial’, a way of saying that a divinely guided
decision was required for the matter in hand,371 or it indicates not so much the lots themselves as the priest who by this
time was supposedly responsible for them, in other words, the high priest. However, this second interpretation is
problematic, since according to Haggai and Zechariah there was a high priest in office right from the start of the
Restoration, namely Jeshua, who is mentioned at the very beginning of the list of returnees in Ezra along with
Zerubbabel (Ezra 2: 2). If Ezra 2: 63 dates from some time beyond the very early days it purports to describe, as is
quite likely, there would have been no need to wait for a high priest to appear, because one would already have been in
office—indeed, one is named just a few verses earlier.372 It therefore seems more reasonable to take Ezra 2: 63 as a
proverbial saying rather than a reference to the high priesthood.373
370
So Batten, 73; W. O. E. Oesterley, A History of Israel, II: From the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, A.D. 135 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932; repr. 1951),
79; Adam C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1935), 129–38; J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah
(London: SCM Press, 1986), 446–7; and Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 83. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 15–16, Clines, 43–4, and Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah (WBC), 28–32, see
the list as composite and containing some early material, but with a final date of composition later than the first return as purported in Ezra. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia,
16–17, dates the list somewhere between 538 and 515 BCE ; similarly, Michaeli, Chroniques, 262–3, suggests a date between 538 and 520 BCE .
371
So Batten, 94–5; Ackroyd, I ' II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1973), 220; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 93.
372
Inevitably those who regard the verse as a reference to the high priest are compelled to date the entire list of returnees to before 520 BCE . See R. A. Bowman, ‘Ezra’, 587,
and Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 20.
373
Both interpretations are represented in the LXX. Esdras B 2: 63 renders the verse, ἕως ἀναστῃ̑ ἱɛρɛὺς τοι̑ς φωτίζουσιν καὶ τοι̑ς τɛλɛίοις (‘until a priest arises with Urim and
Thummim’), whereas the so-called Greek Ezra, Esdras A, renders the equivalent verse (5: 40), ἕως ἀναστῃ̑ ἀρχιɛρɛὺς ἐνδɛδυμένος τὴν δήλωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀλήθɛιαν (‘until a
high priest arises dressed in Urim and Thummim’). This rendition apparently refers to the breast-piece of the high-priestly garments which contained the lots (Exod. 28: 15,
28–30). Esdras A dates from sometime in the second century BCE and should probably be seen as an interpretative gloss on the MT.
The Ezra memoir of chapters 7–10 marks the beginning of the narrative concerning the post-Restoration period, and
on the dating assumed for this study it refers to the mid-fifth century, by which time Zerubbabel would have been long
gone and the hopes of royal restoration generated by Haggai's prophecy (Hag. 2: 20–3) would have died away
unfulfilled. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to expect the high priesthood to appear fairly
prominently, since if a hierocracy had begun to develop, the high priest would presumably have moved into the
governmental role which the presence of a Davidide in whom such hopes were invested had previously prevented him
from fulfilling. And yet, the only place in Ezra 7–10 where a recognizable high priest is mentioned is 10: 18, where ‘the
sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brethren’ are named in the list of ‘the sons of the priests who had married
foreign women’. However, this is probably a way of designating a particular priestly family rather than a reference to
the high priest as such,374 and neither Jeshua himself, who would have been dead by Ezra's day, nor anyone else
recognizable as high priest has any role alongside Ezra.
Those who argue for the priority of Nehemiah over Ezra claim that there is also a reference to a high-priestly figure in
10: 6, where Ezra is said to go to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib. Both Eliashib and his son are
identified with individuals mentioned in Nehemiah, Eliashib with the high priest in Nehemiah's day (Neh. 3: 1), and
Jehohanan with Johanan who is a descendant of Eliashib (Neh. 12: 23), but there are difficulties with this
interpretation. Eliashib is named in the high-priestly genealogy in Neh. 12: 10–11,375 but there (Neh. 12: 11) he is given
a grandson Jonathan, rather than a son Jehohanan as in Ezra 10: 6. However, the textual apparatus in BHS suggests
that in Neh. 12: 11 Johanan should be read for Jonathan, in line with Neh. 12: 22 where Eliashib has a grandson
Johanan; and in Neh. 12: 23 Johanan appears as the son (rather than the grandson) of Eliashib. The question is
therefore whether the son Jehohanan (Ezra 10: 6), the grandson Jonathan (Neh. 12: 11), the grandson Johanan (Neh.
12: 22), and the son Johanan (Neh. 12: 23) are all the same person, which could be the case if Jonathan were an error
for Johanan, itself a shortened form of Jehohanan, and ‘son’ in Ezra 10: 6 and
374
See Clines, 54, 131, on Ezra 2: 36 and 10: 18.
375
The genealogy will be discussed below in more detail.
Neh. 12: 23 were a kind of generic usage signifying ‘descendant’ and therefore interpretable as grandson. Based on the
Elephantine papyrus mentioned earlier, where Johanan is high priest in 408 BCE, and assuming that this is a valid
criterion for determining Nehemiah's date on the grounds that Johanan was Eliashib's grandson as stated in the
genealogy of Neh. 12: 22, the ‘Jonathan’ in the genealogy of Neh. 12: 11 is probably a scribal error for Johanan.
However, it is doubtful whether this individual is the same as the ‘Johanan son of Eliashib’ in Neh. 12: 23, or for that
matter, the same as the ‘Jehohanan son of Eliashib’ in Ezra 10: 6. The context of Neh. 12: 23 gives no indication that
the designation ‘son’ should be interpreted as ‘grandson’ or ‘descendant’;376 Eliashib does not appear as a well-known
head of family from past generations, which would justify such an interpretation, and in Neh. 12: 26 Joiakim is
identified by his father's name as ‘son of Jeshua, son of Jozadak’. If Johanan could be identified by his grandfather, so
could Joiakim, but this is not the case. Hence, the conclusion is that the Eliashib mentioned in Ezra 10: 6 is not the
same as the one in the high-priestly genealogy of Neh. 12: 10–11, and therefore not the high priest.377 Alternatively
Jehohanan could have been another son of Eliashib, a brother of the Joiada who was apparently Eliashib's successor
(Neh. 12: 10–11), of high-priestly lineage but not in fact high priest, which would account for his omission from the
genealogy in Nehemiah; but even if that were the case there is still no mention of a functioning high priest alongside
Ezra.378
The only other possible reference to the high priesthood in these four chapters occurs in 7: 5 as part of Ezra's
genealogy. Again, some commentators have argued that the genealogy is a later addition to the original narrative since
it breaks the flow of the
376
So Williamson, ‘The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities XI.297–301’, JTS n.s. 28 (1977), 49–66 (p. 62). For a discussion of the use of the Hebrew word for
‘son’ in the sense of ‘grandson’, see Porter, ‘Son or Grandson (Ezra x. 6)?’
377
Cross, ‘Reconstruction’, suggests that the Eliashib in Ezra 10: 6 and Neh. 12: 23 is different from the Eliashib in Neh. 12: 10 and 12: 22, so that there were two father-and-
son pairs of Eliashib and Johanan, but the papponymy caused one pair to be omitted from the list in Neh. 12: 10–11 (pp. 10–11). On this reckoning, both Jehohanan in Ezra
10: 6 and Johanan in Neh. 12: 22 could be high priests. However, Cross's ideas are highly speculative. See also n. 57 below.
378
This would also be incompatible with the assumption that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem before Nehemiah, since it involves Ezra consorting with a son of the high priest who
was Nehemiah's contemporary.
story, but opinion is not unanimous on this point.379 Ezra is said to be descended from what must, for want of a better
term, be called the pre-exilic high-priestly line; his ancestors include Seraiah, Hilkiah, and Zadok, and the line goes
back to Aaron (hakkōhēn hārôʼš).380 Given Aaron's admittedly anachronistic presentation in the Priestly
writings in terms of a post-exilic high-priestly figure, and the fact that the designation (rôʼš, ‘head’) is used
elsewhere of the high or chief priest,381 it appears at first sight as if Ezra 7: 5 is a reference to the office of high
priesthood. However, when (rôʼš) is used together with (kōhēn) to refer to the high priesthood it tends to be in
the construct phrase (kōhēn hārôʼš) rather than with the absolute (hakkōhēn) as appears in Ezra 7: 5;382 it
is therefore possible that (hakkōhēn hārôʼš) in Ezra 7: 5 has a different though related significance. The
Hebrew (rôʼš) has all the connotations of English ‘head’—first in line, most important, chief, choicest, top, front,
leading, beginning, source,383 and bearing in mind Aaron's portrayal as the fount of priesthood, whose sons alone are
granted the divine right to serve as priests (Exod. 28: 1; 40: 12–15; Num. 18: 1, 7),384 the emphasis here may well be on
Aaron as a legitimating and an originating figure, and therefore as an authoritative figure, for the priesthood, rather
than as a high-priestly figure.385 This certainly seems to be the line taken by the LXX, where Esdras B 7: 5 renders the
phrase as του̑ ἱɛρέως του̑ πρώτου (tou hiereōs tou prōtou, ‘the first priest’), and even the interpretative Esdras A has the
rendering του̑ πρώτου ἱɛρέως (tou prōtou hiereōs, ‘the first priest’, 8: 2), which considering its
379
Those who consider the genealogy a later addition include Batten, 306; R. A. Bowman, ‘Ezra’, 623; Clines, 99; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 136; and Williamson, Ezra-
Nehemiah (WBC), 89. Ryle, 87, Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 60, and Clines, 99, suggest that Ezra could have been from a collateral branch of Seraiah's family rather than the one
from which Joshua the high priest was descended.
380
This is a good example of the incorporation of the outsider Zadok into the native Aaronide line of priests. See the discussion on Aaronides and Zadokites in Ch. 2 above
on the Deuteronomistic History and Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
381
The designation is used of the high priest in 2 Kgs. 25: 18; 2 Chr. 19: 11; 24: 6, 11; 26: 20; 31: 10.
382
The only exception to this is in 2 Chr. 31: 10, where Azariah, who is evidently a chief priest, is referred to as (hakkōhēn hārôʼš ). See the discussion of Azariah in
Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
383
See the entry for in BDB, 910.
384
For more details, see Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
385
So also Bartlett, ‘The Use of the Word as a Title in the Old Testament’, VT 19 (1969), 1–10 (p. 7).
penchant for seeing implicit references to high priests in the Hebrew and using ἀρχιɛρɛύς (archiereus, ‘high priest’)
wherever possible is quite telling.386
It seems, therefore, that the Ezra memoir not only lacks a serving high priest alongside Ezra, but it also fails even to
mention the high priesthood, a remarkable state of affairs considering Ezra's concern for the Temple and the Law and
the fact that the circumstances in which the high priest usually appears are those involving the Temple and religious
matters. The high priest's absence cannot be due to there being no high priesthood as yet in Ezra's day, given that it
existed for Haggai and Zechariah in the closing years of the sixth century and for Nehemiah in the mid-fifth century,
as will be shown below, while the earliest date posited for Ezra's mission is mid-fifth century with some scholars
assigning him to the fourth century. Indeed, Ezra's genealogy (Ezra 7: 1–5) is a genealogy of high priests which
depends for its effectiveness upon being recognized as just that; although Aaron is termed ‘the original priest’, possibly
to avoid what would have been a false claim to the high priesthood for Ezra as his supposed descendant, Ezra is none
the less given all the implied dignity of a direct descendant from the high-priestly line. Such a genealogy would be
pointless if there were no recognized high priesthood. Hence, some other rationale must be found for the absence of
the high priest from an episode which consists of precisely the kind of circumstances in which, based on the results of
this investigation so far, he would normally be expected to appear.
There are two basic principles which suggest themselves to account for the lack of the high priesthood in Ezra 7–10:
either the omission is deliberate, the result of selective recording or manipulation of material, or it is simply a reflection
of the actual state of affairs whereby the high priesthood merits no mention because of its insignificance in the context.
There is also the possibility that both of these factors may be at work in some degree. It is therefore necessary to
examine each of them in turn, beginning with the nature of the material so as to enable a properly informed
interpretation
386
As well as using the term ἀρχιɛρɛύς (archiereus ) for the priest with Urim and Thummim in MT Ezra 2: 63 (see n. 22 above), Esdras A refers to Ezra as ἀρχιɛρɛύς (archiereus
) three times (9: 39, 40, 49) in the Law-reading narrative, which the present canonical text designates as Nehemiah 8 but which (as already noted) probably belongs to the
Ezra material.
where judgements of a more factual nature which rely on it are concerned.

Perhaps the most obvious characteristic of Ezra 7–10 is its emphasis on the proper constitution of the community and
on separation from the surrounding peoples; however, it is equally obvious from the number of mixed marriages that
not everyone shared this viewpoint.387 Once the initial excitement of return to the ancestral territory had faded, and the
hard realities of reestablishing a community on the desolate land had begun to make themselves felt, it is not surprising
that some of the returnees decided to turn to their foreign neighbours for help and support, especially if there was a
shortage of eligible marriage partners in their own community. However, for those whose zeal for the ancestral faith
exile had increased, of whom Ezra is portrayed as the supreme example, sacrificing racial and religious purity now that
the land was once again in Israel's grasp was unthinkable—especially as syncretism and assimilationism were seen as
the very things which had brought about the people's downfall and resulted in the Exile (Ezra 9: 13). Behind this
profound xenophobia was doubtless the sociological truth that too much intermingling with the (ʽam
hāʼāreṣ—‘people of the land’) during the vital early years of re-establishment when numerical strength was so small
could well cause the loss of Israel's distinctive identity.388 However, it seems that even members of the high-priestly
family had intermarried with the surrounding peoples (Ezra ?9: 2, 10: 18; Neh. 13: 28), so that not even the high priest
could be relied upon to maintain the nation's ethnic purity. Hence, another impetus for reform was required, and this is
the capacity in which Ezra is portrayed as having acted. If the material did arise in anti-assimilationist circles, which
judging from its tone is quite possible, the omission of any references to the contemporary high priesthood may thus
have been a deliberate rejection of it as incapable of preserving Israel's national and religious purity, or a reflection
387
For extensive treatment of this theme, see Morton Smith, ‘Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period’, in W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (eds.), Cambridge History of
Judaism, 1: Introduction; The Persian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 219–78 (pp. 244–50), and his book Palestinian Parties and Politics.
388
See Daniel L. Smith, ‘The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society’, in Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, 1: The Persian Period, JSOTS
117 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 73–97. Smith discusses among other things the creation of boundaries between communities as a method of survival and re-
establishment (pp. 83–6).
of its antagonism towards what seem to have been fairly stringent measures taken in the name of maintaining the Law
and thereby the people's identity.
Under these circumstances, the reason for Ezra's Aaronic genealogy becomes clear. Ezra himself is shown by
implication to be the true high priest, descendant of Aaron and Zadok,389 as he reconstitutes the post-exilic community
in a way which recalls the earliest days of the nation's existence. Deutero-Isaiah had used ‘second exodus’ imagery in
proclaiming the coming restoration;390 now that Israel has once again been brought out of the grip of her enemies into
the promised land, her re-establishment should follow the pattern laid down for her in the beginning. Hence, there is a
return to the Law which tradition had attributed to Moses on the edge of the Promised Land, together with a new
lawgiver in the shape of Ezra. And yet, despite Ezra's Aaronic genealogy, it seems that his persona as a second Moses
is more significant than his status as a descendant of Aaron. His confession, with its reference to the prohibition given
by the prophets against mixing with the indigenous peoples (9: 11–12), recalls the strictures supposedly given by Moses
in Deut. 7: 1–5 and 20: 16–18; his prostration before the Lord on the people's behalf (9: 5; 10: 1), his presentation of
the Law to the people (Nehemiah 8), his calls for drastic action to rectify the sinful situation (Ezra 10: 11), all recall the
actions of Moses (Exod. 32: 11–14; Deut. 5: 1–26: 19; Exod. 32: 25–8). Although he is of the line of Aaron, and is
therefore a Levitical priest, whose functions are to guard and to teach the Law (Deut. 17: 18; 33: 10) and to make
offerings on behalf of the people (Deut. 33: 10), it is by virtue of his appearance in the prophetic, Mosaic capacity that
he is shown as sole leader of and intercessor for the community which appears to have no other effective regulatory
structures. This implies that whatever the stance of the contemporary high priest over the issue of racial purity, the
figure of the high priest was not well enough defined as an overall authority figure to be a convincing model for Ezra
as an implementer of reform.391 Hence, even if the contemporary high priest was omitted
389
See Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, 190–3.
390
See for example Isa. 43: 16–21; 49: 8–11; 51: 9–11.
391
This can also be taken as a further example of the acknowledged affinities between Ezra and P, since it fits very well with the Priestly picture of Aaron the high priest as
secondary to Moses in terms of government of the community. For further details, see Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer.
from the Ezra memoir primarily on the grounds of his ideology, it cannot therefore be assumed that a high priest with
a more acceptable ideology would have appeared in a strong governmental capacity; indeed, the implication from the
observations just made is that he would not.
However, these conclusions are based largely on inference from the observed ideology of the material; hence, it is
necessary to see whether any more factual information can be gleaned from the available material. Despite the definite
and deliberate theological overtones in the portrayal of Ezra and his mission, it seems fairly certain that Ezra did come
to establish the Law in Judah at the behest of the imperial authorities, as Blenkinsopp argues,392 although the motivation
behind his mission was probably more to do with Persian fears about political stability than with a desire to reconfigure
the community of Israel for its own sake. Indeed, Hoglund argues that both Ezra and Nehemiah were sent to Judah
following the mid-fifth-century Egyptian revolt against Achaemenid domination, a revolt which had caused a good
deal of tension in the eastern Mediterranean and had been a severe challenge to the Persian Empire. Under these
circumstances, the task of both men was ‘to create a web of economic and social relationships that would tie the
community more completely into the imperial system. Part of this process involved the clarification of the population
under imperial control by legislating some means of defining that community.’393 However, Ezra's exact official status in
the province is undefined in Ezra 7–10. As already noted, no reference is made in these chapters to any other
provincial authority figures, but given the nature of the material it would be unwise to take this as an indication of
Ezra's effective autonomy
392
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 147. See also Blenkinsopp's article, ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JBL 106 (1987), 409–21, where the
mission of the Egyptian scribe Udjahorresnet who was sent from Susa to Egypt by Darius I to codify the native legal system is compared with the tasks of Ezra and
Nehemiah.
393
Kenneth G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBL Dissertation Series 125 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press,
1992), 244. This theme of strengthening the imperial links with Judah in the aftermath of rebellion in Egypt could also be applicable if Ezra's mission were dated to 398
BCE , since in 405 BCE the Amyrtaeus rebellion had initiated what became a sixty-year respite from Persian domination in Egypt. However, Grabbe, ‘What Was Ezra's
Mission?’, in Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies, 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period, JSOTS 175 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994),
286–99, argues that Ezra's mission, in particular the dissolution of mixed marriages, was potentially highly disruptive and could well have created unrest rather than greater
security (p. 296).
in Judah.394 It is unclear from the letter of commission in Ezra 7: 12–26 whether Ezra was sent as a provincial
governor, or simply as a special envoy with particular responsibilities to work alongside an already incumbent
authority; and if he was a special envoy, it is unclear who the incumbent authority figure would have been. If Ezra was
sent as a provincial governor, then presumably his authority would override that of any native leader already in place,
including the high priest; in that case, the implication would be that Persia perceived a power vacuum in the province
which the high priest was not qualified to fill, pointing to the conclusion that the high priesthood was not a major
organ of government in fifth-century Judah. If, on the other hand, Ezra was sent as a special envoy to work alongside
whoever else was in power in the province, it is necessary to establish who that figure would have been, whether high
priest or governor or someone else, in order to have an idea about the power structures of the province and the extent
to which the high priest was involved in them.
Although there is nothing direct on these matters in Ezra 7–10, Blenkinsopp's analysis of the mission of the Egyptian
scribe Udjahorresnet under Darius I as compared with those of Ezra and Nehemiah may be of assistance. In his
discussion of Udjahorresnet's activities, Blenkinsopp refers to an excerpt from the Demotic Chronicle which describes
how in the early years of his reign Darius I ordered the Egyptian satrap Pharnadates to appoint a commission for the
codification of civil and religious law in Egypt; Blenkinsopp remarks that Udjahorresnet's arrival in Egypt from Susa to
re-establish the religious ‘Houses of Life’ seems to have taken place at about the same time, thereby giving the
impression that it too was part of the same provincial reorganization.395 If that was indeed the case, it seems fair to
conclude that Udjahorresnet with his particular commission would have been working in conjunction with the satrap,
not overriding him or filling a power vacuum where there was no overall provincial authority in place. When this is
applied to Ezra's mission, on the grounds that there are sufficient correspondences between the two to make a valid
comparison, it therefore seems likely that Ezra too
394
Grabbe, ‘What Was Ezra's Mission?’, 293, 297–8, emphasizes the uncertainty over almost all the circumstances of Ezra's presence in Judah, including his own status and his
relationship to the pre-existing authority structures.
395
Blenkinsopp, ‘Udjahorresnet’, 412–13.
would have been working alongside an already existing provincial authority figure rather than taking complete
responsibility for the provincial administration, something which in any case is not provided for in his commission.
The immediate difficulty with such an assumption is in identifying the authority figure, since in Ezra 7–10 there is no
mention of either governor or high priest, or anyone else who could conceivably have functioned as a figure of overall
responsibility. However, the description of Ezra's Law-reading in Nehemiah 8 claims that included among those who
were present at the gathering was ‘Nehemiah who was the governor’ (Neh. 8: 9). Although the name Nehemiah is
probably a secondary insertion, Blenkinsopp opines that ‘the governor may well have been present’,396 and a closer
examination of the text supports this view. The Hebrew of Neh. 8: 9 reads,
(‘and Nehemiah who was the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe said’), but neither of the Greek versions
corresponds to this. Esdras A 9: 49 reads, καὶ ɛἰ】πɛν Ατταρατης Έσδρα τῳ̑ ἀρχιɛρɛι̑ καὶ ἀναγνώστῃ (‘and Attarates
said to Esdras the high priest and scribe’), whereas Esdras B 18: 9 reads, καὶ ɛἰ】πɛν Νɛɛμιας καὶ Έσδρας ὁ ἱɛρɛὺς καὶ
γραμματɛύς (‘and Nehemiah and Esdras the priest and scribe said’). BHS marks the whole phrase ‘Nehemiah who was
the governor and’ as an addition, but it seems more likely that ‘the governor’ was original and only the reference to
Nehemiah is secondary. The fact that both Greek versions retain something else apart from Ezra at this point indicates
that the original had more than just Ezra there, and it is more understandable that an anonymous governor would need
to be identified as Nehemiah than that Nehemiah would need to be identified as the governor. In addition, the evident
misunderstanding in Esdras A of the term (hattiršātāʼ, ‘the governor’) as a proper name Aτταρατης (‘Attarates’)
is inexplicable if the term was not present in the Hebrew, but equally would be inconceivable if the name Nehemiah
were there as clarification. For a text to retain and distort the more difficult term whilst ignoring the more familiar one
is completely contrary to the laws of textual criticism, and strongly suggests that ‘the governor’ was present
anonymously in the Hebrew text on which Esdras A is based.397
396
Ibid. 420.
397
It is perhaps also worth noting that Esdras A does not deal with Nehemiah at all, whereas Esdras B is the exact equivalent of Ezra–Nehemiah in the Hebrew Bible and so
has the Law-reading in the context of the Nehemiah material rather than the Ezra material. Under those circumstances it is only to be expected that Esdras A will lack
‘Nehemiah’ in the verse in question, whilst Esdras B includes him and instead deems the defining term ‘governor’ redundant.
Given the probability that Nehemiah 8 was originally part of the Ezra material and as such would presumably fit
somewhere in the narrative of Ezra 7–10 which describes Ezra's mission,398 and allowing that there was a provincial
governor in office at the time (although not Nehemiah) who was indeed present at the Law-reading alongside Ezra, the
logical conclusion is that he and not the high priest would have been the overall authority with whom Ezra worked, in
the same way that Udjahorresnet worked in conjunction with the Egyptian satrap. Hence, the omission of the high
priesthood from Ezra 7–10 would be due at least in part to its lack of significant provincial authority, and as such is
entirely consistent with the pattern observed thus far throughout the literature of the post-exilic period.
On three occasions in Ezra there are mentioned ‘chiefs of the priests’, (śārê hakkōhanîm), namely in 8: 24, 8:
29, and 10: 5. These are unlikely to be high priests in the sense of an individual who has overall power of some kind in
the community, but are rather the heads of priestly families. The very fact that Ezra is said to have chosen twelve
(miśśārê hakkōhanîm, ‘from the chiefs of the priests’, 8: 24), with the implication that there were more than
twelve to choose from, is indicative that something other than high priesthood is being referred to here. In 8: 29
(śārê hakkōhanîm) is paralleled by (śārê hāʼābôt, ‘chiefs of the fathers’), which again would point away
from the designation being a high-priestly one. The term (śar) can denote a chief, ruler, or official in the civil,
military, or cultic sphere. 399
Returning then briefly to the Eliashib of 10: 6, the ideology of the Ezra material which leads it to omit rather than to
include references to high priests alongside Ezra makes it doubly unlikely that Eliashib is the high priest of that name;
no connection need therefore be made with the high-priestly genealogy in Nehemiah 12, which means there is no
reason to date Ezra after Nehemiah on account of Ezra's liaising with a descendant of Nehemiah's high
398
See n. 2 above.
399
see the entry for in BDB, 978.
priest. Hence, the reference is no obstacle to assuming that Ezra came to Jerusalem in 458 BCE.
The book of Ezra, then, in so far as it is possible to tell, supports the understanding developed so far of the high
priesthood as an office with religious but not with political significance, and gives no evidence of the high priest acting
as a governor of any sort. The question now is whether or not the Nehemiah narrative also supports such a view, given
that the two works are chronologically close enough to each other to be described as contemporary. The reference in
Neh. 7: 65 to ‘the priest with Urim and Thummim’, repeated in Ezra 2: 63, has already been mentioned, and as is the
case for the Ezra reference, it should not be regarded here as meaning the high priest. Similarly, at the beginning of the
list of returnees there is also the reference to Jeshua (Neh. 7: 7), who presumably is the high priest contemporary with
Zerubbabel. Apart from this, though, the references to high priests are quite distinct from those in Ezra. Three times
the phrase (hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘the high priest’) is used, twice of Eliashib (3: 1, 20) and once in an
ambiguous way which may refer either to Eliashib or to his son (13: 28). On two occasions phrases are used which
may or may not describe high-priestly individuals: at 11: 11 part of a genealogy is given which is apparently part of the
same high-priestly lineage as attributed to Ezra (Ezra 7: 1–5), and which finishes with Ahitub who is described as
(negid bêt hāʼelōhîm, ‘ruler of the house of God’);400 and at 13: 4 a certain Eliashib is called
(hakkōhēn nātûn beliškat bêt ʼelōhênû, ‘the priest appointed over the rooms of the house of our
God’). There is fairly unanimous acceptance of the reference in Neh. 11: 11 as a designation of the high-priestly
figure,401 but the reference in 13: 4 is more controversial. It has been argued that the kind of administrative function it
implies is too mundane to be a description of high-priestly duties.402 However, the term (nāgîd) has overtones of
officialdom and overseeing, overtones which would be particularly appropriate to its use in Neh. 11: 11, and it is
400
The same title appears in the high-priestly genealogies of 1 Chronicles. For further discussion, see Ch. 8 below on the books of Chronicles.
401
So Batten, 269; R. A. Bowman, ‘Nehemiah’, 775; Clines, 215; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah (WBC), 351; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 325.
402
So R. A. Bowman, ‘Nehemiah’, 805; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 214; Michaeli, Chroniques, 360; Brockington, 208; Clines, 239; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah (WBC), 386;
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 353–4.
not unreasonable to suppose that being overseer or ruler of the house of God implies some sort of administrative
responsibility, of which the description in 13: 4 would perhaps be an example. If this is the case, there should be no
objection to the high priest being the one who has (ultimate) control of building use in the Temple, and therefore no
objection to the designation of Eliashib in Neh. 13: 4 being that of the high priest—at least, not on these grounds.403
A different view would seem to be favoured by Clines's statement that at the Elephantine Temple nāgōdāʼ, presumably
cognate with the Hebrew (nāgîd), refers to the chief administrator rather than the high priest;404 on closer
examination, however, this is rather misleading. The term nāgōdāʼ in conjunction with the term lehen, a description of
some kind of Temple administrative official, does seem to mean ‘chief administrator’, but where nāgōdāʼ appears on its
own there is nothing to make it anything more than a general term of leadership, as in the Hebrew (nāgîd).405
Although the papyrus cited earlier refers to the high priest in Jerusalem as (kāh nā rabbāʼ, ‘the great priest’),406
a
there is no identifiable reference to the high priest in Elephantine itself, if indeed there was a high priest; in fact, the
information on the Elephantine priesthood as a whole is minimal, and although there evidently were priests, next to
nothing is known about how they were organized.407 The evidence from the papyri cannot therefore be used to clarify
whether (nāgîd) in the Nehemiah context could also include the sense of ‘administrator’, although, as has already
been suggested on other grounds, there seems to be no reason why it should not.
One distinctive usage which appears in Nehemiah 12 is the practice of dating records according to the high priest in
power when the record was made (12: 7, 12, 22, 26).408 At first sight this
403
Comparison may be drawn here with the pre-exilic chief priests Jehoiada (2 Kgs. 12: 5–17 (ET 12: 4–16)), Uriah (2 Kgs. 16: 10–16), and Hilkiah (2 Kgs. 22: 3–7), who are all
shown as being responsible for issues of Temple fabric. For further details, see Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History.
404
Clines, 216.
405
See Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), 200–1, and AP 63: 9 (p. 167) and 2: 3 (p. 4 with note on p.
5). Both Porten and Clines assume that the reading nāgōdāʼ is to be preferred to Cowley's ngr in both instances.
406
AP 30: 18 (p. 112); see n. 15 above.
407
Porten, 201–2. See Ch. 7 below on the Elephantine papyri for discussion of the Elephantine situation as a whole.
408
In line with the discussion earlier in this chapter, the reference to ‘Johanan the son of Eliashib’ in 12: 23 is not regarded as referring to a high priest.
looks like an indication of the high priest's authority, since anyone important enough to serve as a date marker must
have been making some impact on the community. But the lists so dated are lists of Temple personnel only, not of the
community as a whole, and surely the obvious way to date them is by the one in charge of the people listed. The
chapter also includes a list of six generations of high priests from Jeshua onwards (12: 10–11); although they are only
identified by name rather than by any kind of title, the fact that they are the very names used as chronological markers
for the ‘census’ lists in the chapter plus the identification of Jeshua and Eliashib as high priests elsewhere (Hag. 1: 1, 12,
14; 2: 2, 4; Neh. 3: 1) leaves little room for doubt. The material in chapter 12 is almost certainly later than the narrative
material elsewhere, not least because it names three generations of high priests after Eliashib, who was high priest in
Nehemiah's time. Whether or not the genealogy of 12: 10–11 is complete, three generations is the minimum amount
of time that must have elapsed to allow the list in its present form to be composed, since challenges to its accuracy
have been on the basis that names have been omitted, not that they have been added.409
There is one reference in 12: 7 to heads of priestly houses who are described as (rāʼšê hakkōhanîm, ‘heads of
the priests’), but as with the title (śārê hakkōhanîm) (see above) this is unlikely to be a designation of high
priesthood. The very fact that there are twenty-two people named as (rāʼšê hakkōhanîm) seems to be
sufficient indication that they cannot all be the high priest. In addition, they are listed as (rāʼšê hakkōhanîm)
in the days of Jeshua, who, as has already been remarked, appears
409
As noted above (n. 26), Cross, ‘Reconstruction’, argues for the accidental omission of names from the list due to haplography resulting from the practice of papponymy in
the high-priestly family (pp. 9–11). More recently, however, VanderKam, ‘Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?’, in Gary Anderson and Saul M.
Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, JSOTS 125 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 67–91, has argued that the present list covers the entire Persian period and that
no names have in fact been omitted. Certainly six names for some two hundred years would be a minimum, and it is most unlikely that the original list has been increased to
six names from fewer, given the length of time it covers. The whole discussion arose out of attempts to justify so few names for such a relatively long period of time, since
according to Josephus (Ant. xi. 325–39) Jaddua, the last high priest named in Neh. 12: 11, encountered Alexander the Great when Alexander visited Jerusalem after
conquering Palestine in 332 BCE . See Ch. 9 below for comments both on Josephus' presentation, and on some scholarly reconstructions of late Persian period Judaean
history which accept Cross's ideas of haplography and papponymy.
elsewhere as high priest himself. It would be very strange if there were twenty-two more high priests alongside the one
who was supposedly in office at that time.410
On the basis of these data, then, it should be possible to ascertain the attitude of the author-compiler of the Nehemiah
material to high priests. Looking at the distribution of the references, they tend to come in the parts which are separate
sources—in chapter 3, the list of wall-builders, which is thought by some to be a separate source, whether or not it was
Nehemiah himself who included it in his memoir;411 in chapter 12, the lists of priestly personnel and the high-priestly
genealogy; in chapter 7, the list of returnees, with its reference to Jeshua. As in the Ezra material, what is striking is
where high priests are not mentioned—in Nehemiah, no high priest is mentioned either by name or by office at the
dedication of Jerusalem's rebuilt walls (12: 27–43), nor as a signatory for the covenant to keep the Law after the public
reading and confession (10: 2–28 (ET 10: 1–27)).412 Blenkinsopp observes that the names of the priestly signatories are
patronyms rather than individual names, intended to give the impression of wholehearted support from all the priestly
families;413 but it is still surprising that the high priest is not mentioned at all, given that there would presumably have
been a high priest in office whose support would certainly have been desirable. The only unequivocal reference to a
high priest in the Nehemiah memoir itself comes in 13: 28, where a member of the high-priestly family has married
Sanballat's daughter. It is unclear whether Eliashib or his son Jehoiada is here
410
Bartlett, ‘ as a Title’, 8, cites Neh. 12: 7 as an example of the Chronicler's use of the title ‘head’ for the leaders of small groups which exist for a particular function.
Even though in the present study Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as separate works from the Chronicler, Bartlett's observation still concurs with the present argument that
the designation in Neh. 12: 7 is highly unlikely to refer to any kind of high priesthood.
411
So Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 112; Michaeli, Chroniques, 319; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah (WBC), 200; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 231–2.
412
Eskenazi argues that the failure in Ezra–Nehemiah to emphasize the community's leaders in the lists of otherwise unknown individuals is intended to affirm the importance
of the people as a whole in re-creating the nation's life (pp. 654–5). However, de-emphasizing the leaders is different from omitting them, and unlike the high priest,
Nehemiah appears both at the dedication of the walls (12: 31) and at the covenant-making (10: 2 (ET 10: 1)). Similarly, Ezra appears in 12: 36 at the wall dedication and
possibly as Azariah in 10: 3 (ET 10: 2) at the covenant-making. The desire to celebrate the people as a whole cannot therefore provide a rationale for omitting specific
mention of the high priest from these accounts.
413
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 313.
called high priest,414 but however ambiguous the reference it serves to underline the disgrace of the liaison.
As with the Ezra material, then, high priests figure very little, and once again the same pattern can be observed as has
been noted previously. All the references to high priests in both Ezra and Nehemiah come in connection with religious
matters—Jeshua accompanies Zerubbabel on his mission to rebuild the Temple, helps him found the altar, joins him
in repulsing the foreigners who want to build with them, and once the project is complete he fades into the
background except as a patronym for his Levitical descendants. Others too reach their zenith of notoriety as date
markers for Levitical census lists, but seem to have very little influence, if any, in other areas. Nehemiah came as a civil
authority, as governor of the province; Zerubbabel had disappeared some time ago, and although there is no certain
information about other governors in the interim,415 Nehemiah does imply that others preceded him who had
burdened the people (Neh. 5: 15).416 Yet there is no mention of the high priest as a force to be reckoned with in those
circumstances. As high priest, Eliashib was apparently
414
The LXX interprets the designation ‘high priest’ as referring to Eliashib (Esdras B 23: 28).
415
Although there is no certain information about individual governors, it seems beyond dispute that there were others who preceded Nehemiah; indeed, from the evidence of
jar stamps, bullae, seals, and coins it has been possible to reconstruct a list of names of governors for the periods both prior and subsequent to Nehemiah. Laperrousaz, ‘Le
Régime théocratique’, gives a useful summary of the evidence, concluding in a similar way to the present arguments that for the period of Persian rule the presence of a
succession of governors militates against the idea of Judah as a theocracy ruled by the high priest. Williamson, ‘The Governors of Judah under the Persians’, Tyndale Bulletin,
39 (1988), 59–82, deals more fully with the archaeological evidence and its interpretation which has led to the identification of Elnathan and the confirmation of
Sheshbazzar and Zerubabbel as governors of Judah prior to Nehemiah, although Blenkinsopp, ‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’, in Second Temple Studies, 1, 22–53
(p. 36 n. 3), warns that the dating of the evidence remains uncertain and so the reconstructed list of governors should be treated with caution. More recently, however, Seth
Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.’, JJS 45 (1994), 157–68, argues that Judah's independent status at least to the end of the
Achaemenid period is confirmed by the finds of bullae, coins, seals, and jar stamps; that some of the governors were also high priests; and that the province's status could be
explained in terms of the Achaemenid practice of ‘utilizing pre-existing political, administrative and legal structures and ratifying (or even initiating the codification of) native
legal systems’ (p. 161). For a discussion of the later Persian period, and in particular of the coins upon which Schwartz bases his comment that some of the governors were
also high priests, see Ch. 9 below.
416
If Nehemiah 8 is taken as part of the Ezra material and therefore seen to describe events which pre-date Nehemiah's arrival, the reference to ‘the governor’ in Neh. 8: 9
lends support to the idea that there were governors who preceded Nehemiah.
ready enough to join in with the rebuilding of the walls (Neh. 3: 1), but powerless to initiate it; surely if he had had
influence in this and the other areas which Nehemiah tackled he would have exercised it. The fact that he apparently
exercised no such influence, so that it was left to Nehemiah to sort out the very practical considerations of the
province's day-to-day running, implies that any jurisdiction the high priest exercised was limited to matters concerning
the Temple and cult—a picture of the high priest which would be consistent with him being ‘the one in charge of the
rooms of the house of God’ (Neh. 13: 4).
The evidence from both Ezra and Nehemiah, then, suggests that by the mid- to late fifth century the high priesthood
was still largely as it had been in Restoration times, with its authority limited to matters affecting the Temple and the
cult. This would account for its only being mentioned in the context of these areas, and for the necessity of sending
personnel from the Persian court to deal with Judaean affairs, since the high priest was not a figure of governmental
authority in the local community. In the course of the discussion the contemporary Elephantine papyri were
mentioned, which appeared to contain some material of relevance for the high priesthood; the next step is therefore to
undertake a proper analysis of the papyri to see if these genuine fifth-century documents support the consistent picture
of the high priesthood in the Persian period which has so far emerged from the sources examined.
7 The Elephantine Papyri
The Elephantine papyri are significant for this investigation of the high priesthood in two ways. First, they provide
evidence for another Jewish temple apart from the one in Jerusalem, a scenario which raises a number of questions:
whether or not there was a high priest in Elephantine, the status of any such high priest both in his own community
and in relation to the Judaean community, and whether comparison with the Elephantine community and its structures
could be used to elucidate the workings of the Jerusalem high priesthood. Secondly, and more importantly, two of the
papyri mention correspondence addressed to the Jerusalem high priest Johanan (cf. Neh. 12: 22, 23) in the context of
an attempt to secure rebuilding of the Elephantine temple, which had apparently been destroyed by the Egyptians.
This raises the question of what kind of jurisdiction (if any) the Jerusalem high priest had both within the province of
Judah itself and over expatriate Jewish communities such as the one at Elephantine. The papyri are important source
documents inasmuch as they are contemporary with the period to which they pertain, and consist largely of official
correspondence which is less likely to be subject to theological bias or idealization than the biblical material examined
so far. Hence, any insights which can be gained from them will form a vital comparison with, and perhaps a necessary
corrective to, the picture of the high priesthood which has been built up so far.
The first questions to be dealt with, then, are those which arise from the presence of a Jewish temple in Elephantine:
whether or not the community had a high priest, and if it did, the high priest's status both in Elephantine itself and in
relation to the Jerusalem Temple. The papyri make no direct reference to a high priest at Elephantine, but they do
mention an individual named Jedaniah (Yedoniah) who was obviously a figure of some standing and who appears
several times as a representative of the whole community. Three papyri concerning community matters are addressed
to
him: the Passover papyrus,417 a letter of complaint about the Egyptians,418 and a letter of recommendation for two
people coming to Elephantine.419 In addition he is one of the institutors of a petition sent to Bagohi (Bigvai), the
Persian governor of Judah, about rebuilding the Elephantine temple;420 he is the designated recipient for contributions
made to temple funds by more than a hundred individuals;421 and he is reported as having been seized and imprisoned
along with four other colleagues, two of whom also appear with him as institutors of correspondence about the temple
rebuilding and were presumably fairly influential in their own right.422 It seems clear from all this that Jedaniah was the
head of the community, but what is not so clear is whether or not he was a high priest. Scholarly opinion on the matter
is divided; Cowley assumes that Jedaniah was ‘the chief priest . . . and head of the community’,423 whereas both Vincent
and Porten argue that Jedaniah was not the community's high priest.424 As already indicated, the papyri make no clear
reference to anyone as high priest of Elephantine, and although Jedaniah's acceptance of money given for temple funds
is reminiscent of the Judaean chief priests Jehoiada and Hilkiah who are both shown as being responsible for the
Jerusalem Temple maintenance funds in the pre-exilic period,425 such a comparison is hardly conclusive. Jedaniah
appears in the Elephantine papyri in a number of different capacities: with other named colleagues who are presumably
community leaders,426 as the only named leader along with the garrison as a whole,427 as a son of one Gemariah,428 as a
property-holder,429 and along with the garrison's priests.430 But there is no clear statement that he was a priest himself,
and the evidence upon which claims for his priesthood have been made is highly ambiguous. The claims are based on
the opening line of the temple petition, a document which has survived in both a very well-preserved draft and quite a
badly
417
AP 21: 1–2, 11 (pp. 62–3).
418
AP 37: 1, 17 (pp. 133–4).
419
AP 38: 1, 12 (pp. 135–6).
420
AP 30: 1, 4, 22 (pp. 111–14); AP 31: ?1, 3, ?21 (pp. 119–21); AP 33: 1 (p. 125).
421
AP 22: 120–1 (pp. 70, 72).
422
AP 34: 4–5 (p. 127); cf. AP 33: 1–6 (p. 125).
423
AP, 108, 110–11.
424
Albert Vincent, La Religion des Judéo-Araméens d'Éléphantine (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1937), 468–74; Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 48 n. 77.
425
For further discussion of Jehoiada and Hilkiah see Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History.
426
AP 37: 1, 17 (pp. 133–4).
427
AP 21: 1–2, 11 (pp. 62–3).
428
AP 22: 121 (pp. 70, 72); ? AP 33: 1 (p. 125); AP 34: 5 (p. 127).
429
AP 33: 1, 6 (p. 125).
430
AP 38: 1 (pp. 135, 136).
THE ELEPHANTINE PAPYRI 177
damaged one.431 The document opens with an address to the Judaean governor Bagohi from Jedaniah and the priests
of the garrison, and the question is whether or not this opening address should be taken to indicate that Jedaniah was
also one of the priests. Cowley seems to think so, and this is reflected in his rendition of the phrase
from the opening line of the more complete draft. In his translation he inserts a
comma between , ‘Yedoniah and his colleagues’, and , ‘the priests’, thereby putting the two elements in
apposition to each other and giving the translation ‘your servants Yedoniah and his colleagues, the priests who are in
Yeb the fortress’.432 If the comma is omitted, however, it is the colleagues alone who are priests, and this is the
interpretation offered by Porten and Yardeni in their edition of the papyri.433 The second draft of the document is not
very helpful in elucidating Jedaniah's status because its first line is badly damaged, so that the only characters remaining
are the initial letters ] followed by ] [ halfway along the line. In reconstructing the text Cowley follows the
first and more complete version word for word as far as where he ends the line, resulting in a reconstruction of
which he translates, ‘To [our ] l[ord Bigvai, governor of Judaea, your
servants Yedoniah and] his [colleagues the] pri[ests.]’434 This implies that Jedaniah was not a priest and so effectively
contradicts Cowley's own translation of the first draft. However, despite Porten's earlier denial that Jedaniah was a
priest,435 Porten and Yardeni restore the same line to read , offering the
translation, ‘To [our] l[ord Bagohi, your servant Jedania]h [the] pri[est and his colleagues the priests who are in Elephantine the
fortress and the Jews, all of them]’.436 Judging from their hand-drawn reproduction of the papyrus,437 this suggestion is
apparently based on a smaller amount of space being available between the surviving fragments of the line than Cowley
allows. However, the restoration is entirely
431
AP 30 (pp. 111–14), and AP 31 (pp. 119–21).
432
AP 30: 1 (pp. 111, 113).
433
A4.7 in B. Porten and A. Yardeni (eds.), Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, The Hebrew University Department of the History of the Jewish People Texts and
Studies for Students, 4 vols. (distributed by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Ind., 1986–), i: Letters (1986), 68–71 (pp. 68, 71).
434
AP, 119, 120.
435
See n. 17 above.
436
A4.8 in Textbook of Aramaic Documents, 72–5 (pp. 72, 75).
437
Ibid. 73.
speculative, and although Jedaniah might possibly have been a priest, this and Cowley's punctuation of the first draft
are the only two pieces of evidence to that effect in the surviving corpus of papyri. It therefore seems extremely unwise
to use either draft as the basis for concluding that Jedaniah was the community's high priest.
The fact that there is no certain reference to Jedaniah as a priest of any kind is rather surprising if he were indeed the
chief priest of Elephantine. It is hard to imagine why it would not be noted specifically if the community's chief priest
had been taken prisoner at the gate of Thebes, for example.438 Of course it could be argued that if he was well known
as the chief priest then there was no need to name him as such, but his description along with four others as simply a
Syenian property-holder in the fortress implies that he was influential by virtue of being a member of a well-
established, moneyed family rather than a high or chief priest.439 However, one of the most telling arguments against
him being a high priest is that in the letter to Bagohi Jedaniah does not introduce himself as a high priest despite the
fact that he is writing along with and on behalf of his colleagues the priests; and yet later on he tells Bagohi that they
wrote to 'Johanan the high priest ( , kāhanāʼ rabbāʼ—lit. ‘the great priest’) and his colleagues the priests' in
Jerusalem.440 If Jerusalem were in Bagohi's own province he would know who ‘Johanan and his colleagues the priests’
were without having it spelt out to him; but he would not necessarily be aware of who Jedaniah was. The fact that the
title (kāhanāʼ rabbāʼ), ‘high priest’, is included where it is apparently unnecessary and yet omitted where it
would have been appropriate if it was applicable does seem to point away from Jedaniah being a high priest or holding
any authority on the basis that he was the high priest of the Elephantine community. As already remarked, it is possible
that he may in fact have been of priestly descent, but even if he was, there is no evidence that this had any bearing on
his authority as leader of the community. In any case, it would surely be very unusual to have a military settlement
supervised by a priest who was supervising it by virtue of being a priest. Although the military aspect of the Jewish
presence may well have been played down or faded into the background in time, Elephantine was certainly not
established as a religious community in any sense, and
438
AP 34: 4–5 (p. 127).
439
AP 33: 6 (p. 125).
440
AP 30: 1, 18–19 (pp. 111–14).
although the settlers obviously had preferred religious allegiances —not all of which would have been acceptable to the
Jerusalem authorities—that does not make them a religiously based community or a hierocracy.
However, if Jedaniah was not a priest, neither does he seem to have had a definitive affiliation with any other particular
group. Rather, he can be identified with the priests for a priestly matter such as temple rebuilding,441 or with the
garrison as a whole as is the case in the Passover papyrus.442 This impression of Jedaniah's friendliness with all but
alignment with none once again implies an overall leadership role which is not closely associated with the priesthood.
The impression is strengthened by the fact that the temple collection over which he presides is not a collection entirely
for Yahu but is distributed among the various deities.443 It is hard to imagine that a chief priest of Yahu would have
responsibility for such a distribution; rather, a more disinterested figure would seem to be the appropriate one for the
duty.
The conclusion that Jedaniah was not a high priest is also supported by a consideration of the circumstances under
which the Elephantine temple might have been built. The reference to another temple outside the one in Jerusalem is
quite unexpected, given that by the time of the papyri (late fifth century BCE) the Deuteronomic precept of
centralization at Jerusalem had supposedly been in force for over two hundred years, and this inevitably raises the
question of how the Elephantine temple could have existed at such a late date. On the basis of the Letter of Aristeas,
Cowley suggests that the colony was formed from Jewish mercenaries who entered the service of the Egyptian king
Psammetichus II very early in the sixth century;444 if this is so, it would mean that the mercenaries left their homeland
before the Deuteronomic legislation had had a chance to become well established, and they may well not have felt
bound by its stipulations once they were on foreign soil. Hence, building their own temple would have been no more
than a continuation of the religious practices to which they had been accustomed; in Cowley's words, ‘They took with
them in
441
AP 30: 1 (pp. 111, 113).
442
AP 21: 1–2 (pp. 62, 63).
443
AP 22: 123–5 (pp. 70, 72).
444
AP, Introduction, xvi. However, A. H. Sayce, ‘The Jewish Garrison and Temple in Elephantinê’, The Expositor, 8th Series, 2 (1911), 97–116 (pp. 111–14), and ‘The Jews
and their Temple in Elephantinê’, ibid., 417–34 (pp. 420–1), argues that the colony was formed in the mid-seventh century under Psammetichus I.
all sincerity the old religion of pre-exilic Judah, and continued to practise it after the Exile (and Ezra) had made it
impossible in the mother-country.’445
Porten for his part suggests that there were three periods during which Jews might have come to Egypt and settled:
735–701 BCE, between the Syro-Ephraimite war and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem; the mid-seventh century when
Manasseh tried with Egyptian help to free himself from Assyrian rule; and the thirty years or so between Jehoiakim's
accession in 609 and the flight to Egypt following Gedaliah's assassination.446 Certainly the first two of these periods
would have pre-dated the Deuteronomic reform, so that those who settled in Egypt would have had no qualms about
building their own shrine; and the third was a time of political turmoil in the homeland during which any reforms
made during Josiah's attempt at centralization could very easily have collapsed, eclipsed by subsequent rulers'
continued sympathies for the older religion and the people's own desire to venerate as many gods as possible in an
attempt to ease the instability of the situation (cf. 2 Kgs. 23: 31–25: 26; Jer. 44: 15–18). Under those circumstances it is
not difficult to see how a temple could have been built in Elephantine without any sense of it being illegitimate, despite
the fact that Deuteronomic reforms had apparently been implemented prior to the settlers leaving the homeland. In
any case, the Elephantine temple would certainly have been constructed before the final edition and promulgation of
the Pentateuch in which the legitimacy of a single shrine is emphasized by both the Priestly and the Deuteronomic
components.447 The letter to the Judaean governor Bagohi shows no sense of diffidence or of uncertainty on the part
of the Elephantine Jews about their temple's legitimacy;
445
AP, Introduction, xix–xx. A similar line is taken by Max Margolis, ‘The Elephantine Documents’, JQR n.s. 2 (1911–12), 419–43 (pp. 419–20, 430–2); see also Rudolf
Muuss, ‘Der Jahwetempel in Elephantine’, ZAW 36 (1916), 81–107 (pp. 96–107). Vincent, 484–6, suggests that the Elephantine priests may have originated as priests of
the high places in the home-land, who fled to Egypt during attempts to suppress their shrines and continued a similar kind of religious observance in their new home.
446
Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 13.
447
P. Grelot, ‘Le papyrus pascal d'Éléphantine et le problème du Pentateuque’, VT 5(1955), 250–65, argues that points of contact between the Passover papyrus and the
present Pentateuch point to an intermediate stage in the Pentateuchal editing before the final definitive edition and promulgation of the law-codes. This would explain why,
despite the points of contact with Deuteronomy in the papyrus, nothing is said about centralized worship—Deuteronomy would not yet have been incorporated as part of
the definitive P edition, even though it had force in Judah.
on the contrary, it shows only surprise and maybe a little hurt that the Jerusalem priesthood had failed to acknowledge
the previous petition, whereas from the point of view of a priesthood constituted according to the centralization ideal
which was well established in Jerusalem by that time, it is perfectly understandable that a request such as the one from
Elephantine should be regarded as illegitimate and therefore ignored.
The inevitable conclusion from such an analysis is that the Elephantine Jews were not self-contained in religious terms;
rather, they regarded themselves as in some kind of relationship with the Jerusalem Temple, and any attempt at
comparison between Elephantine and Jerusalem must take that into account. There are certainly apparent structural
similarities between the two communities: both had a civil authority figure at their head (Jedaniah at Elephantine, the
governor in Jerusalem), and both seem also to have had a ‘temple authority figure’ whose responsibility was the
running of the temple. From the Elephantine papyri Porten notes the case of a man named Ananiah who is described
as ‘lehen of YHW (who is) in Elephantine’, a title which by comparison with Assyrian cognates implies an official with
responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the temple building and its utensils.448 On the evidence from Nehemiah,
it is not improbable that the equivalent function in Jerusalem was fulfilled by the high priest.449 But here the similarities
end; a local temple administrator, even if he is a priest, is different from a high priest who is supposedly the
representative of an entire faith community at the faith's one and only legitimate shrine, whether or not the high priest
is also thought to have had administrative responsibilities. This means that, despite their apparent structural similarities,
there are no valid grounds for comparison between the two communities and their priesthoods, not least because,
despite their adherence in broad terms to the same religion, the two communities embodied quite different expressions
of that religion. According to the religious polity under which Elephantine was founded, Jerusalem and Elephantine
would have been sister shrines, but in terms of post-exilic cultic centralization the Elephantine community was
effectively subordinate to the community in Jerusalem, and would have been regarded as such by the religious
authorities
448
Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 200.
449
See Ch. 6 above on Ezra and Nehemiah.
there, even though the Elephantine Jews themselves seem to have had no such sense of subordination. Indeed, it is
precisely this difference of perception between the two groups concerning their relationship with one another which
would account for not only the Elephantine Jews' appeal to the Jerusalem Temple authorities, but also the refusal of
those authorities to give any assistance for the building of a temple in Elephantine. Hence, it is not possible to elucidate
the position of the high priest at Jerusalem by means of analogies with the Elephantine community, because the two
communities were not analogous.
However, the fact that one of the papyri (and its duplicate) mentions a letter to Johanan, the contemporary high priest
in Jerusalem, raises the question of what, if anything, can be gleaned about the high priesthood from the context in
which Johanan appears.450 Certainly Jedaniah and his colleagues appealed (albeit unsuccessfully) to Johanan for
assistance with rebuilding their ruined temple, but to assume with Weinberg that this implies the existence of a
powerful independent high priesthood in Jerusalem is unwarranted.451 If the papyrus is to be taken at face value,
Johanan was by no means the only person contacted by the Elephantine community in their endeavours to get their
temple restored; letters were also sent to Bagohi, the Jewish nobles, and Ostanes at the same time as the one directed
to Johanan.452 Such an approach implies that there was more than one potential source of assistance for their plight,
and therefore more than one source of authority in the community. Had Johanan been the ultimate authority who was
spokesman for the rest of the community there would have been little or no point in writing to the others except for
finance; the fact that following the first unsuccessful appeal a second appeal was made to the provincial governor, even
though he too apparently failed to reply the first time, implies that he was the most important and authoritative figure
in the Judaean community. This corresponds with the picture of high priesthood in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
where it is courtesy of a Persian-appointed authority figure that administrative matters in the community as a whole are
facilitated.453 Dated to 408 BCE, the
450
AP 30, 31 (pp. 111–14, 119–21).
451
Joel Weinberg, ‘Administration in the Achaemenid Empire’, in id., The Citizen-Temple Community, trans. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, JSOTS 151 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1992), 105–26 (p. 122).
452
AP 30: 18–19 (pp. 112, 114).
453
Elephantine papyrus is within forty years of Nehemiah's arrival in Jerusalem, even though by the time of the papyrus
he had apparently been replaced or succeeded by Bagohi, and if the above analysis is correct the papyrus gives no
evidence of the high priesthood having taken on the authority of governance in the province during the course of
those forty years.
In fact, the whole situation of the Elephantine temple rebuilding is remarkably reminiscent of that of the Judaean exiles
some 130 years earlier, who needed the permission given by Cyrus in his edict in order to return and rebuild their
temple in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 36: 22–3; Ezra 1: 1–4). The similarity implies that there had been no major change of
policy or devolution of authority during the intervening period, so that as long as the Persians were the ultimate
authorities in the area then their approval and permission were required in order to carry out such projects, probably as
a way of regulating relations between the various subject peoples. Hence, the report of an appeal from Elephantine to
the Jerusalem Temple authorities cannot be taken as an indication that the high priest had been granted powers of
governance; rather, the appeal may simply have been a financial one. However, if the Jews of Elephantine did hope for
something from their Judaean brothers to defray the cost of rebuilding their temple, the evidence from the surviving
papyri is that they were disappointed.
Despite their limited material, then, the Elephantine papyri indicate that although the community had its own temple, it
was probably not a hierocracy, and that in its religious outlook it was still at an earlier stage of development than the
contemporary Judaean community. More importantly for present purposes, however, the papyri also support the
conclusion drawn from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that by the end of the fifth century the high priesthood in
Jerusalem was still largely as it had been in Restoration times, with its authority confined to matters of Temple and
cult.454 In the light of these conclusions, therefore, the next step will be to examine the books of Chronicles, which are
generally assumed to be a product of the later Persian period, to see whether they provide any evidence for the kind of
growth in high-priestly power which might lead to hierocracy before the end of the Persian period in 332 BCE.
454
Contra Zeitlin, D. Petersen, Grabbe, Redditt; see the quotations from these scholars in the Introduction above (pp. 2, 4).
8 High Priesthood in the Books of Chronicles
The books of Chronicles, hereafter referred to collectively as Chr., are the second major biblical source for the history
of the Israelite monarchy. Although they are based on the Deuteronomistic History (DH),455 they differ from DH in
style and in some areas of content, and have a distinctive theological outlook on the rise and fall of the monarchy
which is no doubt due at least in part to their post-exilic perspective. Chr.'s date in the post-exilic period, together with
its strong emphasis on correct cultic procedures, would seem to make it an obvious source to examine for information
on the high priesthood; however, matters are complicated by the fact that Chr. ostensibly deals with the pre-exilic
period. It is therefore necessary to examine Chr. both in its own right and with reference to DH, so that account can be
taken of anachronism and reinterpretation which might appear in the later work.
From antiquity until the twentieth century Chr. was regarded as a literary unity with Ezra–Nehemiah, and it cannot be
denied that there is a close relationship between them, as is demonstrated by the repetition of 2 Chr. 36: 22–3 in Ezra
1: 1–3, and the composition of the LXX Esdras A (ET 1 Esdras), which uses material from 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah. However, studies of vocabulary, style, subject matter and theology in Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah have now
indicated that there are good grounds for challenging the traditional viewpoint,456 and for the purposes of this
455
A. Graeme Auld, Kings Without Privilege (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), argues that instead of Chr. being based upon DH, both works made independent use of a
common source (pp. 3–4). However, there seems to be no real need to postulate that Chr. used the source(s) behind DH rather than DH itself.
456
Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, 218–19, argues for Ezra and Chr. as separate works on the basis of differences in ideological emphasis between the two. More recent supporters
of separate authorship include Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 330–71; Williamson,
Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 5–70; James D. Newsome, Jr, ‘Towards a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his
Purposes’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–17; and Roddy L. Braun, ‘Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, VTSupp 30 (1979), 52–64. Criticism of the
technique of linguistic analysis, used by Japhet and Williamson to support separate authorship, is offered by Mark A. Throntveit, ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of
Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, VT 32 (1982), 201–16, and David Talshir, ‘A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah’, VT 38 (1988), 165–93; Japhet acknowledges the criticism and offers a study of ideological, theological, and literary phenomena in Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah,
still reaching the conclusion of separate authorship, in ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’, VTSupp 43 (1991), 298–313.
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES 185
study Chr. is regarded as separate from Ezra–Nehemiah. The question of authorship affects the precise dating of Chr.
in its present form, since on the assumption that Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah are separate works it is not acceptable to
use indicators such as the high-priestly genealogy in Neh. 12: 10–11 when attempting to date the main body of Chr.
There is no doubt that Chr. is to be dated some time in the post-exilic era; although the range of suggested dates runs
from c.515 BCE to the second century,457 the truth most probably lies somewhere in between, as reflected by the large
number of scholars who place Chr. in the mid- to late Persian period, that is, between c.400 and 300 BCE.458 Reasons for
this include the need for DH to have become readily available, since Chr. so evidently utilized it as a major source; the
presence of some Persian loan-words, earlier thought to be Greek, in the Hebrew text; and the clear systematization of
cultic practice, not evidenced in earlier material, which would indicate a rebuilt and functioning Temple. Linguistic
analysis also points to a later
457
Two advocates of a date in the restoration period are David Noel Freedman, ‘The Chronicler's Purpose’, CBQ 23 (1961), 436–42 (p. 441), and Newsome, 215–16. By
contrast, a second-century date is supported by Adolphe Lods, Israël des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, L'Évolution de L'Humanité Synthèse Collective 27 (Paris: La
Renaissance du Livre, 1930), 16 (ET Israel from its Beginnings to the Middle of the Eighth Century, trans. S. H. Hooke (London: Kegan Paul, 1932), 14).
458
Those who would date Chr. to around 400 BCE include Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxiv–xxv, and Chronikbücher, HAT 21 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955),
x; W. A. L. Elmslie, ‘The First and Second Books of Chronicles’, in IB iii (1954), 389–548 (pp. 345–7); and Myers, I Chronicles, AB 12 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1965), pp. lxxxvii–lxxxix; those who prefer a mid-fourth century date include Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 25–6, 27; Coggins, The First and Second Books of the
Chronicles, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 4; and Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan
and Scott, 1982), 15–16. A date nearer 300 BCE is advocated by Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1910), 5–6; Michaeli, Chroniques, 25; and Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1993), 23–8. Of the scholars listed here, Curtis and Madsen, Rudolph,
Myers, Michaeli, and Coggins assume the unity of Ezra–Nehemiah with Chr., while Ackroyd regards Chr. and Ezra as a unity, with the Nehemiah material being a separate
development.
form of Hebrew in Chr. than most of that found elsewhere in the OT.459 Of course, as with virtually every book in the
canon there is a variety of material in Chr., and in addition to evidence of small-scale textual annotation and revision,
two major sections are often thought to be later additions, namely the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9 and the twenty-
four priestly courses in 1 Chronicles 23–7.460 Hence, the final date for the overall composition is probably nearer the
Greek than the Persian period.
In order to interpret the material presented in Chr., it is important to understand its author's purpose. Chr. is an
example of ‘inner-biblical exegesis’, that is, a reinterpretation and reuse in canonical material of earlier such material for
a new context.461 Chr.'s author(s) would have been familiar with DH and some, if not all, of the Pentateuchal sources,
but it would have been in a context in which the chosen people were a subject nation in a fraction of their own land,
king and prophets had died away, and the rebuilt Temple with its cult was the only reminder of the illustrious past
which they had once enjoyed. Clearly there was a need for a contextualized response to the circumstances, one which
would encourage and ratify, not by denying the past but by relating it more specifically to the contemporary situation.
Chr. therefore attempts to show how it can be that the present community is the legitimate successor to and
continuation of the pre-exilic nation of Israel as depicted in the Pentateuch and DH.
In order to achieve this, the re-presentation of the pre-exilic
459
So Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship’, 332; Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSM 12 (Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1976), 27–84, gives an analysis of significant linguistic features in Chr. which indicate the relatively late date of its language.
460
Cross, ‘Reconstruction’, 11–14, argues for three separate editions of Chr., the first dating from around 520 BCE and consisting of 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 34 plus I
Esd. 1: 1–5: 65, the second dating from after Ezra's mission in 458 BCE and adding the remainder of 1 Esdras to the existing account, and the third dating from around 400
BCE and adding the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 and the Nehemiah memoir. Braun, 1 Chronicles, WBC 14 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), Introduction, p. xxix, follows
Cross in positing such a process of composition beginning in the Restoration period, although he dates the final form somewhat later than Cross at about 350–300 BCE . It
should be noted that in making his reconstruction Cross regards Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah as parts of the same work, and the necessity of positing several editions is
relieved considerably when Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah are regarded as separate from each other. Detailed comments on 1 Chronicles 1–9 and 23–7 will be made in the course
of the discussion.
461
See Mason, ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia, Pa.: Trinity, 1990),
312–14.
period in Chr. incorporates a number of distinctive emphases: the Davidic line, the southern kingdom of Judah, so-
called ‘short range retributionism’, legitimacy, and the cult.462 The emphasis on the southern kingdom of Judah is
because events have shown that Judah alone and the city of Jerusalem are the real focus of Yahweh's covenant with his
people—these are the places which are still in their possession despite all that has happened.463 The ‘short range
retributionism’ which makes people or generations suffer for their own sins reassures the community that they need
not live in fear of being punished for the sins of previous generations; this is in strong contrast with the Deuteronomist
who interprets the Exile as just such a punishment for the accumulated sins of the whole monarchic period. The
emphasis on the cult then shows the people how they can ensure that they themselves neither incur nor harbour guilt
which would result in punishment. The emphasis on legitimacy as expressed particularly in genealogical material
underlines the continuity in personnel and families between the pre-exilic and post-exilic communities, so that the
present community is seen as the genuine successor of the previous one. The Temple and its worship, the province in
which it was situated, and the families which made up the community were the major factors of continuity with the
original covenant community, however great the differences which had by now developed between old and new; Chr.
therefore focuses upon these elements as they appeared in the old community, superimposing on them the particular
emphases already noted along with details of contemporary cultic practice in much the same way that P superimposes
detailed cultic legislation upon the original Sinai Lawgiving.
However, what is perhaps the most distinctive of Chr.'s
462
Despite Chr.'s evident concern with the Levites, very little attention is given to priests, leading to speculation that Chr. was written by Levites or written to champion Levitical
rights. See, for example, Robert North, ‘Theology of the Chronicler’, JBL 82 (1963), 369–81 (pp. 375–6). By contrast Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, 218, attributes the interest
in the Levites to the fact that they were essential to the Temple worship because of their duties concerning the Ark.
463
John Goldingay, ‘The Chronicler as a Theologian’, BTB 5 (1975), 99–126 (p. 119). However, despite Chr.'s apparently overwhelming interest in the southern kingdom, the
northern kingdom and its inhabitants are not written off; rather, they are viewed as brothers who are urged to return to the true worship at Jerusalem. See Braun, ‘The
Message of Chronicles: Rally 'Round the Temple’, Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (1971), 502–14 (pp. 511–13), and ‘A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude toward
the North’, JBL 96 (1977), 59–62, and Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, 139–40.
emphases, namely the Davidic line, is also the most apparently inexplicable on these terms. The entire first book of
Chronicles from 11: 1 onwards is devoted to David's exploits; and yet the community for which Chr. was written was a
people under subjection in their own land whose royal line was apparently extinct or had faded into obscurity. Certainly
there had been those, perhaps the majority of the people, who saw the return as only the first step towards a reinstated
kingdom and new independence under the Davidide Zerubbabel, as evidenced by the words of Hag. 2: 23: ‘On that
day I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring; for I
have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts.’464 But these hopes remained unfulfilled, and once the initial excitement of the
restoration had subsided it is questionable how seriously the community expected a return to these former ways.
Indeed, in describing the state of the community only a little over a hundred years after the Restoration, the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah show no interest in David or his descendants, and while it would be folly to assume complete
uniformity of outlook within the community, Ezra–Nehemiah are evidence of a decidedly non-monarchic current of
thought which apparently prevailed at that time. If, then, Chr. is dated to the second part of the Persian period as an
attempt to contextualize and reinterpret the Deuteronomistic work for the new situation, it is difficult to see why so
much positive emphasis would be laid upon a feature of the pre-exilic community's life which it had become obvious
was unlikely to be repeated in the post-exilic community, and which the community seemed mentally to have laid aside,
at least for the moment.
Of course, given that the monarchy had been an integral part of the earlier community's life and was the basis of DH
which was one of Chr.'s sources, it was bound to appear in Chr. But what seems anomalous is the emphasis on the
eternal promises to David when they had apparently been rendered void by the successive Babylonian and Persian
conquests. However kindly disposed towards their subjects the Persians may have been,465 the kindness
464
See Ch. 5 above on Haggai and Zechariah.
465
The portrayal in Ezra–Nehemiah of an extremely benevolent and supportive Persian regime must be regarded as a theological statement as much as an historical
representation. The regime which permitted the return to Judah and the rebuilding of the Temple was by definition benevolent and supportive as against the previous regime
which had destroyed the Temple and deported the people. For a comment on what is assumed to be the general Persian policy of repatriation and rehousing of native gods,
see Amélie Kuhrt, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT 25 (1983), 83–97.
did not involve allowing the Empire's ethnic subgroups the right to devolution under their own ruling houses.
Zerubbabel's disappearance and his apparent lack of a successor is an eloquent comment on the limitations of
autonomy to which Judah's inhabitants were subject. However, it is not only the emphasis on the Davidic ideology
which is anomalous. In terms of the community's structures, too, Chr.'s upholding of David as the standard for later
kings, notably Hezekiah and Josiah, both of whom implemented extensive religious reforms, implies that the pious
monarch was part of an ideal social structure which ought to be restored. This emphasis on the monarchy in terms of
both ideology and social structure makes the ending on a note of expectancy with Cyrus' decree seem like a challenge
to the Judaeans to take the opportunity for complete restoration in the light of their earlier history, in recognition of the
promise given to them in the person of their king.466 However, although the ending is certainly a challenge to
restoration, it is not an exhortation to reinstate the past. The divine command is given to Cyrus, and he issues the
challenge to rebuild the Temple, to start this new era as the previous one had been started; but the builders this time
are ‘whoever is among you of all his [i.e. Yahweh's] people’ (2 Chr. 36: 23). The responsibility has passed from the king
to the people; what David had started by divine command the people would continue by the same divine command.
The people thus seem to have become the sons of David to whom the promise of eternal rule will henceforth apply.467
466
Various commentators have challenged the originality of 2 Chr. 36: 22–3 in their present position. Curtis and Madsen, 525, claim that the verses belong to Ezra 1: 1–3a, and
were added to Chr. when the separation occurred between Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah; similarly, Rudolph thinks that they were added to Chr. from Ezra after
Ezra–Nehemiah had preceded Chr. into the canon, in order to indicate the original unity of Chr.–Ezra–Nehemiah (Chronikbücher, 338). By contrast, Welch, Post-Exilic
Judaism, 185, 186, regards the verses as a mechanism to join together the two previously separate works of Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah. Elmslie, 547–8, suggests that they
were added so that the Hebrew Bible should end on a note of hope. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, 7–10, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, 419, argues that Chr. originally
ended at 2 Chr. 36: 21, so that the exhortation to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple is secondary; however, Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 1062, 1076–7, thinks that the
verses were borrowed from the already existing Ezra 1: 1–3a by the Chronicler himself.
467
This same idea also appears in Isa. 55: 3; see Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London: SCM Press, 1968; repr. 1972), 125. Commenting on the Isaiah reference, Clements,
Prophecy and Covenant, SBT 43 (London: SCM Press, 1965; repr. 1969), 115, writes: ‘Henceforth it is the nation as a whole, and not simply the family of David, who are to
be the heirs of Yahweh's covenant promise to the great king. No individual “messianic” figure is expected to occupy the Davidic throne since the entire nation has become
heir to the ancient royal promises.’ Similarly, R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975), 191–2, comments that ‘the covenant promises, originally made
to David as the leader of the nation, are now to be transferred directly to the whole people.’ See also Goldingay, 115.
The promise, for David as for them, is for the ones who build the Temple; and the command to build is itself the sign
of election and acceptability in Yahweh's eyes. Hence, Chr.'s emphasis on David is not a futile attempt to recapture past
glory, but inspiration for the present. This too may be something of what lies behind the constant desire for
legitimation, namely the desire to show the community as true descendants of David in a metaphorical sense as well as
in a purely literal one, and therefore as worthy heirs of the promises made to him. The monarchs who are truly David's
descendants are the ones who care for the Temple, and so a people who rebuild the Temple and maintain worship
there are likewise David's true descendants.
If this interpretation of Chr.'s emphasis on David is accepted, there are other overtones which can be detected. Despite
the emphasis on the monarchy, it is the Temple with its cult which is restored as the most enduring and important
factor in the life of God's people, even though the monarchy, like Temple and cult, was established by Yahweh.468 The
monarchy is fallible, and subject to chastisement, even destruction; monarchs who fail to live up to their divine calling
are inevitably punished, whether they are corrupt from the start or whether they fall from grace because of apostasy of
some kind. Joash (2 Chr. 24: 1–25) and Uzziah (2 Chr. 26: 16–23) are two prime examples of kings who begin very
well but who later come to grief because of being false to the Lord. Joash even restores the Temple after it has been
damaged by his wicked grandmother Athaliah, Temple restoration being an action which in Chr. epitomizes the
faithful monarch; but ultimately it is to no avail because he turns to idol worship, with the consequence that he is killed
by a conspiracy of his own servants (2 Chr. 24: 1–27). As well as the unconditional promises to David and his line
(1 Chr. 17: 7–15 // 2 Sam. 7: 1–29; 1 Chr. 22: 9–10; 28: 4; 2 Chr. 13: 5; 21: 7 // 2 Kgs. 8: 17–22), on several occasions
there are qualifiers attached to the promises, whereby if both ruler and people are to prosper and to remain established
in the land, they
468
William Dumbrell, ‘The Purpose of the Books of Chronicles’, JETS 27 (1984), 257–66 (p. 262).
must keep the Law and the commandments, whatever ‘Law and commandments’ would have consisted of for the
Chronicler (1 Chr. 22: 12–13; 28: 7, 9; 2 Chr. 6: 16 // 1 Kgs. 8: 12–50; 2 Chr. 7: 17–22 // 1 Kgs. 9: 1–9; 2 Chr. 15:
1–2; 26: 5). Indeed, Chr.'s narrative as a whole begins with the salutary account of Saul's downfall and death after he
fails to live up to the demand of faithfulness to Yahweh which is necessary if he and his line are to be kings of
Yahweh's people (1 Chr. 10: 1–14); the price of his disobedience is his family's loss of the kingdom, a sanction which is
repeated some centuries later in the form of exile to end the monarchy altogether. In the years leading up to the Exile,
particularly under Zedekiah, king and nation turn away from the Lord, refusing to listen to his prophets and to amend
their ways, ‘till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who . . . had no
compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged’ (2 Chr. 36: 16–17). It is noteworthy that the Lord endeavours to
warn them and make them return to him, not for the sake of his servant David but ‘because he had compassion on his
people and on his dwelling place’ (2 Chr. 36: 15); and of course it was these two elements, the people and the Temple,
which in the end outlasted the Exile to be re-established in the land of Judah.
This in turn raises the question of whether the Temple is legitimated because it is built by the monarchy which Yahweh
has chosen, or the monarchy is legitimated by being given the task of establishing and caring for the Temple which
signifies Yahweh's choice of and presence with his people. In view of the foregoing discussion, it seems that the
Temple is ultimately the more significant institution; hence, the monarchy, and therefore the people as a whole which
succeeds it, is legitimated by being given responsibility for the Temple. Legitimizing the monarchy in this way also
enables legitimation to be provided for the contemporary cult; by attributing its organization to the one by whom cultic
Temple-based worship was doubtless initiated, who is regarded as the divinely chosen leader of Israel and who has
himself been legitimated by being given a plan for the Temple and promises of everlasting faithfulness (1 Chr. 28:
1–19), Chr. claims that contemporary cultic practice is effectively on a par with previous conventions for which Moses
was claimed as the authority.469
469
Simon J. De Vries, ‘Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–39, argues that David and Moses were paralleled as divinely authorized cultic
initiators in order to claim priestly rights for the Levites via the medium of David's cultic arrangements.
In fact, despite the apparent omission of the Exodus and Sinai traditions from Chr.'s account, there is evident
awareness of them, as there is of the Law as it prevailed by the time of Chr.'s composition. 1 Chr. 15: 15, for example,
when describing David's removal of the Ark to Jerusalem, speaks of the Levites carrying the Ark on their shoulders
with poles (kaʼašer ṣiwwâ mōšeh kidebar yhwh, ‘as Moses commanded, according to the word
of the Lord’—cf. Exod. 25: 10–15; Num. 4: 1–7, 15); the references to both Moses and the Levites are unparalleled in
the equivalent account in 2 Sam. 6: 12–19. In 2 Chr. 8: 12–13 Solomon offers burnt offerings to the Lord as in 1 Kgs.
9: 25, but the offerings in Chr., unlike those in DH, are (kemiṣwat mōšeh, ‘according to the command of
Moses’, 2 Chr. 8: 13). Again, the appearance at Gibeon of the Mosaic tent of meeting together with the bronze-plated
altar of burnt offering, both items of the wilderness years (cf. Exod. 26: 1–27: 8), and their apparent importance
inasmuch as Zadok is left to offer burnt offerings there and Solomon pays Gibeon a state visit to offer sacrifices there
at the start of his reign (1 Chr. 16: 39–40; 2 Chr. 1: 3–6), is indicative that Chr. acknowledges something prior to the
developed Temple and cultic observances. David is not the originator of Yahweh worship in Israel, but was preceded
by Moses who was the first person chosen to receive plans for a structure to be the focus of God's presence among his
people and of their worship—a structure which according to Chr. was still present with the people and served as the
site for their devotions until the Temple was built.470
In more subtle ways, too, there are reminiscences of the pre-monarchic, pre-settlement traditions. Williamson points
out parallels between the accounts of Moses' handover to Joshua at the
470
Elmslie, 403, takes the reference to Gibeon and the Tabernacle in 1 Chr. 16: 39 as the work of a later reviser, who was attempting to make both this narrative and Solomon's
visit to Gibeon in 2 Chr. 1: 3 acceptable in terms of post-exilic cultic observance. By showing Zadok and the other priests sacrificing before the Tabernacle at Gibeon, the
insertion provides an answer to the question of what happened to the Tabernacle once Israel entered the land, makes Gibeon into a legitimate sanctuary so that Solomon
could enquire there with impunity, and ensures that proper priestly sacrifices were being undertaken when the Ark was moved. The logic of Elmslie's argument is acceptable
in terms of interpreting the references to Gibeon and how they are related, but there is no overwhelming reason why the author of Chr. should not have been responsible for
their presence in the narrative—assuming, of course, the author's awareness and acknowledgement of an earlier stage in Israel's religious observance than the one with
which Chr. is mainly concerned.
end of Deuteronomy and David's handover to Solomon in 1 Chronicles 29, parallels which suggest a conscious literary
modelling of the account on Deuteronomy but which would be incomprehensible or simply undetectable without the
earlier work for comparison.471 David is thus portrayed as a second Moses who certainly initiates at Yahweh's
command a new phase in Israel's life of worship, but who strictly speaking is merely continuing what Moses had
already begun. Hence, the monarchy is in that sense secondary—a vehicle of continuation rather than a vehicle of
initiation; and it is therefore also possible for the post-exilic community to continue what the monarchy had begun, just
as David continued what Moses had begun. In this way the history of the people of Yahweh is presented not as the
history of one particular manifestation of the people, namely the monarchy, but as the history of how they continue to
remain true to their identity as the people of Yahweh under changing circumstances, namely by building a place of
worship which together with its divinely revealed cult and ceremonial is to be the centre of their existence.
Chr., then, arises out of a Judaean context and portrays a society in which the Davidic monarchy together with the
Temple and cult are highly significant elements; indeed, Temple and cult are at the very heart of the society. It has
already been suggested that the high priesthood developed in association with the Jerusalem Temple and so was
effectively a Judaean phenomenon, and that the high priesthood's main significance was in the cultic sphere; hence, it
would not be unreasonable to expect the high priesthood to have quite a high profile in Chr. However, as will, it is to
be hoped, become clear in the course of the discussion, the high priesthood in fact has a surprisingly limited role in
Chr. Though the term ‘high priest’ is most probably anachronistic for the period covered by Chr.'s history,472 there are
senior priestly
471
Williamson, ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT 26 (1976), 351–61.
472
As has hopefully become clear from the discussion thus far, the Hebrew term usually rendered ‘high priest’, (hakkōhēn haggādôl ), is not certainly attested before
the post-exilic period, and its appearance can be seen to coincide with the emergence of a different kind of chief-priestly office after the Exile. Whereas the pre-exilic chief
priest had been an officer of the king and even in cultic matters was answerable to the king, who was himself both the spiritual and the political head of the nation, and
whereas the pre-exilic Jerusalem Temple where the chief priest was based was only one of many Yahwistic shrines with their own priesthoods and priestly hierarchies, the
post-exilic high priest was not only the highest religious authority in the country in the absence of a sacral monarch, he was the single most important member of the one
legitimate priesthood at the only legitimate shrine for the whole of Judaism. Hence, to use the term ‘high priest’ for the pre-exilic chief-priestly figures is rather misleading
and anachronistic.
figures who would have been the nearest pre-exilic equivalent to high priests, both in the genealogical material of 1
Chronicles 1–9 and in the rest of the narrative. However, notwithstanding the appearance of chief-priestly lines at three
points in the genealogies, Chr.'s interest in chief priests in the rest of the narrative is incidental to the point of omitting
them from places where they appear in the source material;473 and where they are included they are certainly not the
focus of the narration. Indeed, after the genealogies the chief priests are always shown in relation to a monarch,
although not every monarch is shown with a chief priest, and it seems as if their function in the narrative in general
terms is to underline the virtues and vices in the monarchs' dealings with the cult, thereby focusing attention not on the
priests themselves but on the monarch. In order to determine the precise significance of each figure, though, it will be
necessary to examine them individually, and this will be done by dividing the references to chief priests into three
groups: those which come in the genealogical material, consisting of the three lists mentioned above; those which
occur during the David–Solomon period,474 consisting of references to Zadok, Abiathar, and Ahimelech; and those
which occur
473
Two of the chief priests in DH appear only in the genealogy of 1 Chr. 5: 27–41 (ET 6: 1–15), namely Zadok's son Azariah (1 Kgs. 4: 2), who is given as Zadok's grandson in
1 Chr. 5: 35–6 (ET 6: 9–10), and Seraiah (2 Kgs. 25: 18). A third, Uriah (2 Kgs. 16: 10–16; cf. 2 Chr. 28: 22–3), is omitted from Chr. altogether, and two more, Abiathar and
Ahimelech, are left completely undefined as characters, simply being mentioned three and four times respectively as Zadok's counterparts. See Ch. 2 above on the
Deuteronomistic History for more details of these priests in the Deuteronomist. As well as omitting chief priests who are present in the source material, Chr. includes others
who are not mentioned in DH, namely Amariah (2 Chr. 19: 11) and the two Azariahs (2 Chr. 26: 17–20 and 31: 10, 13). See below for discussion of these figures.
474
Although the David–Solomon period is effectively the same as the period of the united monarchy, from a conceptual point of view in Chr. it is more appropriately described
as the David–Solomon period, since Chr. portrays the reigns of David and Solomon as a unity inasmuch as Solomon completes the work of Temple-building which David
initiates and prepares. See Braun, ‘Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles’, JBL 92 (1973), 503–16 (pp. 514–15). Similarly, the post-Solomonic period is effectively that of the
divided monarchy, but although Chr. records the rebellion of the northern tribes (2 Chr. 10: 1–19), there is no parallel narrative of the northern kings and no record of the
fall of Samaria as in DH. Chr.'s focus is on Judah and its kings as the only legitimate expression of monarchy for the people of God, so that to speak of the period of the
divided monarchy in the context of Chr. would be technically correct but conceptually inaccurate; hence its designation as the post-Solomonic period.
in the post-Solomonic period, consisting of references to Amariah, Jehoiada, two Azariahs,475 and Hilkiah.
The first group of references to be examined are those which appear in the genealogical material of 1 Chronicles 1–9.
As already noted, Chr.'s genealogies as a whole have been the cause of much speculation, and so it is necessary to deal
with them on a general basis before focusing more specifically on the chief-priestly lines. A number of scholars have
expressed the opinion that the genealogies are a secondary addition, mainly because of the inconsistencies between
genealogies and narrative text, which are deemed to indicate different interests and sources in each case.476 For
example, the genealogy of Saul is given in 1 Chr. 8: 33–40 and 1 Chr. 9: 35–44, in each case extending for some twelve
or thirteen generations past Saul himself; yet the narrative which immediately follows the genealogy in 1 Chr. 9: 35–44
states that Saul and his three sons and all his house died together in battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa
(1 Chr. 10: 6). The genealogical material as a whole records the lineage of all the tribes of Israel (admittedly with special
emphasis on Benjamin and Judah), whereas Chr.'s overwhelming concern is with the kingdom of Judah, making very
little reference to the rest. Also, the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr. 3: 1–24 can be seen as anomalous inasmuch as it is the
only one to refer to the post-exilic era apart from the list of Jerusalem's returned population in 1 Chr. 9: 1–34. If, too,
the correct interpretation of the MT is that the presentation of the Davidic line covers ten generations after
Zerubbabel,477 on the basis of twenty-five years per
475
The Azariahs of 2 Chr. 26: 17–20 (under King Uzziah) and 2 Chr. 31: 10, 13 (under King Hezekiah) are probably different men. The chronological considerations alone
make it unlikely that they are the same person, and this is supported by the mention in 2 Kgs. 16: 10–16 of Uriah as ‘priest’, presumably chief priest, under Ahaz, who was
king between Uzziah (known as Azariah in 2 Kgs. 15: 1–7) and Hezekiah. Uriah would therefore have been chief priest between the two Azariahs mentioned by Chr.
476
So Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, 185–6, and The Work of the Chronicler (London: The British Academy, 1939), 149; Elmslie, 349; Freedman, 437, 441; Cross, ‘Reconstruction’,
11–14; Newsome, 215. Braun, 1 Chronicles, 12, supposes that the genealogies and the narrative sections of Chr. were produced by separate writers who belonged to a
common age and had a common outlook and interests.
477
1 Chr. 3: 21 is difficult in the MT. Taken literally, it reads, ‘And the son of Hananiah, Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the
sons of Shecaniah.’ This implies that those listed in the second part of the verse have nothing to do with those in the first part, and therefore the direct line of descent from
Zerubbabel breaks off after only two generations, since the remaining names in verses 22–4 are of those descended from Shecaniah. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 58,
favours retention of the MT and by implication the concomitant break in the line of descent; however, other commentators have suggested various emendations of the MT
which would preserve the genealogical line intact. Perhaps the easiest way is to follow the lead of the LXX in emending the Hebrew (benê, ‘sons of ’) to (benô, ‘his
son’), so that the second part of 3: 21 reads, ‘his son Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah’, thus becoming a list of four generations descended from
Jeshaiah, which links both the foregoing and the following names. This is the approach adopted by Michaeli, Chroniques, 45, and also by the RSV in its translation of the
verse. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 31, suggests replacing (benê, ‘sons of ’) with (we, ‘and’) each time, to give ‘ . . . Jeshaiah, and Rephaiah and Arnan and Obadiah and
Shecaniah’; in this way, all those named in 3: 21 are sons of Hananiah, siblings rather than successors. Others make no emendation, but interpret the text as it stands to mean
that Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah were sons of Hananiah who became heads of important families; see Myers, I Chronicles, 18, 21, 22 (Myers makes no
reference to textual or interpretative difficulties in 3: 21), and Braun, 1 Chronicles, 48–50. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, notes the textual difficulty and several proposed
alternative interpretations, but remains neutral as to which approach should be adopted (pp. 93–4; 101).
generation this represents a time-span of around 250 years after the Restoration period, thereby taking the genealogy
into the Ptolemaic period. This is obviously anomalous if a dating for Chr. somewhere in the Persian period is allowed.
Finally, referring specifically to the chief priests in the genealogies, in 1 Chr. 5: 27–41 (ET 6: 1–15) there is a line of
leading priests at Jerusalem from Levi via Aaron and Zadok down to the exiled Jehozadak, who appears in Haggai and
Zechariah as father of the high priest Joshua (Hag. 1: 1, 12, 14; 2: 2, 4; Zech. 6: 11); yet the names do not correspond
to the individuals described in the subsequent chapters of Chr., most notably in the omission of Jehoiada, who features
prominently in both DH and Chr.478 Zadok's inclusion as a son of Aaron is also contrary to the narrative and its
underlying sources, where he is apparently of unknown origins.479
Other scholars, however, argue cogently that the genealogical material is an integral part of Chr.'s composition. A good
example is Marshall D. Johnson, who in the course of his study of biblical genealogies in general argues that despite
anomalies and later additions in Chr.'s genealogies the burden of proof is on those who would dissociate them from
the subsequent narrative; this is because both narrative and genealogical material share the same interest in de-
emphasizing but not excluding the Moses–Sinai traditions and the northern tribes, whilst emphasizing David,
478
H. J. Katzenstein, ‘Some Remarks on the Lists of the Chief Priests of the Temple of Solomon’, JBL 81 (1962), 377–84, argues that the contradiction can be accounted for
on the assumption that only Zadokite chief priests were listed (p. 379).
479
See Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History and the discussion about Zadok later on in this chapter.
Judah, and the Levites.480 Johnson also identifies a number of purposes served by biblical genealogical material,
including literary purposes such as linking together parts of the narrative, and what might be termed social purposes,
namely demonstrating legitimacy and continuity of line for those in important positions such as priests,481 and these are
purposes which can be seen to be at work in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9.
In the first place, the genealogies have a literary function. Covering the history of Israel before the monarchy, they link
Chr.'s narrative with the earliest beginnings of the people of Yahweh, thereby contextualizing the appearance of the
monarchy; they then summarize the composition of the nation under the monarchy at its zenith; and finally, the
inclusion of a list of those who first returned after the Exile (1 Chr. 9: 1–34) anticipates the closing verses of 2
Chronicles and Cyrus' decree enabling any who would to return and rebuild the Temple (2 Chr. 36: 22–3). The
genealogy of Saul (1 Chr. 9: 35–44) immediately after the post-exilic sketch then brings the focus back to pre-exilic
times and indicates where the subsequent narrative will begin. In fact, the whole nine chapters can be seen as a
summary of history from Adam to the present day, from which a particular period is then picked out for more detailed
treatment in the subsequent narrative. However, although the main focus in genealogies and narrative alike is on the
monarchic period, the inclusion of the list of post-exilic returnees puts the monarchy into context as effectively an
interlude in the life of a community for which worship and the Temple are paramount. The list resembles those in Ezra
2: 1–70 and Neh. 7: 6–73, but it includes significantly greater numbers than they do of priestly personnel and
particularly Levites (1 Chr. 9: 10–34), hallmarks of Chr.'s manifesto for a properly constituted and functioning society.
The presence of what Chr. views as appropriate cultic personnel among the returnees conveys the message that even
without a king the community can be and has
480
Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 2nd edn., SNTSMS 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 47–55. Others who consider the
genealogies as integral to Chr.'s work are Michaeli, Chroniques, 71; Coggins, Chronicles, 9; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 14, 39–40; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 3–7; Jones, 1 &
2 Chronicles, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 20; William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles, JSOTS 160 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 48–9. Rudolph, Chronikbücher,
p. viii, 1–2, thinks that some of the genealogical material in 1 Chronicles 1–9 is integral to the work, but that it has been supplemented quite heavily by a later hand.
481
M. D. Johnson, 78–80.
been reconstituted without losing its essence, and by making the list of returnees the final genealogical summary before
the focus returns to Saul and the pre-exilic period, that message of hope is delivered right at the beginning of what
could otherwise be quite a depressing story. Within this overall genealogical picture of Israel, the lines of chief priests in
1 Chr. 5: 27–41, 6: 34–8 (ET 6: 1–15, 49–53), and 9: 11 span most of the period covered by the genealogies as a whole;
beginning from Mosaic times and even being included in the list of post-exilic returnees, they anchor the chief priests
firmly within the essential structure of the community.
Given Chr.'s evident concern with legitimacy in the narrative part of the history, a second function of the genealogies
might well be thought of as being to provide legitimation for the leading members of the community who hold or who
have held office as part of those lines of descent; this would be especially true of the Davidic and Levitical genealogies
which list the descendants of Solomon and Aaron in particular. As far as the chief-priestly lists are concerned (1 Chr. 5:
27–41; 6: 34–8 (ET 6: 1–15, 49–53); 9: 11), in terms of absolute historical accuracy they are questionable, to say the
least, as has already been hinted;482 however, it could be argued that they reflect a desire both to affirm the ‘rightness’ of
those who had served in the past and to ensure the ‘rightness’ of those who would serve in the future.483 For example,
whether Zadok was the biological descendant of Aaron or an outsider incorporated into the line under a particular set
of circumstances is in a sense immaterial; the fact that later generations apparently regarded him as a legitimate
member of Aaron's line is more significant than any real or supposed biological descent, and this is the conviction
shared and recorded by Chr.484 Just as it is inconceivable that good kings should suffer misfortune for no reason, it
would be inconceivable for Zadok to become priest for the divinely elected king in the divinely ordained Temple if he
had no legitimate entitlement to the position; hence, Zadok is included in the official line of chief priests as a way of
expressing Chr.'s conviction that Zadok was a legitimate member of the priestly organization.
482
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, argues that the lists are compilations of various groups of names known to Chr. which were associated with chief-priestly figures (pp.
5–6). See also n. 24 above for an alternative explanation of the lists' composition.
483
R. North, 371: ‘The Chronicler . . . does not think he is fooling anybody. He is inculcating a principle of legitimacy.’
484
See ibid. 370–1 for a discussion of what constituted legitimate succession.
This conviction is also reflected in Chr.'s portrayal of Zadok elsewhere (especially Zadok's anointing in 1 Chr. 29: 22)
and in the apparent lack of any conflict between Aaronides and Zadokites in Chr.'s narrative.
However, although the argument of legitimation can be applied quite satisfactorily to some of the genealogical material,
for example, the list of Davidic descendants from Solomon to Jehoiakim (1 Chr. 3: 10–15), which tallies exactly with
the names and the order of the kings dealt with in the narrative, it is difficult to understand legitimation as the primary
rationale for the chief-priestly genealogy, since apart from Zadok only two of the figures mentioned (Amariah, 5: 37
(ET 6: 11) and Hilkiah, 5: 40 (ET 6: 14)) appear unequivocally in the subsequent narrative. Rather than legitimacy,
therefore, the principle of continuity should be viewed as the main rationale behind the presence of a priestly genealogy
which is in such disagreement with the narrative to which it is a preface. Rather than stressing the right of particular
individuals to hold office, Chr.'s primary aim in including the line of chief priests is to demonstrate that there had been
an unbroken line of chief priests prior to the Exile which was then resumed in the post-exilic period. The post-exilic
office-holders are therefore taken to be the continuation of the pre-exilic line, so that the cultic structure of the
community is preserved despite the disruption caused by the Exile.485 This can be seen from two particular features of
the genealogies.
First, in 9: 11 the returning priest Azariah is listed together with a skeleton of his line of descent from Ahitub ‘the chief
officer of the house of God’, a line which is evidently a version of the same line as in 5: 30–41 (ET 6: 4–15) and 6:
35–8 (ET 6: 50–3);486 the post-exilic Azariah is therefore portrayed as a direct descendant (whether biological or
‘spiritual’) of the supposedly unbroken line of pre-exilic chief priests. Secondly, the main chief-priestly genealogy is
presented with a degree of schematization which
485
Michaeli, Chroniques, 73–4, sees the principle of continuity as underlying all the genealogical material in 1 Chronicles 1–9, so that the genealogies become a reminder of
Israel's role in a divine plan which encompasses the whole of human history, as well as being a legitimation of the Jewish faith and its sacral institutions.
486
The only sequential disagreement between this and the earlier lists is the insertion of Meraioth between Zadok and Ahitub. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 4, suggests
that it may have been an explanatory marginal note which was incorporated into the list at the wrong place.
suggests that it is more ideal than real; assuming by comparison with 1 Kgs. 4: 2 that Azariah the (grand)son of Zadok
rather than the Azariah two generations later (1 Chr. 5: 36 (ET 6: 10)) was the priest in Solomon's Temple, there are
eleven generations of Aaron's sons prior to the Temple and a further eleven generations down to the time of the
Exile.487 In fact, the very purpose of providing the annotations about Azariah and Jehozadak (5: 41 (ET 6: 15)) seems
to be to divide up the list into two segments in order to schematize the genealogy. The half-list in 6: 35–8 (ET 6: 50–3)
equally suggests schematization; it lists the first eleven generations of Aaron's sons, the same as the first eleven
generations in the list of chief priests, stopping short just before Azariah the priest of Solomon's Temple. These pre-
Temple priests perform their duties according to all that Moses had commanded (6: 34 (ET 6: 49)), and the implication
seems to be that with the erection of the Temple according to the Davidic specification a new era began which was
defined not only by the commandments of Moses but by the stipulations of David concerning cultic practice. Certainly
the lists are to do with legitimacy in a general sense, inasmuch as they provide a legitimate line of chief priests from
which members of the post-exilic community who serve in a chief-priestly capacity can claim continuity of descent or
function,488 but the lists are not primarily intended to legitimize claims to the chief-priestly office for specific pre-exilic
individuals—although they will inevitably function in that way for those such as Zadok and Hilkiah who are named in
them.
In the overall context of the genealogical material as a whole, then, the presence of genealogical lines of chief priests is
a way of both affirming their place in the structure of the community past and present, and of claiming continuity with
the past so as to legitimize the present, leading to the conclusion that by the time of writing the post-exilic high priests
enjoyed a certain amount of prestige. However, the discrepancies between the genealogies and the narratives imply that
this had not always been the case. Contrasting again the royal line with the priestly line, the fact
487
Coggins, Chronicles, 43; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 70–1. Curtis and Madsen, 129, comment that assuming 23 generations of 40 years each, the list fits into the priestly
chronology of the historical books.
488
Curtis and Madsen, 129, suggest that the primary purpose of the list in 5: 27–41 (ET 6: 1–15) is to connect Jehozadak with Aaron and thereby legitimize his priesthood.
that the royal genealogy tallies virtually exactly with the narrative suggests a systematized recording of royal data, a
suggestion borne out by the frequent references in DH and Chr. to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah.
However, if Bartlett's comments on the way the chief-priestly lists were composed are at all accurate,489 it seems that
there were several fragments of tradition about who had held office as chief priest in the pre-exilic period, fragments
which were perhaps not systematized until after the Exile, or even until they were brought together in Chr. This in
itself would seem to reflect a rather lesser significance of the chief priest in the pre-exilic period, together with a
corresponding rise in his significance after the Exile inasmuch as he was a functionary in the cult through which the
people of God expressed their true identity. Precisely what that significance was will be determined by examining the
remaining two groups of references to senior priests in the narrative sections of Chr.
The first group of narrative references after the genealogical references consists of the priests who are mentioned
during the David–Solomon period, namely Zadok, Abiathar, and Ahimelech. Of these, Zadok is the character who
appears most frequently and is the most well-defined, although none of the three are particularly well-defined. Zadok
first appears as a young man of valour coming to David at Hebron (1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28)), before being shown as
a priest bringing the Ark to Jerusalem together with Abiathar and the Levites (1 Chr. 15: 11) and then offering burnt
offerings before the Tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chr. 16: 39). He is a colleague of Ahimelech on the four occasions on
which Ahimelech is mentioned, namely in the genealogical note of 1 Chr. 18: 16 and in the setting up of the priestly
courses under David (1 Chr. 24: 3, 6, 31), and then he is named alone as chief officer for the tribe of Aaron (1 Chr. 27:
17). Zadok's last appearance is in 1 Chr. 29: 22, where he is anointed along with Solomon. Of these nine references,
only 1 Chr. 18: 16 (the genealogical note) and 1 Chr. 29: 22 (the double anointing) are paralleled in DH, although this
second passage is a reworking of its equivalent in DH, where Zadok anoints Solomon rather than being anointed along
with him (1 Kgs. 1: 38–9). Of the remaining seven references, 1 Chr. 15: 11 seems to be intrusive in a context which is
concerned
489
See n. 28 above.
with Levites rather than priests,490 and 1 Chr. 24: 3, 6, 31, and 27: 17 come in chapters which it has been argued are
secondary in their entirety.491 The references to Zadok as a young man of valour (1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28)), and to
Zadok and his brother priests performing continual sacrifices at Gibeon (1 Chr. 16: 39–40) would therefore seem to be
the Chronicler's own contribution to the narrative.
Since the references which appear to be secondary (1 Chr. 15: 11; 24: 3, 6, 31; 27: 17) may well have a different
purpose from those which are integral to Chr.'s original narrative (1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28); 16: 39; 18: 16; 29: 22), the
two groups will be examined separately, beginning with those which are integral to the original narrative.
As the brave young man coming to David in Hebron (1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28)), Zadok appears earlier in Chr.'s
narrative than he does in DH; and although he is given no familial links at this point, he is listed hard on the heels of
the contingents from the Levites and the house of Aaron, in a way which implies both some sort of connection and at
the same time some sort of distinction between them.492 Zadok's next appearance as a priest making burnt offerings at
Gibeon (1 Chr. 16: 39–40) is not a necessary follow-on from him being ‘a young man mighty in valour’, but neither is it
a complete surprise, given his implied attachment to the Levites and Aaronides in 1 Chronicles 12; and two chapters
later he is named as David's priest along with Ahimelech in the passage taken from DH (1 Chr. 18: 16). It seems that
the apparently arbitrary nature of Zadok's appointment in DH, where the notice of appointment (2 Sam. 8: 17) is
Zadok's first appearance, was unacceptable to the
490
Welch , Post-Exilic Judaism, 212 n. 1, and The Work of the Chronicler, 65–6; Elmslie, 397–8; Michaeli, Chroniques, 96; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 123–4.
491
Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, 81–96, and Braun, 1 Chronicles, 231, maintain that chs. 23–7 as a whole are secondary. Williamson, ‘The Origins of the Twenty-Four
Priestly Courses’, VTSupp 30 (1979), 251–68, argues for two layers of material in chs. 23–7, a basic layer attributable to Chr. and a secondary layer added about a
generation later; Williamson attributes chs. 24 and 27 in their entirety to the secondary layer (pp. 258–60, 261). By contrast, John Wesley Wright, ‘The Legacy of David in
Chronicles: The Narrative Function of I Chronicles 23–27’, JBL 110 (1991), 229–42, and Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 406–11, argue for chs. 23–7 as integral to Chr. rather
than a later addition.
492
Olyan, ‘Zadok's Origins’, 188, argues that Zadok was in fact Jehoiada's aide with a contingent of chiefs from Jehoiada's (‘his father's’) house, and was therefore Jehoiada's
son and an Aaronide. See the discussion of Olyan's proposal in Ch. 2 above on the Deuteronomistic History.
Chronicler, hence the portrayal in Chr. first of the implied priest's loyalty to David and second of service offered in a
priestly capacity at the non-Jerusalem shrine in order to justify the appointment. The scene of Zadok's anointing with
Solomon in 1 Chr. 29: 22 marks the zenith of his priestly career; although Zadok is nowhere given any title indicating
chief-priestly status, the act of anointing implies that from that point onwards he is definitely a chief-priestly figure, in
fact, the chief priest of the kingdom.493 The whole episode is reminiscent of the Second Temple building narrative
(Ezra 5: 1–6: 22), in which the (supposed) Davidide Sheshbazzar lays the Temple foundations but it is left to
Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua to erect the superstructure; David has made all the plans and preparations for
the new Temple (1 Chr. 28: 1–29: 9), but it is Solomon's duty, with Zadok now as chief priest at his side, to actualize
them (cf. 1 Chr. 28: 6, 10, 20).494 Zadok's anointing is therefore the final item of preparation for the new cultic order,
and it can be seen as marking the transition from the old pre-Temple order, the completion of the ‘Temple vision’
initiated by David.495 Zadok could not have been a chief priest without a temple any more than the Temple could have
functioned without a chief priest, hence the delay in his anointing until this point when the era of the Temple is about
to begin; the same function of dividing the eras is served by singling out Azariah in the genealogical material as the one
who served as priest in Solomon's Temple (1 Chr. 5: 36 (ET 6: 10)). Zadok's continued presence with Solomon after
David's death underlines the conception of David and Solomon as one event in Israel's history and indicates that the
two
493
Some commentators assume that in post-exilic times high priests were routinely anointed; so, for example, Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 95, states that ‘The anointing
of the high priest was a post-exilic custom’, and Braun, 1 Chronicles, 288, claims that ‘such an anointing was commonplace in post-exilic times.’ However, Japhet, I & II
Chronicles, argues that apart from the initial anointing of Aaron and his sons by Moses there is no biblical evidence from either First or Second Temple periods for the
consecration of priests by anointing (p. 513).
494
Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 514, comments that Zadok's anointing gives him extremely significant status as Solomon's counterpart, a situation comparable with the Restoration
leadership pairs of governor and high priest. See Ch. 5 above on Haggai and Zechariah for discussion of the relationship between governor and high priest in the
Restoration period.
495
Elmslie, 440–1, regards the presence of Zadok at this point as due to a reviser who was determined that Zadok should not be omitted. Similarly Williamson, 1 and 2
Chronicles, 187, attributes the reference to Zadok to a later hand who thought that installation of the high priest alongside the king was desirable, if not necessary.
kings represent the same religious outlook, which Zadok personifies.496

The fact that Zadok is anointed by the people (1 Chr. 29: 22) continues the process of legitimation illustrated by Zadok
becoming the king's priest despite his obscure origins: David has accepted him, and now the people accept him, so
there is no room for argument about his legitimacy. Such treatment indicates a concern to make Zadok ‘respectable’
and credible in the post-exilic era where legitimacy had become all-important and priests who could not prove their
ancestry were forbidden to serve until the required proof was forthcoming (Ezra 2: 63; Neh. 7: 65). It is especially
interesting to compare the context of Zadok's anointing in Chr. with DH. DH describes what can only be called an
intrigue surrounding Solomon's accession, with Solomon's older brother Adonijah claiming the throne, aided and
abetted by the Elide priest Abiathar. Zadok, however, aligns himself with Solomon, to whom David has promised the
throne, so that when Solomon becomes king Zadok is made his priest while Adonijah and Abiathar are killed and
banished respectively (1 Kings 1–2). Chr. has no such drama; Solomon and the passive Zadok are anointed as king and
priest with no question of a challenge from elsewhere, and there is no hint of Zadok the mysterious outsider ousting
Abiathar, the Israelite from the established priestly house of Eli (1 Chr. 29: 22; cf. 1 Kgs. 2: 27, 35; 1 Sam. 2: 35).
The portrayal of Zadok in the references which are taken as original, then, is intended to justify Zadok's appointment
as priest despite his lack of priestly descent in the sources, and to define the character of the David–Solomon period as
a single event in Israelite history during which the Temple vision is brought to realization. By contrast, the references to
Zadok which are probably secondary (1 Chr. 15: 11; 24: 3, 6, 31; 27: 17) seem to be concerned with ensuring a proper
priestly presence at what are important moments in the kingdom's foundation, and thereby claiming a right of priestly
involvement in those areas of cultic observance. This is probably from a later reviser who felt it necessary to raise the
priestly profile for more polemical purposes. If David is the vehicle of Yahweh's will for the kingdom of Israel, then
whatever can be shown to originate with him can be deemed legitimate. David's transference of the Ark to Jerusalem
could not
496
See n. 20 above on the David–Solomon period.
possibly have taken place without the priests there, according to the train of thought which resulted in the addition in 1
Chr. 15: 11; as already noted, despite a marked concern for matters of the cult and the Levites, Chr. shows very little
interest in priests, perhaps because of the tendency to democratize which is illustrated by Chr.'s treatment of the
Davidic promises.497 The addition may also have been prompted by the mention of Zadok in 16: 39. Zadok's presence
at the organization of the priestly courses (1 Chr. 24: 3, 6, 31) can similarly be accounted for; it was inconceivable that
in what was such an important matter concerning the cult, arrangements should have been taken in hand by the king
alone without having priests present. The attitude is similar to that found in P whereby the priest Eleazar appears
alongside Moses in the division of spoils from the war against Midian (Num. 31: 12, 25–7, 51, 54) and later with
Joshua in dividing the land amongst the tribes (Num. 34: 17; Josh. 14: 1; 19: 51). The reference in the list of tribal
chiefs of Israel (1 Chr. 27: 17) to Zadok as chief officer ( , nāgîd, 1 Chr. 27: 16) of the ‘tribe’ of Aaron would certainly
seem to be a pro-priestly addition, even pro-Zadokite, in its message that sons of Levi and sons of Aaron are to be
differentiated and Zadok is at the head of the sons of Aaron.498 The tribe of Aaron is in reality a subset of the tribe of
Levi which here replaces the tribe of Asher to make up the twelve. Zadok is the only chief in the list to appear without
a patronym, implying as before doubt about his exact provenance, although the fact that he is put in charge of the
house of Aaron implies the Levitical origins ascribed to him in the genealogical material.
The notorious problem of Zadok's origins has already been discussed.499 Neither Chr. nor DH have any real idea where
he came from; Chr.'s introduction of the ‘young man mighty in valour’ (1 Chr. 12: 29 (ET 12: 28)) seems to be an
attempt, as already noted, to fill the breach and to give at least some idea of
497
See above for a discussion of Chr.'s theological outlook.
498
It has already been noted that Chr. gives no reflection of any conflict between Aaronides and Zadokites; neither does he show any interest in Zadokites for their own sake.
The genealogical material refers to all priests as sons of Aaron (1 Chr. 6: 34 (ET 6: 49)), and includes Zadok as a descendant of Aaron (1 Chr. 5: 29–34; 6: 35–8 (ET 6: 3–8,
50–3)). Elsewhere in the work, apart from the late 1 Chronicles 24 which describes all the priestly course in terms of sons of Aaron (again including Zadok), there are five
references to priests as sons of Aaron (2 Chr. 13: 10; 29: 21; 31: 19; 35: 14), one reference to Levitical priests (2 Chr. 23: 18), and one reference to a high priest as being of
the house of Zadok (2 Chr. 31: 10).
499
how Zadok managed to gain his priestly position, and the genealogical material in 1 Chr. 5: 27–41, 6: 34–8 (ET 6:
1–15, 49–53) and 9: 11 builds upon the garbling of 2 Sam. 8: 17 to list Zadok as a son of Ahitub. Although it has been
argued that Zadok was in fact of Levitical or even Aaronide descent,500 the inconsistencies and evident uncertainty over
his origins, of which 2 Sam. 8: 17 is a prime example, point away from such a view. Even at the late stage of the pro-
priestly insertion of 1 Chronicles 24 there is uncertainty about Zadok's origins; despite his listing in 24: 3 as a son of
Eleazar, in 24: 6 he is simply ‘Zadok the priest’, whereas Ahimelech, who is similarly listed as being of the sons of
Ithamar in 24: 3, is listed in 24: 6 as son of Abiathar.501 The fact that both Zadok and Ahimelech are listed as sons of
Aaron is also contrary to DH's presentation of Ahimelech as an Elide (1 Sam. 22: 20; 1 Sam. 14: 3), making it difficult
to take seriously the idea of Zadok as a genuine Aaronide when there is such blatant contradiction of the earlier
tradition for the sake of later orthodoxy. It is difficult to believe that if Zadok was a member of an established priestly
community within Israel it would not have been clearly stated, given the penchant for Levitical priests at a very early
stage (cf. Judg. 17: 1–13). The community were aware of their priests' lineage, even if not of that for other officials.
All in all, Zadok is a surprisingly shadowy figure in Chr. He says nothing, and does very little; he is simply there in the
right place at the right time, so to speak. As priest, he has no concerns outside the cultic sphere; he is in charge of
burnt offerings at Gibeon, he is named as David's priest, and he is anointed as Solomon's priest, with no further
elucidation of his duties. Although he appears alongside the leadership at various important points, no attempt is made
to claim leadership status for him; rather, the monarch retains authority but an important role is claimed for the priest
as a priest alongside the monarch.
Neither of the other two priests of this period, Ahimelech and Abiathar, are mentioned alone, but each is mentioned
with Zadok, Abiathar once concerning bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (1 Chr.
500
501
This too seems to be a result of the garbled genealogy in 2 Sam. 8: 17, which was absorbed into 1 Chr. 18: 16. In 1 Sam. 22: 20 Abiathar is Ahimelech's son, not vice versa,
and Abiathar, not Ahimelech, is Zadok's colleague and the priest who survives David to be replaced by Zadok at Solomon's instigation (1 Kgs. 2: 27, 35).
15: 11) and twice as Ahimelech's father (1 Chr. 18: 16; 24: 6), and Ahimelech once as an officer in the Davidic
adminstration (1 Chr. 18: 16) and then three times as assisting in the arrangements for the priestly courses (1 Chr. 24:
3, 6, 31). Bearing in mind the comments already made about the references to Zadok, it is likely that the reference to
Abiathar in 1 Chr. 15: 11 (bringing the Ark to Jerusalem) and the three to Ahimelech with one to Abiathar as his father
in 1 Chronicles 24 (arrangements for the priestly courses) are secondary. If that is so, then the only part played by
either man in the original Chr. is in 1 Chr. 18: 16 where one of them is noted as priest alongside Zadok—which of
them it was depends on what the original reading of the verse is thought to be, as discussed earlier. Neither priest
appears in the opening genealogies of 1 Chr. 5: 27–41 and 6: 34–8 (ET 6: 1–15, 49–53), which could reflect either their
non-Zadokite Elide descent (1 Sam. 14: 3; 22: 20) or Chr.'s idea that there were no chief priests before Zadok and the
Temple (see above on Zadok's anointing). Certainly neither of them is designated as a chief priest in any way, whether
by rite or by title.
In the account of this first stage of monarchy, then, there is nothing to indicate that the Chronicler made any attempt
to portray a strong independent high priesthood which could have had responsibilities outside the cult, despite altering
his source documents to reflect contemporary circumstances and his own particular concerns which include the cult
and its importance. As with DH, the responsibility for all matters, including cultic arrangements, remains with the king,
and in fact, the presence of secondary additions referring to Zadok, as discussed above, indicates that the present
minimal picture of the chief-priestly role was even sketchier when it was first composed.
The second group of narrative references, and the third group in Chr. as a whole, are the references to chief priests in
the post-Solomonic period. They are as follows: after Zadok's anointing there is no mention of a chief priest until 2
Chr. 19: 11, when Amariah is appointed by King Jehoshaphat to give judgement in ecclesiastical matters. Following
Amariah, Jehoiada is responsible for protecting, enthroning, and directing the new king Joash, and is involved with
Joash's repairs to the Temple (2 Chronicles 22–4); Azariah turns King Uzziah out of the Temple when the king enters
to burn incense (2 Chr. 26: 16–20); the second Azariah
appears as chief priest during Hezekiah's reign (2 Chr. 31: 10, 13); and Hilkiah is the chief priest during the Josianic
reforms who finds the Book of the Law in the Temple (2 Chr. 34: 9, 14–15, 18, 20, 22; 35: 8).
Amariah (2 Chr. 19: 11) appears only once in the narrative, as part of Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms which seem to
reflect or at least interpret the provisions of Deut. 17: 8. As the story does not appear in DH, doubt has been
expressed as to its historicity, and Wellhausen suggested that it was constructed on the basis of judicial arrangements in
Chr.'s own day as a kind of illustrative etymology of Jehoshaphat's name which means ‘Yahweh has judged’.502 It is
likely that there were such tribunals in Jerusalem at some stage, given the Deuteronomic provision for them, and
deciding of disputed cases would seem to fall well within the original priestly remit of enquiring of the Lord and giving
judgements on matters which eluded human wisdom. Indeed, whether or not such a reform was undertaken by
Jehoshaphat, the story in its present form may well reflect a contemporary reality for Chr.—after all, in a province as
small as Judah, with one focus of the religious establishment, the chief priest would seem the logical person to decide
on disputed religious matters.503 Chr.'s scenario would certainly fit with the picture already built up of administration in
Persian-period Judah, whereby a governor responsible for civil administration served alongside the high priest who
had responsibility for religious matters; in 2 Chr. 19: 11 Amariah is only in charge of religious matters, with Zebadiah
‘the governor of the house of Judah’ ( , hannāgîd lebêt-yehûdâ—19: 11) having authority in all the king's
matters, and both are appointed by, and so presumably are answerable to, the higher authority of the king.
By far the most prominent chief-priestly figure in Chr. is
502
Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 198–9 (ET, 191). More recent commentators who have expressed reservations about the episode's historicity include Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, 146, and Coggins, Chronicles, 218. However, its historicity is defended by Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 257–8; Myers, II Chronicles, AB 13 (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1965), 108–9; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 287–9; and Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 770–4. Michaeli, Chroniques, 194–5, suggests that Jehoshaphat probably did
carry out some judicial reforms, but Chr. has presented them in terms of the circumstances of his own day.
503
Cf. Curtis and Madsen, 402: ‘When then a central sanctuary was established, the chief priest naturally became a supreme judge.’ Bartlett, ‘ as a Title’, 4–6, argues that
the judicial function of the pre-exilic chief priest was the reason why he began to bear the title (rōʼš, ‘head’), since it was a title already known and used in judicial
spheres.
Jehoiada, who is responsible for reinstating the legitimate Davidic heir Joash upon the throne, after Athaliah, the
mother of the previous king Ahaziah, has killed all the other members of the royal household (2 Chr. 23: 1–21). The
story is taken from 2 Kgs. 11: 1–20, and bears Chr.'s own distinctive marks of revision: ‘all Israel’ is involved in the
proceedings (2 Chr. 23: 2–3), the Davidic right to rule is the motivation behind Jehoiada's plan (23: 3b), and the Levites
have a major part, guarding the young king in the Temple where the profane masses are not allowed to enter (23: 6–7),
and later acting as gatekeepers to keep unclean people out of the Temple (23: 19). Jehoiada's own part is virtually
unchanged from DH, except that he himself along with his sons has the task of anointing Joash (23: 11), whereas in
DH the assembled company apparently carries out the anointing (2 Kgs. 11: 12). However, once Joash begins to reign
Jehoiada is portrayed in Chr. as more influential than he is in DH: instead of doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord
all his (own) days, as in 2 Kgs. 12: 3 (ET 12: 2), Joash does what is right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada
the priest (2 Chr. 24: 2), and Jehoiada also procures wives for Joash, thereby enabling him to beget heirs and ensuring
that the Davidic line will continue (2 Chr. 24: 3). Yet for all this, Jehoiada remains under the king's authority
(cf. 24: 6, 8), and Williamson is surely correct in seeing Jehoiada (and therefore the chief priest) as the guardian and
protector of the Davidic line, ensuring its survival and re-establishment at a very uncertain time in its history but with
no intention of taking over or becoming the power behind the throne.504 Even Chr.'s version of the repairs to the
Temple made under Joash (2 Chr. 24: 4–14), which appears at first sight to increase the status of the chief priest in
relation to the king, does not in fact do so. It is true that Jehoiada has his own officer who counts the money along with
the king's secretary, and then king and priest have joint oversight of the work (2 Chr. 24: 11–12), rather than Jehoiada
working with the king's secretary as in 2 Kgs. 12: 11–13 (ET 12: 10–12). However, given Chr.'s overriding
preoccupation with the Davidic house in terms of political rule and religious observance, this is to emphasize the king's
involvement with the repairs as the proper duty of the monarch, not to improve the chief priest's relative position.
Indeed, according to 2 Chr. 24: 8 it is Joash himself who gives orders for the collecting box to be
504
Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 313–14.
provided, whereas in 2 Kgs. 12: 10 (ET 12: 9) the credit for this initiative goes to Jehoiada.505 In other words, the
episode is remodelled in order to reflect well on Joash rather than to boost Jehoiada's status.
Two kings further on in the narrative comes the chief priest Azariah, the first of two in Chr. to bear that name, who
rebukes King Uzziah when the king enters the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr. 26: 16–20). As in the account of Joash's
death (2 Chr. 24: 23–5), the passage is an elaboration on its source, and is intended to explain the misfortune which
befell an apparently virtuous king (2 Chr. 26: 4–5). In 2 Kgs. 15: 3–5 Uzziah (rather confusingly referred to there as
Azariah) is said to have done what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but to have failed to remove the high places, with
the implied result that he became a leper. Chr., however, portrays Uzziah's leprosy as due to the specific instance of
pride described in 2 Chr. 26: 16–20, namely the attempt to usurp cultic privileges to which he is not entitled, so that the
punishment for attempting to function in the Temple in an inappropriate capacity is to be barred permanently from the
Temple in any capacity—in other words, cultic violation leads to the penalty of cultic exclusion. In the present version
of the story, Azariah the chief priest is accompanied by eighty other priests who all rebuke the king together, and
Japhet suggests that the narrative was originally a reflection of some tension between king and high priest, the thrust of
which has been lost by bringing in the eighty others under a ‘democratizing’ revision.506 The episode is an important
illustration of the concern which developed to protect the priestly privilege of altar service, to the extent that even the
king is debarred from performing ritual duties involving the altar;507 although David and Solomon are shown making
sacrificial offerings, presumably
505
Michaeli, Chroniques, 208.
506
Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1989), 425–7; I & II Chronicles, 885. J. W. Wright, ‘Guarding the Gates:
e
I Chronicles 26: 1–19 and the Roles of Gatekeepers in Chronicles’, JSOT 48 (1990), 69–81, sees the eighty priests, (b nê-ḥāyil, ‘sons of might’), as ‘a portion of
Uzziah's own crack troops, protecting and enforcing the will of Azariah against the ruling, but proud, monarch’ (p. 72).
507
The episode is reminiscent of the Priestly narratives of punishment for improper altar service in Lev. 10: 1–3 and Num. 16: 1–17: 5 (ET 16: 1–40). See the discussion of
these narratives in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter’, 17–22, sees in all three narratives a reflection of how dangerous a ceremony it was for the
nation's representative to enter the Holy of Holies for the Day of Atonement observances.
because they are the originators of cult and Temple for the monarchic era (1 Chr. 16: 2; 21: 26; 2 Chr. 1: 6; 7: 5, 7; 8:
12–13), no subsequent monarch is allowed the privilege. Not even Hezekiah, who is portrayed as virtually a second
David, makes offerings himself, but instead he commands the priests to do it (2 Chr. 29: 21–4, 27). In a community
where there was no longer a king, however much one might have been hoped for or anticipated, the message conveyed
is in line with Chr.'s general approach that kingship is a privilege which is always subordinate to Yahweh and to proper
worship in the Temple. Hence, the lack of a king does not disadvantage the community in terms of its worship, which
is where the essence of the community's identity lies. As with Jehoiada's installation of Joash by extraordinary means,
Azariah's rebuke of Uzziah is portrayed as an attempt not to usurp royal privilege for himself, but to ensure that the
monarch is informed about his duties and kept on the proper path.
The second Azariah is mentioned in connection with Hezekiah's reforms (2 Chr. 31: 10, 13), specifically with
Hezekiah's reinstatement of tithing in order to support the Temple personnel. Azariah, noted as being of the house of
Zadok,508 is the one who replies to Hezekiah's query about the amounts of tithed material collected from the populace
(2 Chr. 31: 10), and three verses further on he is said to have helped Hezekiah in appointing Levites to oversee the
collection and storage of the tithes. Chr.'s account of Hezekiah differs significantly from that in DH, where Hezekiah's
reforms are passed over in a very cursory manner in a mere four verses (2 Kgs. 18: 4–7) instead of the three chapters
devoted to them by Chr. (2 Chr. 29: 1–31: 21); Chr. in turn omits most of the material about Hezekiah's military and
political exploits given by DH, and once again the effect is to emphasize the king's concern for the Temple and cult.
Azariah the chief priest is merely an instrument in the reforms; he has no initiative in reorganizing the Temple
structure to cope with the vast amounts of produce,
508
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 8, suggests that the reference to the house of Zadok here is ‘too likely to reflect the Chronicler's belief to be certain evidence of the
preexilic tradition’. Certainly no other chief priest is noted as being of the house of Zadok, and it seems a singularly unnecessary comment, especially given Chr.'s overall lack
of interest in priestly lineage beyond the general ‘sons of Aaron’ and Levites. However, it may be that the portrayal of Hezekiah as a second David (2 Chr. 29: 2, 25–7, 30; 30:
26) demands a second Zadok as chief priest. In that case, the apparent emphasis on Azariah's lineage is to emphasize the fidelity of the king rather than that of the chief
priest.
despite the fact that he is deemed the chief officer of the house of God (2 Chr. 31: 13), nor does he have any part in
any other area of the reforms. His contribution is confined to the Temple in a matter concerning Temple personnel,
and is dependent upon the order of King Hezekiah, who is shown working with him (2 Chr. 31: 13) in the same way
that Joash worked with Jehoiada to repair the Temple (2 Chr. 24: 11–12); in each case, the monarch is given credit by
his readiness to involve himself in the affairs of the Temple, rather than the chief priest being given a pseudo-royal
status.
The last chief-priestly figure to be mentioned in Chr. is Hilkiah. As in DH, he is the one to find the Book of the Law in
the Temple (2 Chr. 34: 14), and is then sent along with a number of others at the king's command to enquire of Huldah
the prophetess about the book's contents (2 Chr. 34: 20–2). As also in DH, he plays a surprisingly small part in the
operation to clean up Temple and land and in the Passover celebration, events in which Josiah is the prime mover
(2 Chr. 34: 29–35: 7; 35: 16–19). In fact, in Chr.'s account the Levites play a greater part than Hilkiah does, particularly
in the Passover celebration where they have duties concerned with the sacrificial animals and preparing the feast for the
priests and other Levites (2 Chr. 35: 10–15). Hilkiah is only mentioned once during the Passover, and then it is with
two others, Zechariah and Jehiel, all three of whom are referred to collectively as the chief officers of the house of God
(2 Chr. 35: 8).509 Their task is apparently to provide lambs, kids, and bulls for the priests' Passover offerings.
As with the references for the David–Solomon period, then, the references to chief priests in the post-Solomonic
period show the office undergoing no significant development towards acquiring powers outside the cultic realm. The
chief priests are never portrayed without a monarch, and even Jehoiada, who is the most independent and innovative
chief priest, does not use his initiative to claim power in new realms, but rather to restore what is portrayed throughout
as the legitimate status quo, whereby the Davidic monarch is the ultimate civil authority and the chief priest is
effectively his subordinate. Nor does Amariah's judicial function give him what might be termed civil power; he only
has authority
509
Cf. 2 Kgs. 25: 18, where two priests and three doorkeepers are taken prisoner by Nebuzaradan the Babylonian commander.
in ‘matters of the Lord’, while ‘the king's matters’ are dealt with by someone else, and both men remain under royal
authority. This distinction between ‘matters of the Lord’ and ‘the king's matters’ is indicative of another important
principle which is at work in these references, namely the widening gap between the sacral and the civil spheres of
responsibility. Although the later kings are still responsible for implementing religious policy and maintaining the
Temple, they are not permitted to offer sacrifices in the way that they do in DH, as can be seen from the tale of
Uzziah's downfall. The implication of this is that the political leadership of Chr.'s community was no longer sacral, and
it is a fair assumption that the removal of sacral responsibility from the sphere of political leadership would not be
conducive to those in the cultic sphere acquiring responsibilities in the civil sphere. Indeed, the only expression in the
narrative of this civil–sacral separation is in terms of the king's loss of sacral privilege; there is no corresponding rise in
civil power or privilege for the chief priest, and so no indication of a general transfer of leadership responsibility from
king to priest.
Having discussed the individuals who are depicted as chief or high priests in the narrative, it would be as well to
examine the terms by which they are designated. Apart from the simple ‘PN the priest’, there are nine references by
title to senior priestly figures in Chr., and of these, the commonest specific designation for the senior priest, used of all
the chief priests from Amariah to Azariah II, is (rōšʼ, ‘head’), as follows (the five references are all from 2
Chronicles): 510
19: 11 (ʼa maryāhû kōhēn hārōʼš, ‘Amariah the
head priest’)
24: 6 (lîhôyādāʽ hārōʼš, ‘to Jehoiada the head’)
24: 11 (ûpeqîd kōhēn hārōʼš, ‘and the officer of
the head priest’)
26: 20 (ʽazaryāhû kōhēn hārōʼš, ‘Azariah the head
priest’)
31: 10 (ʽazaryāh hakkōhēn hārōʼš, ‘Azariah the
priest, the head’)
510
Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship’, 343, claims a further reference to (kōhēn hārōʼš ) in 1 Chr. 27: 5; however, it is doubtful whether this refers to the
chief priest at all. BHS reads (hakkōhēn hārōʼš ), but suggests that the reading should be (hakkōhēn hārōʼš ) as in 2 Chr. 31: 10 and Ezra 7: 5, and the
RSV takes the verse to mean ‘Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, as chief’. The LXX gives Βαναιας ὁ του̑ Ιωδαɛ ὁ ἱɛρɛὺς ὁ ὺρχων (‘Benaiah son of Joiada, the leading
priest’), implying that Benaiah himself is the chief priest, something which makes little sense, given that in 2 Sam. 23: 20–3 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is one of David's
thirty mighty men. The context of 1 Chr. 27: 5 is also a list of David's military commanders, so to argue for a reference to a chief priest in the middle of it, whether Jehoiada
or Benaiah, seems illogical. Even if it were a reference to Jehoiada as chief priest it would be anachronistic, since the list refers to personnel in the service of King David, and
Jehoiada was chief priest in the days of Joash some centuries later. 1 Chr. 27: 5 is not therefore included as part of the present investigation.
Bartlett's suggestion that the chief priest began to bear the title (rōʼš) because of his judicial function in the
community has already been noted. He also makes the point that in a tribal context the title
511
(rōʼš) could also have
military connotations, although he does not apply this to the priestly figures who bear the title.512 However, if Wright's
picture of the gatekeeping Levites as a paramilitary security force is accurate,513 it is conceivable that the chief priest's
title (rrōʼš) also indicated his responsibility for the Levites in a military sense. Whatever the term's precise
connotations for the senior priest at Jerusalem, though, it does appear to be a functional rather than an ontological
designation;514 in other words, it defines in some way the duties to be exercised by the individual to whom it is applied
(whether or not those duties can be identified by modern scholarship), rather than simply describing a characteristic of
the individual who holds responsibility, as is the case with (hakkōhēn haggādôl, ‘the great/senior/eldest
priest’). It also appears to be a pre-exilic designation, inasmuch as the seven occasions on which it occurs with the
515
significance of ‘chief priest’ in the Hebrew Bible, namely the five instances quoted above plus 2 Kgs. 25: 18 and Jer. 52:
24, are all in preexilic contexts. If that is the case, then the change to (hakkōhēn haggādôl) for the post-exilic
context would reflect a growing concern for cultic correctness in every aspect of life, not only with regard to the duties
to be done, but also with regard to who was legitimately entitled to do them. For the high priesthood, too, the change
from (rōʼš) to (gādôl) can perhaps be understood in terms of the change from a royal appointment for which
descent from a particular priestly line was not necessarily crucial,516 to a
511
See n. 49 above.
512
Bartlett, ‘ as a Title’, 5.
513
J. W. Wright, ‘Guarding the Gates’, 70–4.
514
So also Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 12.
515
See the discussions of the term (hakkōhēn haggādôl ) in Ch. 1 on the Priestly writer and Ch. 5 on Haggai and Zechariah above.
516
See Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, 11, 14–15.
means of determining succession, and indeed, claiming rights, at a time when there was no longer a royal authority to
make the appointment.
Only once is the adjective (gādôl, ‘great’) used of a priest, as opposed to four times in DH:
2 Chr. 34: 9 (ḥilqiyyāhû hakkōhēn haggādôl,
‘Hilkiah the great/senior/eldest priest’)
This is rather surprising, since it is generally held that (hakkōhēn haggādôl) was the standard post-exilic term
for a high priest, and yet Chr. has failed to reproduce it from DH on three out of four occasions, once replacing it with
(kōhēn hārōʼš—2 Chr. 24: 11; cf. 2 Kgs. 12: 11 (ET 12: 10)), once omitting the title but retaining the name
(‘Hilkiah’—2 Chr. 34: 15; cf. 2 Kgs. 22: 8), and once altering the source so that the high priest is eliminated
from it at that point (2 Chr. 34: 33; cf. 2 Kgs. 23: 4–20). This has led to speculation that the occurrences of
(hakkōhēn haggādôl) in the earlier work are interpolations, since if Chr. had found them in a DH text of the fifth or
fourth century when the term had gained some currency they would surely not have been omitted or altered, given
Chr.'s anachronistic treatment of the Temple cultus as a whole.517
Three instances occur of a title implying administrative oversight of the Temple, which recurs in Neh. 11: 11:
1 Chr. 9: 11 (negid bêt hāʼelōhîm, ‘chief officer of the
house of God’)
2 Chr. 31: 13 (waʽazaryāhû negîd bêt hāʼelōhîm,
‘and Azariah chief officer of the house of God’)
3 Chr. 35: 8 (ḥilqiyyāh ûzekaryāhû
wîḥîʼēl negîdê bêt hāʼelōhîm, ‘Hilkiah and Zechariah and
Jehiel, chief officers of the house of God’)
The idea of Temple oversight is one which corresponds to the portrayal of several of the chief priests. Jehoiada and
Hilkiah are involved in the repairs undertaken by Joash and Josiah (2 Chr. 24: 4–14; 34: 8–14); Azariah rebukes Uzziah
as one who is responsible for letting the right people in and keeping the wrong people out of the Temple (2 Chr. 26:
16–20); and Azariah II is the one who
517
See Cody, 103 n. 53.
knows about the tithes being brought into the Temple and is responsible with the king for appointing Levites to look
after the storage of the goods in the Temple itself (2 Chr. 31: 8–13).
On the basis of the observations made, therefore, it can be seen that the portrayal of the chief priests in Chr. is not
substantially different from their portrayal in DH, and although there are additional senior priestly figures in Chr.
which do not appear in DH, there are also an equivalent number of omissions from the earlier source. Given Chr.'s
evident concern for the cult and utter lack of compunction about including battalions of Levites where they had not
originally appeared so as to reflect and presumably legitimate contemporary cultic practice, it would have been only
natural for the chief-priestly role to have been similarly magnified had that been considered appropriate. Of course, the
potential in Chr. for magnification of the chief priest's role is inevitably limited by the monarchic context in which the
narrative is set, so that it would not be possible, for example, to show the chief priest ruling the country instead of the
monarch. However, even within such contextual limitations it would have been possible to raise the profile of the
leading priest as compared with DH, if he had been considered an important enough figure for that to be done.
Apparently he was not so considered, either by the Chronicler or by any of the later revisers who saw fit to edit Chr.,
despite the fact that on more than one occasion the revisions have a pro-priestly bias (e.g. 1 Chr. 15: 11; 24: 3). As was
the case with the Ezra material, two possible explanations for such a state of affairs present themselves: either the
failure to show a high priesthood of importance and influence was a deliberate ideological omission, or the high
priesthood was not at this stage a particularly significant office in areas outside the cultic sphere.
Deliberate omission of any significant cultic office seems unlikely, and chief priests are certainly included when they are
deemed to have made a significant contribution to the life of the community. For example, Jehoshaphat's judicial
reforms where royal authority is delegated to the governor and the chief priest as judges is a tale unparalleled in DH
and therefore presumably deliberately included in Chr. (2 Chr. 19: 1–11). Similarly, Jehoiada is praised for enthroning
Joash and keeping him on the right path, and is eventually buried among the kings for his services to the kingdom
(2 Chronicles 22–4). However, a powerful independent
high priesthood seems to have been incompatible with the ideology of Chr.; Williamson's comment on Jehoiada's role
is perhaps illuminating in this respect.518 True authority of leadership remains with the Davidic house, although the
chief priest is an important stabilizing and regulating influence; all the chief priests mentioned in Chr. are mentioned in
relation to a king, but the kings are not all accompanied by a chief priest. However, where the priests do appear they
serve to emphasize the monarchs' virtues or vices; Amariah, Azariah II, and Hilkiah all serve under kings who carry
out beneficial reforms and adhere to the Law, whereas Jehoiada and Azariah I serve with monarchs who come to grief
because of sin as epitomized by lack of respect for the chief priests. Taking into account the ‘democratizing’ trend of
Chr., which makes the people as a whole the heirs to the Davidic promise, the message seems to be that as in the
monarchic era, so in the contemporary political situation, the chief or high priest should continue to exercise his
stabilizing and regulating influence in the same way, in the same spheres, only this time in the context of the whole
community. This does not give him Davidic authority or make him the overall political leader; he is the servant of the
cult and the people, who have to work out their salvation under the auspices of a Persian governor. Hence, Chr.'s
depiction can be viewed as a mixture of idealism and realism, taking account of the current political realities and yet
not losing sight of the ideal of the people of Yahweh. In the light of such an interpretation it seems likely that Chr.
originated from quietist circles which accepted Persian domination as a fact of life because to them it was less
important to be politically independent than to have a community properly focused on Yahweh and the Temple.
Even assuming that Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah are not part of the same work, if the analysis given above of Chr.'s re-
presentation of the Davidic monarchy is accepted, there is more of a similarity between Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah than
might appear at first sight: both present an ideal of non-monarchic theocracy for the people of Israel, Ezra–Nehemiah
by describing more or less contemporary events, and Chr. by describing pre-exilic history. They differ, though, in that
although Chr. shows awareness of the Law, its emphasis is upon the community's worship, whereas the focus of
Ezra–Nehemiah is upon the Law as the expression of the
518
See above, n. 50.
community's identity before Yahweh. However, both Chr. and Ezra–Nehemiah seem to represent a later stage of
thought than the royalism evidenced in the Restoration prophets Haggai and Zechariah, inasmuch as both have moved
away from the idea of monarchic restoration as the key to the community's identity; but equally, in so doing, neither
they nor their communities have moved towards the concept of a hierocratic society ruled in its entirety by the high
priest.
9 After the Canon: The Later Persian Period
So far, this study of the high priesthood has been based almost exclusively upon biblical material, since the periods in
question are reasonably well documented in the canon and the high priest appears in the material relatively frequently,
although by no means as frequently as might have been expected. However, when it comes to the later Persian period,
and subsequently to the Greek period, there is a difficulty. Even assuming that the books of Chronicles date from
some time in the fourth century BCE, there is a large gap in the canonical sources between the later Persian period and
the Maccabean period,519 and although it is highly likely that some of the non-historical material such as Ecclesiastes
dates from these years, there is nothing in the way of historical narrative for the period. It is true that the list of high
priests in Neh. 12: 10–11 is presumably supposed to reach down to the end of the Persian period;520 but apart from
Chr.'s suggestively anachronistic portrayal of the pre-exilic period there is no material in narrative form for the period
between the mid-Persian and the Seleucid eras. The narrative part of the book of Nehemiah ends with Nehemiah's
second term of office in Judah, so that the events which it describes would be no later than the end of the fifth century
BCE, whilst at the other end of the chronological divide 1 and 2 Maccabees do not begin their accounts until early in
the second century BCE. I Maccabees gives a cursory description of the rise and death of
519
M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, suggests that the lacuna in source material is due to Judas Maccabeus having destroyed much of what existed in his day because it
was favourable to the Maccabees' opponents, in particular to the legitimate high-priestly family of Jerusalem whom the Maccabees effectively ousted (p. 115). However, this
is somewhat far-fetched, because the first Maccabean high priest was Judas' brother Jonathan, who did not take up the position until eight years after Judas was killed in
battle. The question of Maccabean usurpation of the high priesthood at the expense of the official high-priestly family, and a consequent output of derogatory literature,
simply did not arise during Judas' lifetime, so to posit it as a factor in Judas' supposed destruction of source material is anachronistic.
520
See the discussion of the list in Ch. 6 above on Ezra and Nehemiah.
Alexander the Great and the division of his empire (1 Macc 1: 1–8), but the book's main narrative begins in 1: 9 with
Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his accession in 175 BCE. Similarly, 2 Maccabees begins with Seleucus IV's attempt to
plunder the Temple during the high priesthood of Onias III, events somewhat earlier than the havoc wrought by
Antiochus IV, but only by a few years as Seleucus was Antiochus' immediate predecessor, holding power from 187 to
175 BCE. There is therefore a period of perhaps as long as two hundred years, from the early fourth century to the
early second century BCE, for historical information on which it is necessary to rely almost exclusively on extra-
canonical sources.
The major narrative source for the whole of that period is of course the work of the Jewish historian Josephus,521 in
particular his Jewish Antiquities, but there are also a number of other more fragmentary sources, including coins and
papyri, which can be used to supplement the material gained from Josephus. For the later Persian period (c.400–332
BCE), with which the present chapter is concerned, there are two relevant sources, namely Josephus' record of the
period, and some of the earlier issues of the so-called Yehud coinage, which seems to have had its origins during this
period. Hence, it is to these sources that the discussion now turns, in order to complete the picture of the high
priesthood during the period of Persian domination.
In his Jewish Antiquities book xi, Josephus obviously sets out to provide a complete record of the Persian period.
Starting with the decree of Cyrus (Ant. xi. 1–4), he paraphrases the narratives of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, and
once this has been done he rounds off his account of the period with three other narratives, all of which involve the
Jerusalem high priesthood and all of which are unparalleled in the canonical literature. The first (Ant. xi.
521
Although there has been and probably will continue to be much discussion about the reliability of Josephus' narratives, a discussion not always helped by the fact that some
of his material is obviously confused, he is the major source not only for the later Persian period and much of the Ptolemaic period but also for the Hasmonean period
following the death of Simon Maccabee. On the question of Josephus' reliability, Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, JSPS 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988),
describes Josephus as ‘a creative interpreter of Judaism’ (p. 234), having concluded that ‘Josephus possesses a genuine interest in and a sincere will to write impartially and,
surprisingly, he often does so in his works’ (p. 206). On that basis, Josephus should not be disregarded as being hopelessly biased or distorted; obviously it is necessary to use
the information he provides with the kind of discernment which would be applied to any source material, but with that proviso Josephus is an important resource for the
understanding and assessment of the period.
AFTER THE CANON 221
297–301) describes how a certain Joannes (Johanan), styled as a grandson of Eliashib (cf. Neh. 12: 10), succeeded to
the high priesthood, but was challenged by his brother Jesus (Joshua), who had been promised the high priesthood by
the Persian official Bagoses (Bagoas). The two quarrelled, and Joannes killed Jesus in the Temple, with the result that
Bagoses punished the whole community by imposing a heavy tax upon each sacrificial lamb offered there for the next
seven years. The second narrative (Ant. xi. 302–12) also deals with two brothers in the high-priestly family, this time
with Jaddus (Jaddua) and Manasses (Manasseh), who are said to be sons of Joannes. Jaddus succeeded to the high
priesthood, while Manasses was persuaded by Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, to marry his daughter in order to
cement relations between the Jews and the Samaritans. This caused resentment from the Jewish elders and from
Jaddus, because Manasses was apparently ‘sharing the high priesthood’ whilst being married to a foreign wife (Ant. xi.
306), so Sanballat promised to obtain permission from the Persian king Darius III to build a temple on Mount
Garizim and to make Manasses not only high priest in the new temple but also governor of Samaria. The fulfilment of
Sanballat's plan under Alexander the Great rather than under the Persian Darius is described a little later (Ant. xi.
321–4). The final narrative describes how when Alexander was advancing towards Jerusalem, having already captured
Tyre and Gaza, the Jewish high priest, named Jaddus by Josephus, was instructed in a dream to go out and meet him,
and upon doing so was received extremely favourably by him with the promise of many concessions for the Jews (Ant.
xi. 326–39). Josephus thus closes his narrative of the Persian period as he had opened it, with the description of a new
ruler coming to power who shows benevolence and indeed respect towards the Jews.
These passages have engendered a good deal of debate concerning their historical accuracy. Certainly it seems that the
last of the three can be disregarded from an historical point of view as legendary, not least because there are other
stories in the Palestinian tradition about a high priest who met Alexander, and these stories name the high priest as
Simon the Just rather than the Jaddus of Josephus' account.522 The Sanballat–Manasses episode is
522
BT Yoma 69a; Scholion to Megillat Ta anit, 21 Kislev; Levit. Rabb. 13.5. For comment on the Alexander story in Josephus, see Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and
the Jews (Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961), 45–7; Grabbe, ‘Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 106 (1987),
231–46 (pp. 242–3); Daniel R. Schwartz, ‘On Some Papyri and Josephus' Sources and Chronology for the Persian period’, JSJ 21 (1990), 175–99 (pp. 186–9); Grabbe,
Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 181–3.
also problematic in terms of its historicity;523 Grabbe characterizes it as ‘anti-Samaritan material’,524 and as such it serves
(or attempts) to discredit the Samaritan temple and priesthood rather than shedding any light on the position of the
Jerusalem high priest-hood in the later Persian period. This leaves only the Joannes–Jesus–Bagoses episode for
consideration. Certainly there is an intrinsic probability that this narrative is based on fact, since what it describes is so
scandalous that it would hardly be invented or included by such a pro-Jewish writer as Josephus if it were not true; in
this respect it differs sharply from the Sanballat–Manasses–Alexander narratives, the aim of which seems to be to extol
the Jews by presenting them in a favourable light and their rivals in a poor light. However, as with the
Sanballat–Manasses–Alexander episodes, there are historical difficulties. The names Joannes and Bagoses are
Hellenized versions of those given to the high priest and the Persian governor of Judah who appear in the Elephantine
papyri in connection with the Elephantine Jews' request for assistance with rebuilding their devastated temple, c.408
BCE.525
523
The main difficulty is in Josephus' chronology. According to Neh. 13: 28, Nehemiah expelled a son of Jehoiada the son of Eliashib the high priest because this unnamed son
was married to an unnamed daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, satrap of Samaria. As already noted, Josephus too reports the marriage of a member of the high-priestly
family to a daughter of Sanballat and the resulting rancour of the Jews (Ant. xi. 302–3, 306–11), but he gives different names to the couple involved, and places the whole
incident in the context of the advance of Alexander (Ant. xi. 321–2), thus bringing it forward in time by about a century. This is obviously inconsistent with the version in
Nehemiah, not least because Sanballat could not have been in office in both the mid-fifth century and the mid-fourth century. The discovery of the Samaria papyri, which
testify to the existence of an individual named Sanballat as father of two governors of Samaria in the mid-fourth century BCE , has been taken by Cross on the basis of
papponymy to indicate that there may well have been a third Sanballat who was governor of Samaria at the time of Alexander's advance (‘A Report on the Samaria Papyri’,
VTSupp 40 (1986), 17–26 (pp. 19–20)). This implies that, at least as far as the existence of a late mid-fourth-century Samaritan governor called Sanballat is concerned,
Josephus may in fact have been correct. However, even if there was a Sanballat who was contemporary with Alexander, this still leaves open the question of whether
Josephus knew of two Sanballats (and two intermarriages) or has simply conflated from his sources two incidents referring to two different time-periods, under the mistaken
impression that ‘Sanballat’ was the same individual in each case. For further discussion, see D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some Papyri’, 182–6, 189–92, 198–9.
524
Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 174. See also Grabbe, ‘Josephus and the Reconstruction’, 236–42.
525
AP 30 (pp. 111–14).
AFTER THE CANON 223
However, the Elephantine correspondence dates from the reign of Darius II, whereas according to Josephus, Bagoses
was the general of ‘the other Artaxerxes’ (Ant. xi. 297). A Bagoses who was general of Artaxerxes III is known from
Diodorus Siculus xvi. 47–51, but if this Bagoses is the one to whom the narrative in Josephus refers, then the high
priest cannot have been Johanan the grandson of Eliashib who was in office in 408 BCE, since Artaxerxes III ruled
from 358 to 338 BCE.526 The question is therefore whether the Joannes–Jesus–Bagoses incident should be regarded as
having taken place in the late fifth century or the mid-fourth century, a question which needs to be answered if the
value of the source for the history of high priesthood in the mid- to late Persian period is to be properly assessed. If the
incident is dated to the end of the fifth century, then it overlaps in date with some of the other sources already
examined, and can therefore serve either to confirm or to confute the conclusions already drawn from them; if on the
other hand the incident is dated to the middle of the fourth century, then it is a source of information on a period
which has not yet been covered, and can hopefully be used to extend the picture of the high priesthood.
More detailed discussion of the dating will be undertaken below, but first, as a preliminary to that discussion, the
ideology of the passage will be examined. Whether the incident occurred at the end of the fifth century or during the
latter half of the fourth, it does not show the high priest in any new or unexpected light; instead, it shows him
operating in the same capacity as the one in which he has always operated, namely as an official of the Temple and the
cult. The whole incident is centred on the acquisition of a cultic office; the quarrel and the slaying take place within the
Temple itself, thereby implying that Jesus the pretender was challenging the cultic legitimacy of the officiating Joannes;
and even the retribution imposed upon the Jews by Bagoses is what might be termed ‘cultic’ retribution—a tax on
every sacrificial lamb offered for the next seven years. It could be argued that the quarrel would not have arisen if at
the time when the incident took place the high priesthood was not an important and influential office in political terms;
therefore, what is being portrayed is
526
For a detailed discussion of the historical issues surrounding the passage, see Williamson, ‘Historical Value’; D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some Papyri’. Williamson argues for a
fourth-century dating, whereas Schwartz prefers the fifth-century setting.
effectively a struggle for the political control of the province which the office of high priest would bestow. However,
the struggle is clearly portrayed as taking place between two members of the priestly hierarchy, not between a high
priest and a non-priest, as might be expected if the office carried with it wide-ranging responsibilities outside the cultic
arena; and it can easily be understood how to those within the priestly community the supreme priestly office would seem
highly desirable, so that jealousies and tensions might arise over its acquisition, whether or not that office involved
political administration as well as cultic responsibility. Internal wrangling and power politics are a feature of most
institutions and groups to a greater or lesser extent, regardless of whether or not the power which is fought over
bestows any kind of influence beyond the circle in which the struggle takes place; indeed, it would be fair to say that
such struggles are generally aimed precisely at gaining power within the circle rather than outside it. There is no obvious
reason why such a scenario should not be posited for the quarrel between Joannes and Jesus. Indeed, such a scenario is
supported by the additional fact that the quarrel is between two brothers, one of whom is the serving high priest and
the other of whom was presumably a potential high priest, and in the light of this it seems most natural to view the
whole incident as an unfortunate case of sibling rivalry within the priestly circle, aggravated by the intervention of a
third party.
A further point to note is the role of Bagoses. He apparently considers himself in a position to promise the high
priesthood to someone other than its present incumbent; and he is definitely in a position to impose tribute on the
Jews for seven years, which the high priest must also suffer and is apparently powerless to rescind. Under these
circumstances, it seems evident that Bagoses' authority in the community was greater than that of the high priest; and
so, a preliminary analysis of the episode's ideology points towards a scenario in which Judah was a province ruled by a
governor, to whom the high priest along with the rest of the population was subordinate.
In the light of this analysis, the precise significance of the dating becomes clear. If the incident were dated towards the
end of the Persian period, that is, in the mid-fourth century rather than in the late fifth, then it would be an indication
that the position of the high priest, inasmuch as it could be determined from the
AFTER THE CANON 225
canonical sources for the earlier Persian period, remained unchanged for the rest of that period. If on the other hand
the incident were dated to the end of the fifth century, then it would simply be further confirmation of what has
already been suggested on the basis of canonical material for the same period, without implying anything about the
later Persian period for which information is so scarce. Plausible arguments have been advanced for both datings,527
and so in order to decide which is the more likely scenario, it is necessary to turn to the other major non-canonical
source for the later Persian period, namely the so-called Yehud coinage.
The Yehud coinage consists of a series of tiny silver coins which seem to have been minted in Judah, most probably in
Jerusalem, during the fourth and third centuries. They take their name from the inscription which many of them bear
in palaeo-Hebrew script, YHD, which is the name of the province in Aramaic. Other, probably later, issues bear the
inscription YHDH, Yehudah, which is the name of the province in Hebrew; this change in inscription may be
connected with the overthrow of Persian rule, since Aramaic was the Persian lingua franca.528 Theories vary as to the
precise dating and significance of these coins. Mildenberg, for example, constructs a chronology of Yehud types which
runs from the early fourth century to the reign of Ptolemy I (312–285 BCE);529 Meshorer, however, argues that there
was a gap in production during the reign of Ptolemy I, but that minting was resumed under Ptolemy II and continued
throughout his reign, possibly even into the reign of Ptolemy III.530 It seems certain that the earlier types of Yehud coin
were imitations of Attic issues, since many of them bear an owl on the reverse, and some also depict the head of
527
See n. 8 above.
528
Uriel Rappaport, ‘The First Judean Coinage’, JJS 32 (1981), 1–17 (pp. 9–10). Ya akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, I: Persian Period through Hasmoneans (New York:
Amphora Books, 1982), 17–18, is also of the opinion that the switch from YHD to YHDH took place in the Ptolemaic era, but regards it as a somewhat later development,
reflecting ‘the newly organized relations between Ptolemy II and his Judaean subjects’ (p. 18).
529
Leo Mildenberg, ‘Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea’, in Otto Mørkholm and Nancy M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology:
Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren: Éditions NR, 1979), 183–96 and plates 21–2 (pp. 186–91).
530
Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 18–21. However, Dan Barag, ‘A Silver Coin of Yoḥanan the High Priest and the Coinage of Judea in the Fourth Century B.C.’, INJ 9
(1986–7), 4–21 and plate 1, regards this aspect of Meshorer's chronology as ‘very unlikely’ (pp. 6–7).
Athena on the obverse. An interesting feature of the Yehud coins in general, in view of the Jewish antipathy towards
‘graven images’, is their use of animal and, more importantly, human likenesses. The coins are of small denomination,
and would have been used locally as small change to supplement the larger denominations produced by more
centralized mints elsewhere in the region.531
Two types of the Yehud coins are of particular interest for the present purposes. The first consists of issues which have
a facing head on the obverse and an owl on the reverse, but instead of bearing the reverse inscription YHD they carry
the name YḤZQYH (Yeḥezqiyah), accompanied by the title HPḤH (happeḥâ): 532 Yeḥezqiyah the governor.533 The
appearance of this individual's name on the local coinage implies that he was the minting authority; if so, he must have
had permission from the Persian king to act in this capacity, since minting was a royal prerogative.534 However, the
name Yeḥezqiyah is of interest for another reason. It has often been pointed out that in Against Apion
531
Rappaport, 14; John W. Betlyon, ‘Coinage’, in ABD i. 1076–89 (p. 1083).
532
Examples of another Yeḥezqiyah type have also been found, which have a profile head on the obverse and on the reverse a winged creature plus the inscription YḤZQYH
with no other title. This type will be discussed below in Ch. 10. The present discussion applies only to the facing head with owl YḤZQYH HPḤH type.
533
The earliest discovery of one of these coins was at Beth-Zur in 1931; at this time the reading YḤZQYH was identified, but the second word on the coin remained
undeciphered until later finds of similar coins enabled it to be read as HPḤH. See L. Y. Rahmani, ‘Silver Coins of the Fourth Century B.C. from Tel Gamma’, IEJ 21 (1971),
158–60 and plate 31; Rappaport, 4 and n. 23; Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 4–5. Robert Deutsch, ‘Six Unrecorded “Yehud” Silver Coins’, INJ 11 (1990–1), 4–6 and plate 1 (pp.
5–6), describes an example of this Yeḥezqiyah type which bears the additional two characters YH after the title HPḤH, and suggests that the legend in its entirety should be
read as YḤZQYH HPḤH YH(D), ‘Yeḥezqiyah Governor of Yehud’, thereby corroborating the notion that Yeḥezqiyah was indeed governor of Judah (p. 6). John G. Gager,
‘Pseudo-Hecataeus Again’, ZNW 60 (1969), 130–9 (p. 138); Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I: From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 40; and C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 21, claim
that the second word on the Beth-Zur specimen is read as YHD; however, this is an outdated view, and all the most recent evidence from numismatists supports the reading
HPḤH.
534
Rappaport, 7 n. 36; Mildenberg, ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, in Helga Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988), 721–8 (p.
726). Mildenberg (‘Provincial Coinage’, 188 and n. 29, and pp. 190–1) makes the important point that the Yehud coinage is not autonomous Jewish coinage, but was
produced initially in the name of the Persian authorities and later in that of the Ptolemaic authorities; in other words, those who struck the coins, even if they were governors,
struck them in their capacity as government officials, not as autonomous rulers in their own right.
AFTER THE CANON 227
i. 186–7 Josephus cites what he claims to be an extract from the fourth-century historian Hecataeus of Abdera,535 in
which a high priest (αρχιɛρɛύς, archiereus) by the name of Ezekias was one of many Jews associating themselves with
Ptolemy I after the battle of Gaza in 312 BCE. This Ezekias is said to have been about sixty-six years old, held in high
esteem by his compatriots, a man of intelligence, eloquence, and excellent business sense. The passage gives rise to the
temptation to identify this Ezekias with the Yeḥezqiyah of the Yehud coins, with the result that the coins can be
interpreted as evidence for the high priest in the late Persian or early Greek period not only being a governor but also
having devolved authority to mint coins—a privileged position indeed. However, there are several difficulties involved
in identifying Yeḥezqiyah with Ezekias. The most obvious one is that the coin very definitely calls Yeḥezqiyah
‘governor’ rather than ‘high priest’; hence, if Yeḥezqiyah and Ezekias are to be identified, it must be assumed that the
same person served in both capacities. However, despite the rehearsal of such an assumption by some scholars,536 no
evidence has yet been found that this was ever the case.537 A second difficulty is that the evidence from Josephus
suggests only that Ezekias was a prominent personage of
535
Scholarship is divided over the authenticity of this and the other fragments in Ag. Ap. i. 183–204, which Josephus obviously believes to be Hecataean. However, the
comments to be made below on the Ezekias material are valid regardless of its authorship. For discussion of the authorship question, see Gager, ‘Pseudo-Hecataeus Again’;
Stern, 23–4; Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, NTSupp 64 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 78–91; Bezalel Bar-
Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, ‘On the Jews’: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1996), 54–121.
536
So, for example, Fergus Millar, ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel's “Judaism and Hellenism’ ”, JJS 29 (1978), 1–21 (pp. 7–8);
Sterling, 86: ‘we now know that there was a priest named Ezekias thanks to a coin found at Beth-Zur’ (italics added; the Beth-Zur specimen is a Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ issue.)
537
Bar-Kochva, 86–7, argues that it definitely was not the case, but that Persian policy was to divide authority in the province between the high priest (who controlled the
religious aspects of the community's life) and the governor, in order to provide a curb on the governor's power. As evidence for this state of affairs, Bar-Kochva cites the
coin of ‘Johanan the High Priest’ (p. 87), which proves the concurrent officiating of a governor and a high priest who, by implication, had equal or at least equivalent powers.
Certainly the picture of a high priest who was concerned with the religious aspects of the community's life is one which is in line with the picture presented so far in this
study; however, as will be argued below, it is another question whether the Yoḥanan coin can be regarded as that of a high priest and therefore taken as evidence for parity
between the high priest and the governor. Also, it would seem more likely that the governor would be put in place to limit the potential power of native institutions, rather
than vice versa as Bar-Kochva suggests.
the Macedonian and early Ptolemaic periods, whereas the Yeḥezqiyah coins are thought by most scholars to belong to
the later Persian period.538 Of course, there is no reason why the same individual should not be a prominent member of
the community over a number of decades, but in order to link the coins with the person named in Josephus it is
necessary once again to assume that this was in fact the case for Ezekias, which is pure conjecture.539 A third
consideration is raised by Rappaport, who remarks that the name Hezekiah (Ezekias, Yeḥezqiyah) was common
among Jews of the period, so that only limited importance can be attached to its appearance in two different
contexts.540 Finally, in order for any historical conclusions to be drawn about Ezekias it is necessary to assume that he
actually existed. However, there is no other known reference to him apart from the one cited in Against Apion, and it is
by no means certain that he was in fact the high priest of his day, since the name Ezekias does not appear in any of the
lists of high priests which are familiar either from biblical texts or from Josephus himself. According to Ant. xi. 347
Onias was high priest at the time when the Ezekias incident is placed, and his predecessor in the post had been Jaddus
(Jaddua); subsequently, Ant. xii. 43–4 explains how Onias was succeeded by Simon who was in turn succeeded by
Eleazar, the high priest in the time of Ptolemy II (283–246 BCE). There is therefore no room in the chronology given
by Josephus' own writings for a high priest called Ezekias or Yeḥezqiyah in either the late Persian or early Greek
periods. Hence, no convincing link between Ezekias, Yeḥezqiyah the governor, and the high priesthood can be
sustained on the basis of such slender evidence and so many assumptions.541 The overall
538
Mildenberg, ‘Provincial Coinage’, 191; Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 17; Betlyon, ‘The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the Yehud Coins’, JBL 105
(1986), 633–42 (pp. 638, 642); Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 10; Mildenberg, ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, 724.
539
Mildenberg, ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, 724 n. 15, makes this point, noting that Ezekias was a high priest who would have to have remained in office for some thirty-five years in
order to make the identification viable.
540
Rappaport, 16.
541
Of the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ on the coins, Mildenberg states categorically, ‘Mit dem bei Josephus gennanten Hohepriester Ezekias vom Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. hat
er wohl nichts zu tun’ (‘He has absolutely no connection with the late fourth-century high priest Ezekias who is mentioned by Josephus’; ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, 724). Bar-
Kochva suggests that the historical governor Hezekiah was transformed into a high priest by the pseudo-Hecataean narrator of the incident (pp. 89–90), but even if this was
the case there is still no evidence for an actual historical link between the governor and the high priesthood.
AFTER THE CANON 229
conclusions from this are twofold: first, that the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ coins cannot be used as evidence for the high
priest having taken on the role of governor in the later Persian period; and secondly, the fact that it is the governor and
not the high priest who is minting coins would indicate that the highest provincial authority was likewise the governor
rather than the high priest.
However, another of the Persian period Yehud issues appears to challenge that conclusion. This is a coin which is
almost exactly the same as the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ coins, with a facing head on the obverse and an owl with legend on
the reverse, but instead of reading YḤZQYH HPḤH the legend reads YWḤNN HKWHN (Yoḥanan hakkōhēn), i.e.
Yoḥanan the priest. Indeed, so similar is the type to that of the Yeḥezqiyah coins that until 1984 it was regarded as an
example of the Yeḥezqiyah type but with a ‘blundered’ inscription.542 However, a re-examination of the coin by Barag
resulted in the alternative reading being proposed,543 and it is now generally accepted.544 The coin's close similarity to
the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ types implies a similar dating for both types, namely the late Persian period.545
The Yoḥanan coin poses a number of important questions, of which perhaps the most important is whether the
inscription should be interpreted to mean that Yoḥanan was the high priest, and if so, what his position in the
community would have been if he was empowered to mint coins. Barag offers a thorough analysis of the coin's
significance,546 and in it he draws a number of conclusions; first, that Yoḥanan was indeed the high priest;547 secondly,
that his production of a coin type so closely resembling those of Yeḥezqiyah indicates that his political status was equal
or similar to that of Yeḥezqiyah, and that the two individuals were contemporaries;548 and third, that the appearance of
a coin of a high
542
Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 116 and plate 2 no. 11. See also Mildenberg, ‘Provincial Coinage’, 194 and plate 22 no. 17.
543
See Barag, ‘Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest’, BA 48 (1985), 166–8, and the fuller treatment of the topic in ‘A Silver Coin’.
544
See in particular Mildenberg, ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, 724–5; Meshorer, ‘Ancient Jewish Coinage Addendum I’, INJ 11 (1990–1), 104–32 and plates 17–32 (pp. 104, 114, and
plate 17).
545
Mildenberg, ‘Yəhud-Münzen’, 725.
546
Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’.
547
Ibid. 10.
548
Ibid. Betlyon, ‘Persian Period Judea’, also regards the Yoḥanan coin as evidence for the high priest having taken on ‘great authority’ by the end of Persian rule (p. 641),
although his expansive claim lacks substantiation.
priest Yoḥanan from the mid-fourth century can be linked with the Yoḥanan–Yeshua–Bagoses affair related by
Josephus and can be taken as further evidence for a fourth-century high priest called Yoḥanan, even though no such
figure is mentioned in canonical material.549 It is necessary to examine these conclusions in turn.
Barag's conclusion that the inscription refers to the high priest, even though the wording is only ‘the priest’, is based on
two arguments: first, that it is inconceivable that a priest of lower rank than the high priest would have issued coins in
his own name, and secondly, that it is common in biblical material for the high priest simply to be referred to as ‘priest’.
However, Mildenberg suggests that Yoḥanan might simply have belonged to a priestly family rather than being high
priest himself;550 and it should be noted that the practice of referring to the senior priestly figure as simply ‘the priest’ is
one which applies to the chief priests of the pre-exilic period rather than to the high priests of the post-exilic period.551
Hence, it should not be an automatic assumption that ‘priest’ on the coin equals ‘high priest’, especially at such a late
date, by which time there would have developed a clear distinction between the priesthood in general and the high
priesthood, and those who were high priests would normally have been referred to as such.
As far as Yoḥanan's political status is concerned, it seems only natural to assume that it would have been equivalent in
some way to that of Yeḥezqiyah.552 However, it seems more questionable to assume with Barag that not only were
Yeḥezqiyah and Yoḥanan
549
Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 11–15.
550
551
Material which is post-exilic in date and which refers to post-exilic events (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, Ezra, Nehemiah) does not use the unqualified designation ‘priest’ to mean
‘high priest’; however, that usage is found in material which is post-exilic in date but which deals with pre-exilic events (Chronicles, P), as well as in pre-exilic/exilic material
(DH). In P, the use of the simple term ‘priest’ for Aaron is because Aaron is depicted not only as a high priest but as the epitome of priesthood and as the progenitor of a
priestly class—see the discussion of terminology in Ch. 1 above on the Priestly writer. Barag's claim that ‘[i]n the post-exilic period Yeshu a son of Yosadak is mentioned as
priest, Ezra 3: 2, 8’ (‘A Silver Coin’, n. 41) is incorrect; nowhere in Ezra is Jeshua (who is evidently a high priest) given any title beyond his patronym. The texts cited by Barag
actually read, ‘Jeshua the son of Jozadak with his fellow priests’ (Ezra 3: 2), and ‘[Zerubbabel and] Jeshua the son of Jozadak . . . together with . . . their brethren the priests
and the Levites . . . ’ (Ezra 3: 8). They allow the reader to infer from Jeshua's association with the priests that he too is a priest of some kind, but that is very different from
specifically entitling him ‘priest’ when they mean ‘high priest’. For a discussion of the ideology of Ezra 1–6, in which official titles for both Zerubbabel and Joshua are
omitted, see ch. 6 above on Ezra and Nehemiah.
552
AFTER THE CANON 231
of equivalent status, they were also contemporaries.553 It hardly seems plausible that there would have been two minting
authorities in such a small province at the same time; certainly the two of them must have served in their official
capacity within the same general time-period, as is evidenced by the similarity of the coin style, but that is not the same
as deeming them contemporaries, which presumably would mean that they would have served at the same time as each
other. A more credible scenario is that one succeeded the other as the minting authority and therefore presumably as
the governor of the province.
However, Barag's proposal that Yoḥanan and Yeḥezqiyah were contemporaries has gained support from Bar-Kochva
and Kindler,554 who claim that ‘concurrent coinages of a governor and a High Priest are not exceptional’, and cite as a
precedent ‘a coin of an earlier High Priest, named Yaddua’, which has recently been found.555 The coin to which they
refer was published by Spaer in 1986.556 It follows the pattern of the earliest type of Yehud coinage, with a head of
Athena on the obverse, and an owl together with the Greek inscription AΘE (ATHE) on the reverse. In addition to
the owl and the Greek inscription, the reverse also shows another unidentified vertical object, possibly a winged hand
and forearm, and in cursive Aramaic script the inscription YDW, i.e. Yaddua. Spaer argues that the coin precedes the
Yehud series, which use palaeo-Hebrew script for their legend, and links it to a high priest at the turn of the fifth and
fourth centuries BCE called Jaddua II, who appears in the reconstruction of the high-priestly list in Neh. 12: 10–11
proposed by Cross on the basis of papponymy.557 Certainly the coin seems to be of an earlier type than the Yeḥezqiyah
or Yoḥanan issues already discussed; however, there are difficulties with Spaer's reconstruction. His interpretation
depends on two assumptions: first, that Cross's reconstruction is accurate, and secondly, that the Yaddua on the coin
was a high
553
Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 10.
554
B. Bar-Kochva and A. Kindler, ‘The Hezekiah Coins’, in Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 255–70 (pp. 263–4).
555
Ibid. 265.
556
See Arnold Spaer, ‘Jaddua the High Priest?’, INJ 9 (1986–7), 1–3 and plate 2; Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 17; and Meshorer, ‘Addendum I’, 104–5, 115, and plate 17 no. 6.
557
Spaer, 1–3. According to Cross (‘Reconstruction’, 17), Yaddua II is in fact the Jaddua named in Neh. 12: 11, and a subsequent Yaddua, unnamed in the biblical record,
should be posited as the one who met Alexander the Great towards the end of the fourth century BCE .
priest, an assumption which Spaer justifies by taking the Yoḥanan coin as proof that Judaean high priests issued coins
in their own name.558 However, the dating of the high priest Jaddua (named in Neh. 12: 11) to the turn of the fifth and
fourth centuries and the addition of another, mid-to late fourth century Jaddua to the list in Neh. 12: 10–11 is entirely
hypothetical; in fact, it is possible to make a case that the list of high priests is complete in its present form,559 thereby
undermining any ideas which involve theoretical additions to the list. In addition, there is nothing to indicate that the
Yaddua of the coin was a priest at all, let alone a high priest;560 and support for the notion that he was cannot be gained
by citing the Yoḥanan coin as an example of a high-priestly issue, because, as was argued above, there is no proof that
the Yoḥanan on the coin was a high priest either.561 Meshorer prefers to link the Yaddua of the coin to a later high
priest who was in office at the time of Alexander's conquest rather than at the turn of the century;562 but here again,
there are difficulties. As already pointed out, there is no certainty that the man who issued the coin was in fact a high
priest, but even if he were, the link with a high priest whose dates Meshorer follows Barag in giving as c.390–323 BCE is
inconsistent with Meshorer's opinion that the Yoḥanan coin should be linked to a high priest of the mid-fourth
century.563 Assuming that the Yaddua coin is one of the earliest of the Yehud series, which seems likely from its style, it
would be dated to c.360 BCE, thus implying that whoever minted it was in office at that time. If, then, the Yaddua who
minted the coin is the high priest Yaddua who according to Meshorer was in office at the time of Alexander's
conquest, he must have been in office from at least c.360 to 332 BCE. However, this is incompatible with the claim that
the Yoḥanan of the Yoḥanan coin was a high priest of the mid-fourth century, since it would mean that Yoḥanan and
Yaddua
558
Ibid. 3.
559
See VanderKam, ‘Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period’.
560
One factor which would seem to indicate that Yaddua was not a high priest is the head of Athena on the obverse of the coin. However ‘conventional’ the image might have
become in terms of coin design (see Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 20), it seems unlikely that a Jewish high priest would be content to issue coins depicting the head of a pagan deity.
However, such observations in themselves are necessarily inconclusive.
561
Equally inadmissible is Barag's use of the Yaddua coin as a precedent for high-priestly issue of coins (‘A Silver Coin’, 17).
562
Meshorer, ‘Addendum I’, 105.
563
Ibid. 104.
AFTER THE CANON 233
were both in (the same) office at the same time. Meshorer gives no indication as to why he prefers to regard the later
Yaddua as the issuing authority, or indeed as to when he would date the coin; both Barag and Spaer assume that the
Yaddua coin precedes the Yoḥanan issue,564 a scenario which requires that extra names be added to the list of high
priests if both coins are to have been issued under the authority of a high priest. In the end, it seems that there is
insufficient evidence at present to link the Yaddua coin with the high priesthood, since much of the argumentation in
favour of such a link is effectively circular.
That being the case, Bar-Kochva and Kindler's claim that concurrent issues of coinage by high priests and governors
are not exceptional cannot be sustained. The paucity of evidence alone should be enough to prevent such wide-ranging
extrapolations; out of the several hundred Yehud coins so far discovered and deciphered, only one has been published
as bearing the legend YWḤNN HKWHN, and only one has been published as bearing the legend YDW. These can
hardly be said to constitute un-exceptional issues. In addition, as has been shown, the attribution of any minting
privileges to the high priest on the basis of the Yoḥanan and Yaddua coins is far from certain; in fact, such an
attribution seems largely due to a preconceived notion of the high priest as a powerful figure of official government, a
picture which is unsubstantiated from the literary sources so far examined for the Persian period. Of course, further
coins may be discovered, or obscure legends on some of those presently available to scholarship may be deciphered or
reinterpreted, so as to lend support to the idea of joint issues by governor and high priest, indeed, to the idea of high-
priestly issues at all; but the present extent of evidence is simply insufficient to serve as a legitimate basis for such far-
reaching conclusions.
In the light of these concerns about the Yoḥanan and Yaddua issues, Barag's proposed link between the Yoḥanan coin
and the Joannes–Jesus–Bagoses episode in Ant. xi. 297–301 needs careful examination. It was noted above that there
are chronological difficulties with Josephus' presentation, and that, based on the characters now known to scholarship
from the Elephantine papyri, the events described in Ant. xi. 297–301 could have taken 233
564
Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 17; Spaer, 3.
place either in the late fifth century or in the mid-fourth century.565 The dating of the Yoḥanan coin to the mid-fourth
century would seem at first sight to indicate that there was indeed a high priest of that name at that time, and would
allow Josephus' account of the controversy to be linked with that Yoḥanan and therefore with Artaxerxes III's general
Bagoses, rather than with the Bagohi and Johanan who are known from the Elephantine papyri. In Barag's words, ‘It
seems therefore that Josephus had indeed access to some sources which preserved some valid information about the
history of Judea and Samaria in the period between Nehemiah and the death of Alexander III of Macedon.’566
However, there are several difficulties with such an identification. As argued above, it cannot be assumed that the
Yoḥanan of the coin was a high priest, whereas the Joannes in Josephus is definitely a high priest. In the second place,
there seems to be a huge discrepancy between the Yoḥanan who was in a position to issue coins and was supposedly of
similar status to a provincial governor, indeed, might well have been a provincial governor, and the Temple-based
Joannes who according to Josephus was overridden decisively by another Persian official and was unable to retaliate.
The Joannes pictured in the squabble over the high priesthood hardly seems to possess the gravitas appropriate to the
Yoḥanan of the coin, who would have been the equivalent of a provincial governor. But perhaps most pertinent is the
question why, if the Joannes depicted in Josephus as high priest was indeed a mid-fourth-century provincial governor,
and he killed his brother who had support from another Persian official to be Joannes' replacement, Joannes himself
was not, according to Josephus, branded a rebel and removed from office. This is especially pertinent in view of the
fact that Barag attempts to link the controversy with the mid-fourth-century Tennes rebellion, on the grounds that the
punishment exacted by Bagoses for frustration of his plan involved the whole nation rather than the high priest
himself, and was therefore a response to a province-wide situation.567 It seems inconceivable that Joannes
565
Grabbe, ‘Josephus and the Reconstruction’, 234–5, points out that the Bagoses of Josephus' account could also be an otherwise unknown individual, although this seems the
least likely option of the three. It also gives no indication at all of a possible dating for the episode.
566
Barag, ‘A Silver Coin’, 15.
567
Ibid. 14–15. A link between the controversy and the Tennes rebellion is also suggested by Williamson (‘Historical Value’, 66).
AFTER THE CANON 235
should have been allowed to continue in office until his death (cf. Ant. xi. 302), if he had been entrusted not only with
the provincial governorship but with authority from the Persian king to mint coins in his own name, and yet had
effectively rejected the authority of the Persian official Bagoses, who appears as Joannes' superior, at a time of great
tension in the area when such an act could easily be interpreted as rebellion and therefore as a threat to Persian imperial
security. The fact that Joannes apparently remained in office, despite the evident offence caused to Bagoses by his
indiscretion, indicates that he can hardly have been regarded as a serious threat to imperial security. The conclusion
from this is that either the incident took place at a time when there were no serious concerns over security in that part
of the empire, or Joannes was not a governor, which meant that his actions were relatively insignificant in terms of
imperial stability, or both. None of these options is compatible with the attempt to link him with the Yoḥanan of the
coin, since the man of the coin would have been an influential individual in the mid-fourth century, at a time when
there was unrest and rebellion in the western parts of the Persian empire. It therefore seems much more probable that
the controversy described by Josephus was an example of internal power politics and family feuding which cannot
sensibly be linked with the Yoḥanan of the coin.
In the light of this discussion, it is possible to return to the question of dating for the Joannes–Jesus–Bagoses incident
in Josephus. Although the failure to sustain the link between that incident and the Yoḥanan coin does not automatically
give a positive indication about the dating of the incident, the status of the characters as outlined above does seem to
point to a situation in which Bagoses is superior to Joannes and Joannes' position in the Persian administration is less
significant than that of a governor. Under these circumstances, with the present state of available knowledge, it seems
more natural to link the incident with the characters known from the Elephantine papyri and therefore to date it to the
late fifth century BCE, rather than identifying it as part of the turbulence of the mid-fourth century. If, as argued above,
the Yoḥanan on the coin is a fourth-century governor-figure who is not the high priest, then in order to link the
Joannes–Jesus–Bagoses incident with the fourth century it is necessary to assume that there was also a contemporary
high priest
by the name of Yoḥanan who is the Joannes referred to by Josephus (which seems highly unlikely). It is also necessary
to explain how Bagoses the royal general and outsider came to be involved in Judaean internal politics and to impose
additional taxation on the Temple sacrifices as if no other governor existed, when Yoḥanan the governor was
supposedly in office. D. R. Schwartz also notes that there is no other known connection of the fourth-century general
Bagoses with the province of Judah,568 a fact which once again militates against locating the incident at a time when that
Bagoses was active. However, the picture which appears in Ant. xi. 297–301 of Joannes and Bagoses and their relative
positions seems thoroughly compatible with what is known from the Elephantine papyri of the fifth-century characters
Yoḥanan and Bagohi, even to the extent that Bagohi the governor overrides Yoḥanan in a cultic matter, namely
Yoḥanan's refusal to assist the Elephantine Jews in the rebuilding of their temple. This is precisely what happens in
Josephus' narrative, where Bagoses single-handedly imposes a tax on the sacrificial lambs offered in the Temple
without any reference to Joannes, indeed, in virtual opposition to him.569 It therefore seems much more likely that what
Josephus reports is an incident which took place at the end of the fifth century, involving the characters who are
known from the Elephantine papyri.
The significance of all this for the position of the high priesthood in the later Persian period can now be summarized.
By his story of conflict between two priestly brothers and a Persian official at the end of the fifth century, Josephus
confirms the picture of the high priesthood which was obtained from the canonical sources for the earlier Persian
period, namely, that at that period the high priest was a cultic official who was subordinate to the provincial governor.
The evidence for the position of the high priest during the remainder of the Persian period is more indirect, consisting
of the named issues of the Yehud coins. The Yeḥezqiyah and
568
D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some Papyri’, 194.
569
Morgenstern, followed by Marcus, draws a link between Bagoses' tax on the lambs offered in the Jerusalem Temple, and his permission given to the Elephantine Jews to
rebuild their temple but only to offer cereal offerings there without animal sacrifices. See Morgenstern, ‘Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel’, HUCA
10 (1935), 1–148 (p. 127 and n. 206); Ralph Marcus, Josephus, VI: Jewish Antiquities Books IX–XI, LCL (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1937; repr. 1958), 499–504.
AFTER THE CANON 237
Yoḥanan coins were struck around the middle of the fourth century by high-ranking individuals within the province;
Yeḥezqiyah is called ‘governor’ on some of his coins, and the similarity in design of the Yoḥanan coin to the
Yeḥezqiyah issues implies that Yoḥanan too was of equivalent rank. The Yaddua coin is somewhat earlier than the
Yeḥezqiyah and Yoḥanan issues and bears no description of its originator's precise status, but once again it seems
reasonable to assume that the coin was minted by an individual of high rank within the province. The attempts to link
Yeḥezqiyah with a late fourth-century supposed high priest Ezekias mentioned in Ag. Ap. i. 187, and similar attempts
to link Yoḥanan with the high priest Joannes of Ant. xi. 297–301, have been shown to be untenable, as have the
attempts to link Yaddua too with a high priest, whether a hypothetical early fourth-century Yaddua or the late Persian/
early Macedonian Yaddua of Ant. xi. 302, 326, 347. This implies that in the later part of the Persian period the civil
administration of the province was still undertaken by the governor, who was a different individual from the high
priest. This in turn would indicate that there had been no significant change in the status of the high priest in terms of
him becoming governor of the province, and so the final conclusion is that throughout the Persian period the high
priest continued to function and to have significance in the purely cultic capacity which had been his from the
Restoration.
238 PART III: SUMMARY
Part III: Summary

The evidence from the sources for the Persian period is consistent in its picture of the high priesthood in Jerusalem,
and indicates that throughout the period the high priest's authority in the community was confined to matters
concerning the Temple and cult. For the Restoration period, Haggai and Zechariah both show Joshua the high priest
along with the Davidide Zerubbabel, but ultimately their hopes are placed in Zerubbabel for leadership and restoration
in the community; although Zechariah gives more prominence than Haggai to Joshua the high priest, each pictures a
return to the previous monarchic norms rather than a hierocratic society where Joshua the priest is ruler. Ezra and
Nehemiah show that by the mid-fifth century hopes of an imminent Davidic restoration had faded, presumably under
the harsh political reality of Persian domination and the fading from prominence of the Davidic line which was its
corollary; however, the disappearance of the Davidides was not balanced by a corresponding rise in the high priest's
civil importance, and he remains in the arena of cultic responsibility whilst Persian-appointed governors are
responsible for the province's day-to-day administration. This picture seems to be confirmed by the Elephantine
papyri, which show Judah's Persian governor Bagohi rather than the high priest Johanan as the one who is ultimately
able to authorize rebuilding of the Elephantine temple; and the same relative status of governor and high priest is
reflected in Ant. xi. 297–301, where Bagohi (here called Bagoses) imposes a tax on sacrificial lambs as retribution for
Johanan's (Joannes') murder of his brother Jesus, Bagoses' friend, in the Temple. A little later on, the Chronicler,
writing some time during the fourth century, gives no more indication of the over-arching importance of a high priest
in the Judaean community than do Ezra and Nehemiah, despite laying great stress on the Temple and describing its
ceremonial and its personnel in accordance with contemporary cultic practice. In particular, the Levites
PART III: SUMMARY 239
are given a very high profile, whereas in DH, which was evidently an important source for Chr., they do not even exist
as a cultic class in the same way. If the Chronicler felt free to alter his own portrayal of the Levites from that given in
DH and to present them as they appeared in his own day, with a much higher profile than they have in DH, the same
could also have been done in other such cases. In particular, if the power and influence of the contemporary high
priest had been significantly greater than that of the chief priests portrayed in DH, there seems to be no reason why,
within the limitations of the monarchic subject matter, the chief priests in Chr. should not have been given a much
higher profile in comparison to the rather subdued picture of them given in DH. This is especially true in the light of
Chr.'s strong preoccupation with the Temple as the focus of the community, and the equally strong link between the
Temple and the chief and high priests. But no such emphasis appears in Chr.; the chief priests are shown with the same
kind of restricted authority as they are in DH. Finally, from the named issues of the Yehud coins which date from the
middle of the fourth century, it can be argued that in the later Persian period the highest authorities in the province, to
whom the right to mint coins was devolved, were not high priests but governors.
The natural conclusion from this is that the high priest continued to be limited in his importance and influence
throughout the period of Persian domination, not only by the presence of the Persian governors mentioned above, but
also by the lack of any concept that the high priesthood could be an appropriate successor to the Davidic line as the
focus of identity, leadership, and hope for the people of Judah. The final stage of the investigation is therefore to move
on to an examination of the Greek period, to see if there is any more evidence for the growth of the high priesthood's
civil power under the Ptolemies and Seleucids than there is under the Persians.
Part IV High Priesthood from Alexander to Pompey
10 The Hidden Years: High Priesthood Under the
Ptolemies
This fourth and final stage of the investigation of high priesthood consists of an examination of the sources for the
Hellenistic period from Alexander to Pompey. In terms of events in Judah, the Hellenistic period falls into three main
divisions: from the Macedonian conquest to the end of Ptolemaic rule (332–200 BCE); from the Seleucid conquest of
Judah to the end of the Maccabean rebellion as described in 1 Maccabees (198–134 BCE); and from the establishment
of the Hasmonean dynasty to the Roman conquest of Judah (134–63 BCE). This chapter will begin the examination of
the Hellenistic period with a discussion of what is one of the most poorly documented segments in Judaean history,
namely the Macedonian and Ptolemaic periods, which together run from Alexander's conquest to the end of Ptolemaic
rule in Palestine. The period as a whole falls into two sections. The first section, from 332 to 301 BCE, was effectively a
time of transition from Persian to Greek rule, and for these years the sources consist of some of the later Yehud coins
and an account of the Jewish constitution which was written by the Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, quoted by
Diodorus Siculus (first century BCE), and has been preserved via the preservation of Diodorus' quotation in the
Bibliotheca of Photius (ninth century CE). No contemporary Jewish literary evidence is extant. The second section
consists of the time from the establishment of Ptolemaic rule in 301 BCE to Seleucid conquest in 200 BCE, and here
again the source material is meagre. Josephus' coverage of the period is uneven, and the sources which supplement his
account in any relevant fashion for present purposes are scanty. For the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246
BCE) there are a number of Egyptian papyri including those known as the Zeno papyri, which provide information on
the general administrative machinery of the Ptolemaic empire with one or two
244 HIGH PRIESTHOOD FROM ALEXANDER TO POMPEY
specifics on the province of Syria and Phoenicia of which Palestine was a part; and for the mid- to late Ptolemaic
period there are two Jewish documents to be considered, the pseudepigraphical Letter of Aristeas (which Josephus
paraphrases in large part in his own account) and the Wisdom of Ben Sira, in both of which the high priest figures
reasonably prominently. The task is therefore to attempt to piece together a coherent picture of the high priesthood
during this period from sources which leave much to be desired in terms of the information which they offer.
Hellenistic domination came to Judah with Alexander's conquest of Palestine in 332 BCE, but following the conquest
there is no definite information about provincial administration during the remainder of the fourth century. This is no
doubt largely due to the great instability of the two decades following Alexander's death in 322 BCE, during which
control of Palestine passed back and forth in a sovereignty dispute between Ptolemy I of Egypt and Antigonus
Monophthalmus of Asia Minor, until Ptolemy finally prevailed. However, certain issues of the Yehud coins have been
assigned to these early years of Greek rule; if the assignation is correct, it implies that existing policy in the province
was allowed to continue, as well hinting at a certain amount of local autonomy —an unsurprising state of affairs in
view of the political turmoil which doubtless existed throughout those turbulent years.
There are two of the Yehud coin issues which have been assigned to the period 332–301 BCE. The first, and by far the
more important for present purposes, is a type of Yeḥezqiyah coin which on the obverse has a profile head and on the
reverse the protome of a winged lynx together with the legend YḤZQYH (Yeḥezqiyah).570 Unlike the Yeḥezqiyah
issues discussed previously,
570
Mildenberg, ‘Provincial Coinage’, 188–9; Bar-Kochva and Kindler, 256–63. By contrast, Meshorer rejects the Macedonian dating of these coins, and instead regards both
these and the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ issues as belonging to the end of the Persian period (Ancient Jewish Coinage, 17, 34), although he does assign some of the cruder examples
of the Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ types to the period immediately following the Macedonian conquest (ibid., 20–1). (Meshorer's ‘crudely styled’ type no. 11 (ibid., 21) is in fact
what is now generally acknowledged to be the coin of Yoḥanan the priest, an identification with which Meshorer himself concurs; see ‘Addendum I’, 104.) It should be noted
that Bar-Kochva and Kindler's representation of Meshorer's position on the Yeḥezqiyah coins is inaccurate. They claim that on p. 13 of Ancient Jewish Coinage, Meshorer
himself classifies the non-titled Yeḥezqiyah issues under the heading ‘during the Macedonian occupation’ (p. 265 n. 3). However, rather than stating his own opinion at that
point, Meshorer is quoting Mildenberg's classification as a starting point for the subsequent discussion. In the same note, they attribute to Rappaport the opinion that all the
Yeḥezqiyah types belong to the Persian period, whereas Rappaport makes no definitive statement as to where he considers the Yeḥezqiyah name-only types to belong (see
Rappaport, 6, 16).
HIGH PRIESTHOOD UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 245
no other legend or title apart from the name appears on the coins. The second type assigned to these years, specifically
to the Macedonian period, is one for which the obverse design is obscure, but the reverse has a bird walking right with
its head turned back, and a legend which Meshorer reconstructs as YHWDH (Yehudah).571 However, Meshorer seems
to be the only scholar to assign this issue to the Macedonian period, and even if his dating is correct the coin type
offers no clue as to provincial structures or administrative officials in Judah, apart from pointing to the obvious
conclusion that coins were still being minted there. The Yeḥezqiyah type by contrast gives the name of the individual
who was the minting authority for the coin and so by implication the head of the province. He is presumably the same
person whose name appeared on the late Persian period issues; however, the lack of any title for Yeḥezqiyah is
noteworthy, especially in the light of the earlier Yeḥezqiyah issues which included the title happeḥâ, and precisely what
the omission signifies is uncertain. Mildenberg suggests that the absence of the Persian term is due to Yeḥezqiyah's
dependence on a new overlord,572 whereas Rappaport suggests that the change in the images used on the coins did not
allow enough room to insert both Yeḥezqiyah's name and his title.573 Perhaps the most that can be said about
Yeḥezqiyah's status is that he was not a high priest. This has already been argued for the person named on the
Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ issues, and will naturally also apply to the person named on the later Yeḥezqiyah issues if both are
assumed to be the same person. However, even if the two Yeḥezqiyahs are different men, the principal considerations
already advanced against Yeḥezqiyah happeḥâ being a high priest, and specifically the figure named in Ag. Ap. i. 187,
would still apply to his namesake on the later coins.574
571
Ancient Jewish Coinage, 14–15, 20. Mildenberg had assigned this type to the Persian period as one of the earliest Yehud issues (‘Provincial Coinage’, 186, n. 23, 192 and plate
21 nos. 2 and 3).
572
Mildenberg, ‘Provincial Coinage’, 188.
573
Rappaport, 6.
574
Although Yeḥezqiyah's title is not specified on the coins, to regard him as a high priest would require that both civil and religious authority were invested in the same
individual, and as already noted, there is no evidence for such a combination. A possible argument in favour of identifying this Yeḥezqiyah with Ezekias would be a
chronological one: if the untitled Yeḥezqiyah coins were indeed struck some time during the period 332–301 BCE , then they could be contemporary with Ezekias the priest.
However, this in itself is no basis on which to posit an historical connection between Yeḥezqiyah and Ezekias, especially since the historicity of the Ezekias character as he
appears in Josephus has been shown to be dubious. See the discussion in Ch. 9 above on the later Persian period.
The other piece of evidence which is of relevance for this early and obscure period is the excerpt from the writings of
Hecataeus of Abdera, preserved in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 40. 3. 1–8, a passage which is itself preserved
only in Photius, Bibliotheca, 244. The Hecataean excerpt describes the foundation and constitution of the Jewish people
and is the earliest known such description in Greek literature. Very little is known about Hecataeus, but it appears that
he was active during the last decades of the fourth century, had received a philosophical education, and had
connections with the court of Ptolemy I, possibly as an ambassador or a court writer.575 He wrote at least three major
works, and others have been attributed to him, although with varying degrees of certainty. The best-preserved of his
works is an ethnography known as the Aegyptiaca,576 or Egyptian Matters, which is a description of the origins, history,
culture, customs and religion of the Egyptians, and it seems likely that the fragment referring to the Jews which is
preserved in Diodorus, also ethnographic in character, was originally a part of this work. The fragment describes how
the Jews were driven out from Egypt, and under the leadership of Moses colonized the deserted area of Judaea; Moses
is said to have founded Jerusalem, established the Temple and worship, given the laws and the political constitution,
and organized the twelve-tribe system (40. 3. 3).577 He is also said to have instituted arrangements for education of the
young men and for warfare (40. 3. 8), and for child-rearing, marriage, and burial rites (40. 3. 8). However, the most
important part of the fragment for present purposes is its description of the role of the priests, who are said to have
been chosen by Moses on the grounds of their ability and put in charge of the nation; their function is to attend to the
Temple worship, to be judges in major disputes, and to be guardians of the laws and customs (40. 3. 4–5). The
fragment continues:
575
Oswyn Murray, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship’, JEA 56 (1970), 141–71 (pp. 142–3); Sterling, 59–60; Bar-Kochva, 7–8.
576
The precise title of the work is not known. Two suggestions have been made by modern scholarship as to what it might have been, of which Aegyptiaca is one. The other
title sometimes used is Peri tōn Aegyptiōn, or On the Egyptians. See Bar-Kochva, 9 n. 9.
577
The numerical references are those which apply to the passage as it appears in Diodorus, since this is the standard way of referencing it.
.578
For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is
regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest, and believe that he
acts as a messenger to them of God's commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other
gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the
ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them. (40. 3. 5–6; trans. F. R.
Walton, LCL)
It is evident from this that the fragment is highly significant for a discussion of the position of the high priest in fourth-
century Judah. If Hecataeus' description is at all accurate, then it could be interpreted as contemporary testimony that
the Jewish community was ruled by its high priest; and indeed, various scholars have interpreted it in precisely that
fashion. Tcherikover, for example, took it to indicate that after the Macedonian conquest there was no other official
governing figure in Judah apart from the high priest;579 Stern, too, remarks that Hecataeus was influenced in his
presentation by the contemporary situation in Judaea.580 However, both Mendels and Sterling note that there is no
evidence to substantiate an interpretation of the passage as a reflection of the historical reality in fourth-century
Judah,581 and certainly the evident idiosyncrasies of the fragment in other respects, such as the
578
The Greek text is taken from Stern, 26–7.
579
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, 58–9. This interpretation, which is followed by Rappaport, 6, is based on the understanding of the phrase προστασία του̑
πλήθους (‘authority over the people’) as a technical term for the representation of the people to the overlord. However, Bar-Kochva rightly disputes this understanding (Bar-
Kochva, 297).
580
Stern, 21, 31. See also Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, SBL Monograph Series, 16 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972), 33; Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to
Hadrian, 173.
581
Doron Mendels, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish “patrios politeia” of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL,3)’, ZAW 95 (1983), 96–110 (p. 97); Sterling, 79.
picture of Moses as founder of Jerusalem and the Temple (40. 3. 3) and the statement that the Jews never have a king
(40. 3. 5), should serve as a warning against simply taking Hecataeus' picture at face value. The nature of the
idiosyncrasies has given rise to many scholarly treatments of the fragment as an interpretatio Graeca of Jewish history and
institutions, in other words a presentation of Jewish material in terms which would have been comprehensible to a
Greek audience from their own cultural standpoint;582 and certainly, the Greek elements in the passage are undeniable.
For example, Moses is pictured as the illustrious leader of a group which effectively colonized the uninhabited land of
Judaea (40. 3. 2–3);583 his own exceptional personal qualities and those of the colony he founded are expressed in terms
of concepts borrowed from Greek philosophy;584 and the priests (including the high priest), who are designated as
leaders of the people, are chosen for their virtue and ability to lead rather than simply being an hereditary group (40. 3.
4, 5)—in the words of Sterling, ‘a good Platonic politeia’.585 Indeed, Bar-Kochva appeals to the presence of these Greek
elements as a way of relieving the apparent glaring discrepancies between Hecataeus' presentation and the accepted
Jewish tradition.586 However, this in itself raises a query over how Hecataeus' presentation should be viewed in terms of
actual historical information. Scholars such as Bar-Kochva have pleaded for the general accuracy of Hecataeus'
representation on the grounds that he has a core of basic information which corresponds to accepted elements in
Jewish tradition;587 but this is an unacceptable plea, because it is evident from even a cursory reading of the passage
that, although it undoubtedly does have points of contact with Jewish tradition, a good deal of the information has
been
582
Werner Jaeger, ‘Greeks and Jews: The First Records of Jewish Religion and Civilization’, JR 18 (1938), 127–43 (pp. 140–3); Murray, 158; Mendels, 97; Sterling, 79; Bar-
Kochva, 29–35, 43.
583
Stern, 29–30.
584
Gager, Moses, 29–34; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993),
234–6. As Feldman remarks, ‘It is clear that Hecataeus looked on Moses as a philosopher-king’ (p. 234).
585
Sterling, 80. This picture of ruling priests is paralleled in the situation in Egypt itself, and in the utopian states of Panchaia and Euhemerus which appear in Diodorus Siculus
5. 45. 4–5. See Stern, 31, 32; Feldman, 236.
586
Bar-Kochva, 25–8.
587
Murray is one who states that Hecataeus' information ‘is remarkable for its general accuracy’ (p. 158).
presented in a way which gives quite a different picture from that which is given by the tradition itself. Accuracy resides
not simply in bare data but in the interpretation and presentation of data; Hecataeus' awareness that the Jews lived in
Judaea and Jerusalem, were founded as a nation by a man called Moses who gave them their law-code, did not have
images of their deity, and had a Temple and priesthood with a high priest, is no basis on which to attribute to him
general accuracy. If there were no corresponding Jewish sources with which to compare Hecataeus' account, the
picture of the Jews' origins and customs which would be gained from it would be quite different from the one which is
commonly accepted. And if that is true for the features which can be compared with the biblical record and with other
sources of evidence about Jewish tradition, belief, and practice, there seems to be no justification for simply accepting
at face value the elements for which there is no such material to act as a control. The picture of the position of the high
priest is just such an element; there is no other contemporary source with which to compare it, either to confirm or to
contradict the picture. Hence, given the interpretative freedom with which it is evident that Hecataeus treated other
aspects of Jewish tradition and practice, his account of the high priesthood should not simply be accepted as
historically accurate, because there is no way of telling whether or not it is.
Another major issue to be considered in deciding how the fragment should be interpreted is the source of Hecataeus'
information on the Jews. There is no evidence that he ever visited Judah himself,588 and indeed, in the account of the
Jews' reaction to the high priest expounding the commandments, Hecataeus qualifies his report by structuring the
whole sentence as reported speech dependent upon the word φησίν, ‘it is said’ (40. 3. 6). This clearly implies that he did
not have first-hand knowledge of what he was describing, but was dependent upon informants of some kind. The
most usual suggestion is that he gained his knowledge from Egyptian Jewry, possibly those of priestly descent.589 In
that
588
Feldman, 8–9.
589
Jaeger, 139; Murray, 158; Sterling, 79; Bar-Kochva, 28. Gager, Moses, 37, and Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold (eds.), Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans:
Primary Readings (Edinburgh: T. ' T. Clark, 1996), 8, assume an Egyptian Jewish source of information which was not necessarily priestly; Mendels argues that the ideology
of the passage originated from Judaean priestly circles, but was transmitted orally to Hecataeus in Egypt (p. 109).
case, however, it would only be natural that his informants should speak of the high priest as their leader, and would
not mention any other system of government or provincial administrators appointed by a foreign overlord.590 As
members of the Jewish Diaspora, the identity of Hecataeus' informants would be linked not to a Judaean governor or
other figure of foreign provincial administration (whether or not that figure was Jewish), but to the Temple and its
ritual and to the religious authorities in Jerusalem. It is therefore more realistic to regard the basis of the passage as an
expression of Diaspora priestly self-definition than as a reflection of an historical reality whereby the high priest was
the political leader in late fourth-century Judah.
As it stands, therefore, Hecataeus' account cannot be used as evidence that by the end of the fourth century BCE the
high priest had become the political head of the Jewish people, because there are too many question marks over its
historical reliability. Hence, it is necessary to move on into the third century, in order to see whether or not the later
sources indicate that the position of the high priest changed as the effects of Ptolemaic rule made themselves felt.
The Ptolemaic period in Judah can only properly be said to have begun after Ptolemy I gained final possession of
Coele-Syria in 301 BCE, and Ptolemaic rule was fully established in the region. The Yehud coinage continued to be
minted for about twenty years after that, although the designs changed to Ptolemaic symbols (the Ptolemaic eagle;
likenesses of Ptolemy I and his queen Berenice), and the Hebrew spelling YHDH (Yehudah) for the name of the
province appeared instead of YHD on some issues.591 There are no further examples of coins bearing the names of
local minting authorities, such as the Yeḥezqiyah issues discussed above. Eventually, however, the local coinage ceased
to be minted and was replaced by centralized Ptolemaic issues. This clearly implies that Judah was brought under
stricter administrative control than had been the case up to that point, a conclusion supported by the available
documentary evidence which dates from the mid-third century.
590
Bar-Kochva, 297–8.
591
Mildenberg, ‘Provincial Coinage’, 189–90, 195–6, and plate 22. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 17–20, argues that no Yehud coins were struck during the reign of Ptolemy
I, but that the Ptolemaic issues belong to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
The Ptolemaic administration was notorious for its multilayered bureaucracy. Although the majority of extant
information comes from material referring to Egypt itself, a number of papyri have survived which refer to Syria and
Phoenicia, the province of which Palestine in general and Judah in particular were a part. Probably the major source
for information on the overall administrative situation in Syria and Phoenicia is the Rainer papyrus 24552,592 which is
dated to 261 BCE, and together with hints from other sources it enables a picture to be built up of the way in which the
area was governed. The Greek historian Polybius (c.208–c.126 BCE) speaks of a military chief for Syria and Phoenicia as
a whole who was known as the στρατηγός (stratēgos, ‘general’),593 and from the Rainer papyrus, which deals with the
registration of taxable flocks and slaves, it apppears that the province had an overall financial officer, referred to
periphrastically as του̑ διοικου̑ντος τὰς κατὰ Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην προσόδους (‘the administrator of the revenues for
Syria and Phoenicia’, col. 2 line 18). In addition to these overall figures there were various other officials. The province
was apparently subdivided into a number of hyparchies, as indicated by the phrase ἐν ἑκάστηι ὑπαρχɛίαι (en hekastēi
hyparcheiai, ‘in each hyparchy’—col. 1 line 1; col. 1 line 37–col. 2 line 1); Hengel indicates that the designation Judaia
(Judah) would probably have referred to a hyparchy.594 Each hyparchy had an
592
Published as no. 8008 (pp. 156–8) in F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel, and E. Kiessling (eds.), Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, v, (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1955).
The document has been edited with detailed comment by H. Liebesny, ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in
Syrien und Phönikien (PER Inv. Nr. 24.552 gr.)’, Aegyptus, 16 (1936), 257–91.
593
Polybius v. 40. 1 mentions Θɛόδοτος ὁ τɛtauαγμένος ἐπὶ K οίλης Συρίας (‘Theodotus the one appointed over Coele-Syria’) in about 220 BCE , and v. 87. 6 refers to τὸν ʼ A
νδρόμαχον . . . στρατηγὸν ἐπὶ πάντων τ-ν προɛιρημένων τόπων (‘Andromachus . . . the stratēgos over all the aforementioned places’, i.e. Coele-Syria) after the battle of Raphia
in 217 BCE . Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, argues that there is no evidence from the sources for a special governor of the province, and suggests that the
area was managed directly from Alexandria (pp. 60–2); he also suggests that the stratēgoi mentioned by Polybius could have been military commanders who were granted
authority in a time of emergency rather than permanent officials (pp. 428–9 n. 60). However, R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, CSCT 4
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 15–16, remarks of Theodotus that there is no direct evidence for his having been governor of the whole of Syria and Phoenicia, but also regards it
as ‘not unlikely’ that there should have been such a general governorship, given that the whole area came under the jurisdiction of a single official for the purposes of
financial supervision.
594
Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 2. Auflage, WUNT 10 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973), 36–7 (ET Judaism and Hellenism, trans. John Bowden, 2
vols. (London: SCM Press, 1974), i. 20–1).
οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) who, judging from the subject matter of the papyrus, would probably have been its financial
chief,595 and although papyrus 24552 does not mention the office of ὕπαρχος (hyparchos), the term ὑπάρχωι (hyparchọi)
appears in a fragment from the Zeno archives preserved in the British Library.596 Mention of the ὕπαρχος(hyparchos)
implies that at the level of the hyparchy the same division between military and financial responsibility was observed as
at provincial level, with the ὕπαρχος (hyparchos) as military leader and the οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) as financial chief. A
third administrative subdivision is also evident from papyrus 24552, namely that of κώμαι (kōmai, ‘villages’), each of
which was presided over or otherwise under the responsibility of a κωμάρχης (kōmarchēs, col. 1 line 18). Again, the
subject matter of the papyrus suggests that the Syro-Phoenician κωμάρχης (kōmarchēs) had responsibilities in the areas
of finance and taxation, whereas Liebesny suggests that at this period the komarch's Egyptian counterpart would have
had more to do with public administration (policing, irrigation, seed distribution, and so on) than with financial
administration.597
The question is, of course, whether this particular form of bureaucratic control was also exercised over the hyparchy of
Judah, or whether it was treated as a ‘temple state’ and so dealt with somewhat differently. Certainly the evidence
suggests that the Ptolemaic administration was familiar with temples and with their associated administrative
structures; after all, the Egyptian temples and clergy had been powerful and influential for centuries before
595
Unfortunately the two mentions of the οἰκονόμος (oikonomos ) in this papyrus are both restorations of damaged text. However, the office of οἰκονόμος (oikonomos ) is well
attested elsewhere, and the restorations fit the lacunae and make sense in the context, so it is possible to be fairly confident of the reconstruction. The offices of διοικητής
(dioikētēs ) and οἰκονόμος (oikonomos ) are both attested on a Greek inscription found near the ancient Scythopolis, which dates from the end of the third century BCE . For
details, see Y. H. Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found near Hefzibah’, IEJ 16 (1966), 54–70.
596
Published in T. C. Skeat (ed.), Greek Papyri in the British Museum, VII: The Zenon Archive (London: British Museum Publications, 1974), 238–9. Zeno was the agent of the
Egyptian finance minister Apollonius, and in this capacity he made a tour of all the territories of Palestine and southern Syria in 259 BCE . His archives contain
documentation referring to the tour, as well as continued correspondence with some of the individuals he encountered on the way. The above-mentioned fragment referring
to the ὕπαρχος (hyparchos ) can be assumed to belong to the period of Zeno's Palestinian journeying rather than being documentation of his duties in Egypt, because the
administrative unit in Egypt was the νόμος (nomos, ‘nome’) rather than the ὑπαρχɛία (hyparcheia ).
597
Liebesny, 267–8.
Ptolemaic times, inasmuch as the gods were the true masters of the land,598 and ‘religion was not a separate category of
thought in ancient Egypt, but pervaded every aspect of society and culture.’599 Some of the larger temples had vast
amounts of land together with hundreds of cultic and non-cultic staff carrying out every conceivable task to enable the
whole enterprise to be run as a self-supporting estate. The high priest of the god Amon-Re was the most powerful
religious official in Egypt and, as a member of the inner circle of royal advisers, proved a significant political
competitor for the royal power; in fact, from about 1075 BCE this high priesthood gained control of Upper Egypt.600
But despite—or maybe because of—their importance in the overall structure and administration of Egypt, these
temples were not left to their own devices by the Ptolemies; it seems that a financial officer (ἐπιστάτης, epistatēs) would
be appointed to oversee each temple's lands and finances.601 Thus the Ptolemies ensured that every part of the society,
in which they were outsiders and so perforce concerned about the loyalty of their subjects (particularly the influential
ones), was covered by some sort of official monitoring process. If this was so in Egypt, it would surely also be the case
for an important border zone like Palestine, which was the buffer between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid empire,
and through which ran trade and caravan routes so essential for the Ptolemaic policy of strengthening Egypt's
economy to its maximum level of efficiency and profit.602 Temple state or no, it would be unthinkable to leave Judah at
the heart of this strategic area without some kind of monitoring.
However, despite these speculations, it is not quite so easy to determine the precise position of the high priesthood
under Ptolemaic domination. Part of the difficulty is that there is no information about the high priesthood from
papyri; the only sources of information are Josephus and the Jewish works already mentioned. This in itself, whilst by
no means a conclusive argument because of the random way in which sources such as papyri
598
M. Rostovtzeff, A Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941; re-issued 1986), i. 266.
599
William A. Ward, ‘Temples and Sanctuaries: Egypt’, in ABD vi. 369–72 (p. 369).
600
Ibid. 371.
601
Hengel, 45 (ET i. 24).
602
Ibid. 45–6 (ET i. 24); H. Jagersma, A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1985), 23.
are preserved, is nevertheless worth bearing in mind, especially when the obviously wealthy and influential individual
Tobias is mentioned several times in the Zeno archive.603 The normal pattern for legitimate holders of the high-priestly
office during the Ptolemaic period seems to have been one of hereditary succession as had previously been the case,
and there is no evidence of any interference on the part of Ptolemaic officials to alter the pattern; in other words,
appointment of high priests remained a matter internal to the Judaean Jewish community. The list given in Nehemiah
12 of high priests down to Alexander's conquest of Palestine was mentioned above, and this is quite clearly a list of
members of the same family. Speaking of two or three generations later, Josephus, who is the only source for the high
priests of the Ptolemaic period, states (Ant. xii. 43–4) that Eleazar the high priest was the brother of the high priest
Simon I, son of Onias I, and that Eleazar had attained the high priesthood on Simon's death because Simon's son
Onias (II) was only an infant. Later on (Ant. xii. 157) Josephus claims that Eleazar was succeeded by his uncle
Manasses, after the death of whom Onias II finally took up the office. Upon his death Onias II was succeeded by his
son Simon (II), who in turn left it to his son Onias (III) (Ant. xii. 224–5). Josephus' own source for the information is
obscure, although in Ant. xx. 261 he intimates that he has followed a written record of the high priests (ἀναγραφήν,
anagraphēn) for the whole period of his history; however, it does seem from Josephus' presentation that the normal
expectation was for the high priesthood to be given to the eldest son or to the next closest relative of the previous high
priest, and that succession occurred only on the death of the incumbent.
This impression is borne out by the fact that the exceptions to that procedure which occurred later on at the beginning
of the second century were either the root or the symptom of controversy and unrest among the Jewish people, not
least because they came about as a result of interference by the ruling Seleucid power in the Jewish community's
internal affairs, contrary to the earlier
603
The papyri in which Tobias is mentioned are published in Victor Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1957–64), i (1957), 115–29. The papyri record that one of Tobias' men sold Zeno a slave girl; Tobias himself apparently provided provender and beasts
of burden for Zeno's party; Tobias sent a gift of four slave boys to Apollonius; and he also sent a gift of rare animals to Ptolemy via Apollonius.
assurances given in the decree of Antiochus III (Ant. xii. 138–46, especially 142). For the Ptolemaic period, however,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary it can be assumed that the line of succession remained fairly constant
throughout, and it was not until the Seleucid period that the problems really began when Antiochus IV accepted
financial inducements from the Zadokite Jason to install him instead of his brother Onias III in the high priesthood
(2 Macc. 4: 7–10). From then on the succession (via financial inducement) went to Menelaus, who was not even of
priestly descent,604 and then to Alcimus, an Aaronide but not of the Zadokite high-priestly family.605 The Hasmoneans
too, who were
604
Menelaus was the brother of Simon, the captain of the Temple, who is described as belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (2 Macc. 3: 4; 4: 23). This would give Menelaus no
entitlement to priestly office of any kind, let alone the high priesthood, and indeed 2 Maccabees is emphatic about his lack of qualifications for the position of high priest (2
Macc. 4: 25). Some scholars prefer to emend the text of 2 Macc. 3: 4 on the basis of the Old Latin, where Simon (and therefore Menelaus) is represented as belonging to the
tribe of Balgea, a priestly family listed in Neh. 12: 5, 18. See Donatien de Bruyne, ‘Le Texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées’, RB 31 (1922), 31–54 (pp. 46–7);
Robert Hanhart (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, IX: Maccabaeorum liber II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck ' Ruprecht,
1959), 26, 34, 35, 55; Hengel, 508–9 (ET i. 279); and Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 277–8. However, the emendation of an original Benjamin to Balgea is
understandable in view of the connections of both Simon and Menelaus with the Temple, whereas the change from Balgea to Benjamin under those circumstances is not;
hence, on the principle of lectio difficilior probabilior, the reading Benjamin should be allowed to stand. Josephus for his part makes Jason, Onias III, and Menelaus all brothers,
so that Menelaus would have been a member of the high-priestly family (Ant. xii. 238–9); however, this account is rather garbled and requires that Simon (II) had two sons
named Onias, before one of them changed his name to Menelaus. None the less, it may be an attempt to remedy a perceived inadequacy in Menelaus' descent, on the basis
that it was unthinkable for him to have been high priest without having any sort of connection with a priestly family. If that is so, then it is evidence that as early as Josephus
the same kind of process was taking place as the one which changed Benjamin to Balgea in the text underlying the Old Latin—or indeed, in the Old Latin itself.
605
Alcimus is described as ‘a priest of the line of Aaron’ (1 Macc. 7: 14), meaning that he was regarded as being of legitimate priestly descent, but he was not necessarily of
legitimate high- priestly descent, for which he would have to have been not simply of Aaronide descent but of Zadokite descent. This gives the lie to the attempt to make
Menelaus a member of the priestly house of Balgea (Bilgah) rather than the tribe of Benjamin (2 Macc. 3: 4, 4: 23; cf. Ant. xii. 237–8 and n. 35 above). The reason why
Alcimus was greeted with cautious optimism by the Hasideans was surely because he was of some sort of priestly descent, and so had a greater claim to the office, as well as
presumably having greater integrity, loyalty, and sense of what priestly duties required than his predecessor, who was simply a usurper. The Hasideans' trusting response to
Alcimus is very difficult to explain on the basis that Menelaus too had been of priestly descent, because they would already have been let down badly by ‘a priest of the line of
Aaron’. Instead, however, they can be understood as seeing in Alcimus a step towards the restoration of the proper order, since although he was not a high-priestly candidate
for the high priesthood, he was at least a priestly candidate, unlike Menelaus who was neither.
the next high priests after Alcimus, were a continuation of this trend of ‘outsider high priests’ appointed by the Syrian
overlords (1 Macc. 10: 20), something which would make them understandably unpopular in the eyes of the purists.
Not only was the Zadokite line regarded as the only legitimate ancestry for a high priest, but the linking of the high
priesthood with foreign domination so that it became a tool of political manœuvring and outside control would surely
degrade it, and struck a blow at the heart of Jewish identity. No doubt it would be seen as yet another example of the
hellenizing tendencies which some considered to be a betrayal of the ancestral faith, and probably provoked the kind of
vitriolic response found in the Qumran Habakkuk commentary's denigration of the ‘Wicked Priest’.606
Although there is no hint in either the papyri or the biblical material as to how the high priest might have been viewed
by the Ptolemies and what part he would have played in the overall structures, there are one or two tantalizing glimpses
from elsewhere which may enable a picture of some kind to be pieced together. As already indicated, Josephus makes a
number of references to high priests of the Ptolemaic period in Ant. xii, and in fact is the main source. He paraphrases
from the Letter of Aristeas the story of how the LXX translation was prepared during the reign of Ptolemy II, for which
the high priest Eleazar is asked to send seventy-two elders from Jerusalem to carry out the translation work (Ant. xii.
39–57), and he includes from another source the details of how Eleazar came to be high priest (Ant. xii. 43–4). Later
on, having given the succession from Eleazar to Onias II (Ant. xii. 157), he recounts the so-called Tobiad romance
which describes how when Onias II the high priest withheld tribute money from the king, thereby incurring his wrath,
Joseph the Tobiad (Onias' nephew) saved the country from disaster by going to Ptolemy and soothing the king's anger,
and then went on to make his fortune by winning the tax-farming contract for Coele-Syria (Ant. xii. 158–85).
How informative about the high priesthood is this material? Josephus' account of Eleazar and the seventy-two elders
together with the lavish gifts supposedly sent to Jerusalem by Ptolemy II in
606
There is general scholarly agreement that the Wicked Priest refers to a Hasmonean figure. A. S. van der Woude, ‘Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the
Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary’, JJS 33 (1982), 349–59, argues that the phrase may even apply to several of the Hasmoneans.
gratitude for the services rendered, reproduces all the pro-Jewish bias of his source, the Letter of Aristeas, which is itself
thought to be a piece of Hellenistic Jewish propaganda, although its date and primary aim are disputed.607 In the light of
such a tendency, notable in Josephus as well as in his source,608 care must be taken not to credit the account with a
greater degree of historical veracity than it deserves. Indeed, some parts of it are positively legendary, such as the
explanation of why the Jewish Law had remained thitherto unknown to the Greeks (Ant. xii. 110–13; Aristeas, 312–16),
which raises the question as to how far the account can be used to determine what part the high priest might have
played in third-century Ptolemaic Judah. However, it seems that whether it is viewed as largely legendary or largely
factual the account has little effect on the picture which has already been sketched out concerning the importance of
the high priest, because he is not shown here in a particularly unusual or unexpected capacity. If it is assumed that the
only element of certainty in the account is the appearance of the LXX around this time, most probably in Alexandria,
which was the location of the largest concentration of Greek-speaking Jews at that time, then naturally the account can
provide no new information on third-century Judah and can certainly offer no further enlightenment about the high
priesthood. On the other hand, it can be assumed that despite the admittedly legendary accretions the story contains
factual elements, inasmuch as it can be regarded as a kind of historical novel in which the setting and background
details are accurate even if the events themselves are fictional. But even if that were the case it provides no new
information on the role of the high priesthood. The high priest would have been the obvious person at Jerusalem for
the king to ask for assistance with a matter of such evident religious gravity. If the high priest had gained in importance
in any other sphere in the eyes of either the Ptolemies or the Jewish nation by the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the
story of the LXX translation gives no indication as to what that sphere might have been.
The Tobiad romance (Ant. xii. 158–236), on the other hand,
607
For an idea of the letter's significance, see Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985),
11–16; R. J. H. Shutt, ‘Letter of Aristeas: A New Introduction and Translation’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ii (London: Darton,
Longman and Todd, 1985), 7–34 (pp. 7–11).
608
‘He is an apologist for his people, an agitator for his religion’ (Bilde, 205).
adds a new aspect to the picture of the high priest: he seems to have had some kind of fiscal responsibility for the
province and its people, which meant that he had to pay tribute on their behalf to the king (or to the king's agent). The
implications of this for his position in respect of the people need to be examined. It could be argued that the tribute
demand came to him rather than to any other official because to the Ptolemies he appeared as the most easily
identifiable representative of the Jews in Judah, which would imply that there was no other individual with similarly
nationally recognizable status. In the absence of a royal line, unless someone like Joseph the Tobiad came forward as
the people's representative, it is conceivable that the high priest could serve as a convenient representative figure.
However, the high priest was by no means the only cog in the administrative machinery. As mentioned above, the
practice for the rich Egyptian sanctuaries was to appoint a special officer, the ἐπιστάτης (epistatēs), to oversee their
finances, and it seems a reasonable possibility that the same procedure was followed in Jerusalem.609 Hence, any picture
of the high priest's responsibilities under the Ptolemies needs to be balanced with a realistic evaluation of how closely
he would have been supervised by other Ptolemaic officials alongside him and above him.
It has also been suggested, presumably at least partly on the basis of Ant. xii. 158, that the high priest was a kind of tax
farmer for the Ptolemies,610 a role which was certainly not in evidence among the high priests of the Persian period. If it
were the case that the Ptolemaic high priest was a tax farmer, it might also be a light in which to view the attempts of
Jason and Menelaus to buy the high priesthood from Antiochus IV, since according to Josephus tax-farming rights for
each area were given to the highest
609
Hengel, 45–6 (ET i. 24); Klaus-Dietrich Schunk, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker? Die Stellung der Hohenpriester von Jaddua bis Jonatan zur jüdischen Gemeinde und zum
hellenistischen Staat’, VT 44 (1994), 498–512 (p. 500). Something of the same function may have been fulfilled by Simon the ‘captain of the Temple’ in the Seleucid
period, although of course that would have been several decades later than the situation presently under discussion.
610
Jagersma, 26. Elias Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1988), claims ‘that the tax farming of the Oniads must
have made them the richest house in Jerusalem, and that wealth, royal favor, hereditary prestige, and the sacredness of the office combined to win for the High Priests the
natural leadership of the Chosen People’ (p. 144). See also S. Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea’, 164.
bidder (Ant. xii. 169). Jason and Menelaus would then be bidding for tax-farming rights which would also win them
the high priesthood. However, the instances are not really comparable: although Joseph the Tobiad's bid secured him
the tax-farming rights, it did not secure him the high priesthood, and in any case the intrigues of Jason and Menelaus
took place during the Seleucid period, whereas the incident with Onias took place during the Ptolemaic period. It
seems unlikely that the high priest was a tax farmer under the Ptolemies, not least because Onias' refusal to pay the
tribute displays a degree of antipathy towards the Ptolemaic bureaucracy which would be quite out of place in a tax
farmer who was supposedly working in tandem with the ruling powers. Rather than being the result of tax-farming
activity, it is far more likely that the tribute rendered by the high priest was some sort of Temple tax or even, as Bagnall
suggests, ‘an additional gift to the king each year from his own resources, carrying on an ancestral custom’611 (cf. Ant.
xii. 158—ι̑ν τοι̑ς βασιλɛυ̑σιν οἱ πατέρɛς ατου̑ ἐτέλουν ἐκ τω̑ν ἰδίων, ‘which his fathers used to pay to the kings from their
own resources’). There is no need to assume that the high priest had major responsibility for all tax-gathering in the
province, or that he was the major administrative officer in other areas, simply because of one item of tribute which he
was known to pay.612
As well as providing a glimpse of the high priesthood, the Tobiad romance, for all its flamboyant exaggeration, also
illustrates the presence in the province of old-established, moneyed, and influential families. Joseph the Tobiad is by no
means the first or the only one of his family to appear in the history of Palestine in a position of power; the Tobias of
the Zeno papyri was mentioned above, and Mazar traces the history of the Tobiads as a wealthy
611
Bagnall, 20.
612
Paul W. Lapp, ‘Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from Judah’, BASOR 172 (1963), 22–35, discusses the different types of seals which have been discovered stamped on jar
handles from the Ptolemaic era, and argues that the designs of the two types discovered point to the collection of two different types of taxes, one set for the Ptolemaic
officials of Judah and one set for the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (p. 34). This interpretation comes from the known intricacies of Ptolemaic taxation in Judah, which imply
the presence of crown fiscal officials independent of the Temple in order to collect the revenues, and the fact that none of the names of fourth- and third-century high
priests are found on the jar stamp or coin types of the period from Judah which bear the official designations yhwd or phw (i.e. the name of the province, ‘Yehud’, or the
official title ‘governor’), a state of affairs which, Lapp argues, indicates that the offices of high priest and governor would not have been held by the same individual (pp.
32–3).
and influential landowning family in Transjordan back to the time of the monarchy.613 In the post-exilic period alone
there is a Tobiah named in the prophecy of Zechariah as one of those asked to bring silver and gold to make a crown
(Zech. 6: 10, 14), and there is a Tobiah who appears in the Nehemiah memoir, first as an opponent of the wall-building
(Neh. 3: 35 (ET 4: 3)) and later on as an associate of the high priest Eliashib (Neh. 13: 4–5, 7–8), as well as the Tobias
who is mentioned in the Zeno papyri. The Zeno Tobias was probably the father of Joseph the Tobiad, and in the
papyri he appears as a man with others in his personal service, the commander of a cleruchy of military settlers, who is
on familiar enough terms with the Ptolemaic administration to provide food, beasts of burden, and personnel for
Zeno's cortège, and to write to Zeno's superior Apollonius sending him gifts of slaves for himself and rare animals for
King Ptolemy II. If this is the kind of background from which Joseph came, it is understandable that he felt able to
step into the breach when Onias' defiant conduct towards the king threatened Judah's security (Ant. xii. 159–64).
The relevance of the Tobiads for the study of the high priesthood is twofold. First, it is interesting that the Tobiah of
Nehemiah's day, the Tobias of the Zeno papyri, and Joseph the Tobiad all seem to have had connections with the high
priesthood, the first as a friend or ally, possibly as a relative (‘connected with Tobiah’, MT , qārôb leṭôbîyyāh;
LXX ἐγγίων Tωβια, eggiōn Tōbia—Neh. 13: 4), the second by marriage, and the third as a blood relative—Joseph's
mother is said to have been Onias' sister, whom Tobias (presumably the Zeno Tobias) married (Ant. xii. 160). A later
Tobiad, Hyrcanus, is styled as having some deposits in the Temple (2 Macc. 3: 11), so that despite the difference of
opinion between Onias II and Joseph, the Tobiad links with the high priesthood apparently still continued. Later still
the Tobiads appear as supporters of the renegede Menelaus over against the Oniad Jason, whom Menelaus displaced
from the high priesthood (Ant. xii. 239); although on this occasion they were not supporting the legitimate high-priestly
line, they were nevertheless still closely involved in what might be termed the ‘Temple politics’ of Judah. No doubt
these close connections with the high-priestly house would have seemed to offer the Tobiads a means of exerting
613
B. Mazar, ‘The Tobiads’, IEJ 7 (1957), 137–45, 229–38. See also the introductory comments to the Zeno papyri in Tcherikover and Fuks, 115–18.
influence upon the religious establishment and diluting its conservatism, something which comes out clearly in the
Tobiad support of Menelaus; indeed, the links may also have afforded them a degree of religious credibility for their
own rather more liberal approach.
Secondly, wherever the Tobiads appear, they seem to be equally as influential as, if not more so than, the high priest.
Zechariah's Tobiah was a nobleman; Nehemiah's Tobiah had no difficulty in securing for himself a room in the
Temple, and was even a challenge to Nehemiah himself because of the loyalty he commanded among the Judaeans
(Neh. 6: 17–19). Given that it was Nehemiah and not the high priest who held the primary governing power in fifth-
century Judah at that time, a Tobiah who could challenge Nehemiah would doubtless have been in a more powerful
position than the high priest. Onias the high priest succeeded only in incurring the wrath of the Ptolemies by his refusal
to pay tribute, which may reflect his subordinate status or his political ineptitude (due to lack of experience in political
matters?), or both; his nephew Joseph the Tobiad, on the other hand, not only soothed the royal wrath but gained royal
favour, tax-farming rights, and a fortune for himself as a result.
Another native institution which is usually thought to demonstrate the importance of wealthy and influential families in
the province is the gerousia, apparently a council of heads of both lay and priestly families which developed throughout
the Ptolemaic period. The beginnings of it are often put in the Persian period, because of Nehemiah's references to ‘the
nobles and officials’ (τοι̑ς ἐντίμοις καὶ τοι̑ς στρατηγοι̑ς, 2: 16 (LXX Esd. B 12: 16); τοὺς ἐντίμους καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, 5: 7
(Esd. B 15: 7)) and the ‘heads of ancestral houses’ (ἀρχηγω̑ν τω̑ν πατριω̑ν, 7: 70 (Esd. B 17: 70)). The scholarly
tendency has been to see the government of Ptolemaic Judah as having been a joint effort between the high priest and
the gerousia of which he was the head, an arrangement which dated from the Persian period;614 however, the gerousia
does not appear
614
D. S. Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod, New Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 11; Jagersma, 20; Albertz, ii. 593–4 (ET, 535–6); Schunck,
500. It should be noted that Albertz's view of Ptolemaic-period government in Judah, which is summarized in the quotation given in the Introduction above (p. 4), follows
that of Tcherikover, who arrived at his opinion by means of a literal interpretation of the Hecataeus passage discussed earlier. See n. 10 above. Jagersma similarly bases
himself on Hecataeus for his own assessment of the high priest's status in Ptolemaic times.
as a clearly demarcated official institution until 1 Macc. 12: 5, and attempts to trace its development in the Ptolemaic
period are purely speculative.615 It also appears in the decree of Antiochus III which gives tax concessions to Judah and
Jerusalem on account of their friendly reception of him (Ant. xii. 138, 142),616 although once again this is not until after
the end of Ptolemaic rule in Judah.
It remains to be considered what if anything the Wisdom of Ben Sira can contribute to a picture of the high priesthood
during the Ptolemaic period. Originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek by the author's grandson,
according to the prologue added to the translation, the work is datable fairly exactly from other details given in the
prologue to the early part of the second century BCE.617 It shows a keen interest in the priesthood in general and in the
high priesthood in particular, not least in its extensive praise of Aaron and Phinehas (45: 6–25) and its glowing
description of the high priest coming out of the sanctuary after officiating at one of the appointed services (50:
5–24).618 The opening verses of the same chapter (50: 1–4) name the high priest in question as Simon son of Yoḥanan,
and this is usually held to be Simon II, who was high priest between 219 and 196 BCE.619 Simon was therefore high
priest at the time of the Seleucid conquest of Judah, and on the basis of 50: 1–4, which describes building work done in
his day, he has been credited with carrying out the repairs to the Temple which are stipulated in the decree of
Antiochus III cited in Ant. xii. 138–44.620 Simon thus bridged the Ptolemaic and the
615
For a detailed examination of the evidence for a gerousia from the Persian period to the Seleucid period, see David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994), 77–99. Goodblatt argues that there is no evidence for either a Persian or a Ptolemaic gerousia in the sense of a formally constituted body of
elders or officials, and that the term's usage in the Seleucid period need be understood as referring to nothing more than an indeterminate oligarchy alongside the high priest.
The distinction could perhaps be rendered as equivalent to that between an aristocracy and a House of Lords.
616
See the comments on the decree in Ch. 11 below on the Maccabees.
617
Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 8–9.
618
The description has traditionally been thought to refer to the ceremonies of Yom Kippur, but Fearghas Ó Fearghail, ‘Sir 50,5–21: Yom Kippur or The Daily Whole
Offering?’, Biblica, 59 (1978), 301–16, argues that it is in fact a description of the daily whole-offering ceremony.
619
John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 251; Skehan and Di Lella, 9, 550.
620
J. G. Snaith, 251; Skehan and Di Lella, 14, 550. Antiochus' decree in the form in which it appears in Josephus makes no mention of a high priest.
Seleucid periods, although he spent more of his term of office under the Ptolemies than under the Seleucids.
The impressive description of Aaron in 45: 6–22 is interesting in that it testifies to the continuance of the tradition laid
out in P concerning the sole right of Aaronides to the priesthood, and to the honour in which the high-priestly
garments and the cultic ceremonies were held. However, it provides no new information on the supposed political
function of the high priesthood, if any such function existed. By contrast, the hymn in praise of Simon refers to an
historical individual who is known to have functioned as high priest under the Ptolemies. Although the vast majority of
the hymn (50: 5–24) deals with cultic observance, the first four verses of the hymn (50: 1–4) appear to credit Simon
with having had the authority to carry out engineering works in various parts of the city. If this was indeed so, it would
be evidence for the high priest's power spreading further into non-cultic areas than was previously the case. However,
on closer examination a different picture appears. 50: 1–2 deals with repairs to the Temple, an area which had
traditionally fallen under the high priest's jurisdiction. The digging of a reservoir (50: 3) can also be seen as having
cultic significance, in that a good supply of water for ritual washing of people and sacrifices would be required to
enable Temple ceremonial to continue.621 In addition, 50: 2–3 is phrased passively, ‘in his days’, ‘in his time’, so that the
only connection between Simon himself and the actions described is the dating.622 The only place where Simon is
possibly described as having been involved in carrying out actions to fortify the city is in 50: 4, which speaks of Simon
planning to save his people from ruin and fortifying the city against siege. The usual interpretation of the verse is to
assume that it refers to physical defences of some kind erected in the city by Simon, which would supposedly continue
the theme of the previous three verses and support the picture of Simon as an administrator and provincial
governor.623 However, the only building
621
Hayward, Jewish Temple Sourcebook, in commenting on this passage, compares this reservoir to that which is mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas, 89 as part of a description of
the Temple (pp. 75, 77); the obvious implication is that in Ben Sira too the reservoir is to be viewed as part of the Temple complex. Although Hayward does not comment
specifically on Ben Sira 50: 4, he seems to regard the whole passage 50: 1–4 as a description of the Temple (pp. 77–8).
622
Goodblatt, 19, uses this observation to argue that Ben Sira 50: 1–4 need not refer to rebuilding in Jerusalem after its conquest by Antiochus III because the dating is so
imprecise.
623
J. G. Snaith, 251.
works in which Simon is personally involved in 50: 1–3 are those concerning the Temple, which can be seen as part of
the normal sphere of responsibility for a high priest, and all the constructions mentioned in these verses can be viewed
as being part of the Temple complex. In the light of this observation, 50: 4 need not be taken to indicate large-scale
building works undertaken throughout the city, but can be seen instead as a general summary reference to the building
works carried out on the Temple, since the geographical position of the Temple mount in Jerusalem meant that
fortifying it as described in 50: 1a–3 would effectively strengthen the whole city against attack and ruin by turning the
mount into a kind of acropolis. It is also possible, of course, that fortification of the Temple was viewed as a necessity
in religious terms for the city's protection in times of war, given that the Temple was so strongly associated with the
presence and favour of the Lord. Hence, it would be necessary to protect the Temple and enable it to function as
normally as possible, even in times of siege, since this would be a way of ensuring divine protection for the community
as a whole. However, the main point is that 50: 4 does not necessarily provide any evidence for Simon the high priest
acting in a governmental as opposed to a cultic capacity, and indeed, given the context of the verse in a eulogy which is
otherwise entirely based on Simon's activities in and for the cult, it seems only reasonable that such an interpretation
should be adopted for this verse as well.
In conclusion, then, the picture of the high priesthood during the Ptolemaic era is of necessity rather imprecise because
so much of it is guesswork due to lack of direct documentation. The payment of tribute on behalf of the people (Ant.
xii. 158) does perhaps indicate a widening out of the high priesthood's duties from mere ceremonial, but at the same
time there are significant limiting factors on any authority which the high priest might have had outside the ceremonial
sphere. First, as long as Judah was under foreign rule, even assuming the high priest did have powers in areas of
community life outside the Temple, any power he exercised would be closely defined by the limitations of that foreign
domination. This was probably even more true in view of Palestine's strategic location at the heart of Coele-Syria.
Secondly, the emergence of a powerful unofficial lay group of aristocracy can be seen as both cause and effect of the
high priesthood's limited
powers of governance. Hence, the conclusion is that by the end of the Ptolemaic period the high priest's position was
basically unchanged; he was still an important cultic official, but the major powers of civil administration and
government were in the hands of others, whether Ptolemaic officials or Jewish aristocrats.
11 The Maccabean Conquest: Jonathan and Simon
the Maccabees
After the obscurity of the Ptolemaic period it is something of a relief to move on to the Seleucid period for which there
is a good deal more documentation and where the high priesthood occurs quite frequently. In fact, two of the main
sources for the period document the end of the Zadokite high priesthood and the rise of a new family of high priests
into the chaos left by the Jews' encounter with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. These sources are, of course, the first and
second books of the Maccabees, which together with Josephus provide quite a detailed account of the Hasmonean
dynasty of priestly warrior kings624—although naturally the detail does not preclude the need for interpretation, and
there are questions which remain difficult to answer satisfactorily. The historicity of 1 Maccabees is generally highly
regarded,625 although its detailed narrative is limited, beginning in chapter 2 with Mattathias' resistance to Antiochus'
anti-Jewish decrees and concentrating on Judas, Jonathan, and Simon. It contains nothing about the later Hasmoneans,
for which it is necessary to look to Josephus, nor is there any detail about the intrigues involving the high priesthood
which took place before the beginning of the resistance movement, for which 2 Maccabees is the most important
source. 1 Maccabees is effectively a piece of apologetic
624
The term ‘Hasmonean’ for the dynasty which originated out of the rebellion headed by the priest Mattathias and his sons is taken from the name of Mattathias' great-
grandfather, given in Josephus, Ant. xii. 265 as Ἀσαμωναι̑ος (Ἀσαμωναι̑ου) and in rabbinic literature as Hasmonai. The name does not occur in the account of Mattathias'
lineage in 1 Macc. 2: 1. For the purposes of this study the term ‘Maccabeans’ will be used to refer specifically to Mattathias and his sons, and ‘Hasmoneans’ to refer to both
the dynasty as a whole and where necessary the members of the dynasty from John Hyrcanus onwards (i.e. the generations after the Maccabeans). The context of the
references should make it clear exactly who is being referred to in any given instance.
625
F.-M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1949), pp. xxiv–xxv; Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 16–17.
THE MACCABEAN CONQUEST 267
writing for the new dynasty, which judging from its style and idiom was originally in Hebrew, and which treats its
subject matter in the style of the Deuteronomistic History,626 thereby enabling Maccabean rule to be justified by
likening it to an accepted Scriptural precedent. The work's favourable attitude towards both the Hasmoneans and
Rome, together with its final note about the reign of John Hyrcanus having been recorded in an official chronicle
(1 Macc. 16: 23–4), mean that it must have been written after John's death and before either Rome or the Hasmonean
dynasty had fallen from favour; this would give it a date of around 100 BCE.627 2 Maccabees, by contrast, is written in
the florid style of Greek pathetic historiography,628 which makes quite plausible its
626
Abel, pp. xxiii–xxiv; Zeitlin, First Maccabees, 33–4; Bartlett, Maccabees, 14–15; Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 14.
627
Hugo Bévenot, Die beiden Makkabäerbücher, Die heilige Schrift des alten Testamentes, iv. 4 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1931), 8–9; Abel, pp. xxviii–xxix; Goldstein, I Maccabees,
62–4. The most common alternative dating proposed for the book is to place it sometime in the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE ), and view the note in 16: 23–4 as a
later addition. See Zeitlin, First Maccabees, 27–32, and J. C. Dancy, 1 Maccabees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954), 8. S. Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1
Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion’, JJS 42 (1991), 16–38, argues for a date of c. 130 BCE on the grounds that the work shows strong support for the Hasmonean
dynasty, but hostility towards the nations which it would have patronized as a result of the territorial expansion under John Hyrcanus; hence, the work is better dated prior to
the main part of the expansion (pp. 33, 36). Joseph Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I, South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism, 6 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990), 3, dates the work to late in the reign of Hyrcanus on the grounds that it shows no signs of there being a
Hasmonean kingship as yet. However, as will be argued below, both Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees are portrayed in terms of the ancient Israelite monarchy, presumably
as a means of justifying and explaining the character of their rule, which closely resembled that of the monarchs. Hence, the overt claiming of the title ‘king’ by later
Hasmoneans was as much a psychological change as an alteration in actual status, since Jonathan and Simon had effectively ruled as kings from the middle of the second
century. According to Josephus, the first Hasmonean actually to claim kingship was Aristobulus I, who ruled for only a year in 104–103 BCE (Ant. xiii. 301). Whether it
was Aristobulus or his successor Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE ) who first claimed the monarchy, though, dating 1 Maccabees to c. 100 BCE means that its appearance
would coincide with the nominal change in status of the Hasmonean rulers, and could conceivably have been precipitated by the change in an attempt to justify it. See also
the discussion on John Hyrcanus' supposed claim to kingship in Ch. 12 below on the Hasmoneans.
628
Bartlett, Maccabees, 216; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 34. However, Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQ Monograph Series 12
(Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), claims that ‘the existence of such a genre is in serious question’ (p. 1), and instead argues that 2
Maccabees ‘is primarily temple propaganda—the defense of the temple and its surroundings by the patron deity’(p. 114). A completely different approach is adopted by
Jochen Gabriel Bunge, Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, literarische, chronologische und historische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrisch-
palästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v.Chr. (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Druck, 1971). Bunge argues (pp. 181–203) that 2 Maccabees in its present form
is a communication sent from Jerusalem to the Egyptian Jews, consisting of a fictitious letter detailing the purification festival initiated by Judas Maccabee (2 Macc. 1: 10b–2:
18), the epitome of Jason's work which explained the circumstances behind the festival (3: 1–15: 39 plus introduction in 2: 19–32), and the covering letter for the whole
composition which was added when it was sent to Egypt in 124 BCE (1: 1–10a).
claim to be an abridgement of the five volumes of one Jason of Cyrene on the same subject (2 Macc. 2: 23). Of the
Maccabeans it deals only with Judas, ending with the rebels' defeat of Nicanor, the Seleucid general who had
threatened to destroy the Temple (2 Macc. 15: 1–36), but it gives more detail of the initial intrigues involving the last
high priests before the rebellion and the establishment of Maccabean leadership (2 Maccabees 3–5). It contains much
of the miraculous and spectacular, and dwells in gruesome detail on some of the tortures supposedly inflicted by
Antiochus on those who refused to submit to his decrees (2 Macc. 7: 1–42). Like 1 Maccabees, Jason's original
composition is unlikely to have been written after 63 BCE because of its favourable attitude to Rome and its assertion
that Jerusalem has been in Jewish hands continuously since Judas' victory over Nicanor (2 Macc. 15: 37),629 and indeed
its glorification of Judas to the exclusion of the other Hasmoneans would suggest a date of composition earlier rather
than later in the Maccabean era. There is, however, no clear indication as to the date of the abridgement.630 3 and 4
Maccabees are of no use for present purposes, being legendary variations on the theme of the Jews remaining
unmoved in the face of oppression at the hands of the foreign kings and thereby being vindicated by God. Josephus'
narrative of the Maccabean rebellion is based largely upon the account of 1 Maccabees, with the insertion of other
(probably Greek) sources for additional details from time to time.
The Hasmonean priest-kings, who had their origins in the struggle to maintain Jewish religious identity in the face of
pressure to adopt Gentile and specifically Hellenistic culture and practice, are often thought to represent the ideal high-
priestly model of civil and religious power being combined in a single individual—the paradigm upon which much
speculation regarding the high
629
Bunge, 198; Goldstein, II Maccabees, AB 41A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 71.
630
Abel, pp. xlii–xliii, and Bunge, 195–202, date 2 Maccabees to 124 BCE ; Zeitlin, Second Maccabees, 27–30, dates it to the period of Agrippa (41–4 CE ); and Goldstein, II
Maccabees, 83, favours 78–63 BCE . In the light of this, Bartlett's comment is apposite: ‘The book may belong almost anywhere in the last 150 years B.C.’ (Maccabees, 215).
priest's position in post-exilic Jewish society, particularly during the Persian period, has been based. However, even
allowing for the bias of 1 Maccabees, which deliberately presents its subject matter in a royal light, it is arguable that
these new priestly rulers had at least as much in common with their pre-exilic and Hellenistic monarchic counterparts
as they did with their post-exilic high-priestly predecessors; hence, it is not entirely accurate to view the Hasmonean
line as a continuation of the previous traditions of high priesthood which had obtained since the Restoration period.
From the picture of Jonathan and Simon in 1 Maccabees it is evident that neither their familial descent nor the eventual
style of their office was in accordance with the prevailing traditions of high priesthood in Jewish society, something
which may well have led to dissatisfaction among certain segments of the community and contributed to the eventual
downfall of the Hasmonean dynasty. Hence, it is necessary to establish more clearly the exact nature of their high
priesthood, and this can best be achieved by examining the narrative preserved in 1 Maccabees where the most detailed
account of the Maccabees' rise to prominence is to be found.
Before that, though, it is necessary to consider the chaos detailed in Josephus and 2 Maccabees, which formed the
preamble to the Maccabean rise. The passing of Judah under Seleucid rule by the end of the Fifth Syrian War in 198
BCE seems to have been greeted by the Jewish population with optimism, although some would simply have been
relieved that yet another war was finally over. Doubtless there were a good number who thought that a change of
ruling power would be for the better; Onias II's earlier refusal to pay tribute to the Ptolemaic government (Ant. xii.
158) may well have been prompted by the hopeful anticipation of a Seleucid revival and the overthrow of Ptolemaic
rule in the light of contemporary political circumstances.631 In the event, the Seleucid revival did not take place quite so
quickly, but Onias would surely not have been alone in his dissatisfaction with the Ptolemies. Indeed, the letter of
Antiochus to his governor Ptolemy quoted by Josephus (Ant. xii. 138–44) indicates that a good
631
Hengel, 51 (ET i. 27); Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part Three:
Judaism before 70, SJLA 12 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 85–123 (pp. 97–8); Jagersma, 29; Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 196–7; Schunck, 501.
many welcomed the eventual reversal of fortune when it arrived, and that the optimism which expressed itself in a
friendly reception of Antiochus' forces was initially rewarded with a number of privileges, including tax relief and the
right to the ancestral form of Jewish government.632 The first hint of the chaos to come was not until the reign of
Seleucus IV (185–175 BCE), Antiochus' successor, under whom the first official interference with the status quo
occurred; and ironically enough, according to 2 Maccabees, this was precipitated by one of the Jews themselves. Simon
the captain of the Temple (προστάτης του̑ ἱɛρου̑, prostatēs tou hierou—2 Macc. 3:4), after a disagreement with Onias III
the high priest, falsely reported the presence of vast sums of wealth in the Temple treasury to the provincial governor
Apollonius, suggesting that it might be commandeered for the royal coffers. Apollonius in turn reported it to the king,
who sent Heliodorus to remove it (2 Macc. 3: 4–8). The attempt was apparently a failure—as 2 Maccabees would have
it, some kind of supernatural intervention overpowered the would-be plunderer (2 Macc. 3: 22–8)633—but Simon
continued to agitate against Onias, forcing Onias himself to appeal to the king (2 Macc. 4: 1–6).
Simon's clash with Onias is significant for this investigation in two ways. In the first place, it can be used to shed some
light on the nature of Onias' high priesthood: the implication of the clash between the two men is that they were at
least equivalent to each other in their respective powers, since neither initially prevailed over the other. However,
Simon's immediate appeal to Apollonius suggests that he was in the position he occupied because he was a Seleucid
sympathizer, if not a Seleucid appointee.634 This means
632
Although the authenticity of the document has been disputed by some (see Jagersma, 38), it is not intrinsically implausible in its conception. See also Grabbe, Judaism from
Cyrus to Hadrian, 246–7, and Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, REJ 100 (1935), 4–35.
633
Bartlett, Maccabees, 242–3, suggests that the ‘vision’ might have its roots in an attack on Heliodorus by pre-Maccabean defenders of the faith; alternatively, Thomas Fischer,
Seleukiden und Makkabäer: Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte und zu den politischen Ereignissen in Judäa während der 1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Bochum: Studienverlag
Brockmeyer, 1980), 17–18, suggests that it might be a cult legend designed to show the holiness and inviolability of the place.
634
See the comments above in Ch. 10 on the financial control of sanctuaries under the Ptolemies. Simon may well have been an equivalent Seleucid official named to monitor
the Temple finances in Jerusalem, which would account for his ready appeal to Apollonius. See Schunk, 505. Hengel comments that Onias' failure to override Simon
indicates that Simon was an independent official (p. 47 (ET i. 25)).
that to see Onias as the sole ruler of his people, left to govern them undisturbed despite the Seleucid domination,
would be a rather naïve reading of the source. In addition, Simon's misrepresentation of the Temple funds implies that
the high priest was not entitled to control any revenues which did not accrue via sacrifices, and such a distinction
between what came under the high priest's control and what came under the king's control makes it seem unlikely that
the high priest was routinely responsible as a kind of government official for financial management in the province.
This in turn makes the idea of his having broad-based, wide-ranging powers unlikely, since control of the money
supply is an important factor in the ability to govern.
This picture of the limitations on Onias' power is also confirmed by the nature of the source material. It is decidedly
pro-Onias, determined to show the high priest in as favourable a light as possible, and yet the picture it presents is of a
man powerless to resist the approach of disaster except by divine aid. This is in line with the emphasis elsewhere in 2
Maccabees on the apparently powerless who are tortured to death but who are nevertheless somehow victorious
because of their undaunted faith, and the outnumbered forces who are victorious in battle because of divine assistance;
the picture painted throughout is of the clash of earthly and heavenly powers, with heavenly power intervening for the
righteous where they are otherwise unable to resist inimical earthly powers. The whole point of the story of Onias is
that he was powerless in political terms to prevent the seizure of the Temple funds and so had to be aided by heavenly
power; had he had earthly power in the first place the story would have been meaningless.
The second area in which Simon's clash with Onias may also have significance is that of the internal factions of
Jerusalem and Judah: it may have been a reflex of rivalry between the high-priestly family of Oniads and the Tobiads.
In the previous chapter the Tobiads were mentioned as a wealthy and influential aristocratic family who had had
connections with the priesthood and possibly the monarchy for generations,635 and from the Zeno papyri and the
Tobiad romance it seems evident that they were quite at home with a more hellenized, assimilationist outlook than
would 271
635
See the discussion of the so-called Tobiad romance in Ch. 10 above on the Ptolemaic period.
have been acceptable to some other segments of the community.636 Given that under Antiochus III the Jews had been
granted the right to govern themselves by their ancestral constitution,637 and the declaration granting this right was
apparently supplemented by limitations on the kind of animal products which could be brought into Jerusalem (Ant.
xii. 145–6), thereby affecting the potential for trade with non-Jews, Simon's challenge to Onias πɛρὶ τη̑ς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν
ἀγορανομίας (‘about the regulation of the city market’, 2 Macc. 3: 4) may have concerned this kind of issue,638 and
although there is no mention of it in the text, it is conceivable that the Tobiads with their more liberal outlook may
have been in favour of Simon, if not actually encouraging him to take up the issue. According to 2 Macc. 4: 23 Simon's
brother was Menelaus, whom Josephus claims to have had Tobiad support against the Oniad Jason (Ant. xii. 239);639
although there is of course no necessary connection between Menelaus' supporters and Simon's, both brothers seem to
have been challengers of the stricter Jewish orthodoxy as epitomized by figures such as Onias, and indeed both
brothers were challengers of Oniad high priests. Hence, it would not be surprising if both brothers had the support of
the same influential group which was another such challenger.
Another factor which would favour the idea of the Tobiads being Simon's supporters is Onias III's remark that some
of the funds in the Temple belonged to Hyrcanus the Tobiad (2 Macc. 3:11).640 According to Ant. xii. 228 Hyrcanus
was alienated from his
636
Examples of Tobiad laxity concerning strict Jewish observances include Tobias' failure to circumcise the household slaves whom he sent to Apollonius (Corpus Papyrorum
Judaicarum i., 126–7), the use of the pagan greeting formula πολλὴ χάρις τοι̑ς θɛοι̑ς (pollē charis tois theois, ‘many thanks to the gods’) in the letter to Apollonius (ibid .),
Joseph's friendly relations with the Samaritans (Ant. xii. 168), and the close fraternizing of both Joseph and Hyrcanus with the Ptolemies with no mention of any scruples
about ritual purity or kosher food (e.g. Ant. xii. 186–9; 210–14).
637
See n. 9 above on the authenticity of Antiochus III's decree as recorded in Ant. xii. 138–46.
638
See Abel, 317; Hengel, 494 (ET i. 271–2).
639
Josephus' source for this comment is obscure; however, it is not intrinsically improbable, given the acknowledged rivalry between the Oniads and Tobiads. Far more
improbable is the scenario he paints whereby both Onias III and Jason were the brothers of Menelaus, but the latter two had exchanged their respective Hebrew names Jesus
and Onias for Greek ones (Ant. xii. 238).
640
Most commentators accept the identification of this Hyrcanus with the one who was son of Joseph the Tobiad and whose exploits are detailed in Ant. xii. 190–236—see
Abel, 320; Zeitlin, Second Maccabees, 120–1; Bartlett, Maccabees, 237; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 207. By contrast, Doran, 18 n. 57, rejects the identification, claiming
papponymy as a way of explaining the reappearance of the name. However, this seems even more arbitrary than the view which he is attempting to discredit, and although
there is no evidence for the identification of the two men, neither is there is any for their dissociation. In the absence of proof of another such illustrious character named
Hyrcanus the Tobiad, it seems reasonable to accept the identification as being a common-sense one.
seven brothers, who had actually made war on him; hence, if Onias were sufficiently kindly disposed towards Hyrcanus
to retain his deposits in the Temple, it would be a potential source of rancour between the high priest and the
remaining members of the Tobiad family. Tobiad support of Simon's challenge to Onias would therefore be a way for
the Tobiads to express their hostility towards Onias because of his co-operation with their estranged relative, or even
an indirect means of revenge on Hyrcanus himself by engineering the confiscation of his wealth along with the other
deposits. Simon for his part evidently felt no constraint over the question of whose money was involved when he made
his accusations to Apollonius about the deposits in the Temple, and although this need not imply outright hostility
towards the depositors, it shows a lack of concern which certainly could not be construed as support for them. This
would be doubly true where Hyrcanus' deposits were concerned because Simon was a Seleucid appointee and
inevitably a sympathizer, whereas Hyrcanus favoured the Ptolemies (Ant. xii. 209–21).641
With the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 BCE), Jason's bribery in order to gain the high priesthood gives a new
twist to the story. According to 2 Maccabees, Simon's continued agitation against Onias III had necessitated Onias'
going to Antioch to plead his case before the Seleucid monarch Seleucus IV (2 Macc. 4: 4–6), but before Onias could
get to see the king Seleucus was assassinated and soon after succeeded by Antiochus. Jason probably took advantage of
Onias' absence from Jerusalem to make his bid for the high priesthood,642 especially as Onias' loyalty to the Seleucid
crown had been called into question as a result of Simon's agitation (2 Macc. 4: 1–2) and by Onias' willingness to keep
deposits in the Temple from the Ptolemaic sympathizer Hyrcanus. Jason effectively sold the high priesthood to the
Seleucids, placing the power of appointment of high priests in the hands of the foreign ruling power; this inevitably
meant that the high priesthood became a compromise between Jews and
641
Goldstein, ‘Tales of the Tobiads’, 100.
642
Cf. Bartlett, Maccabees, 243.
Seleucids, and in becoming high priest Jason became a Seleucid agent with the backing of the overlord to carry out
what he wanted. As a hellenizer, Jason may well have thought that combining the chief Jewish religious office with
Seleucid power would enable him to infiltrate the very heart of Judaism with Greek ideas, giving the ideas the moral
authority of the high priesthood and opening the way to a wider acceptance of them among the Jews.643 It was no doubt
on this basis that he also appealed to Antiochus for permission to found a gymnasium and the community of the
Antiochenes in the city of Jerusalem (2 Macc. 4: 9–10),644 contrary to the decree of Antiochus III which made Jewish
law the law of the state.645 In the event, of course, Jason's action not only caused great unrest among the populace but
also had the effect of debasing the high priesthood.
It can well be imagined that this new combination of religious authority supplied by the high priesthood itself with civil
authority supplied by the backing of the Seleucids made the high priesthood suddenly seem very desirable, even though
there is little evidence of its being a significant force in government or civil administration prior to Jason's bid for it. At
the same time, as well as increasing the desirability of the high priesthood by his unorthodox actions, Jason had also set
the precedent of gaining it by means of bribery, and so it was only a matter of time before Menelaus followed the
precedent three years later and bribed Jason out of office, despite having no qualifications for the high priesthood (cf. 2
Macc. 4: 25).646 According to 2 Macc. 4: 23–5: 23 he spent his
643
Cf. Fischer, 20–1.
644
Cf. Klaus Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa: Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175–163 v. Chr.), Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse; Folge 3, Nr. 132 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 73. In Ant. xii. 240–1 it is Menelaus and the Tobiads who
are credited with petitioning the king for permission to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem; however, given that the passage in Josephus is rather confused and that 2
Maccabees is chronologically so much closer than Josephus to the events described, the account in 2 Maccabees is probably to be preferred.
645
On the necessity of royal authority for Jason to found the gymnasium contrary to the acknowledged state law, see Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn
und Ursprung der Makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken/Jüdischer Buchverlag, 1937), 63–4 (ET The God of the Maccabees, trans. H. R. Möhring, SJLA 32 (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1979), 41), and Institutions des Séleucides (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1938), 137–8. However, Goldstein thinks that Jason did it ‘through . . . his
authority as high priest’ (II Maccabees, 228).
646
See n. 36 on Menelaus and Alcimus, in Ch. 10 above on the Ptolemaic period. Schunck suggests that although Menelaus was not a Zadokite he may have been married to
a sister of Jason and Onias III, which was why he was accepted as high priest (pp. 507–8). Given the relative conservatism of both Onias and Jason, however, this would
suggest that Menelaus was at least of priestly descent, something for which there is no firm evidence, as argued above.
period of office abusing the privileges of his position; he is portrayed simply as a villain, playing off the various
authorities against each other in order to protect his own interests (e.g. 2 Macc. 4: 43–50), and the uncompromising
verdict given on him is that he had become a traitor both to the Laws and to his country (2 Macc. 5: 15). Although he
is not connected explicitly with Jason's hellenizing movement except by Josephus,647 Menelaus must have had at least
nominal sympathy for the regime because he is shown as the one appointed to convey tribute money to Antiochus
(2 Macc. 4: 23), which would imply that he was quite a trusted member of Jason's administration. Menelaus is also
shown assisting Antiochus to plunder the Temple (2 Macc. 5: 15), but this could just as easily have been a way of
securing his own position with the king, as a gesture of support for Hellenistic cultural ideals.
The involvement of the Tobiad family in previous disputes concerning the high priesthood has already been noted, as
has Josephus' comment about Tobiad support for Menelaus against Jason (Ant. xii. 239), and it is surely a distinct
possibility that Tobiad agitation was a factor behind Menelaus' bid for the high priesthood.648 Despite the evidently
hostile propaganda against Menelaus in 2 Macc. 4: 23–5: 23, which is only to be expected in a work which is so
favourable to Onias, Menelaus must have had at least some support for his bid, and this support must have been from
those for whom even Jason's unorthodox tenure of the high priesthood was not radical enough. Jason had broken the
accepted line of succession by his bribery to obtain the post of high priest before its previous incumbent had died, and
he had introduced what many would have viewed as alien and illegal measures, contrary to the Torah, into the city; but
there is no indication that he had taken measures to prohibit traditional observances,649 and he was still a Zadokite,
indeed an Oniad; he was still an establishment figure, and a member of the family who were the Tobiads' rivals.
647
See n. 16 above.
648
As Sievers remarks, ‘[Antiochus's] interference in the high priestly succession gave practical importance to and promoted factionalism in the Jerusalem aristocracy which
then had far-reaching repercussions for the whole population’ (The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 25).
649
Bartlett, Maccabees, 246; Fischer, 20; Bringmann, 67–8; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 228.
For the Tobiads to make real headway in the arena of power and to achieve the freedom of a Hellenistic cultural milieu
in Judah they needed to do away with the religious conservatism which they saw as backward and stifling; and the way
for them to achieve that was to gain control of the high priesthood, which now had the additional status and power of
a Seleucid official post. The Tobiad history of close attachment to the high-priestly family, sometimes for better,
sometimes for worse, meant that they had few if any qualms about dealing in the most summary fashion with the high
priest; Jason himself had shown them the means of entry into the high priesthood, and they would surely not be slow
to follow the precedent. Tobiad support of Menelaus would then be a way of ousting the Oniads from the one position
in the country which afforded the facility of breaking through the wall of Jewish conservatism to the more open, more
Greek society which they desired.
From his analysis of the causes of the punitive measures and the persecution which were subsequently inflicted on the
Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, Bickerman concludes that they resulted from Jewish factional infighting rather than
from any particular Seleucid anti-Semitism.650 The jilted Jason's failed attempt to regain the high priesthood from
Menelaus by force whilst Antiochus was otherwise occupied in a war with Egypt (2 Macc. 5: 5–7) was interpreted as
rebellion against the Seleucids (2 Macc. 5: 11), hence the razing of Jerusalem's walls and the imposition of a permanent
military garrison in the city, which would have been normal practice when attempting to subdue a rebellious people
(1 Macc. 1: 29–35; Ant. xii. 252).651 The subsequent religious persecution was quite uncharacteristic even for Antiochus
and affected only the Jews in Judah, ignoring completely Jews elsewhere in the Seleucid empire; it cannot therefore
have been prompted by a blanket feeling of anti-Semitism.652 Even the form of worship which was imposed was not
Greek, but proto-Semitic, which would have been foreign to Antiochus himself but which would none the less have
been acceptable to philosophical Greek thought in its conception as it was above all else an attack on Jewish
particularism.653
650
Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 137, 138 (ET, 90, 91).
651
Ibid. 69–72, 77 (ET, 45–7, 51).
652
Ibid. 90–2, 121–2 (ET, 61–2, 79–80).
653
Ibid. 110–11, 115, 120, 133 (ET, 72, 75, 78, 88).
Bickerman's suggestion, therefore, for which he claims support from 2 Macc. 13: 4 and Ant. xii. 384, is that the
persecution was engineered by Menelaus, a Jewish hellenizer who wanted to force his enlightened, supposedly tolerant
and non-particularist outlook upon his fellow-Jews as a blow against the superstition and decadence which the
barbarous particularism signified.654 Bickerman's views are largely followed by Hengel in his own analysis of the
persecution,655 but both are disputed by Millar, who claims that the persecution was an attempt not to reform but to
abolish Judaism carried out by Antiochus IV, with no evidence for significant influence upon him from a Jewish
reform party, and that the cult imposed in the Temple was not syncretistic but simply pagan.656 In other words, Millar
sees the whole episode as the imposition of a completely foreign system of observances on the Jews from outside,
rather than as the attempt of one particular Jewish party to gain royal support in imposing their own brand of Semitic
observances on the rest of the community.
It seems that there are two interlinked issues which are of relevance for present purposes: what was the root cause of
the persecution, and what was Menelaus' position during this period? Antiochus' interpretation of the take-over bid by
Jason as revolt and his resultant forcible intervention in Judah (2 Macc. 5: 11) are quite understandable, and although
the persecution does not follow immediately, it can be seen to follow on from that intervention as an attempt to stamp
out the elements which were seen to be causing unrest and resistance to the authorities set in place by Antiochus. The
continued unrest focused on a Seleucid-appointed official (cf. 2 Macc. 4: 39–50) in a province bordering on the heart
of the Ptolemaic empire would have been a matter of great concern to the king, especially as Antiochus himself had
just been humiliated by the Romans in his campaign against Egypt, and it is not unnatural that he would take measures
to quell permanently what he saw as the rebellious spirit of the Judaean Jews. Those measures apparently consisted of
an attempt to abrogate the ancestral customs of the Jews (2 Macc. 6: 1–2), thereby revoking the concessions made to
them by Antiochus III, and to instill into the people loyalty to the Seleucid crown, hence the sacrifices for the king's
birthday (2 Macc. 6: 7), which Fischer regards as a test
654
Ibid. pp. 126–33 (ET, 83–8).
655
Hengel, 503–54 (ET i. 277–303).
656
Millar, 16–20.
of loyalty.657 Menelaus' precise position in all this is unclear. He is certainly shown as guiding Antiochus to plunder the
Temple as part of the military action taken against Judah following Jason's abortive coup (2 Macc. 5: 15), and he is
subsequently named as one of the governors left by Antiochus to oppress the people (2 Macc. 5: 22–3). He is also, as
Bickerman notes, blamed for instigating the unrest after it is all over (2 Macc. 13: 3–8), but there is no mention of him
being involved with the persecution at its beginning (1 Macc. 1: 41–50; 2 Macc. 6: 1–2). However, the fact that he
apparently managed to remain in office throughout the persecution implies that he did not actively oppose the
measures taken by Antiochus, whether or not he actually co-operated with them or even instigated or suggested them.
The linking of high priesthood with foreign domination marked the end of the high priesthood as it had been formerly
known. It was the end of the Zadokite succession of high priests in Jerusalem; the last direct representative of the
Oniad line was Onias III's son Onias IV, who never became high priest but who fled to Egypt and established an
alternative temple at Leontopolis.658 Neither
657
Fischer, 33–5.
658
The temple at Leontopolis is not mentioned in canonical or apocryphal literature, but appears several times in Josephus (Ant. xii. 387–8; xiii. 62–73; BJ vii. 423–32).
Despite BJ vii. 423 it was most probably founded by Onias IV, not Onias III, as both the references in Antiquities are to Onias IV, and according to 2 Macc. 4: 33–4 Onias
III was murdered at Daphnis in Antioch for denouncing Menelaus to Apollonius. The temple's somewhat surprising survival is perhaps attributable to its being viewed as a
substitute for the Jerusalem Temple which had been profaned; see Felix Stähelin, ‘Elephantine und Leontopolis’, ZAW 28 (1908), 180–2, and Hayward, ‘The Jewish
Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration’, JJS 33 (1982), 429–43. There are also links between Leontopolis and Qumran, detailed in S. H. Steckoll, ‘The Qumran Sect in
Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis’, Revue de Qumran, 6 (1967), 55–69, and Hayward suggests that Qumran and Leontopolis had a common origin in a Zadokite group
which rejected the Jerusalem Temple and priesthood; each of the two communities then restructured traditional temple ideology to symbolize their belief that they had
restored the legitimate cultic place and that the divine presence was with them (p. 443). The Leontopolis shrine continued to function until it was closed by the Romans in 74
CE (BJ vii. 433–5), despite being in contravention of the Deuteronomic law of centralized worship; however, it never became influential in the way that its founder
probably hoped. Instead, it seems to have represented a rather ignominious end for what had been Judah's most illustrious priestly dynasty. In assessing the temple's
significance, Delcor, ‘Le Temple d'Onias en Égypte’, RB 75 (1968), 188–203, draws attention to Onias' dubious motives in building the temple, his political and possibly
military services rendered to the Ptolemies which inevitably took him away from priestly duties, and the temple's potential for use by the Ptolemies as anti-Seleucid
propaganda, concluding, ‘Toutes ces compromissions politiques ne durent pas faire prendre en grande estime l'œuvre d'Onias, dont ses contemporains pouvaient sans doute
penser qu'il fut un prêtre malheureux, en quête non seulement d'un sanctuaire mais aussi d'une position sociale’ ('All of these political compromises must not have caused
Onias' handiwork to be viewed particularly favourably, and his contemporaries most probably thought that he was a miserable priest in search not only of a sanctuary but
also of social status') (p. 203). See also the discussion in Bunge, 555–94, and Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, Les Juifs d'Égypte, de Ramsès II à Hadrien (Paris: Éditions Armand
Colin, 1992), 101–11 (ET The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 121–33).
Menelaus, who succeeded the Oniad Jason, nor Menelaus' successor Alcimus were Zadokites.659 It was also the end of
the high priest as simply the ceremonial figurehead of Jewish belief, as will become obvious from the study of the
Maccabean high priests who emerged in the wake of the persecution.
The last non-Maccabean high priest was Alcimus, who is once again portrayed as a hellenizer. Although there are
conflicting accounts of how he managed to gain office,660 the important points are that Alcimus, like Menelaus, lacked
high-priestly descent, and was dependent upon Seleucid power to gain the high priesthood
(1 Macc. 7: 8–11, 21–5; 9: 1). He is portrayed in the pro-Maccabean rhetoric as a focus for ‘all who were troubling
their people’ (1 Macc. 7: 22), which probably means hellenizers or Seleucid sympathizers or both, and left in charge of
the country together with Seleucid backing he was apparently able to make a certain amount of headway against the
Maccabean forces, although not for very long (1 Macc. 7: 22–5). His attempt to demolish part of the Temple complex
(1 Macc. 9: 54) was probably due to a policy of anti-particularism which would make freer access to the Temple for
everyone, and is usually thought to be an attempt to demolish the wall separating the court of the Gentiles from the
rest of the Temple.661 However, according to 1 Macc. 9: 55–6 this was his
659
See n. 36 in Ch. 10 above on the Ptolemaic period.
660
According to Josephus (Ant. xii. 385) Alcimus was nominated by Antiochus V Eupator after Menelaus had been executed for inciting the persecution under Antiochus
Epiphanes, and took office straight away; according to 1 Macc. 7: 5–9, where Menelaus is not even mentioned, Demetrius I made Alcimus high priest for denouncing Judas
Maccabeus' guerrilla warfare to the king; and according to 2 Macc. 14: 3–14 Alcimus had been high priest once before, had voluntarily laid down the position, and now,
some two years after the death of Menelaus (cf. 2 Macc. 13: 1–7), was hoping to persuade Demetrius to reinstate him, as a way of protecting Demetrius' own interests and of
disposing of Judas Maccabeus. Sievers (The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 61 n. 57) thinks that ἔστησɛν ατῳ̑ τὴν ἱɛρωσύνην (estēsen autōi tēn hierosynēn, 1 Macc. 7: 9) should
be interpreted to mean that Demetrius merely confirmed Alcimus in the high priesthood to which Lysias had already appointed him. For a full discussion, see Wolfgang
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus Hoherpriester?)’, ZAW 65 (1953), 205–28.
661
Bévenot, 114; Zeitlin, First Maccabees, 163; Dancy, 137; Bartlett, Maccabees, 124. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 391–2, suggests that the wall was the one which divided the court of
the Israelites from the court of the priests, thereby implying that Alcimus' action arose from internal Jewish sectarian wrangling rather than from the clash between Jew and
Gentile. However, the sectarian wrangling could still have been provoked by the clash between Jewish ideas of separateness and Gentile-influenced ideas of assimilation. See
also W. Fairweather and J. Sutherland Black, The First Book of Maccabees, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 176. Abel, 174, suggests that Alcimus might
have been intending to erect Greek-style porticoes (portiques ) rather than to do away with the barrier altogether.
undoing; he was struck down by illness and died as the work was about to begin, which 1 Maccabees interprets as
divine judgement for his arrogance (ὕβρις?). Once Alcimus was dead Bacchides, the Seleucid general who had been
sent along with him into Judah, withdrew (1 Macc. 9: 57), despite having recently undertaken an intensive programme
of fortification in Judah and Jerusalem to secure his position together with hostage-taking to ensure good behaviour
(1 Macc. 9: 50–3). This suggests the reciprocity of the Seleucid relationship with the high priesthood and implies that
neither party could have done what they did without the help of the other. Alcimus had needed the backing of Seleucid
might which enabled him to maintain his position and carry out his policies in the face of opposition from the
Maccabean rebels,662 but Bacchides would equally have found it difficult to maintain his own position without a focal
person such as Alcimus to assist him and be the rallying point for Seleucid sympathizers.
The next high priest after Alcimus' death in 159 BCE was Jonathan the Maccabee,663 appointed in 152 BCE by Alexander
Balas, and it is to Jonathan's rise to power and that of his brother Simon that the discussion now turns.
Jonathan and Simon first appear in 1 Macc. 2: 2–5, presumably during the high priesthood of Menelaus, as two of the
five sons of
662
Fischer, 102–3; Schunck, 510.
663
According to Josephus (Ant. xii. 413–14) Judas was made high priest by the people following the death of Alcimus during an attempt to pull down the wall of the Temple,
and died himself only after having held the high priesthood for three years (Ant. xii. 434). However, it is unlikely that Judas ever became high priest; neither 1 nor 2
Maccabees shows Judas in such a role, and given their evident bias towards Judas together with the fact that chronologically speaking they are much closer than Josephus to
the events they describe, they surely would have documented it if Judas had held the high priesthood. Instead, 1 Maccabees puts the death of Judas at the battle of Berea in
160 BCE (1 Macc. 9: 3–4, 18) whereas Alcimus died the following year (1 Macc. 9: 54–6), thus leaving no room for Judas to be high priest at all since he died before there
was even a vacancy. Also, in Ant. xx. 237 Josephus contradicts the statement that Judas was high priest by saying that there was no high priest for seven years after Alcimus
died, a state of affairs which would coincide with the record of events preserved in 1 Maccabees.
Mattathias, a priest of the family of Joiarib who is listed as the ancestor of the first priestly course in 1 Chr. 24: 7.664
Mattathias and his sons were therefore of the line of Aaron in post-exilic terms, although they were not of the line of
Zadok which had been the traditional line of descent for the high priests. However, two other points should be made:
first, the list of priestly courses in 1 Chronicles 24 states that sixteen of the twenty-four courses were supposedly
descended from Aaron's son Eleazar (1 Chr. 24: 4), and the traditional Zadokite high-priestly line was also supposed to
have descended from Eleazar via his son Phinehas (cf. 1 Chr. 5: 27–41 (ET 6: 1–15)). Now although 1 Chronicles 24
describes the lot-casting for the order of priestly courses, there is no indication as to which families were said to have
been descended from which ancestor, but there is a two-to-one chance that any given family could be Eleazarite.
Joiarib therefore could have been a descendant of Eleazar, in which case Mattathias and his sons would have a
common ancestor with the high-priestly line.665
Secondly, there are a number of references in 1 Maccabees to the zeal of Phinehas, who when he killed an Israelite for
taking a Midianite wife in contravention of the Law, was promised an eternal (i.e. the high) priesthood as a reward for
his zeal (Num. 25: 10–13). The parallel is drawn between Phinehas and the Maccabees who, appalled at ‘the
blasphemies being committed in Judah and Jerusalem’ (1 Macc. 2: 6) under the hellenizing programme of Antiochus
Epiphanes, were also zealous forcibly to protect the purity of the Law and the Jewish nation against Gentile influence
(1 Macc. 2: 26).666 Indeed, Phinehas alone of the famous
664
See L. Dequeker, ‘1 Chronicles xxiv and the Royal Priesthood of the Hasmoneans’, in OTS 24 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), 94–106, for a discussion of the relationship
between the present form of the priestly courses in 1 Chronicles 24 and Hasmonean editing.
665
Dequeker (p.100) argues for a textual emendation which is then interpreted to mean ‘they chose one family for Eleazar, and one more, and one family for Ithamar’—in other
words, two Eleazarite families were chosen followed by one Ithamarite, and the same pattern was followed until all families had been allocated a place. This would make
Joiarib in its present position an Eleazarite family. Dequeker also identifies the Eleazarites with the Zadokites of Ezekiel 45, so that the house of Joiarib effectively becomes a
high priestly family (pp. 97–100).
666
Cross, ‘Priestly Houses’, 202, argues that the couple slain by Phinehas in the Numbers 25 account were an Israelite man involved in sacred prostitution with a Midianite
woman in the Tent of Meeting. Such an interpretation would give even greater significance to the use of Phinehas as a precedent for the Maccabees' violent action, since they
like Phinehas were attempting to restore the sanctity of the Temple from its desecration by illegitimate and foreign forms of worship.
figures of Israel's past mentioned as examples in 1 Macc. 2: 52–60 is described as ‘our ancestor’ (ὁ πατὴρ ἡμω̑ν, ho patēr
hēmōn—2: 54), which could either simply refer to common priestly descent, or which could again be a way of implying
the Maccabees' close genealogical connection with the high-priestly line. Phinehas therefore offers both a spiritual and
an implied genealogical precedent for the Maccabees' eventual rise to prominence. The overall message is that the
Maccabees acted as they did because they were true descendants of Phinehas in both a spiritual and a physical sense
(whether or not they were actually descended from him), so that like him they were rewarded by God with the high
priesthood because of their zeal for the Law.
Mattathias and his sons, then, begin an unashamedly military campaign to free their country from the imposition of
these ‘blasphemies’, and effectively become guerrilla warriors, starting an army of resistance against the Greeks and
against those who are either in favour of the Greek influence or who are cowed by it into neglect of their own ancestral
customs and laws (1 Macc. 2: 42–8). When Mattathias dies the command is handed over to Judas Maccabeus
(2: 66, 3: 1), and when Judas is killed in battle Jonathan is nominated by the people to take over from him. Jonathan
therefore begins as a military leader, in accordance with the role he has fulfilled so far during the Maccabean campaign,
and his brief is to fight the people's battle (ɛἰς ὺρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμɛνον του̑ πολɛμη̑σαι τὸν πόλɛμον ἡμω̑ν, ‘as ruler and
leader to fight our battle’, 9: 30). This is a second difference from the ‘traditional’ path to high priesthood; it is,
however, very reminiscent of the beginnings of the monarchy, and indeed a deliberate parallel is drawn between
Jonathan's preferment in 1 Macc. 9: 28–30 and the Israelites' demand for a king as recorded in 1 Sam. 8: 19–20
(καὶ δικάσɛι ἡμα̑ς βασιλɛὺς ἡμω̑ν καὶ ἐξɛλɛύσɛται ἔμπροσθɛν ἡμω̑ν καὶ πολɛμήσɛι τὸν πόλɛμον ἡμω̑ν, ‘and our king
will judge us and will go out before us and will fight our battle’, 1 Sam. 8: 20b (LXX)). In each case the phrase
πολɛμη̑σαι τὸν πόλɛμον ἡμω̑ν (polemēsai ton polemon hēmōn, ‘fight our battle’) is used to define what the people expect of
their new ruler. But despite the deliberately Deuteronomistic portrayal in 1 Maccabees it seems indisputable that
Jonathan's route to prominence was via military prowess and human leadership skills, rather than because of his
priestly ancestry. According to 1 Macc. 9: 3 the battle in which Judas was killed
took place in 160 BCE, and assuming that Jonathan took over as leader some time fairly soon after that, he would have
been in command of the resistance force for some eight years before his eventual rise to the high priesthood in 152;
moreover, the high priesthood was granted to him by Alexander, the Seleucid ruler, rather than by his fellow-Jews (1
Macc. 10: 18–21). Jonathan's primary identity was therefore as a military rather than as a religious leader, although in
some ways the distinction is rather arbitrary. Jonathan was the leader of a group which was primarily concerned with
religious identity, and which was using military means to express that concern. Later on, of course, the struggle for
religious freedom became entangled with the struggle for national freedom, so that the two were inseparable; whilst
this may have contributed to the Hasmoneans' rise to power as priest-kings, it doubtless contributed to the disaffection
of some segments of the population as they saw their spiritual life as a nation being compromised.667 Under those
circumstances, conquest by Rome in 63 BCE would have served as another ‘exile’ experience, and could have been
interpreted in much the same way as the Babylonian Exile, that is, as God's punishment of his people for their
faithlessness.
According to the account in 1 Maccabees, when Jonathan first came to military prominence in 160 BCE Alcimus was
high priest and was being supported by Bacchides and a Seleucid army (cf. 1 Macc. 7: 8–9). Following Alcimus' death
in 159 BCE Bacchides withdrew from Judah (9: 57), possibly to consult in Antioch about the appointment of a new
high priest,668 but encouraged by a group of Seleucid supporters in Judah, he attempted to re-establish Seleucid power
in the country two years later. Jonathan and the Maccabean supporters received intelligence of his initial plan for a
secret attack on them which they thwarted, but Bacchides still managed to besiege Jonathan in the stronghold of
Bethbasi. However, Jonathan outmanœuvred the Seleucid, forcing him to withdraw again (9: 58–69), and followed up
the defeat with an embassy to Bacchides. Bacchides accepted the embassy, returning 283
667
The Qumran community is usually thought to be the result of just such disaffection. In particular, the Qumran Habakkuk commentary's reference to the Wicked Priest is
generally assigned to one or more of the Hasmonean leaders, who promised a restoration of the Law but who betrayed the trust of those who hoped for that restoration. See
for example van der Woude, ‘Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests?’, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jr, ‘Simon—A Priest with a Reputation for Faithfulness’, BASOR 223
(1976), 67–8.
668
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 71.
the hostages which he had taken earlier (9: 53) and promising to leave Judah in peace (9: 70–2).669
Jonathan's sending, and Bacchides' acceptance, of the embassy marks an important development in relations between
the Maccabeans and the Seleucids. It is the first negotiated settlement reached by the two groups, and given that it was
initiated by Jonathan it implies not only that Jonathan's support had grown to the extent that he now represented the
most powerful faction in Judah, but also that the Seleucids were finally prepared, or maybe forced, to recognize his
influence. But despite this, Jonathan did not become high priest, and indeed no further appointment to the high
priesthood was made either by the Seleucids or by the Jews themselves until Alexander's nomination of Jonathan in
152, which meant that there was apparently an intriguing seven-year power vacuum in the high priesthood.670 Alcimus'
death and Bacchides' defeat had left Jonathan as the de facto unchallenged (though unofficial) leader in Judah, because
the channels through which Seleucid power had been brought to bear in Judah had been removed; but Jonathan is not
portrayed as therefore having become high priest or even as a priestly figure at all. Instead, it is reported that he ‘began
to judge the people’ (καὶ ἤρξατο Ιωναθαν κρίνɛιν τὸν λαόν, 1 Macc. 9: 73), a portrayal redolent not of priestly authority
but of the pre-monarchic deliverer figures such as Gideon (Judges 6–8) who were supposedly raised up and anointed
by God for the task of delivering Israel from outside oppressors (Judg. 2: 16, 18), and who would then rule the
delivered people by ‘judging’ them (LXX κρίνςιν, krinein—e.g. Judg. 10: 3; 12:7) to ensure their proper obedience to
God.671 Jonathan is pictured as a Maccabean deliverer, raised up to free the people from servitude to an enemy who
was trying to impose false gods upon them. Similarly, Jonathan's encounters with Bacchides are couched in terms
reminiscent of the Israelites' pre-monarchic battles to secure
669
Josephus' account, although based on 1 Maccabees, differs in detail from it. He makes no connection between Alcimus' death and Bacchides' withdrawal from Judaea (Ant.
xii. 413; xiii. 22); Alcimus had already died by the time Jonathan took over the Maccabean forces (Ant. xiii. 5–6); and Bacchides himself killed the leaders of the pro-Seleucid
conspiracy (Ant. xiii. 25). However, he follows closely the account of the siege and its favourable outcome for Jonathan (Ant. xiii. 26–34).
670
See n. 40 above on Josephus' claim that Judas Maccabeus became high priest after Alcimus.
671
Abel, 178; Bartlett, Maccabees, 127; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 395, 377, 76.
their position in the land: the phrase in 1 Macc. 9: 57, ‘καὶ ἡσύχασɛν ἡ γη̑ (Ιουδα) ἔτη (δύο)’ (‘and the land (of Judah)
had rest for (two) years’), occurs repeatedly in Judges to describe the periods of peace between enemy assaults (e.g. 3:
11, 30; 5: 31; 8: 28), and the emphasis on repelling the enemy from the territory of Judah (1 Macc. 9: 72) matches that
throughout the books of Joshua, Judges, and the early part of 1 Samuel on protecting Israel against hostile assaults
from the surrounding peoples. The ‘deliverer’ model also appears as the type for the early days of the monarchy: Saul's
first task after being anointed king of Israel was to deliver his people from the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11: 1–11), in exactly
the same fashion as his deliverer predecessors had eliminated the threat to Israel from other hostile nations. Portraying
Jonathan as a deliverer, therefore, is a way of showing him as a king in embryo, and once again it is possible to see a
deliberately Deuteronomistic picture of events in order to justify the Maccabeans' eventual rise to ruling power on the
basis of already accepted Scriptural precedents. In fact, the monarchic precedent is more important and receives more
emphasis overall than the admittedly important initial precedent of Phinehas by which the Maccabean rise to the
supreme priestly position was justified, and this in itself points to definite conclusions about the nature of Maccabean
rule, as will become clear. Jonathan continued in his ‘deliverer’ role for five years until Alexander's overtures to him
finally put a name to his power and called him the high priest.
There are a number of issues which are raised by this scenario, the most obvious of which is the reason for the seven-
year gap between Alcimus' death and Jonathan's appointment to the high priesthood. Since the time when Jason had
involved Antiochus IV in the appointment of the high priest, candidates for the office apparently needed at the very
least the approval of the imperial authorities, if not royal nomination (cf. 1 Macc. 7: 9; 2 Macc. 4: 7–10, 23–6). But in
the seven-year period between Alcimus and Jonathan it can be imagined that it would have been difficult to find a
candidate who was sufficiently acceptable to both sides to take on the position. The internal power politics were such
that a pro-Seleucid candidate would have been opposed by the resistance forces while a Maccabean candidate would
have been unacceptable to the Seleucid ruler Demetrius on whose behalf
Bacchides had tried unsuccessfully to crush Jonathan. From the Jews' own point of view it was probably a time of
transition; the hellenizers for their part would probably have been in no position to put foward someone sympathetic
to their outlook because of the growing influence of the resistance movement (cf. 1 Macc. 9: 73—Jonathan ‘destroyed
the godless out of Israel’), while Jonathan himself, despite his growing influence, may not have been acceptable even to
his own supporters as a high priest because of his warrior, non-Zadokite status—or maybe because the high
priesthood had become so firmly linked with the Seleucids that to become high priest a candidate would have to be
acceptable to the Seleucids, and therefore unacceptable to the resistance, by definition. Hence, when Alexander
nominated Jonathan, he broke the deadlock in favour of the Maccabean party, thereby acknowledging once again the
extent to which Jonathan's authority among his own people had grown, but at the same time linking that authority
more closely with the foreign power than would be acceptable to all the members of the resistance force.
Secondly, there is the question of whether or not the Jews wanted Jonathan as their high priest, and indeed whether or
not Jonathan himself wanted the honour. It has already been remarked that neither the Jews nor Jonathan are shown as
making any attempt to institute a Maccabean high priesthood until Alexander gave the honour to Jonathan, and it
might well be argued that it was never in Jonathan's mind to gain the high priesthood, at least not when the campaign
was begun. For all Jonathan's wiles, he is never shown making a specific effort to gain the high priesthood. The
references to Phinehas discussed earlier are probably the eventual author's retrospective attempts to justify the result of
the campaigns, which is a very different matter from claiming that Mattathias and his sons started out with the
intention of taking over the high priesthood themselves. However, it is difficult to believe that having reached the point
of commanding a significant and powerful minority among the people Jonathan would not have thought in terms of
obtaining official recognition of his authority in some way, and once Demetrius had effectively given him control of
Jerusalem by the concessions made to him (1 Macc. 10: 6–10) the high priesthood was only a step away. It is not
inconceivable that when Alexander heard of the concessions made by Demetrius and the battles fought by the
Maccabees (1 Macc. 10: 15) he did so courtesy of a delegation from Jonathan, who was playing off one Seleucid against
the other in an attempt to maximize his own position.672 In fact, this could well be seen as the point at which it became
evident that the fight to regain religious freedom had undergone the subtle but inexorable shift to a fight for national
sovereignty, and that the leader of the fight was keen to become the sovereign.
From the point of view of the Jewish nation, the intrigues which had taken place earlier with Onias, Jason, Menelaus,
and Alcimus would make the non-hellenizers very wary in their nomination of anyone else as high priest, especially as
both Jason and Alcimus had been of priestly stock, and Jason was also the brother of the high priest Onias and
therefore of high-priestly stock himself. Evidently priestly descent was no longer a trustworthy criterion for the choice
of a high priest who would uphold the Jewish Law. On the other hand, Jonathan was a priest who, despite his
unorthodox interpretation of the Law (cf. 1 Macc. 2: 40–1), seemed to have the presence of God with him and to be
fighting to maintain the Law, not to break it down as the others had. And yet it is true that 1 Maccabees makes very
little mention of Jonathan's high priesthood once it was achieved,673 nor is there any eulogy of Jonathan as there is of
Simon.674 In addition, the letter from Demetrius to the Jews immediately after Alexander's promotion of Jonathan does
not mention Jonathan at all (1 Macc. 10: 25–44), a fact which has been taken to indicate that Demetrius was attempting
to drive a wedge between the Jews and their new high priest based on their feelings of ambivalence or even opposition
towards Jonathan.675 From this it does seem likely that there was a good deal of uncertainty as to whether Jonathan was
entitled to become high priest,
672
Abel, 182; Bartlett, Maccabees, 131.
673
Bartlett, Maccabees, 132.
674
Ibid. 181.
675
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 93–4. See also Bévenot, 119; Zeitlin, First Maccabees, 171; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 405. No doubt part of the difficulty was that
Jonathan had been appointed by the Seleucids, which would be a great cause for concern in view of the poor record of the high priests appointed by the Seleucids prior to
Jonathan. Instead of freeing the Jews from the undesirable influences of Seleucid rule as brought in by his immediate predecessors, Jonathan was simply continuing the
pattern which had caused so much disruption: he was not of high-priestly descent, yet he had become high priest, and had done so courtesy of the foreign power which had
proved so antagonistic to the Jews both directly and indirectly. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that there were those who felt they had to defend the
Maccabees by writing the eulogies of 1 and 2 Maccabees.
even among those who were basically in favour of the Maccabean cause.
There is also the question of what the seven-year gap meant for both the Jews and the Seleucid administration. For the
Jews it can be imagined that in the case of the high priest's ritual duties some kind of deputizing arrangement was
made, such as that which would normally have been made for the high priest before major festivals in case some
accidental pollution befell him when there was not enough time left before the festival to purify himself again.
Evidence for this kind of deputization can be found in 2 Macc. 4: 29, where Menelaus is said to have left his brother
Lysimachus as deputy in the high priesthood when he himself was summoned before the king. For the Seleucid
administration, there was no rush to fill the gap, which seems to indicate that the high priesthood was not necessary to
them in order to maintain the Judaean provincial administration. Since they apparently were the ones to say who
became high priest (or at least had taken it upon themselves to be responsible for the appointments from Jason
onwards) the lack of a reappointment must be put down to Seleucid failure (and Jewish powerlessness) to appoint;
hence, there must have been other personnel to ensure that Judah's obligations towards the Seleucid empire and the
day-to-day management of the province were carried out whether or not there was a high priest in post. It was
probably better for the Seleucids to have no high priest at all than a rebellious one.
Finally, there is the question of the point at which the official recognition of Jonathan's power can be said to have taken
place, given that Demetrius is said to have granted him the power to raise and equip troops before Alexander
appointed him the high priest (1 Macc. 10: 1–6). Demetrius was evidently aware of Jonathan's capabilities, having
clashed with him on more than one occasion, and his plan at the point of Alexander's invasion was doubtless to secure
Jonathan's assistance against Alexander, for which Jonathan would need the capacity to raise troops. In effect,
therefore, Demetrius gave Jonathan the same kind of privileges as Alexander gave him, but without granting him any
recognized office (and without therefore prejudicing his position in the eyes of the Maccabean supporters). Of course,
it was unlikely that having tried to crush Jonathan Demetrius would have been willing to appoint him to any kind of
office—he simply wanted Jonathan to
be able to assist him and to be sufficiently kindly disposed towards him not to form a dangerous alliance with
Alexander. But the plan backfired: Alexander was the one who benefited from Demetrius' grant to Jonathan, because
an ally who has the power to raise and equip troops must of necessity be more useful than one who does not have that
power. Hence, by making Jonathan his own friend and ally and by granting him the high priesthood, Alexander was
able to use Demetrius' grant to Jonathan to his own advantage, instead of allowing Demetrius to put it to use against
him as was no doubt the original intention.
The nature of the high priesthood to which Jonathan was appointed is an interesting question. Jonathan is shown
putting on the sacred robes at the festival of Tabernacles (1 Macc. 10: 21), which implies that there was certainly a
ritual element to his high priesthood, but he did not stop his participation in military activity because of it. Immediately
after putting on the robes his next reported action is the recruiting and abundant arming of troops, and when
Demetrius II's governor Apollonius challenged Jonathan's authority in the hill country (1 Macc. 10: 70–3), Jonathan
had no hesitation in choosing an army and going out himself at the head of the troops to meet Apollonius' force (10:
74–85). Such a battle situation with blood and bodies all around would have been impossibly defiling for the kind of
high priest depicted in Lev. 21: 11, who was not allowed near any corpse, not even the corpses of his own parents.
Much more comparable would be the situation of the monarchy, where the monarch was both a military commander
and technically the chief priest of the nation, but had a priestly deputy for everything except the most important
festivals, when presumably he would make a special effort to attain a sufficient degree of ritual purity to officiate. Just
as the ‘deliverer’ and therefore the monarchic paradigm is stressed more than the ‘Phinehas’ paradigm for the
Hasmonean rise to power, in the exercise of their office both Jonathan and his successors are portrayed more as sacral
kings than as ruling priests.
This is a conclusion which is borne out by the fashion at the turn of the twentieth century to date the so-called royal
psalms to the time of the Maccabean rebellion. Psalm 110 in particular has been interpreted as referring to Simon the
Maccabee, and is perhaps the most interesting example of Maccabean dating for a psalm because of the claims for an
acrostic of Simon's name in the first
four verses.676 But the reason for the vast swing in the proposed dating for these psalms between the Maccabean and
the now generally accepted (early) monarchic period must be that the figure depicted in the psalm could have belonged
to either period; the Maccabees and the monarchs must have seemed sufficiently alike to confuse a considerable
segment of the scholarly community. One particularly interesting point is the reference to Melchizedek in Ps. 110: 4:
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’
This was probably the basis for many scholars' opinion of the psalm as Maccabean; like Melchizedek, Simon was a
priest as well as a kingly ruler, and so seemed an obvious subject for the psalm. But so were the pre-exilic monarchs,
and, as argued earlier, the point of the Melchizedek reference is that whoever is being referred to in the psalm is a king
whose kingship gives him ex officio priestly duties—not a priest whose priesthood gives him ex officio royal duties.677 The
early monarchs took on representative and ritual duties by virtue of being kings; but so, it would appear, did the
Maccabees, despite their priestly origins. Jonathan was of priestly descent, but he was the people's military champion
and ‘judge’ long before he was high priest, and even allowing for the bias of 1 Maccabees, which tries to portray
Jonathan in terms of the earliest recorded monarchs in Israel's history, it cannot be disputed that he gained the high
priesthood from the Seleucids both in addition to and because of his de facto authority as a nonpriestly leader.
A further interesting observation about the nature of the high priesthood concerns the terminology used for the high
priest. Given that 1 Maccabees is usually thought to have been translated from a Hebrew original, it is quite instructive
to compare with it the LXX renditions of the various titles for high priest found in the MT. The textual information
gathered in the course of the present study shows that leading priestly figures are referred to in Leviticus, Numbers,
Joshua, 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and 2 Chronicles, but that the rendition of their titles in the LXX
almost nowhere corresponds to the conventions used in
676
For a discussion of the acrostic, see Ch. 3 above on Melchizedek.
677
Ibid.
1 Maccabees. There are four main designations in the Hebrew, and their corresponding Greek renditions are as
follows:
Only once does the term ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus, ‘high/chief priest’) appear, namely in Lev. 4: 3 where
(hakkōhēn hammāšîaḥ) is rendered ὁ ἀρχιςρςὺς ὁ κςχρισμένος (ho archiereus ho kechrismenos, ‘the anointed high priest’),
instead of the expected ὁ ἱςρςὺς ὁ χριστός (ho hiereus ho christos), which renders the other three occurrences of the same
Hebrew phrase (Lev. 4: 5, 16; 6: 15 (ET 6: 22)).678 However, by contrast with the canonical LXX usage, the terminology
in 1 Maccabees is almost entirely consistently ὁ ἀρχιςρςύς (ho archiereus) for the person and ἡ ἀρχιςρωσύνη (hē
archierōsynē) for the office. Out of a total of thirty-two occasions on which the high priest or the high priesthood is
mentioned, twenty-six use ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) or a verbal or nominal derivative from it.679 Two of these combine
ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) with the adjective μέγας (megas, 1 Macc. 13: 42; 14: 27), which, given that the LXX uses ὁ ἱςρςὺς ὁ
μέγας (ho hiereus ho megas) to render the Hebrew (hakkōhēn haggādôl—the most frequently used title in the MT
for the chief priestly figure apart from simply , hakkōhēn), looks as if it might be a compound formation of some
kind. Of the six references not using ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) at all, two use
678
The term ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus ) also appears four times in Esdras A (ET 1 Esdras), the deutero-canonical Greek version of Ezra–Nehemiah. See n. 35 in Ch. 6 above on
Ezra and Nehemiah.
679
1 Macc. 7: 21; 10: 20, 32, 38, 69; 11: 27, 57; 12: 3, 6, 7; 13: 36, 42; 14: 17, 23, 27, 30, 35, 38, 41, 47; 15: 17, 21, 24; 16: 12, 24 (twice).
ἱςρατςύςιν (hierateuein, ‘serve as priest’) and ἱςρωσύνη (hierōsynē, ‘priesthood’; 1 Macc. 7: 5 and 7: 9 respectively), three are
in the salutations of letters addressed to ἱɛρɛι̑ μɛγάλῳ (hierei megalōi—1 Macc. 12: 20; 14: 20; 15: 2), and one uses the
simple ἱςρςύς (hiereus, 1 Macc. 15: 1). The pattern of usage can perhaps be explained with reference to the context in
which the terms appear. The terms ἱςρατςύςιν (hierateuein) and ἱςρωσύνη (hierōsynē) both refer to Alcimus, the only pre-
Maccabean high priest mentioned in 1 Maccabees, who although he was high priest does not seem to have had the
power to rally and equip his own troops, but was dependent upon Bacchides for such resources. Two of the salutations
to ἱɛρɛι̑ μɛγάλῳ (hierei megalōi) come in letters supposedly sent by the Spartans. The first one (1 Macc. 12: 20) is in a
letter to Onias from King Areus dating most probably from the third century, and Goldstein suggests that the text of
the letter preserved in 1 Macc. 12: 20–3 is a Greek translation of an Aramaic original.680 In that case, the Greek would
be a rendering of the normal third-century Aramaic term for the high priest, namely (kāhanāʼ rabbāʼ—Hebrew
, hakkōhēn haggādôl). The second one (1 Macc. 14: 20) comes in a letter from the Spartans to Simon
Maccabee in 140 BCE, suggesting that this particular convention of address for the Jewish high priest might have been
borrowed from the earlier letter,681 although later on in the second letter the term ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) is used (1 Macc.
14: 23), as elsewhere in 1 Maccabees. The third salutation to ἱɛρɛι̑ μɛγάλῳ (hierei megalōi) is in the letter from Antiochus
VII to Simon (1 Macc. 15: 2), but here, as with the use of ἱɛρɛι̑ (hierei) alone in 15: 1, other titles are used to make it
clear that Simon is an ὺρχων (archōn, ‘ruler’) as well as a priest.
The main question raised by this use of terminology is whether or not it is significant in the attempt to analyse the
political realities of the Maccabean era, and in the light of that question there seem to be two main possible
explanations for it. The first is that the use of ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) was to indicate that those who bore the title were
not only priests but leaders as well; in other words, it was a designation which arose with the development of the high
priesthood into formerly untouched areas and which was indicative of
680
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 456–7.
681
Goldstein suggests that the usage at this point may have been intended as an honorific, ‘the great priest’, rather than as a technical term (ibid. 492).
that development. In favour of such an interpretation is the fact that it appears so infrequently in the LXX of the
canonical OT literature, which could be taken to indicate that although it was familiar to the then translators, it was
inappropriate for what they were translating. If that was the case the natural conclusion is that the Hebrew term
underlying the appearance of ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) in 1 Maccabees was different from those which occur in the MT.
The fact, too, that six times something other than ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) is used for ‘high priest’ in a work which was
translated from Hebrew in the first instance suggests that the Hebrew underlying ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) and that
underlying the other Greek terms for ‘high priest’ would have been different, and lends force to the argument that
ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) came into use to meet the new situation under the Hasmoneans whereby the high priesthood was
given to the person who already had the authority of leadership among the people as a way of defining that leadership.
The term's appearance could then be due either to a special coinage to render an equivalent coinage in the Hebrew
original, or to the use of an already existing Greek term which had previously been inappropriate to the nature of the
high priesthood. Of course, such an innovation need not have been entirely due to the translator(s) of 1 Maccabees—it
could equally well be a reflection of common parlance, which used the term of these high priests. However, this in
itself implies recognition of a difference between the Maccabees and previous high priests, especially when it is noted
that Simon the son of Onias is referred to in Ben Sira 50: 1 as ἱςρςύς ὁ μέγας (hiereus ho megas) in a translation which
dates from the period 132–117 BCE, that is, during the Hasmonean period. The second explanation of the terminology
is that the use of ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) in 1 Maccabees is merely a literary or stylistic phenomenon, dependent upon the
whim of the translator and having no significance for an attempt to analyse political realities;682 but given the obvious
desire to echo the language and style of DH, and the translator's familiarity with phrases and vocabulary from the LXX
of DH, as already pointed out, it seems strange that there should be such a radical departure from it in this area. The
term ἀρχιςρςύς (archiereus) never once occurs in the LXX of DH,
682
John W. Bailey, ‘The Usage in the Post Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest and High Priest’, JBL 70 (1951), 217–25 (p. 225). See also Goldstein, I
Maccabees, 460.
and in fact by far the most common designation there for the chief priest is simply ὁ ἱςρςύς (ho hiereus). There seems to
be no reason why 1 Maccabees should not also follow that convention. But it does not do so, giving the impression
that the terminology used in the Greek of 1 Maccabees at least was chosen with a deliberate aim in mind, namely, to
reflect a change in the status of the high priesthood from the picture of it given in DH, a work which in other respects
served as such an important model for the history of the Maccabees.
Although the high priesthood had been tainted somewhat by its unfavourable links with the Seleucids, up to the time
of Jonathan's appointment it was still a Jewish office with Jewish obligations, and even though Jonathan had been
appointed by Alexander rather than by the Jews themselves, he could still be regarded as the Jewish leader of the Jews
as long as he conducted himself in a way which was favourable to his nation and its traditions. However, after refusing
an alliance with Demetrius, whom Alexander then defeated, Jonathan was summoned to a meeting with Alexander at
which Alexander made him ‘general and governor of the province (στρατηγὸν καὶ μςριδάρχην, stratēgon kai meridarchēn)’
(1 Macc. 10: 65), as well as enrolling him as one of the king's chief friends. It might be rather cynically observed that
Alexander, as a challenger to the Seleucid throne, was glad of all the help he could get, and therefore his rewarding of
someone who had proved faithful to him was less of a genuine reward than an attempt to ensure the continuation of
that faithfulness so as to secure his own position. But whatever Alexander's motives, the result was political
advancement for Jonathan. This was a significant move, because it meant that Jonathan had definitely crossed the line
between being the Jewish head of state and a Seleucid official, which would doubtless have increased antagonism
towards the Maccabees in certain quarters as amounting to compromise with the enemy.
Just how closely Jonathan's power at this stage was dependent upon the ruling Seleucid is illustrated by Demetrius II's
appearance as a claimant to the throne against Alexander. Demetrius appointed Apollonius as his own governor over
Coele-Syria before he had even engaged Jonathan (1 Macc. 10: 69),683 but Jonathan
683
According to Ant. xiii. 88 Apollonius was Alexander's general rather than Demetrius'.
drove Apollonius back (1 Macc. 10: 74–85), thereby protecting both his own position as governor and general and so
Alexander's influence over Coele-Syria. Had Jonathan been defeated, his position would have been reduced once more
to that of a rebel leader in Judah because Alexander's claims to sovereignty would have been severely threatened.
Given Jonathan's dependence on Alexander for his new increased influence, it is debatable whether he was fighting
primarily for himself or on behalf of Alexander, but in the light of Demetrius' aggressive approach (cf. 1 Macc. 10:
70–3) Jonathan must have felt that the Jews were far more likely to benefit under Alexander than under Demetrius,
who was aiming to suppress them rather than to make alliances with them. Certainly the immediate result of the battle
between Jonathan and Apollonius was financial benefit for the Jews because of the amount of booty they captured
from the enemy (1 Macc. 10: 87), coupled with the possession of the Philistine town of Ekron and its environs, given
to Jonathan by Alexander as a reward (1 Macc. 10:89).684 But later on Alexander's unsuccessful battle with Ptolemy
followed by Ptolemy's death left Demetrius as the new Seleucid ruler (1 Macc. 11: 8–19). At first, Jonathan's boldness
in dealing with the inexperienced Demetrius resulted in significant concessions being made to him and the Jewish
nation (1 Macc. 11: 20–37), and when Demetrius' troops revolted against him it was the Jews to whom he appealed for
help and by whom he was saved. But the initial antagonism returned once the kingdom was secure; the concessions
which Demetrius had made to Jonathan never materialized (1 Macc. 11: 52–3), confirming once again the extent to
which Judah in general and Jonathan in particular were dependent upon the whim of the greater Seleucid power for
their well-being and status. Nor did the antagonism cease even after Demetrius himself was routed by Trypho and the
young Antiochus, who confirmed Jonathan as high priest and increased his powers (1 Macc. 11: 57–8): Demetrius'
officers made two unsuccessful attempts to eliminate Jonathan. Jonathan's eventual downfall came at the hands of
Trypho, who in the pursuit of his own claim to the throne instead of the young Antiochus first tried
684
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 422, comments, ‘The gift of the old Philistine town of Akkaron (Ekron) made Jonathan now similar to David, who had received Ziklag as his
heritage in return for his services to a pagan king (1 Sam. 27: 6).’ This is of course another echo of the Deuteronomistic history of Israel's monarchy.
to overcome Jonathan by military means but then tricked him into dismissing his soldiers and captured him, eventually
killing him (1 Macc. 12: 39–48; 13: 12–24).
Following his preferment at the hands of one Seleucid ruler, Jonathan's assassination at the hands of another is a wry
comment on how secure his power base was; and yet it is undeniable that he had made significant gains in the fight for
independence, as can be seen from the fortunes of Simon, his successor. Simon was apparently able to take up
Jonathan's mantle of leadership and to be recognized as high priest without question or qualm by Jews and Seleucids
alike; however, it is not entirely clear exactly when or how he became high priest. Like Jonathan, he is shown as being
asked to take on the military mantle first of all; his initial commission from the Jews, while Jonathan was still alive but a
prisoner at the hands of Trypho, is to ‘fight our battle (πολέμησον τὸν πόλɛμον ἡμω̑ν, polemēson ton polemon hēmōn)’
(1 Macc. 13: 9), once again echoing the words of appointment for the first Israelite king. Nowhere is Simon's
investiture as high priest depicted; rather, the first time he appears as high priest is when he is addressed as such in the
letter from Demetrius which grants the nation freedom from taxation and tribute (1 Macc. 13: 36). However, the
declaration set up by the Jews on Mount Zion in the third year of Simon's high priesthood (1 Macc. 14: 27) claimed
that the people themselves made Simon their leader and high priest in gratitude for everything he had done for the
nation, and that Demetrius simply confirmed him in the high priesthood (ἔστησɛν ατῳ̑ τὴν ἀρχιɛρωσύνην, estēsen autōi
tēn archierōsynēn—1 Macc. 14:38). Whether it was Demetrius or the Jews themselves who first regarded Simon as their
high priest, though, it was doubtless politically advantageous to Demetrius to deal favourably with Simon in view of the
challenge to his own authority from the ambitious and treacherous Trypho, and as had been the case with Jonathan
and Alexander, Simon by this time had sufficient authority among his own people to make Demetrius wary of him. It
was safer to offer Simon concessions than to risk having him as an enemy.
It is tempting to contrast the enthusiastic eulogizing of Simon in 1 Macc. 14: 32–7 with the rather flat declaration that
Jonathan ‘became their high priest’ (1 Macc. 14: 30), as well as the absence of any kind of eulogy for Jonathan as
compared with that for Simon
in 1 Macc. 14: 4–15,685 and it has already been noted that it was the Seleucid Alexander Balas who appointed Jonathan
to the high priesthood. Maybe this is a reflection of unease or even disapproval felt in some quarters over Jonathan's
preferment at the hands of a foreign power, as suggested earlier. And yet, had Jonathan not been appointed there
would have been no precedent for Simon to follow in becoming high priest after his brother, nor would the point of
Jewish independence have been reached had Simon not been able to build on the foundations laid by Jonathan as an
official recognized and respected by the Seleucids.686 Hence, the treatment of Jonathan in 1 Maccabees would express
the ambiguity of the situation in which the Jews found themselves, in that they had leaders whom they trusted and
relied upon to maintain their national interests against those who were perceived as a threat to the nation, and yet those
same leaders were in place with all their power thanks to the very forces which constituted the opposing threat. The
laudatory declaration for Simon could then be a kind of justification which the Jews prepared for themselves as a way
of regularizing the situation, actively claiming Simon as their high priest rather than feeling that he had effectively been
foisted upon them by the Seleucids because of the precedent set by his brother—a kind of ‘grasping the nettle’,
acknowledging the state of affairs and trying to use it creatively in their own interests. But it is interesting that they
chose to grant him leadership according to a dynastic model based closely upon the models prevailing at that time in
the Hellenistic world (1 Macc. 14: 41–5).687
Simon's first action was to gather together the fighting men and complete the walls of Jerusalem (1 Macc. 13: 10). It
should be noted here in passing that the high priesthood in the days of Nehemiah 297
685
Bartlett, Maccabees, 181; W. Stewart McCullough, The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod 550 BC to 4 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1975), 123.
686
Just how tenuous the ‘independence’ was is illustrated by Antiochus VII's letter to Simon confirming tax relief and other privileges to the nation as if Judah were still part of
the royal realm (1 Macc. 15: 1–9), and his later disregard of the concessions he had previously granted when his own situation seemed unfavourable (1 Macc. 15: 27–31).
687
The declaration of intent that Simon should rule for ever (1 Macc. 14: 41) is usually taken as a designation of hereditary leadership. See Bévenot, 159; Abel, 260; Zeitlin, First
Maccabees, 229; Dancy, 186; Bartlett, Maccabees, 197; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 507–8. However, Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 127, suggests that the phrase ‘in
perpetuity’ could simply mean for the rest of Simon's life, as there is nothing about his descendants in 1 Maccabees.
lacked either the power or the charisma, or maybe even the inclination, to rally the people for a wall-building exercise,
so that Nehemiah had to come all the way from Persia to oversee the task at the command of the Persian authorities.688
However, if Bickerman's analysis of Antiochus IV's actions is correct,689 the razing of Jerusalem's walls and the building
of the Akra as a Greek πόλις (polis) either in or just outside the city meant that Jerusalem as a nearby unwalled
settlement would have come under the jurisdiction of the Akra. It was therefore important to complete the walls of
Jerusalem as soon as possible to declare the city's independence from the foreign domination exercised via the Akra.
Under those circumstances the wall-building would not have been an official project requiring sanction by the
authorities, as in Nehemiah's time, but rather was an act of rebellion against the overlords, undertaken as part of the
resistance movement's campaign.
The eulogy of Simon which appears in 1 Macc. 14: 4–15 expresses ideas which are very reminiscent of Psalm 72,
another royal psalm,690 which is often interpreted as having messianic connotations with its picture of idyllic, peaceful
life. Examples of the reminiscences are as follows (verses from 1 Maccabees 14 are in roman type, and those from
Psalm 72 in italics):
4: The land had rest all the days of Simon. He sought the good of his nation; his rule was pleasing to them, as was
the honour shown him, all his days. 7: In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more. 15:
Long may he live! May gold of Sheba be given to him. May prayer be made for him continually, and blessings invoked for him all day
long.
5: To crown all his honours he took Joppa for a harbour, and opened a way to the isles of the sea. 6: He extended
the borders of his nation, and gained full control of the country. 8: May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the
River to the ends of the earth.
688
689
Gott der Makkabäer, 72–7 (ET, 47–51).
690
Once again, as with the close dependence of 1 Maccabees on the Deuteronomistic History for its model of Jewish leadership, the use of a royal type rather than priestly types
as the expression of the Maccabees' significance for the Jewish people undermines both the idea of the Hasmoneans as primarily priestly leaders and the idea of the high
priest as an influential leader in whom general hope for the nation was vested. There are no psalms of eulogy for the high priest as there are for the king, nor was there
apparently any attempt to write them for the Maccabeans, something which in itself emphasizes the high priest's secondary significance as compared with the royal figure in
general Jewish ideology.
7: He gathered a host of captives; he ruled over Gazara and Beth-zur and the citadel, and he removed its
uncleanness from it; and there was none to oppose him. 9: May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust.
8: They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. 16: May there be
abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the
cities like the grass of the field.
11: He established peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. 7: In his days may righteousness flourish and peace
abound, until the moon is no more.
12: All the people sat under their own vines and fig trees, and there was none to make them afraid. 14: From
oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.
13: No one was left in the land to fight them, and the kings were crushed in those days. 11: May all kings fall down
before him, all nations give him service.
14: He gave help to all the humble among his people; he sought out the law, and did away with all the renegades and
outlaws. 4: May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor. 12: For he delivers
the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. 13: He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the
needy.
Once again the parallel is drawn between a Maccabean leader and idealized concepts of monarchy; Simon is shown as
the nearest equivalent of the Davidic-type monarch under the circumstances of foreign domination and the
increasingly law-based religious structures of Judah. Such consistent emphasis on the royal character of Maccabean
rule, even though the Maccabeans themselves were never termed kings, suggests that a ruling priest of this kind was
previously unknown in Jewish society, and so an appropriate model was sought and utilized because of the need for
justification of the Maccabean leadership. However, portraying the Maccabeans in terms of the Davidic monarchy was
also a way of making sense of them. 1 Maccabees is not simply concerned with what Jonathan and Simon were,
whether kings or priests or warriors, but with the interpretation of what they were by those who saw them. They were
warriors, but they were also priests and
leaders, and for the Jews the most natural interpretation of that combination of qualities was in terms of sacral
kingship.
Interestingly enough, the last thing mentioned in the eulogy is making the sanctuary glorious (1 Macc. 14: 15), which
could either indicate how far down the list of priorities Temple and priestly duties were for Simon, or could be a way of
putting those duties into a more royal context. Temple maintenance was shared in the pre-exilic period between the
monarch and the chief priest; the monarch built the Temple and was ultimately responsible for its maintenance, but the
chief priest had delegated responsibility to maintain it in proper condition and to carry out the necessary work.691
Perhaps the mention of the Temple glorification here is neither specifically royal nor priestly, but is an example of the
confluence of the two kinds of responsibility in one person.692
And yet, for all that the Maccabean movement began as a way of maintaining ancestral customs and the purity of
Judaism, there are unmistakably Hellenistic traits in the way in which Jonathan and Simon bore themselves—indeed, in
the way in which they came to power at all. The Hellenistic monarchies which emerged from the distribution of
Alexander's kingdom at the end of the fourth century were brand new, with no long-standing dynastic succession to
back their claims to power; rather, their claims to legitimacy were based on conquest and retention of territory, because
that was a tangible way in which they proved their merit for the responsibility of kingship.693 The Maccabees had no
royal or priestly ancestral claims to power; rather, they attained their position largely through successful military
enterprise, thus proving their merit for the task. As with the Hellenistic monarchs, too, once power was achieved and
the merit of an individual acknowledged, the tendency was to transfer the merit to the individual's successors, thereby
establishing a dynasty.694 Hellenistic royalty was expected to be glamorous, so that purple robes, diadems, crowns,
sceptres, and rings with seal stones were all part of the Hellenistic monarch's apparatus.695 The ideal Hellenistic
monarch was victorious,
691
692
Bartlett, Maccabees, 191, and Goldstein, I Maccabees, 491, 492, suggest that a parallel is being drawn here between Simon and Solomon.
693
F. W. Walbank, ‘Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas’, in F. W. Walbank et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History VII, Part I: The Hellenistic World, 2nd edn. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), 62–100 (pp. 63–4, 66).
694
Cf. ibid. 66.
695
Ibid. 67.
a saviour and benefactor, courageous, the guardian of peace, an administrator of justice, generous, magnanimous,
pious, accessible to his subjects, supporter of the good, and wealthy in order to be able to benefit others.696 Both Simon
and Jonathan are shown as participating in the glamour of kingship with their purple robes (1 Macc. 10: 20, 59–65; 11:
57–8; 14: 43), and the vast wealth acquired by Simon together with his apparent enjoyment of feasting (1 Macc. 16:
15–16) were definitely Hellenistic traits. Despite the notion that royal wealth was to enable others to be benefited,
‘lavish consumption for display was characteristic of the great monarchies’ as a way of advertising the wealth which
could and did also serve as a means of exercising power and influence.697 Athenobius was evidently struck by Simon's
great wealth when he visited the Jewish leader to deliver Antiochus' ultimatum to him (1 Macc. 15: 32); no doubt
Athenobius was forced to re-evaluate the approach which was appropriate to use with Simon, because the wealth was
indicative of greater power than the Seleucids had given Simon credit for.
It is interesting that the high moral traits of the ideal Hellenistic monarch correspond quite closely to those attributed
to the messianic ruler of Psalm 72, raising once again the question of the ‘blurred boundaries’ between what was of
traditional Jewish conception and what was subtly influenced by the prevailing cultural climate. Certainly where the
boundaries were blurred it aided Hellenistic assimilation; for example, the fact that there were so many
correspondences between the ideal Hellenistic ruler and the messianic ruler meant that Simon's leadership could be
portrayed as being in line with the traditional conceptions whilst in actual fact being based more closely on
contemporary models. Such a state of affairs is not at all surprising, especially considering that the memory of an
independent Jewish leader would have faded some considerable time ago. In fact, an independent Jewish leader would
never even have existed, since the last independent leader would have been the pre-exilic Judaean king Jehoiakim who
had come to grief some 450 years before the Maccabean period (2 Kgs. 24: 1–7). Similarly, the dynastic succession
awarded to Simon (1 Macc. 14: 41) could be seen as a return to older precedents of both high priesthood and kingship,
and this is the light in
696
Ibid. 81–4.
697
Ibid. 84.
which it is portrayed by 1 Maccabees, but in reality it probably owed as much to the more recent precedents of the
Diadochi and their dynasties as to anything in Israel's past. However, the fact that there had been dynasties of leading
figures in Israel's past meant that to this extent Simon could be made the founder of a dynasty without any apparent
break with tradition. Where the break came, of course, was in making one with no hereditary kingly or high-priestly
claims to power into the founder of a dynasty which was to take over both positions.
From this examination of the Maccabean high priesthood, then, it seems that the Maccabean high priests were in
reality monarchic rulers, and that they should not be seen either as the culmination of the high priesthood's political
development or as giving the high priesthood an authority and influence of itself which it had hitherto lacked. They
achieved authority among their own people not by virtue of being high priests, but because they were military leaders;
and only once they had achieved military and political prominence was the high priesthood granted to them by the
Seleucids, as a way of enlisting their military help and as a recognition of alliance between Jews and Seleucids. The
ultimate style of their leadership is portrayed in 1 Maccabees as being in line with Scriptural monarchic precedents,
although they were probably equally influenced by contemporary Hellenistic dynasts. Hence, the priestly aspect of their
position was entirely secondary to the military and governmental one, and they achieved no new power of governance
by becoming high priests.
The validity of these conclusions can be tested by examining the history of their successors the Hasmoneans, and that
investigation will form the final part of this study.
12 The Hasmonean Dynasty: John Hyrcanus and
His Successors
The succession in 134 BCE of John Hyrcanus, third son of Simon Maccabee, is generally regarded as the start of the
Hasmonean dynasty proper. John succeeded his father by virtue of being the only one to escape the assassination
attempt made on Simon and his three sons by the treacherous Ptolemy son of Abubus (1 Macc. 16: 11–22), and the
succession in itself marked a new era of Hasmonean history in two ways. First, the leadership of the people had now
passed on to someone who had had no experience of the persecution which originally gave rise to the Maccabean
leadership. John was the first ‘second generation’ Hasmonean, as the previous three leaders had been the brothers
Judas, Jonathan, and Simon who were all part of the initial resistance in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Just as
their leadership style and policy was determined by the experiences and circumstances of persecution, John's would
equally be determined by the different and in some ways less urgent circumstances in which he found himself. He
inherited an independent kingdom which had already started on a policy of territorial expansion with the aim of
reclaiming its ancestral lands (1 Macc. 15: 33–4), and although politically speaking the Hasmonean domain's
independence was rather insecure it was now a very different province from the persecuted, strife-torn subject enclave
in the Seleucid kingdom which the Maccabees had known. The major threats to John's sovereignty now definitely came
from outside the country, rather than originating inside its boundaries and being exacerbated by the intervention of
outside powers as had been the case at the time of the Maccabean rebellion.
Secondly, John was the first Hasmonean not to be chosen personally by the people themselves as their leader.
According to 1 Macc. 9: 28–31 and 13: 7–9 Jonathan and Simon had both
been granted the leadership by popular acclaim, but there is no mention of a similar procedure by which John was
granted the leadership after Simon. Although the exact mechanism by which he was acknowledged as head of his
people is unclear, and it is to be assumed that some kind of recognition ceremony for him would have been a part of
the process, his succession itself was in accordance with the declaration of intent made by the people that Simon
should rule for ever (1 Macc. 14: 41). With John Hyrcanus the implications of the decree start to bite: he and his
descendants are destined to be leaders regardless of either their suitability or their motivation for taking on the
responsibility. As was hinted in the last chapter, it is a rather ironical comment upon the development of the Jewish
state that by making Simon the founder of a dynasty the Jews honoured him in a way which effectively imitated the
practice of the Hellenistic kings and led to the same kind of bloody intrigues as those which characterized the Seleucid
succession, when the Maccabean struggle had had its origins in an extreme reaction against Hellenistic ways in the first
place.
As with much of the inter-testamental period, the major source for the events of the Hasmonean period from John
Hyrcanus onwards is Josephus, since the account in 1 Maccabees ends with Simon's death and a mere summary note
about John's high priesthood (1 Macc. 16: 23–4). Josephus' own sources would certainly have included the Greek
historian Nicolaus of Damascus,698 and may well also have included some kind of high-priestly chronicle such as is
referred to in 1 Macc. 16: 24, so that in evaluating the material he offers there are several sets of biases to take into
account.
For the purposes of this study, and in the light of the comments made above on the nature of the Maccabean high
priesthood, the major question to be answered about John's position of leadership is whether it was essentially that of a
king or of a high priest. Although it is tempting to regard the dynastic succession as a significant indicator in this
respect, it is in fact an ambiguous piece of evidence. Certainly the contemporary Hellenistic monarchies worked on the
basic principle of dynastic succession, despite
698
For a discussion of the relationship between the writings of Josephus and those of Nicolaus of Damascus, see Ben Zion Wacholder, ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’,
in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 147–72.
THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY 305
periodic aberrations caused by rival claimants to the throne, and the same had been true of the Israelites' own
monarchies. However, high priests too succeeded to their position on a hereditary basis until the intrigues which arose
at the beginning of the second century with Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus,699 so dynastic succession cannot be regarded
as decisive in either direction. Similarly, John Hyrcanus is usually thought to be the first Hasmonean actually to mint
coins despite the fact that Antiochus VII granted Simon the right to do so around 140 BCE (1 Macc. 15: 6),700 but this
evidence too is indecisive as the coins make no claim to kingship as such, being adorned with the legend ‘Johanan the
high priest and the ḥeber of the Jews’ or ‘Johanan the high priest head of the ḥeber of the Jews’.701 Hence, it is necessary
to look at other aspects of John's career in so far as the information is available.
John was in power for some thirty years from Simon's assassination in 134 BCE to his own death in 104 BCE, and
Josephus records details of both his internal and his external affairs during that period. As regards his foreign policy,
John was fortunate in that although he had initial clashes with Ptolemy (his father's murderer) and Antiochus VII
(Ant. xiii. 230–48; BJ i. 54–61), following Antiochus' death in 128 BCE there was no major external threat to his
supremacy during the rest of his reign because the Seleucids were too busy fighting their own wars of succession to
have time or interest for what was happening in Judah (Ant. xiii. 272–3). John was therefore relatively free to expand
Judaean territory even at the cost to the Seleucid kingdom of its own former territory, and he increased Jewish
territorial holdings to the north in Samaria (Shechem and Gerizim, Ant. xiii. 255; BJ i. 63; Scythopolis, Ant. xiii. 280; BJ
i. 66; Samaria, Ant. xiii. 275–81, BJ i.65), to the south-west in Idumaea (Adora and Marisa, Ant. xiii. 257;
699
Although Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors’, argues that succession to the chief-priestly office was not necessarily hereditary even in pre-exilic days (pp. 7–11, 15, 18).
700
Noth, Geschichte Israels, 347 (ET, 387); Russell, 65–6; W. S. McCullough, 131; Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 153; Tessa Rajak, ‘Hasmonean Dynasty’, in ABD
iii. 67–76 (p. 70). In Ancient Jewish Coinage, 35–8, Meshorer argued that Alexander Jannaeus was the first Hasmonean to mint coins, and that the Johanan coins should be
attributed to Hyrcanus II; this view was followed by Jagersma, 85, and apparently also by Betlyon, ‘Coinage’, 1084–5, despite the fact that illustration (i) of Betlyon's article
shows a Hasmonean bronze coin which is said to have been ‘struck by John Hyrcanus ca. 135–104 B.C.E. in Jerusalem’ (p. 1081). However, Meshorer has changed his mind
in the light of new evidence, and now shares the view that John Hyrcanus did mint coins. See ‘Addendum I’, 106, 117–18 and plates 19–20.
701
Rajak, 70.
BJ i. 63), and to the east in Transjordan (Medaba and Samaga, Ant. xiii. 255; BJ i. 63). In addition, Josephus claims that
John renewed the Jewish treaty with Rome which was first made in the days of Judas Maccabeus (Ant. xiii. 259–66).
However, despite the prominence of his military and political achievements, there are also hints of a more religious side
to John's administration. John's initial clash with Ptolemy is said to have been brought to an end because John and his
men observed the sabbatical year which fell during the siege, thereby allowing Ptolemy to make good his escape
(Ant. xiii. 234–5). Again, during John's clash with Antiochus VII Sidetes the Hasmonean is reported to have asked for
a seven-day truce in order to observe the festival of Tabernacles which fell during the hostilities (Ant. xiii. 241–2), and
having subsequently made an alliance with Antiochus, when going to his help against the Parthians Hyrcanus delayed
the expedition for two days in order to observe a sabbath followed by the festival of Pentecost (Ant. xiii. 251–2). The
forced circumcision of Idumaeans in the conquered territories (Ant. xiii. 257–8) and the destruction of the temple on
Mount Gerizim (Ant. xiii. 255–6) could also be attributed to John's religious zeal, and in addition he is supposed to
have received a revelation while he was officiating alone in the Temple, telling him of his sons' victory over Antiochus
Cyzicenus (Ant. xiii. 282–3). Indeed, Josephus even attributes to John the gift of prophecy (Ant. xiii. 299–300), saying
that he fore-saw how his sons were destined to fall from power (BJ i. 68–9); John himself, however, lived in prosperity
and governed excellently (ibid). ‘Yoḥanan the high priest’ also appears several times in the Mishnah. In Ma aser
Sheni 5: 15 and Soṭah 9: 10 he is reported to have done away with the ‘Knockers’ and the ‘Awakeners’, ritual practices
which bore uncomfortable resemblance to pagan customs,702 and to have abolished the declaration of tithes; in Parah
702
‘Awakeners’ were Levites who sang every morning, ‘Awake, O Lord, why do you sleep?’ (Ps. 44: 24); ‘Knockers’ were those who used to stupefy calves before sacrifice by
striking them on the forehead. Hyrcanus abolished the first practice on the basis that God does not sleep, and the second because it blemished the sacrificial animals. See The
Mishnah, ed. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; repr. 1977), 82, and Clemens Thoma, ‘John Hyrcanus I as Seen by Josephus and Other Early Jewish
Sources’, in Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 127–40 (p. 134). M. J. Geller, ‘Alexander
Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift’, JJS 30 (1979), 202–11 (p. 204), points to the similarity between the practices abolished by Hyrcanus and pagan practices. However, Zevit,
489–90, quotes the suggestion of C. H. Tchernowitz that Hyrcanus' abolition of the Awakeners and Knockers was part of a policy to eliminate Levites from the Temple
service and so deprive them of any claim to the tithe. On this view, Awakeners and Knockers were Levites who slept outside the Temple at night and were responsible for
knocking on the gates in the morning to wake the priests and initiate the daily round of the Temple.
3: 5 he is said to have prepared the red heifer of purification on two occasions; and in Yadayim 4: 6 indignation is
expressed that his bones should be regarded as unclean whereas those of a dead ass were regarded as clean.
John Hyrcanus, then, seems to have been a leader who was revered for both his political achievement and his religious
observance; so was the nature of his leadership primarily royal or priestly? It could perhaps be observed that no other
high priest prior to the Maccabees ever engaged in military activity in the way that John did; however, there are
precedents for kings who acted as religious reformers in the pre-exilic period, namely Josiah (2 Kgs. 23: 1–25) and
Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18: 1–4), and it has already been noted that the portrayals of both Jonathan and Simon the
Maccabees parallel that of pre-exilic sacral kingship, presumably because such a portrayal was appropriate to the kind
of leadership which they exercised.703 John Hyrcanus would fit very well into that same pattern of rulers with a
consciousness of religious responsibility who were nevertheless also—even primarily—military and political figures.
In this connection it is instructive to consider one of the most well-known events in Josephus' record of John's reign,
namely John's supposed disagreement with the Pharisees.704 According to
703
See Ch. 11 above on the Maccabees.
704
The Pharisees, together with the Sadducees and the Essenes, are first mentioned in Ant. xiii. 171–3 as one of ‘the three Jewish schools of thought’, in the context of
Jonathan'sssy to Sparta. There the three groups are presented in terms of their view of the workings of Fate in human lives; the Pharisees are said to attribute some things to
Fate but still to leave room for human action in determining the course of our lives, the Essenes believe that everything is due to fate, and the Sadducees believe that
everything is down to human action. Later on at Ant. xiii. 297–8 Josephus distinguishes between the Pharisees who adhere to the traditions of the fathers and the Sadducees
for whom only the Torah is binding, adding that the Pharisees have the confidence of the masses while the Sadducees are supported by the wealthy. The main account of the
three groups comes in BJ ii. 119–66, where much is said about the Essene way of life (119–61) but little about the Pharisees and Sadducees; the Pharisees, however, are said
to believe in an afterlife and the reincarnation of good souls (163), while the Sadducees will have nothing to do with such ideas (165). The Pharisees are characterized as
friendly towards one another and towards society as a whole, whereas the Sadducees are described as rude and boorish (166). Finally, in Ant. xviii. 12 the Pharisees are said
to shun luxury, and their influence among the masses is again emphasized (15), to the extent that even the Sadducees who assume public office of some sort have to follow
Pharisaic rulings in order to be tolerated by the populace (17).
Ant. xiii. 288–96 the clash was precipitated by a troublemaker among the Pharisees called Eleazar, who at a banquet
with John and the Pharisees told John that he should give up the high priesthood and be content with ruling the people
because his mother had been a captive, something which cast doubt on the purity of his descent and so under the Law
precluded him from the office of high priest.705 Enraged by the unjust slander, John was urged by one of his Sadducee
friends to ask the rest of the Pharisees what penalty they thought should be inflicted on Eleazar, because the severity of
the punishment they recommended would be a guide as to whether or not they approved of what Eleazar had said.
When they only recommended beating and chains instead of the death penalty John was convinced that they were
indeed in league with Eleazar,706 so he joined the Sadducees instead and rescinded many of the privileges formerly
enjoyed by the Pharisees.
Inevitably when dealing with such an apocryphal story the question of historicity arises, a question made even more
pressing in this case by the fact that the Babylonian Talmud preserves a parallel narrative about the later Hasmonean
Alexander Jannaeus (King Yannai).707 The version in Josephus with John Hyrcanus is usually held to be the more
reliable of the two, although Geller argues that the rift between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans is more
appropriately placed in the time of Jannaeus than of Hyrcanus,708 and Sievers claims that Josephus' account is internally
705
Josephus reports that the insult about being born of a captive mother was also hurled at Alexander Jannaeus during the disturbances over the Feast of Tabernacles (Ant.
xiii. 372), a tumult which resulted in Jannaeus killing six thousand Jews in his anger. See also n. 10 and n. 18 below on other instances of parallels between Hyrcanus and
Jannaeus.
706
Oesterley, 282–7, offers an interesting interpretation of this somewhat obscure episode. He argues that, contrary to what is usually held, John Hyrcanus was the first
Hasmonean to claim the title of king, and this caused the Pharisees to resent him because only a Davidide could legitimately be king. The incident of John's split with the
Pharisees over Eleazar's insult illustrates this, because the punishment for insulting a king was death, whereas beating was the punishment for insulting a priest. Hence, by
recommending beating as Eleazar's punishment, the Pharisees implied that he had not insulted a king, only a priest. This would explain John's apparently excessive anger at
them, as they were refusing to recognize his claim to kingship. Eleazar's insult, however, is aimed at John's high priesthood rather than his supposed kingship; he does not
suggest that John should stop ruling but that he should stop being high priest. Therefore, if Oesterley's interpretation is correct it implies that there was opposition to both
the kingly and the priestly nature of Hasmonean rule.
707
BT Qiddusin 66a. See also n. 8 above and n. 18 below on other parallels between the two Hasmonean leaders.
708
Geller, 210–11.
inconsistent because it speaks both of John Hyrcanus' long and happy rule and of a significant break with the Pharisees
which led to dissatisfaction among the populace.709 Also, the Pharisees appear with Hyrcanus in the banquet story in
Ant. xiii. 288–96, but are not mentioned at all in the account of Hyrcanus' rule in BJ i. 54–69, while the Sadducees are
not mentioned anywhere else in connection with the Hasmoneans; hence, Sievers thinks that it is impossible to have
confidence about the role of the Sadducees and Pharisees at that time or about Hyrcanus' relation to them.710
Despite the misgivings of Geller and Sievers, however, it seems more probable that the original version of the story
was the one with Hyrcanus. In the first place, the severity of the rift implies a proportionately close relationship
between the Pharisees and the leader concerned before the rift. Josephus claims that Hyrcanus had been a disciple of
the Pharisees and had their favour (Ant. xiii.289), and certainly the general memory of Hyrcanus is of a leader who had
a significant interest in religious matters, as was shown above. This makes it quite conceivable that he should have been
on good terms with the Pharisees, and so it is only to be expected that he should be badly offended and break his
connection with them if they proved to be (or he perceived them to be) covert enemies. However, no such prior
relationship with the Pharisees is attested for Alexander Jannaeus, which makes the idea of such a split with them
something of a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, although Hyrcanus might well have been on good terms
with the Pharisees, and this relationship is probably reflected in the references to Hyrcanus in the Mishnah, the
Mishnaic references need not be taken to imply his unqualified support for Pharisaic rulings and interpretations in the
way that Geller seems to think they do.711 Abolishing ‘Awakeners’ and ‘Knockers’ would simply remove customs which
were not in accordance with the Torah, burning the red heifer is one of the duties of the high priest laid down in Num.
19: 1–10, and the comment about Hyrcanus' bones being regarded as unclean is a complaint made by a Sadducee
against the Pharisees. Assuming with Josephus that the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law of the Pharisees and accepted
only the Torah itself, the picture presented in the Mishnah of Yoḥanan the High Priest could just as easily be that of a
Sadducee
709
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 151.
710
Ibid. 148–52.
711
Geller, 204–5.
as of a Pharisee; hence, to cite the Mishnah sayings as evidence for John's support of the Pharisees (and theirs of him)
to the extent of discounting any possibility of a rift between him and them is unjustified.
In short, it seems that the general ethos of preserved memory about John Hyrcanus is such as to make the basic story
of an encounter of this type between him and the Pharisees at least plausible. No doubt the main reason for wanting to
date the incident to the rule of either Hyrcanus or Jannaeus is to establish the point at which dissatisfaction with the
Hasmonean style of leadership began to make itself felt, particularly in terms of opposition from the Pharisees which is
expressed most clearly in the Psalms of Solomon.712 However, it is more than likely that there was a continual
undercurrent of opposition from those who simply could not reconcile the new form of leadership with their own
personal convictions about what was legitimate. As discussed in Chapter 11, the lack of eulogy for Jonathan Maccabee
and the decree giving Simon virtually unlimited powers in all areas of government have both been interpreted as
indicative of opposition to Maccabean rule, and there is no reason why such opposition should simply disappear once
John Hyrcanus succeeded to the leadership. Rather, there would be every reason for it to continue, because those who
thought that Simon's powers were illegitimate in the first place would hardly be comforted by his descendants
inheriting them. Under those circumstances, the incident with the Pharisees can be seen as a reflection of the
opposition which would continually have been simmering below the surface, but which would have varied in its
intensity and extent depending on the competence of the ruler in question.
Turning to the narrative itself, perhaps the most obvious point to be made from it is that Eleazar supposedly advised
John to give up the high priesthood and confine himself to governing the people (Ant. xiii. 291), a comment which
implies that the duties of high priesthood did not necessarily include governing the people but that government and
religious office were two different matters. Josephus himself, in his closing summary of John's rule, says that John ‘was
accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges, the rule of the nation, the office of high priest,
712
See below for a fuller discussion of the Psalms of Solomon.
and the gift of prophecy’ (Ant. xiii. 299–300),713 the implication again being that high priesthood and rule of the people
did not necessarily go together. It is possible to regard the comment as an anachronism, on the grounds that in
Josephus' time the high priesthood and the rule of the people did not go together; on the other hand, it has already
been argued that for Jonathan Maccabee the high priesthood and the rule of the people were separate, since he had
rule of the people before he ever became high priest, indeed, for a seven-year period when there was no high priest.714
Simon in his turn was given the honour of the high priesthood along with other offices to denote civil leadership, and
although it is unclear whether there was a period when he was general or governor or ethnarch without also being high
priest, these other offices are listed separately from that of high priest in the declaration made by the people (1 Macc.
14: 41–3, 47), thereby implying that being high priest and being leader of the people are two separate offices. They may
well have overlapped inasmuch as both types of authority were vested in the same individual, but they should by no
means be regarded as one and the same, and the high priesthood in particular should not be regarded as bestowing on
its holders ex officio authority to govern the people. It would therefore be quite in line with the pattern set by his
Maccabean predecessors for John Hyrcanus' high priesthood to be separate from his office of ethnarchy.
It is interesting, too, that opposition to the Hasmonean high priesthood is shown as coming from the Pharisees, the
‘popular’ religious party with a large following among the common people (cf. Ant. xiii. 288, 298), rather than from the
Sadducees, who are usually thought to have been the aristocratic priestly party, deriving their name from Zadok the
chief priest of the Solomonic Temple. The Sadducees would surely have had more grounds than the Pharisees for
opposing the Hasmoneans, who were not of true Zadokite stock but who had risen from nowhere to become the
nation's religious and political leaders, and were effectively impostors in the high-priestly ranks. And yet it is
undoubtedly true that the most enthusiastic supporters of Hellenism were the aristocracy and the middle classes, and
that the longer the
713
Ralph Marcus (trans.), Josephus, VII: Jewish Antiquities Books XII-XIV, LCL (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943; repr. 1986),
376–9.
714
See Ch. 11 above on the Maccabees.
Hasmoneans continued in power the more hellenized they became. Simon's purple robe and gold brooch (1 Macc. 14:
43), his enormous wealth (1 Macc. 15: 32), his end at a drunken feast (1 Macc. 16: 15–16), all hint at the extent to
which the new Jewish leadership was taking on the mores of its Hellenistic counterparts. The Hasmoneans may have
rescued the high priesthood in theory from the hands of the Seleucids and their hellenizing stooges Jason, Menelaus,
and Alcimus, but their own demeanour cannot have been entirely comfortable or acceptable to all their subjects. Under
those circumstances it is perhaps more surprising that John should be shown to have been on such good terms with
the Pharisees, who seem to have been a popular lay movement to maintain the Law. It should also be remembered that
the Maccabees were of priestly descent themselves (1 Macc. 2: 1), so there might have been something of a natural
bond between them and the Sadducee party.
One of the most telling features of John's reign are the provisions which he made for a successor. It appears that he
intended power to go to his wife on his death,715 but this plan was thwarted by John's ambitious son Aristobulus, who
had no qualms about imprisoning his own mother along with three of his brothers, killing a fourth brother, and letting
his mother starve to death in order to secure the position of authority for himself alone (Ant. xiii. 301–4). However,
the fact that John could seriously contemplate making his wife his successor, and the fact that Aristobulus clearly took
John's provisions equally seriously, is a significant indicator of the nature of John's rule. In the first instance, it shows
the extent to which John was influenced by Hellenistic models of leadership, because the pattern of rule by a queen
was not uncommon for the Ptolemaic empire from the second century onwards,716 and indeed at that time Cleopatra
III was on the throne of Egypt; but secondly, and perhaps more importantly for the purposes of this study, it shows
that John's rule was by no means exclusively hierocratic. Had he been above all a priest he could never have
contemplated leaving power to a woman, since if the priesthood was
715
Hyrcanus' proposal for his widow to succeed him in power is paralleled by Salome Alexandra's succession of Alexander Jannaeus. This is the third parallel between the two
leaders, and one wonders whether they might not have been confused in some way. See also n. 8 and n. 10 above on parallels between John Hyrcanus and Alexander
Jannaeus.
716
Sievers, ‘The Role of Women in the Hasmonean Dynasty’, in Josephus, the Bible and History, 132–46 (p. 134).
the essence of the leadership—if John's ruling power sprang from his priesthood rather than vice versa—his successor
would have had to be male, given the impossibility of women priests in the Jewish faith. However, if the priesthood
was only a function of the leadership rather than being its essence, or indeed, was something completely separate from
it, as argued above, there would be little or no difficulty (theoretically speaking) in separating off the priestly function
for someone else to fulfil on behalf of the leader—as was apparently done by the king in the pre-exilic period. It has
already been argued that the Maccabees were primarily military leaders, not high priests. Judas of course, despite the
testimony of Josephus (Ant. xii. 414, 419, 434), never became high priest, and although Jonathan did it was only after
having been in leadership as general and ‘judge’ (cf. 1 Macc. 10: 73) over his people for eight years. Simon inherited the
high priesthood from Jonathan as well as the overall leadership, and it is unclear whether priestly or military authority
was his primary role, but John Hyrcanus' final wishes point to a power base which was definitely non-religious.717
Hence, the answer to the question as to whether John Hyrcanus' rule was essentially that of a king or a high priest must
be that it was the rule of a king. In fact, since he was the third member of the family to have fulfilled such a role it
would seem fair to say that the pattern was now firmly established, and that subsequent Hasmoneans could now be
expected to behave as (Hellenistic) monarchs, notwithstanding the fact that they bore the title of high priest. John's son
Aristobulus, mentioned above, is a prime example. Josephus claims that he was the first one actually to style himself as
a king (Ant. xiii. 301), but despite his desperate measures to secure power for himself he only reigned for a year,
104–103 BCE, during which time he carried out the forcible conversion of the Ituraeans (Ant. xiii. 318). In his readiness
to eliminate even his close family members for the sake of inheriting the kingdom, Aristobulus seems to have been a
prime example of the lengths to which power-mania could drive people, and whereas such manœuvrings to gain the
kingdom were not unusual among the Seleucids, for them to make their appearance in the Hasmonean dynasty only
thirty years after Simon's death was a bad omen. Once again this seems to be an indication of the light in which
Hasmonean rule was viewed, not only by the people but by
717
So also Oesterley, 285.
the rulers themselves, and to give the lie to the idea that this was primarily a priestly dynasty.
Aristobulus' successor was equally ‘unpriestly’. On Aristobulus' death his widow Salome Alexandra released his
imprisoned brothers and married the eldest one, Alexander Jannaeus, whom she then put on the throne (βασιλέα
καθίστησι(η), basilea kathistēsi(n)—Ant. xiii. 320; BJ i. 85). Like his predecessor, Jannaeus proved ambitious enough to
eliminate one of his brothers whom he saw as a challenge to his own power (Ant. xiii. 323; BJ i. 85), and he was
unabashed in his claim of the title ‘king’, which he minted on coins in both word and symbol. Interestingly, however,
some coins show the formula ‘Jannaeus the high priest and the ḥeber of the Jews’ in the same way as those minted by
John Hyrcanus.718 Josephus' accounts of Jannaeus' rule (Ant. xiii. 320–404, BJ i. 85–106) make much of his cruelty, his
obsessive nature, and his disagreements with the populace; his main internal enemies are usually assumed to have been
the Pharisees, whom he is supposed on his death-bed to have advised Salome to pacify (Ant. xiii. 400–4), although the
death-bed scene is Josephus' only mention of the Pharisees in the context of Jannaeus' rule, and he never specifically
identifies Jannaeus' opponents as Pharisees.719 Apart from his vigorous military campaigning, which resulted in the
expansion of Jewish territories virtually to the extent of the Solomonic empire, the main internal episode recorded for
Jannaeus' reign concerns the revolt of the Jewish people against him followed by six years of civil war, brought to an
end by the intervention of Demetrius III Akairos whom Jannaeus' opponents
718
For examples of Jannaeus' coins, see Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 118–34 and plates 5–24. The diadem which appears on some of the coins was the Hellenistic symbol
of royalty. See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 73–80, for a discussion of the diadem and its representation on Jannaeus' coins. A large number of the royal coin types have been
overstruck with the priestly inscription, leading to speculation that Jannaeus later abandoned the title ‘king’, perhaps due to conflict with the Pharisees. See Meshorer, Ancient
Jewish Coinage, 77–8; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 79; Jagersma, 93.
719
C. Rabin, ‘Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees’, JJS 7 (1956), 3–11 (pp. 5–10). Joshua Efron, ‘Simeon ben Shatah and Alexander Jannaeus’, in Studies on the Hasmonean
Period, SJLA 39 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 143–218, argues that the internal Pharisaic tradition as found in the Jerusalem Talmud tradition does not portray Jannaeus as a
‘dangerous despot’ but that instead he ‘is accorded a ray of light and favour by the Eretz Israel legends, devoid of gloom and venom’ (p. 216). Efron's whole collection of
essays is concerned with rehabilitating the Hasmonean dynasty, which he thinks has suffered from bad publicity and biased (mainly Christian) scholarship with the result that
its image has been tarnished in an unjustified way. See n. 36 below for further comments on his work.
invited to come (Ant. xiii. 372–83; BJ i. 88–98). Demetrius defeated Jannaeus, an outcome which caused several
thousand Jews to take pity on Jannaeus and go over to his side, and this in turn caused Demetrius to withdraw in fear.
Jannaeus then took gratuitous revenge on his fellow-Jews, crucifying hundreds of them and killing their wives and
children before their eyes while he himself feasted conspicuously with his concubines. Not surprisingly the rest of his
opponents fled the country. This incident is usually thought to be reflected in the Qumran commentary on Nahum
(4Q169); in the commentary to 2: 11 Demetrius is named and said to have tried to enter Jerusalem on the advice of
‘those who seek smooth things’, and the commentary on 2: 12 mentions the ‘furious young lion [who executes
revenge] on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive’.720 ‘Those who seek smooth things’ are usually
identified as the Pharisees,721 an identification which explains the persistent notion of their opposition to Jannaeus
despite their virtual absence from Josephus. The ‘furious young lion’ also appears in a fragmentary commentary on
Hosea 5: 13 (4Q167). Other Qumran material which may have been prepared with Jannaeus in mind is the treatise in
the Temple Scroll ‘On Kingship’; Hengel, Charlesworth, and Mendels argue that the chapter recorded in IIQT 56: 12
ff. ‘presents through biblical notions of kingship an antithesis to some real Jewish king, and its author is willing to
correct the defects of kingship which he has observed. . . . the king in question is none other than
AlexanderJannaeus.’722
On his death Jannaeus apparently bequeathed the royal power to his widow Salome Alexandra (Ant. xiii. 407: τὴν δὲ
βασιλɛίαν ɛἰς τὴν ʼ Aλɛχάνδραν διέθɛτο, ‘and the kingdom he bequeathed to Alexandra’; BJ i. 107: καταλɛίπɛι δὲ τὴν
βασιλɛίαν Ἀλɛχάνδρᾳ, ‘and he left the kingdom to Alexandra’), who had thus been wife to two Hasmonean rulers
before becoming queen in her own right. She appointed her elder son Hyrcanus II as high priest (Ant. xiii. 408; BJ i.
109), a function which she herself was unable by Law to fulfil, and is noted for having maintained the kingdom at the
extent to which it had grown under Jannaeus without recourse to armed
720
Vermes, 474.
721
Ibid. 62.
722
M. Hengel, J. H. Charlesworth, D. Mendels, ‘The Polemical Character of “On Kingship” in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating IIQTemple’, JJS 37 (1986), 28–38
(pp. 30–1).
conflict.723 It certainly appears that under her rule the Hasmonean kingdom enjoyed a brief period of relative stability,
and that whether or not Jannaeus had advised her to she did indeed favour the Pharisees (Ant. xiii. 408–9;
BJ i. 110–11). Given that they are usually seen as the ‘popular’ religious party, as opposed to the more aristocratic
Sadducees, it is understandable that by favouring them she would vastly reduce the potential for a groundswell of
resistance among those who might feel that the Hasmoneans had feathered their own nests at the expense of the
populace and that the original lofty aims of the Maccabean rebels had been obscured by the lust for power of their
descendants.
Although Salome's appointment as queen might seem unusual it was not entirely unprecedented; John Hyrcanus'
intention that power should go to his wife on his own death, a narrative which may or may not be a duplicate of the
Salome story, was mentioned above, and the comments made there about the influence on Judah of Ptolemaic policy
concerning women rulers apply equally in this case. Salome's accession underlines the point already made about John
Hyrcanus' desire to be succeeded by his wife, which never actually came about: a domain which can legitimately be
ruled by a queen cannot be a hierocracy when the religious scruples of the day would allow no woman to be a priest, let
alone a high priest.724 If the authority of civil rule can be separated from the high priesthood in this way, the logical
conclusion is that the two are essentially unrelated. If, however, the high priest was the chief authority in all matters,
both civil and religious, it would have been necessary to appoint a man and not a woman as head of the nation.
Alexander Jannaeus had two sons; there was no apparent reason why one of them should not succeed him if a male
figure was required, one of them (Hyrcanus II) had to be high priest for Salome anyway, and indeed ultimately they
came to power
723
Noth, Geschichte Israels, 350 (ET, 391).
724
It is tempting to regard the episode of Athaliah in 2 Kgs. 11: 1–20 as an older Judaean parallel to Salome's succession to the throne, but Athaliah's rule was not
legitimate—she was a usurper, to be replaced as soon as possible by the legitimate Davidic descendant. See Sievers, ‘The Role of Women’, 134. Although it could well be
argued that the story shows the separation of priesthood and monarchy in that Jehoiada the priest did not overthrow Athaliah in order to claim the throne himself but in
order to enthrone the Davidic heir Joash (2 Kgs. 11: 4–12), it is necessary to remember the sacral nature of the monarchy itself, which would have required a male figure to
officiate on important religious occasions. Probably part of the very illegitimacy of Athaliah's reign was that she was a woman and so was unable to fulfil the sacral duties of
the monarchy.
after Salome's death. Salome's succession to power despite their eligibility, and her apparent acceptance by the
populace, indicates that the leadership cannot have been a priestly position since she would never have been accepted if
it were. Josephus also reports the representations made to Pompey in 63 BCE to the effect that the old priestly
leadership should be restored to the nation instead of either of the surviving Hasmonean brothers, Hyrcanus II and
Aristobulus II (Ant. xiv. 41); the implication once again is that the existing Hasmonean leadership itself was not
hierocratic but was of a more monarchic style.
The last member of the Hasmonean dynasty to hold independent power in Judah was Aristobulus II. Although he was
not strictly entitled to inherit the kingdom, and his elder brother Hyrcanus II had taken over when Salome Alexandra
died in 67 BCE, within three months of Hyrcanus' succession Aristobulus had engaged Hyrcanus in an armed
confrontation which was concluded on the terms that Hyrcanus should turn over the throne to Aristobulus and retire
with no loss of private possessions (Ant. xiv. 4–7; BJ i. 120–2). However, having been persuaded by the Idumaean
Antipater that Aristobulus was seeking his life, Hyrcanus enlisted the aid of Aretas the Nabatean king to help him
regain his rightful position by force (Ant. xiv. 8–18; BJ i. 123–6). Aretas besieged Aristobulus and his forces in
Jerusalem, at which point Pompey's general Scaurus appeared on the scene and following representations to him from
both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus took Aristobulus' side and forced Aretas to raise the siege. This enabled Aristobulus to
attack and defeat Hyrcanus and Aretas (Ant. xiv. 19–21, 29–33; BJ i. 126–9). When a little later Pompey himself
advanced into Coele-Syria, he was approached by both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, each in an attempt to oust the other
from power (Ant. xiv. 40–5; BJ i. 131–2), together with a third representation from the nation as a whole asking to be
ruled once again by priests as had formerly been the case (Ant. xiv. 41). Pompey dismissed the brothers pending his
arrival in Judah when he would adjudicate between them, but Aristobulus was unwilling to accept the decision and left
to prepare a resistance force (Ant. xiv. 46–7). Pompey marched after him, and having captured Aristobulus' stronghold
forced him back to Jerusalem (Ant. xiv. 48–53); there Aristobulus offered terms, which Pompey accepted, but when
Aristobulus failed to fulfil them Pompey besieged and
captured the city, supported by Hyrcanus and his partisans (Ant. xiv. 54–62, 69–71; BJ i. 139–51). Hyrcanus was
restored to the high priesthood as a reward for his support of Pompey (Ant. xiv. 73; BJ i. 153), but Aristobulus was
taken in chains to Rome (Ant. xiv. 79; BJ i. 157).
In the light of all these developments, it seems that the Hasmoneans cannot be regarded as embodying the ultimate
development of the high priesthood into a position of hierocratic leadership with wide-ranging political powers. On the
contrary, they show the re-emergence of what is effectively sacral kingship within the context of Second Temple
Judaism, which does not represent a linear development from the high priesthood as it was known in the Restoration
period. Rather, the ‘Restoration’ form of high priesthood seems to have died out with Alcimus; the official high-
priestly line down from the Restoration, of which the Oniads were the last serving representatives, had already come to
an end as a result of the intrigues with Jason and Menelaus,725 and there is no firm evidence that any of the high priests
of that line between Zerubbabel and the Seleucids gained political power.726 Alcimus was in that same tradition of high
priesthood, but his lack of high-priestly descent underlines the fact that the office had become debased, and it would
only be a matter of time before the institution failed. As it turned out, Alcimus was the last of these ‘old-style’
725
W. F. Smith, ‘A Study of the Zadokite High Priesthood within the Graeco-Roman Age: From Simeon the Just to the High Priests Appointed by Herod the Great’
(unpublished thesis, Harvard University, 1961), argues for the re-emergence of the Zadokite line under Herod the Great, claiming that Herod's personal ineligibility for the
post of high priest led him to choose obscure non-Jerusalemite Zadokites for it. In that way, Herod's candidates could satisfy the traditional genealogical qualification for the
high priesthood without being too influential among the Jerusalem aristocracy and therefore a possible source of unrest. Smith does not contend, however, that the Oniad
line per se was revived, and it certainly seems unlikely that the offspring of the former high-priestly house would have been a particularly wise or acceptable choice under the
circumstances. Jason had been at the root of the hellenizing intrigues of the second century, and Onias IV had founded a schismatic temple in Leontopolis, the adherents and
priesthood of which no doubt regarded it as a legitimate alternative to the ‘polluted’ sanctuary in Jerusalem, but which would have been quite the opposite in the eyes of
those whose allegiance was still with the Jerusalem foundation. The Oniad line's consequent loss of credibility would probably have made its restoration to religious
prominence in Jerusalem undesirable even if it were possible.
726
Jason and Menelaus could be said to have had political power, but as argued in Ch. 11 above their ‘power’ was due to them having made themselves Seleucid officials by
bribing Antiochus for the high priesthood, effectively buying authority from him. The high priesthood of itself gave them no such power.
non-ruling high priests, and his death marked the end of that order. When the high priesthood reappeared following a
seven-year vacancy it was in the hands of the Hasmonean dynasty, and was part of a pattern whereby the duties of the
high priesthood became one aspect of the military and civil leadership of the country; this was the pattern which then
defined the high priesthood for most of the next hundred years.
There has been a good deal of argument as to whether the Hasmoneans did lose their ideological way, thereby causing
discontent and unrest among those who felt that they had been betrayed by their leaders. Was the struggle for national
sovereignty and territorial gain an integral part of the struggle for religious freedom, or should the struggle have been
curtailed? Could it have been even if it should have been? Was there grass-root opposition to fighting for anything
beyond the right to practise Judaism and to follow the Law unhindered? Would the people have been quite content to
acquiesce once again in foreign sovereignty as they had done for the past four hundred or more years, provided their
devotions were unhindered? One piece of literature which is often adduced in support of a feeling of discontent with
Hasmonean rule among the populace is the Psalms of Solomon. This group of eighteen pseudonymous psalmic writings
is dated to the period around the mid-first century BCE, largely on the evidence of Ps. Sol. 2, because the events
described in the psalm can be seen to correspond with the extant descriptions of Pompey's storming of Jerusalem in
63 BCE, and later with the circumstances of Pompey's death in 48 BCE.727 The psalm refers to a battering ram being
used against Jerusalem (2: 1), foreign peoples trampling the altar of the Lord and the city in general (2: 2, 20), Jews
being taken into captivity (2: 6), and the conqueror slain and his body dishonoured in Egypt (2: 30–1). According to
Josephus, the Romans used catapults and siege engines against the city (Ant. xiv. 62; BJ i. 147); once the defences were
broken down, they rushed into the Temple and slaughtered the priests in the very act of sacrificing (Ant. xiv. 66–7;
BJ i. 150); Aristobulus and his family were taken captive in chains to Rome, doubtless along with others (Ant. xiv. 79;
BJ i. 154); and according to Plutarch Pompey himself was later defeated in battle and assassinated in Egypt by one of
his former centurions.728 The
727
H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, The Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), pp. xxxvii–xliv.
728
Plutarch, Pompey, 67–80.
homogeneity of this group of psalms is such that the dating arrived at by means of the correspondences in Ps. Sol. 2
with contemporary events can plausibly be applied to the whole collection. Their source is usually thought to be
Pharisaic circles who were disillusioned with the Hasmonean rule and with the general state of affairs prevailing at that
time; indeed, Ryle and James in the introduction to their commentary dub the collection ‘Psalms of the Pharisees’.729
Characteristically Pharisaic elements of the Psalms include the use of the terms ὅσιος (hosios) and ὅσιοι (hosioi) as an
equivalent to the Hebrew Hasidim to denote the Lord's faithful ones (4: 7, 9; 8: 40; 9: 6; 14: 2, 7; 17: 18),730 the belief in
an afterlife for the righteous (3: 16; 13: 9), and an emphasis on the importance of the Law both directly (14: 1–2) and
indirectly in the form of references to holiness, righteousness, and purity (1: 2, 9; 2: 3, 38–9; 3
passim; 8: 13; 17: 28; 18: 9).
The psalm where the clearest reference to the Hasmoneans can be seen is Ps. Sol. 17. The psalmist speaks of David
being chosen by God to be king over Israel for ever, but bewails those who have usurped the kingdom and devastated
the throne of David (17: 5–8); he goes on to pray for a purging of Jerusalem and the appearance of a true and
legitimate king so that people and city can be holy once again (17: 23–51). If this is taken as indeed referring to
members of the Hasmonean dynasty, as seems likely given the dating proposed above, there are several important
observations to be made. First, it is noticeable that the Hasmoneans are regarded by the writer not as priests but as
kings, and the complaint is not that they have taken over the priestly dignity in an unjustifiable way but that they have
usurped the royal prerogative, taking over the throne which was promised to David's descendants alone (17: 5–6).
Hence, by the time of Ps. Sol. 17, even if the Hasmoneans had started out as priestly leaders, a notion which it has
already been argued is false, they were no longer regarded as such, but were undeniably kings in their own eyes and in
those of the populace.
Secondly, the hope expressed in the psalm, whilst being evidently idealistic and indeed messianic, is for restoration of a
729
Ryle and James, title page and p. xliv.
730
G. B. Gray, ‘The Psalms of Solomon,’ in R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 625–52 (p.
629).
legitimate sacral monarchy, not a hierocracy where the priests are the rulers, which casts doubt on the idea that Israel as
a whole saw her basic constitution as that of a theocracy which was ruled by priests. Of course, different factions of the
community may well have had different ideas about what was an appropriate method of government; judging from the
description of the Jewish constitution written by Hecataeus of Abdera,731 at least one segment of the community
thought that government by priests was the ideal—probably the priests themselves. But it is necessary to beware of
making blanket assertions about hierocratic government being the standard to which all looked with greater or lesser
enthusiasm or nostalgia. Ps. Sol. 17 certainly shows opposition to the Hasmonean kingship, but it also dwells at length
on the desire to return to a Davidic sacral messianic monarchy, implying that it was the monarchy's current incumbents
rather than the concept of monarchy as such to which the objections were being raised.
Thirdly, hopes for a restoration of monarchy, especially when the restoration is seen in messianic terms, inevitably
encompass dreams of national sovereignty, and the hopes expressed in this psalm for a renewed monarchy are no
exception (17: 32–5). The messianic overtones of Simon's eulogy in 1 Macc. 14: 4–15 also seem to imply that to the
writer and his supporters at least Simon was the fulfilment of the hope of national sovereignty which was seen as an
integral part of Jewish expectation for the future,732 so to that extent there was indeed no clash between the desire for
religious freedom and the desire for national sovereignty, as both were part of the ideal future looked for by God's
people. In fact, Efron argues that there was no basic rift between those who desired only religious freedom and those
who desired national sovereignty, because the two aims were part and parcel of each other; rather, the picture of
Hasmonean rulers getting carried away with themselves and alienating a previously supportive populace is the result of
hostile propaganda and misinterpretation of the sources.733
731
See the discussion of this passage in Ch. 10 above on the Ptolemaic period.
732
For a detailed comparison of the eulogy with the messianic Psalm 72, see Ch. 11 above.
733
‘The Hasmonean Period in Modern Historiography’, in Studies, 1–32. Efron attempts to deny the general rift which, according to the prevailing scholarly view arrived at in
the nineteenth century, is supposed to have occurred between the Hasmoneans and the more passive Hasidim because ‘[the] Hasids concerned themselves with the Torah
and its precepts, while the Hasmoneans craved the glory of statehood’ (p. 6). The book as a whole is reviewed by van der Woude in JSJ 20 (1989), 91–4, who expresses the
opinion that ‘Efron's assertions are far from convincing and often pure fantasy’, and that methodological flaws together with the false supposition that pre-70 CE Judaism
was more or less uniform ‘seriously detract from the credibility of the author's theses’ (p. 94). See also n. 22 above.
Despite Efron's claims, however, and in the light of the above comments, the situation seems to have been somewhat
more complex than that, and simply to claim that scholarship has made an unreal contrast between those who desired
sovereignty and those who did not is to miss the point. In the final reckoning, the question is not about whether
national sovereignty was seen as a valid aim to pursue, but about whether the Hasmoneans were deemed to be its
legitimate pursuers. It is undeniable that 1 and 2 Maccabees are apologetic literature, and that 1 Maccabees portrays the
Maccabeans in accepted Scriptural colours as a way of legitimating their actions, in particular their acceptance of the
high priesthood and of civil rule which was royal in all but name; the eulogy of Simon in 1 Macc. 14: 4–15 which
describes his rule in messianic tones has already been mentioned. The growth of such literature implies that there must
have been a good deal of uncertainty at the start of the Maccabean revolution as to whether individuals who were not
descended from the traditionally recognized lines of David and Zadok could be the instruments of God's redemption,
a question made all the more acute by the high-priestly family's betrayal of trust when Jason sold out to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes. If the legitimate high-priestly line could fail in that way then anything could happen and it became
conceivable that others apart from Zadokites and Davidides could be high priests and kings. However, subsequent
events proved the initial hopes vested in the Hasmoneans as God's deliverers to be futile,734 hence the kind of reaction
attested by the Psalms of Solomon. But still the hope for a (Davidide) king sent by God persists, as does the picture of
Israel's sovereignty over all the other nations (Ps. Sol. 17: 23–35), but with an important difference from the kingship
and sovereignty of the Hasmoneans: this king really will purify the nation of Israel and make it holy in accordance with
the Law, and his trust will be in the strength of the Lord rather than in machines
734
Cf. Goldstein, ‘The Hasmonaeans: The Dynasty of God's Resistors’, HTR 68 (1975), 53–8. Commenting on the Hebrew title for 1 Maccabees quoted by Origen,
Goldstein points out its ambiguity, suggesting that the name ‘God's resisters’ was originally a pejorative nickname given to the Hasmoneans by their opponents, but that it
was eventually accepted and interpreted in a positive sense by the Hasmoneans themselves (p. 58).
of war (17: 33–8). Nor is it justified to dismiss Ps. Sol. 17 as referring to another world or a spiritual kingdom, and
thereby deny its author any longing for national sovereignty in the earthly sense. It is certainly an idealistic piece of
literature, but the king hoped for is a human being to be raised up and taught by God (17: 47), not a divine figure
which would imply that Israel is living in the very presence of God without any earthly mediation. The conclusion
from all this is that national sovereignty of itself was not the stumbling block in the case of the Hasmoneans, but rather
national sovereignty gained and exercised in what was considered to be an illegitimate fashion.
This then raises the question of whether the Maccabean sovereignty struggle was something separate from the desire
to restore religious freedom, given that Jewish culture and religious observance had carried on unhindered for so long
despite continued national subjection. The imperial powers did not usually take domination of foreign lands to mean
forced conversion, nor is it fair to say that there was a general antipathy towards Judaism per se, since it was only the
Judaean Jews who were ever persecuted; as was noted above, not even during the Antiochene persecution of 167–164
BCE were the Jewish communities of the Diaspora subjected to official abuse.735 Under these circumstances it would
seem that a restoration of the status quo would have been sufficient. And yet it can be imagined that it would have
been virtually impossible to return to the status quo after such a ferocious clash of cultures, because the clash was
symptomatic of internal divisions just as much as of external oppression. The sovereignty struggle was therefore as
much about defeating the internal element which aligned itself with the Seleucids as a way of destabilizing the existing
order, as it was about gaining independence for its own sake; it was a way of cutting off the hellenizers' power and their
potential for troublemaking, something which could legitimately be regarded as part of the fight to ensure religious
freedom, and which no doubt was so regarded by the Maccabees and their supporters. There would doubtless have
been other perceived benefits of independence too, namely the freedom from constant burdens of foreign taxation,
and from the periodic unrest to which Judah had been helplessly subjected by virtue of being in a strategically
735
Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 121–2 (ET, 79–80).
placed border region between the rival Egyptian and Syrian empires and therefore being claimed by them both.
Of course, for such a tiny country to try and resist the will of a mighty empire like that of the Seleucids was rather
optimistic, to say the least, and it is apparent from the records which have survived that the times when the Jewish
resistance made its most important strikes were the times when the Seleucids were otherwise occupied either by a crisis
in their own leadership or by threats from outside enemies. Jonathan's official powers to raise an army and his
elevation to the high priesthood—the first steps towards Judaean independence—came about as a result of the
leadership contest between Demetrius and Alexander, which necessitated them both trying to win Jonathan's favour
with what boiled down to ‘bribes’ (1 Macc. 10: 1–21). John Hyrcanus in his turn, although inheriting the rule of the
supposedly independent Hasmonean kingdom, was faced almost immediately by a confrontation with Antiochus VII,
who had tried and failed to regain control of the coastal strip around Joppa which Simon had conquered, and had now
turned to attack Judah (1 Macc. 15: 25–16: 10; Ant. xiii. 236–48). John had to pay substantial indemnities and give up
weapons and hostages to be allowed to keep the areas of which Simon had gained control. As Russell drily remarks,
‘Hyrcanus was thus made to realise that independence could be maintained only when Syria was either too busy or too
weak to intervene.’736 Fortunately for Hyrcanus and his successors, the re-emergence soon afterwards of internal Syrian
strife meant that independence could be maintained until a greater power appeared on the world scene and changed
the balance of power throughout the Near East. That was the point at which Hasmonean power as well as Seleucid
power came to an end, as both became subject to Roman power.
736
Russell, 63.
PART IV: SUMMARY 325
Part IV: Summary

This final section of the investigation has shown that as in the Persian period, so in the Greek period the high
priesthood remained a fundamentally cultic office which in and of itself bestowed no civil authority upon its
incumbents. The Ptolemaic era with which the Greek period begins is one of the most obscure in the history of Judah
because of the sparsity of sources; however, the evidence from contemporary papyri suggests that during the third
century BCE an extensive Ptolemaic bureaucracy would have been in place, effectively limiting Judaean autonomy and
making it unlikely that the high priest would have exercised significant authority in governing the province. Coupled
with this, the small amount of evidence available from Jewish literary sources for the period (Josephus, the Letter of
Aristeas, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira) shows the high priest still very firmly linked to the religious and cultic sphere;
and both Josephus and the papyri attest the presence of at least one old-established, moneyed, and aristocratic lay
family in the province whose influence not only equalled but exceeded that of the high priesthood. Taken all together,
these pieces of evidence seem to indicate that the Ptolemaic high priests were of no more importance than their
Persian predecessors in the Judaean provincial administration.
This state of affairs continued into the Seleucid period, until Jason the Oniad bribed Antiochus IV to award him the
high priesthood, together with the authority to change the constitution of Jerusalem. At this point the high priesthood
could be said to have become a political office, but this was still not because of the nature of the office itself. Rather, it
was because Jason had Seleucid backing, not because the high priesthood gave him instrinsic authority, that he was able
to put into practice the hellenizing measures which so shocked the writer of 2 Maccabees. Jason had effectively
combined the high priesthood with a measure of civil authority, but as can be seen from the fortunes of
his successors Menelaus and Alcimus, that authority only lasted for as long as there was Seleucid support for it.
The Maccabean rebellion aimed to rescue Judah from the intolerable effects of this politicized high priesthood, which
had become a channel for unacceptable interference by the overlords in the Jewish way of life and worship. The leaders
of the rebellion were of priestly descent, and eventually secured for themselves the high priesthood as well as the
leadership and autonomy of Judah. But here again, their status as leaders was not dependent upon their status as high
priests. Both Jonathan and Simon Maccabee began their rise to prominence as commanders of the military rebellion
force, and it was only after becoming established in this capacity and gaining sufficient influence in Judah to be
acknowledged by the ruling Seleucids that the Seleucids granted them the high priesthood. This is particularly clear in
the case of Jonathan, who having driven back the Seleucid forces ruled the people for seven years in the capacity of
‘judge’ before being made high priest. Even allowing for the bias of 1 Maccabees, which gives a deliberately
Deuteronomistic presentation of the rebellion and its leaders, the style of leadership exercised by Jonathan and Simon
seems to have followed that of the pre-exilic monarchs, who similarly had both royal and priestly responsibilites, but
whose priestly responsibilities for the nation arose out of their kingship rather than their monarchic duty of
government arising from their priestly status. Hence, to argue that the Maccabean high priests are the culmination of
the high priesthood's development towards joint civil and religious authority in Judah is incorrect. Not only is there a
significant lack of evidence for any such development of the high priesthood in itself prior to the Maccabean period,
but the Maccabeans had already achieved civil authority before becoming high priests, and their attainment of the high
priesthood was the consequence of, not the reason for, that authority.
That this was indeed the case is evident from the later history of the Hasmonean dynasty. Although the Hasmonean
leaders continued to fulfil both priestly and governmental roles in the by now independent Jewish state, there are
significant indicators that both they themselves and the populace regarded their rule as primarily monarchic rather than
hierocratic. First, apart from the claims for kingship made by the rulers themselves (notably Alexander Jannaeus), the
fact that both John Hyrcanus and
PART IV: SUMMARY 327
Jannaeus intended their wives to succeed them, and that Salome Alexandra did in fact succeed Jannaeus, makes a
nonsense of the idea that Hasmonean rule was based on priestly prerogatives. Had the high priesthood been the basis
of power, whoever succeeded to the country's leadership would have succeeded primarily to the high priesthood, and
so it would have been impossible to have a female successor because Judaism would not admit women priests at any
level, let alone high priests. However, the fact that Salome could appoint one of her sons to the high priesthood whilst
taking over the reins of government herself indicates that the high priesthood was effectively an adjunct to the
leadership role rather than its basis. Secondly, the evidence from the late first-century BCE Psalms of Solomon points to
Pharisaic dissatisfaction with the Hasmoneans, not because they had usurped the high-priestly line despite their non-
Zadokite descent, but because as non-Davidides they had usurped the monarchic line. Josephus too records the tale of
representations being made to Pompey on the Roman conquest of Judah, requesting that the former priestly leadership
be restored in place of the Hasmoneans. Whatever the truth about the ‘former priestly leadership’, and whether or not
it had ever actually existed, the incident implies that the Hasmoneans were not perceived as priestly leaders but as
monarchic pretenders by at least some, if not the majority, of the populace.
It seems fair to say, therefore, that the high priesthood in the Greek period did not in and of itself become an office of
civil government. Rather, although it was later exercised by those who already held civil authority, its essential nature
was basically that of a cultic office, and this is what it remained, right down to the time of the Roman conquest.
Conclusion
The picture that has emerged from this systematic examination of material on the high priesthood is one of remarkable
consistency, which can be summarized quite readily: high priesthood does not appear in the sources as an office which
bestowed ex officio civil leadership prerogatives; rather, the basic function of the high priest was as a cultic figure, with
cultic responsibilities. The preexilic chief priests were servants of the crown, whose duties lay in the cultic realm and
who are only ever shown operating in the cultic realm; and despite the turmoil of exile which resulted in the loss of the
monarchy there is no indication that this basic pattern ever changed, or indeed, that the priests themselves wanted it to
be changed. A good example of this attitude is the book of Ezekiel, which was a product of priestly circles during the
Exile, at a time when the monarchic basis of pre-exilic society had been severely challenged by the Babylonian
conquest in both physical and ideological terms. A period of such chaos and uncertainty as the Exile would have been
an ideal opportunity for the priests to renounce the monarchy as a failure and advocate a hierocratic society if they
considered it appropriate to do so. And yet, there is no attempt by these priests to put a high priest at the head of the
proposed new community postulated in Ezekiel; instead, what is envisaged is a restoration of the monarchy in a
modified form. Similarly, throughout the post-exilic period, the high priests are never shown in sole charge of the
province, but they always appear in a cultic context of some kind alongside other authority figures in the community,
usually a governor appointed by the imperial overlords. This is true even in works such as the books of Chronicles,
where despite a heightened sense of cultic awareness and the importance of correct ritual procedures for the health of
the community, the chief priests are never shown stepping over the boundary of the ritual sphere into the ruling
sphere; their responsibilities remain confined to cultic matters as was the case before the Exile.
CONCLUSION 329
However, there were two periods in Israelite and later Jewish history when the duties of cultic officiation and political
leadership were vested in the same individual: these were the monarchy, when the king was also ex officio the most
important priest in the nation and had ultimate control over the cultic arrangements; and the Maccabean and
Hasmonean periods, when the priestly family of Mattathias and its descendants combined the offices of priesthood,
later high priesthood, and political leadership of the people. Yet in both of these periods this high priesthood was a
function of the political leadership role rather than the leadership role being a function of the high-priestly role. The
sacral character of the pre-exilic monarchy, where the king was regarded as being in an intimate relationship with the
divinity, inevitably bestowed upon the reigning monarch the right and duties of priesthood, whether or not that
priesthood is regarded as a particular kind of office (priesthood ‘after the order of Melchizedek’?) which was peculiar
to the monarch. This naturally accounts for the lack of ruling power or indeed final cultic authority resting with the
chief priest during this period, because the monarch effectively fulfilled the joint function of ruler and supreme
religious authority, thereby depriving the chief priest of both the reason and the opportunity to exercise any such
authority himself. The Maccabeans, on the other hand, were apparently of priestly stock before they rose to
prominence within the military context; however, their priestly descent does not appear as the basis for them becoming
heirs of the high priesthood. Instead, the high priesthood is shown as an additional honour bestowed on Jonathan at a
time when he had already attained prominence and leadership status among the Jews as a military commander. In fact,
the whole account of the Maccabees' rise to power is presented in terms of the Deuteronomistic History's description
of the rise of the monarchy, implying that the nature of the Maccabean leadership was monarchic. Hence, for the
Maccabees too the high priesthood was a function of their leadership role in another sphere; it was not the source of
their civil and military authority, nor was it the direct result of their initial priestly descent.
Under these circumstances, the supposed Maccabean use of Psalm 110 is noteworthy, because although it was
probably a product of the (early) monarchic period, its depiction of a king whose kingship gave him the prerogative of
priesthood is entirely
330 CONCLUSION
appropriate for the Maccabean leaders. Hence, those who would argue for its application to Simon Maccabee are in
effect arguing that the Maccabean priest-kings became high priests because of their prior attainment of leadership
status and particularly military authority in their community, rather than attaining political leadership because of prior
priestly descent or high-priestly status.
In the light of this, the overall conclusion must be that Israel as a whole and later Judah never envisaged a class of
ruling priests as such. Although there were leaders who had priestly duties, priesthood of itself did not bestow ex officio
leadership prerogatives outside the cultic sphere, however important the priesthood was considered to be to the
community's well-being.
Bibliography
Abba, R., ‘Priests and Levites’, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. and supplement (Nashville and New
York: Abingdon, 1962–76), iii (1962), 876–89.
Abel, F.-M., Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1949).
Ackroyd, Peter R., ‘Studies in the Book of Haggai’, JJS 2 (1952), 163–76.
—— Exile and Restoration (London: SCM Press, 1968; repr. 1972).
—— Israel under Babylon and Persia, New Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970)
—— The First Book of Samuel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
—— I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1973).
Albertz, Rainer, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, 2 vols., ATD Supplement Series, 8 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) (ET A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. John Bowden, 2
vols. (London: SCM Press, 1994)).
Allan, Nigel, ‘The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile’, HeyJ 23 (1982), 259–69.
Allen, Leslie C., Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983).
—— Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1990).
Amsler, Samuel, ‘Aggée, Zacharie 1–8’, in Samuel Amsler, André Lacocque, and René Vuilleumier, Aggée, Zacharie,
Malachie, CAT 11c (Neuchâtel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981)
Andersen, Francis I., ‘Genesis 14: An Enigma’, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of
Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 497–508.
Anderson, A. A., 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1989).
Anderson, G. W., The History and Religion of Israel, New Clarendon Bible (London: Oxford University Press, 1966).
Armerding, Carl Edward, ‘Were David's Sons Really Priests?’, in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and
Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Eerdmans, 1975), 75–86.
Astour, Michael C., ‘Melchizedek’, in ABD iv. 684–6.
332 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auld, A. Graeme, Kings Without Privilege (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994).

Baentsch, Bruno, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, HKAT 1.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903).
Bagnall, R. S., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, CSCT 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976).
Bailey, John W., ‘The Usage in the Post Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest and High Priest’, JBL 70
(1951), 217–25.
Baldwin, Joyce, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1972).
Bar-kochva, Bezalel, Pseudo-Hecataeus, ‘On the Jews’: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London:
University of California Press, 1996).
—— and Kindler, A., ‘The Hezekiah Coins’, in Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 255–70.
Barag, Dan P., ‘Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest’, BA 48 (1985), 166–8.
—— ‘A Silver Coin of Yoḥanan the High Priest and the Coinage of Judea in the Fourth Century B.C.’, INJ 9 (1986–7),
4–21 and plate 1.
Barker, Margaret, ‘The Two Figures in Zechariah’, HeyJ 18 (1977), 38–46.
—— The Older Testament (London: SPCK, 1987).
Bartlett, J. R., ‘Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem’, JTS n.s. 19 (1968), 1–18.
—— ‘The Use of the Word ‫ רסאשׁ‬as a Title in the Old Testament’, VT 19 (1969), 1–10.
—— The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
—— Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985).
Batten, L. W., The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913).
Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm Graf, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1889; repr. Osnabrück:
Otto Zeller, 1967).
Beer, Georg, Exodus, HAT 3 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1939).
Bentzen, A., ‘Zur Geschichte der Ṣadoḳiden’, ZAW 51 (n.s. 10) (1933), 173–6.
Betlyon, John W., ‘The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the Yehud Coins’, JBL 105 (1986),
633–42.
—— ‘Coinage’, in ABD 1. 1076–89.
Beuken, W. A. M., Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Assen: Van
Gorcum & Comp N.V., 1967).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 333
Bevan, Edwyn, Jerusalem under the High-Priests (London: Edward Arnold, 1904).
Bévenot, Hugo, Die beiden Makkabäerbücher, Die heilige Schrift des alten Testamentes, IV.4 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein,
1931).
Bič, Milos, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine Auslegung von Sacharja 1–6, Biblische Studien, 42 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1964).
Bickerman, E., ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, REJ 100 (1935), 4–35.
—— Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der Makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken/
Jüdischer Buchverlag, 1937) (ET The God of the Maccabees, trans. H. R. Möhring, SJLA 32 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979)).
—— Institutions des Séleucides (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1938).
—— The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1988).
Bilde, Per, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, JSPS 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).
Blenkinsopp, Joseph, ‘The Structure of P’, CBQ 38 (1976), 275–92.
—— ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JBL 106 (1987), 409–21.
—— Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1989).
—— ‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’, in Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, 1: The Persian Period,
JSOTS 117 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 22–53.
—— ‘An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch’, ZAW 108 (1996),
495–518.
Booij, Th., ‘Psalm cx: “Rule in the Midst of Your Foes!” ’, VT 41 (1991), 396–407.
Bowker, J. W., ‘Psalm cx’, VT 17 (1967), 31–41.
Bowman, John, ‘Ezekiel and the Zadokite Priesthood’, TGUOS 16 (1957), 1–14.
Bowman, Raymond A., ‘The Book of Ezra’, in IB iii (1954), 549–661.
—— ‘The Book of Nehemiah’, in IB iii (1954), 549–69, 662–819.
Braun, Roddy L., ‘The Message of Chronicles: Rally'round the Temple’, Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (1971), 502–14.
—— ‘Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles’, JBL 92 (1973), 503–16.
—— ‘A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude toward the North’, JBL 96 (1977), 59–62.
—— ‘Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, VTSupp 30 (1979), 52–64.
—— 1 Chronicles, WBC 14 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986).
Bright, John, A History of Israel, 3rd edn. (London: SCM Press, 1981).
334 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bringmann, Klaus, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa: Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte
(175–163 v. Chr.), Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse; Folge 3, Nr.
132 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).
Brockington, L. H., Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, Century Bible New Series (London: Thomas Nelson, 1969).
Bruyne, Donatien de, ‘Le Texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées’, RB 31 (1922), 31–54.
Buck, A. de, ‘La Fleur au front du grand-Prêtre’, in OTS 9 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951), 18–29.
Budd, Philip J., Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984).
—— Leviticus, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1996).
Budde, Karl, ‘Die Herkunft Ṣadoḳ's’, ZAW 52 (1934), 42–50.
Bunge, Jochen Gabriel, Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, literarische, chronologische und historische
Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrisch-palästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Bonn: Rheinische
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Druck, 1971).
Buttenwieser, Moses, ‘Are There Any Maccabaean Psalms?’, JBL 36 (1917), 225–48.
Caird, George B., ‘The First and Second Books of Samuel’, in IB ii (1953), 853–1176.
Caquot, A., ‘Remarques sur le Psaume cx’, Semitica, 6 (1956), 33–52.
—— ‘Le Messianisme d'Ézéchiel’, Semitica, 14 (1964), 5–23.
Carley, Keith W., The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).
Cate, Robert L., Exodus, Layman's Bible Book Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1979).
Cazelles, Henri, ‘La Mission d'Esdras’, VT 4 (1954), 113–40.
—— ‘Sacral Kingship’, in ABD v. 863–6.
Charles, R. H., ‘The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Introduction’, in R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 282–95.
Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Covenant, SBT 43 (London: SCM Press, 1965; repr. 1969).
—— Exodus, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
—— Isaiah 1–39, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982).
Clines, D. J., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,
1984).
Cobb, W., The Book of Psalms (London: Methuen, 1905).
Cockerill, Gareth Lee, ‘Melchizedek or “King of Righteousness” ’, EQ 63 (1991), 305–12.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 335
Cody, Aelred, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica, 35 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969).
Cogan, Mordechai and Tadmor, Hayim, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988).
Cogan, Morton, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBL
Monograph Series, 19 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974).
Coggins, R. J., The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
—— The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
—— Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
Cooke, G. A., The Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936).
Cooke, Gerald, ‘The Israelite King as Son of God’, ZAW 73 (1961), 202–25.
Cowley, A. (ed.), Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).
Cross, F. M., ‘The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History’, in id., Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–89.
—— ‘The Priestly Houses of Early Israel’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 195–215.
—— ‘The Priestly Work’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 293–325.
—— ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 4–18.
—— ‘A Report on the Samaria Papyri’, VTSupp 40 (1986), 17–26.
Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Madsen, Albert Alonzo, The Books of Chronicles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910).
Dahood, Mitchell, Psalms 101–150, AB 17A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970).
Dancy, J. C., I Maccabees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954).
Davidson, A. B., and Streane, A. W., The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, rev. edn., CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1916).
Davidson, Robert, Genesis 12–50, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
Davies, Eryl W., Numbers, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995).
Davies, P. R., ‘Ark or Ephod in I Sam xiv.18?’, JTS n.s. 26 (1975), 82–7.
Davies, T. Witton, The Psalms, II, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1906).
Day, J., God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
—— Psalms, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
Delcor, M., ‘Le Temple d'Onias en Égypte’, RB 75 (1968), 188–203.
336 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Delcor, M., ‘Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JSJ 2 (1971), 115–35.
Dequeker, L., ‘1 Chronicles xxiv and the Royal Priesthood of the Hasmoneans’, in OTS 24 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986),
94–106.
Deutsch, Robert, ‘Six Unrecorded “Yehud” Silver Coins’, INJ 11 (1990–1), 4–6 and plate 1.
Dillmann, A., Die Genesis, 5. Auflage, KHAT 11 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886) (ET Genesis, trans. W. B. Stevenson, 2 vols.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897)).
Doran, Robert, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQ Monograph Series, 12 (Washington,
DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981).
Driver, S. R., Deuteronomy, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895).
—— The Book of Genesis, 4th edn., Westminster Commentaries (London: Methuen, 1905).
—— Minor Prophets, II, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1906).
—— The Book of Exodus, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911; repr. 1918).
—— Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
Duguid, Iain M., Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSupp 56 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994).
Duhm, Bernhardt, Die Psalmen, KHCAT 14 (Freiburg, Leipzig, and Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1899).
Dumbrell, William, ‘The Purpose of the Books of Chronicles’, JETS 27 (1984), 257–66.
Durham, John I., Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987).
Eaton, John H., Psalms, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1967).
—— Kingship and the Psalms, 2nd edn. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
Eichrodt, Walther, Der Prophet Hesekiel, 2 vols., ATD 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965–6) (ET Ezekiel,
trans. Cosslett Quin, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1970)).
Efron, Joshua, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, SJLA 39 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987).
Elliger, Karl, ‘Ephod und Choschen: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des hohepriesterlichen Ornats’, VT 8
(1958), 19–35.
—— Leviticus, HAT 4 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966).
—— Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, II: Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, 6. Auflage, ATD 25
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).
Elmslie, W. A. L., ‘The First and Second Books of Chronicles’, in IB iii (1954), 389–548.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 337
Emerton, J. A., ‘Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 BC?’, JTS n.s. 17 (1966), 1–19.
—— ‘The Riddle of Genesis xiv’, VT 21 (1971), 403–39.
—— ‘The Priestly Writer in Genesis’, JTS n.s. 39 (1988), 381–400.
—— ‘The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis xiv 18)’, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch,
VTSupp 41 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), 45–71.
—— ‘Some Problems in Genesis xiv’, in Studies in the Pentateuch, 73–102.
Eskenazi, Tamara C., ‘The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book’, JBL 107 (1988), 641–56.
Evans, William, ‘An Historical Reconstruction of the Emergence of Israelite Kingship and the Reign of Saul’, in W.
Hallo, J. Moyer and L. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context II—More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 61–77.
Fairweather, W., and Black, J. Sutherland, The First Book of Maccabees, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1897).
Feldman, Louis H., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1993).
—— and Reinhold, Meyer (eds.), Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1996).
Fischer, Thomas, Seleukiden und Makkabäer: Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte und zu den politischen Ereignissen in Judäa während
der 1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Bochum: Studienverlag Brockmeyer, 1980)
Fisher, Loren R., ‘Abraham and his Priest-King’, JBL 81 (1962), 264–70.
Floyd, Michael H., ‘The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai’, VT 45 (1995), 470–90.
Freedman, David Noel, ‘The Chronicler's Purpose’, CBQ 23 (1961), 436–42.
Gager, John G., ‘Pseudo-Hecataeus Again’, ZNW 60 (1969), 130–9.
—— Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, SBL Monograph Series, 16 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972).
Galling, K., ‘Serubbabel und der Hohepriester beim Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem’, in Studien zur Geschichte
Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), 127–48.
Gammie, John G., ‘A New Setting for Psalm 110’, Anglican Theological Review, 51 (1969), 4–17.
—— ‘Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18–20’, JBL 90 (1971), 385–96.
Gane, Roy, ‘ “Bread of the Presence” and Creator-in-Residence’, VT 42 (1992), 179–203.
Geller, M. J., ‘Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift’, JJS 30 (1979), 202–11.
338 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gerleman, Gillis, ‘Psalm cx’, VT 31 (1981), 1–19.

Gerstenberger, Erhard S., Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus, ATD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
Gese, Hartmut, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditions-geschichtlich untersucht, Beiträge zur historischen
Theologie, 25 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957).
Goldingay, John, ‘The Chronicler as a Theologian’, BTB 5 (1975), 99–126.
Goldstein, Jonathan A., ‘The Hasmonaeans: The Dynasty of God's Resistors’, HTR 68 (1975), 53–8.
—— ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for
Morton Smith at Sixty. Part Three: Judaism before 70, SJLA 12 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 85–123.
—— I Maccabees, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976).
—— II Maccabees, AB 41A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983).
Goodblatt, David, The Monarchic Principle (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994).
Gordon, Robert P., 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1986).
Gorman, Frank H., Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTS 91 (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990).
Goulder, Michael D., The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, 3, JSOTS 233 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996).
Grabbe, Lester L., ‘Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 106 (1987), 231–46.
—— Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM Press, 1994).
—— ‘What Was Ezra's Mission?’, in Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies, 2: Temple
and Community in the Persian Period, JSOTS 175 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 286–99.
Gray, G. B., Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903).
—— ‘The Psalms of Solomon’, in R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II: Pseudepigrapha
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 625–52.
Gray, John, ‘Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice’, VT 2 (1952), 193–220.
—— I & II Kings, 3rd rev. edn., OTL (London: SCM Press, 1977).
—— Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1986).
Greenberg, Moshe, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983).
—— ‘The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration’, in James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier
(eds.), Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1987), 215–36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 339
Grelot, P., ‘Le Papyrus pascal d'Éléphantine et le probléme du Pentateuque’, VT 5 (1955), 250–65.
Gunkel, Hermann, ‘Psalmen’, in Hermann Gunkel and Leopold Zscharnack (eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, 2nd edn., 5 vols. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1927–31), iv (1930), cols. 1609–27 (ET The
Psalms, trans. Thomas M. Horner, Facet Books Biblical Series, 19 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1967; repr.
1989)).
Gunneweg, A. H. J., Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals,
FRLANT 89 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965).
—— Esra, KAT 19.1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985).
—— Nehemia, KAT 19.2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1987).
Halpern, Baruch, ‘The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song’, CBQ 40 (1978), 167–90.
Hammershaimb, E., ‘Ezekiel's View of the Monarchy’, in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario a.
d. vii id. Nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis discipulis amicis dicata (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), 130–40.
Hanhart, Robert (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum,
IX: Maccabaeorum liber II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959).
Hanson, Paul D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1975).
Hanson, Richard Simon, ‘Toward a Chronology of the Hasmonean Coins’, BASOR 216 (1974), 21–3.
Haran, Menahem, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978; repr. with corrections
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985).
—— ‘The Law-Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and its Relation to the Priestly School’, HUCA 50 (1979), 45–71.
—— ‘Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source’, JBL 100 (1981), 321–33.
—— ‘Priesthood, Temple, Divine Service: Some Observations on Institutions and Practices of Worship’, HAR 7
(1983), 121–35.
Hardy, E. R., Jr, ‘The Date of Psalm 110’, JBL 64 (1945), 385–90.
Hartley, John E., Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1992).
Hauer, Christian E., Jr, ‘Who Was Zadok?’, JBL 82 (1963), 89–94.
Hayes, John H., and Miller, J. Maxwell (eds.), Israelite & Judaean History, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1977).
Hayward, C. T. R. (Robert), ‘The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration’, JJS 33 (1982), 429–43.
340 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hayward, C. T. R. (Robert), The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 1996).
Hengel, Martin, Judentum und Hellenismus, 2. Auflage, WUNT 10 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973)
(ET Judaism and Hellenism, trans. John Bowden, 2 vols. (London: SCM Press, 1974)).
Hengel, M., Charlesworth, J. H., and Mendels, D., ‘The Polemical Character of “On Kingship” in the Temple Scroll:
An Attempt at Dating IIQTemple’, JJS 37 (1986), 28–38.
Herbert, A. S., Genesis 12–50, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1962).
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm, Die Samuelbücher, 2. Auflage, ATD 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960)
(ET I & II Samuel, trans. John Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1964)).
Higgins, A. J. B., ‘Priest and Messiah’, VT 3 (1953), 321–36.
Hobbs, T. R., 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985).
Hoglund, Kenneth G., Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBL
Dissertation Series, 125 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992).
Horton, Fred L., Jr, The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
Houtman, C., ‘On the Pomegranates and Golden Bells of the High Priest's Mantle’, VT 40 (1990), 223–9.
—— ‘On the Function of the Holy Incense (Exodus xxx 34–8) and the Sacred Anointing Oil (Exodus xxx 22–33)’,
VT 42 (1992), 458–65.
Hurvitz, Avi, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old
Problem, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 20 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982).
—— ‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen’, ZAW
100 Supplement (1988), 88–100.
Hyatt, J. P., Exodus, NCB (London: Oliphants/Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971).
Jaeger, Werner, ‘Greeks and Jews: The First Records of Jewish Religion and Civilization’, JR 18 (1938), 127–43.
Jagersma, H., A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1985).
Japhet, Sara, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18
(1968), 330–71.
—— ‘Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of
Ezra-Nehemiah’, ZAW 94 (1982), 66–98, and 95 (1983), 218–29.
—— The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1989).
—— ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 341
VTSupp 43 (1991), 298–313.

—— I & II Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1993).
Jefferson, Helen Genevieve, ‘Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?’, JBL 73 (1954), 152–6.
Jenson, Philip Peter, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTS 106 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1992).
Johnson, Aubrey R., Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 2nd edn. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967).
Johnson, Marshall D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 2nd edn., SNTSMS 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988).
Jones, G. H., 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,
1984).
—— 1 & 2 Chronicles, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Katzenstein, H. J., ‘Some Remarks on the Lists of the Chief Priests of the Temple of Solomon’, JBL 81 (1962), 377–84.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (New York: Schocken, 1972).
Kellermann, Diether, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 11 bis 1010 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970).
Kellermann, Ulrich, ‘Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung’, ZAW 80 (1968), 55–87.
Kennett, R. H., ‘The Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood’, JTS 6 (1905), 161–86.
Kidner, Derek, Ezra & Nehemiah, TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1979).
Kissane, E. J., ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 110’, Irish Theological Quarterly, 21 (1954), 103–14.
Klein, Ralph W., 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983).
—— ‘Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of ’, in ABD ii. 731–42.
Knohl, Israel, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995).
Kobelski, Paul J., Melchizedek and Melchirešaʽ, CBQ Monograph Series, 10 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1981).
Koch, Klaus, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 173–97.
—— Die Profeten, II: Babylonisch-persische Zeit (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1980) (ET The Prophets, II: The Babylonian and
Persian Periods, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1983)).
—— ‘P—Kein Redaktor!: Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung’, VT 37 (1987), 446–67.
Köhler, L., ‘Eine archaistische Wortgruppe’, ZAW 46 (n.s. 5) (1928), 218–20.
Kraemer, David, ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993), 73–92.
342 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalmen, II, 3. Auflage, BKAT XV/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966)
(ET Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis, Minn. : Augsburg, 1989)).
Kuenen, Abraham, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1887–92), i. 2
(1890).
Kuhrt, Amélie, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT 25 (1983), 83–97.
Laato, Antti, ‘Zachariah 4,6b–10a and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions’, ZAW 106 (1994), 53–69.
Landau, Y. H., ‘A Greek Inscription Found near Hefzibah’, IEJ 16 (1966), 54–70.
Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, ‘Le Régime théocratique juif a-t-il commencé à l'époque perse, ou seulement à l'époque
hellenistique?’, Semitica, 32 (1982), 93–6.
Lapp, Paul W., ‘Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from Judah’, BASOR 172 (1963), 22–35.
Lemke, Werner, ‘Life in the Present and Hope for the Future’, in James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (eds.),
Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1987), 200–14.
Levenson, Jon Douglas, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1976).
Liebesny, H., ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien
und Phönikien (PER Inv. Nr. 24.552 gr.)’, Aegyptus, 16 (1936), 257–91.
Lipiński, E., ‘Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie’, VT 20 (1970), 25–55.
Lods, Adolphe, Israël des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, L'Évolution de L'Humanité Synthèse Collective 27 (Paris: La
Renaissance du Livre, 1930) (ET Israel from its Beginnings to the Middle of the Eighth Century, trans. S. H. Hooke
(London: Kegan Paul, 1932)).
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr, I Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980).
—— II Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984).
McConville, J. Gordon, ‘Abraham and Melchizedek: Horizons in Genesis 14’, in Richard S. Hess, Gordon J. Wenham
and Philip E. Satterthwaite (eds.), He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, Tyndale House Studies
(Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994).
McCullough, John C., ‘Melchizedek's Varied Role in Early Exegetical Tradition’, NETR 1.2 (1978), 52–66.
McCullough, W. Stewart, The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod 550 BC to 4 BC (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1975).
McKay, John, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, SBT Second Series 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY 343
(London: SCM Press, 1973).

McKeating, Henry, Ezekiel, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Marcus, Ralph (trans.), Josephus, VI: Jewish Antiquities Books IX–XI, LCL (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937; repr. 1958).
—— Josephus, VII: Jewish Antiquities Books XII–XIV, LCL (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1943; repr. 1986).
Margolis, Max, ‘The Elephantine Documents’, JQR n.s. 2 (1911–12), 419–43.
Marinkovic, Peter, ‘Was wissen wir über den zweiten Tempel aus Sach 1–8?’, in Rüdiger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger
and Helmut Utzschneider (eds.), Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag, OBO
126 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitäts-verlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 281–95.
Martin, James D., The Book of Judges, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
Mason, Rex, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1977; repr.
1980).
—— ‘The Purpose of the “Editorial Framework” of the Book of Haggai’, VT 27 (1977), 413–21.
—— ‘The Prophets of the Restoration’, in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
—— ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London:
SCM Press; Philadelphia, Pa.: Trinity, 1990), 312–14.
Mauchline, John, 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971).
Mayes, A. D. H., Deuteronomy, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1979).
—— The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile (London: SCM Press, 1983).
Mazar, B., ‘The Tobiads’, IEJ 7 (1957), 137–45, 229–38.
Medico, H. E. Del, ‘Melchisédech’, ZAW 69 (1957), 160–70.
Meek, Theophile James, ‘Aaronites and Zadokites’, AJSLL 45 (1929), 149–66.
Mendels, Doron, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish “patrios politeia” of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL,3)’,
ZAW 95 (1983), 96–110.
Meshorer, Ya akov, Ancient Jewish Coinage, I: Persian Period through Hasmoneans (New York: Amphora Books, 1982).
—— ‘Ancient Jewish Coinage Addendum I’, INJ 11 (1990–1), 104–32 and plates 17–32.
Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M., Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987).
344 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michaeli, Frank, Les Livres des Chroniques, d'Esdras et de Néhémie, CAT 16 (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1967).
—— Le Livre de L'Exode, CAT 2 (Neuchâtel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1974).
Mildenberg, Leo, ‘Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea’, in Otto Mørkholm and Nancy M.
Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren: Éditions NR,
1979), 183–96 and plates 21–2.
—— ‘Yǝhud-Münzen’, in Helga Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie (Munich: C. H.
Beck, 1988), 721–8.
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991).
Millar, Fergus, ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel's “Judaism and
Hellenism” ’, JJS 29 (1978), 1–21.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and Hayes, John H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London: SCM Press, 1986).
The Mishnah, ed. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; repr. 1977).
Mitchell, Hinckley G., Smith, John Merlin Powis, and Bewer, Julius A., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912).
Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze, Les Juifs d'Égypte, de Ramsès II à Hadrien (Paris: Éditions Armand Colin, 1992) (ET The
Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1995)).
Mölleken, Wolfgang, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus Hoherpriester?)’, ZAW 65
(1953), 205–28.
Montgomery, James A., The Books of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951).
Moore, George F., Judges, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895).
Morgenstern, J., ‘Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel’, HUCA 10 (1935), 1–148.
—— ‘A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood’, AJSLL 55 (1938), 1–24, 183–97, 360–77.
Mowinckel, Sigmund, Ezra den Skriftlærde (Kristiania: Universitets Forlaget, 1916).
—— The Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, 2 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962).
Murray, Oswyn, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship’, JEA 56 (1970), 141–71.
Muuss, Rudolf, ‘Der Jahwetempel in Elephantine’, ZAW 36 (1916), 81–107.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 345
Myers, Jacob M., ‘Judges’, in IB ii (1953), 675–826.

—— I Chronicles, AB 12 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
—— II Chronicles, AB 13 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
—— Ezra-Nehemiah, AB 14 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
Nelson, Richard D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).
—— ‘The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History’, VTSupp 43 (1991), 132–47.
Newsome, James D., Jr, ‘Towards a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–17.
Nicholson, Ernest, ‘Deuteronomy's Vision of Israel’, in Daniele Garrone and Felice Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizioni di
Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1991), 191–203.
—— The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jr, ‘Simon—a Priest with a Reputation for Faithfulness’, BASOR 223 (1976), 67–8.
North, Francis Sparling, ‘Aaron's Rise in Prestige’, ZAW 66 (1954), 191–9.
—— ‘Critical Analysis of the Book of Haggai’, ZAW 68 (1956), 25–46.
North, Robert, ‘Theology of the Chronicler’, JBL 82 (1963), 369–81.
Noth, Martin, ‘Das deuteronomistische Werk (Dtr)’, in id., Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer,
1943), 3–110 (ET The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981)).
—— Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1948) (ET A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans.
Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972)).
—— Geschichte Israels, 2. Auflage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954) (ET The History of Israel, trans. S.
Godman, 2nd edn., rev. P. R. Ackroyd (London: A. & C. Black, 1960; repr. 1965)).
—— Amt und Berufung im Alten Testament: Rektoratsrede an der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 1958,
Bonner Akademische Reden 19 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1958);
repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 3rd enlarged edn. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966), 309–33
(ET ‘Office and Vocation in the Old Testament’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas
(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 229–49).
—— Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, ATD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959 (ET Exodus, trans. J. S.
Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1962)).
—— Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus, ATD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) (ET Leviticus, trans. J. E.
Anderson, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1965, 1977)).
346 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Noth, Martin, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, ATD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) (ET Numbers, trans.
James D. Martin, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1968, 1980)).
O'Brien, Mark A., The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, OBO 92 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).
Ó Fearghail, Fearghas, ‘Sir 50,5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole Offering?’, Biblica, 59 (1978), 301–16.
Oesterley, W. O. E., A History of Israel, II: From the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, A.D. 135 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1932; repr. 1951).
Olyan, Saul M., ‘Zadok's Origins and the Tribal Politics of David’, JBL 101 (1982), 177–93.
Petersen, David L., ‘Zerubbabel and Temple Reconstruction’, CBQ 36 (1974), 366–72.
—— ‘Zechariah's Visions: A Theological Perspective’, VT 34 (1984), 195–206.
—— Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1985).
Petersen, John E., ‘Priestly Materials in Joshua 13–22: A Return to the Hexateuch?’, HAR 4 (1980), 131–46.
Petitjean, Albert, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre; Louvain: Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste,
1965).
Petuchowski, Jakob J., ‘The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek’, HUCA 28 (1957), 127–36.
Phillips, Anthony, Deuteronomy, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Plöger, Otto, Theokratie und Eschatologie (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959) (ET Theocracy and
Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968)).
Polzin, Robert, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSM 12 (Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1976).
Porten, Bezalel, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968).
—— and Yardeni, A. (eds.), Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, The Hebrew University Department of
the History of the Jewish People Texts and Studies for Students, 4 vols. (distributed by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake,
Ind. 1986–), i (1986): Letters.
Porter, J. R., ‘Son or Grandson (Ezra x. 6)?’, JTS n.s. 17 (1966), 54–67.
Preisigke, F., Bilabel, F., and Kiessling, E. (eds.), Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten (Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1955).
Propp, William H. C., ‘The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?’, VT 46 (1996), 458–78.
Rabin, C., ‘Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees’, JJS 7 (1956), 3–11.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 347
Rad, Gerhard von, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, 5. Auflage, ATD 2–4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) (ET
Genesis, trans. John H. Marks, rev. edn. by John Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1972; repr. 1979)).
—— Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium, ATD 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964) (ET Deuteronomy, trans.
Dorothea Barton, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1966)).
Rahmani, L. Y., ‘Silver Coins of the Fourth Century B.C. from Tel Gamma’, IEJ 21 (1971), 158–60 and plate 31.
Rajak, Tessa, ‘Hasmonean Dynasty’, in ABD iii. 67–76.
Rappaport, Uriel, ‘The First Judean Coinage’, JJS 32 (1981), 1–17.
Redditt, Paul L., ‘Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Night Visions of Zechariah’, CBQ 54 (1992), 249–59.
—— Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995).
Rendtorff, Rolf, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1977) (ET The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. John J. Scullion, JSOTS 89
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990)).
—— Leviticus, BKAT 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–)
Reventlow, Henning Graf, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi, ATD 25.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993).
Riley, William, King and Cultus in Chronicles, JSOTS 160 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Robinson, H. Wheeler, Deuteronomy and Joshua, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.).
Robinson, J., The First Book of Kings, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
—— The Second Book of Kings, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
Robinson, Theodore H., and Horst, Friedrich, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, HAT 14 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1938).
Rogerson, J. W., and McKay, J. W., Psalms 101–150, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Rooke, Deborah W., ‘Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy’, in
John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar,
JSOTS 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 187–208.
Rosenberg, Roy, ‘The God Ṣedeq’, HUCA 36 (1965), 161–77.
Rostovtzeff, M., A Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941; reissued
1986).
Rowley, H. H., ‘Zadok and Nehushtan’, JBL 58 (1939), 113–41.
348 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rowley, H. H., ‘Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110)’, in W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Alfred
Bertholet (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1950), 461–72.
—— ‘The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study’, in id., Men of God (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1963),
169–210.
—— ‘The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’, in id., The Servant of the Lord, 2nd rev. edn. (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1965), 137–68.
—— ‘Melchizedek and David’, VT 17 (1967), 485.
Rudolph, Wilhelm, Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra, HAT 20 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949).
—— Chronikbücher, HAT 21 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955).
—— Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi, KAT 13.4 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn,
1976).
Russell, D. S., The Jews from Alexander to Herod, New Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967).
Ryle, Herbert Edward, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893; repr.
1907).
—— and James, M. R., The Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891).
Sayce, A. H., ‘The Jewish Garrison and Temple in Elephantinê’, The Expositor, 8th Series, 2 (1911), 97–116.
—— ‘The Jews and their Temple in Elephantinê’, The Expositor, 8th Series, 2 (1911), 417–34.
Schaper, Joachim, ‘The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration’, VT 45 (1995),
528–39.
Scharbert, Josef, Exodus, NEB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989).
—— Numeri, NEB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992).
Schreiner, Stefan, ‘Psalm cx und die Investitur des Hohenpriesters’, VT 27 (1977), 216–22.
Schunk, Klaus-Dietrich, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker? Die Stellung der Hohenpriester von Jaddua bis Jonatan zur
jüdischen Gemeinde und zum hellenistischen Staat’, VT 44 (1994), 498–512.
Schwartz, Daniel R., ‘On Some Papyri and Josephus' Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period’, JSJ 21 (1990),
175–99.
Schwartz, Seth, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: I Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion’, JJS 42 (1991),
16–38.
—— ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.’, JJS 45 (1994), 157–68.
Seters, John Van, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975).
Shutt, R. J. H., ‘Letter of Aristeas: A New Introduction and Translation’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old
Testament Pseud-epigrapha,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 349
ii (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 7–34.

Sievers, Joseph, ‘The Role of Women in the Hasmonean Dynasty’, in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds.),
Josephus, the Bible and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 132–46.
—— The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I, South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism, 6 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990).
Simpson, Cuthbert A., ‘Genesis’, in IB i (1952), 437–829.
Skeat, T. C. (ed.), Greek Papyri in the British Museum, VII: The Zenon Archive (London: British Museum Publications,
1974).
Skehan, Patrick W., and Di Lella, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987).
Skinner, John, I & II Kings, Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.).
—— The Book of Ezekiel, The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895).
—— Genesis, 2nd edn., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930).
Smith, Daniel L., ‘The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society’, in Philip R. Davies (ed.),
Second Temple Studies, 1: The Persian Period, JSOTS 117 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 73–97.
Smith, George Adam, The Book of Deuteronomy, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918).
Smith, Henry Preserved, The Books of Samuel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899).
Smith, Morton, ‘Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period’, in W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (eds.), Cambridge
History of Judaism, 1: Introduction; The Persian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 219–78.
—— Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, 2nd edn. (London: SCM Press, 1987).
Smith, Ralph L., Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984).
Smith, Robert Houston, ‘Abram and Melchizedek’, ZAW 77 (1965), 129–53.
Smith, W. F., ‘A Study of the Zadokite High Priesthood within the Graeco-Roman Age: From Simeon the Just to the
High Priests Appointed by Herod the Great’ (unpublished thesis, Harvard University, 1961).
Snaith, John G., Ecclesiasticus, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).
Snaith, N. H., ‘The Priesthood and the Temple’, in T. W. Manson (ed.), A Companion to the Bible (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1939; repr. 1945), 418–43.
350 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Snaith, N. H., ‘The First and Second Books of Kings’, in IB iii (1954), 1–338.
—— Leviticus and Numbers, Century Bible New Edition (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967).
Soggin, J. Alberto, Le Livre des Juges, CAT 5b (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987).
Spaer, Arnold, ‘Jaddua the High Priest?’, INJ 9 (1986–7), 1–3 and plate 2.
Speiser, E. A.,'Background and Function of the Biblical nāśîʼ, CBQ 25 (1963), 111–17.
—— Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964).
Spieckermann, Hermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).
Stähelin, Felix, ‘Elephantine und Leontopolis’, ZAW 28 (1908), 180–2.
Steckoll, S. H., ‘The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis’, Revue de Qumran, 6 (1967), 55–69.
Sterling, Gregory E., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, NTSupp 64 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1992).
Stern, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I: From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1974).
Sturdy, John, Numbers, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
Talshir, David, ‘A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’, VT 38
(1988), 165–93.
Tcherikover, Victor, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews (Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961).
—— and Fuks, Alexander (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1957–64), i (1957).
Thoma, Clemens, ‘John Hyrcanus I as Seen by Josephus and Other Early Jewish Sources’, in Fausto Parente and
Joseph Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 127–40.
Thomas, D. Winton, ‘The Book of Haggai’, in IB vi (1956), 1035–49.
—— ‘The Book of Zechariah 1–8’, in IB vi (1956), 1053–88.
Throntveit, Mark A., ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, VT 32
(1982), 201–16.
Tidwell, N. L., ‘The Linen Ephod: 1 Sam. ii 18 and 2 Sam. vi 14’, VT 24 (1974), 505–7.
—— ‘Wāʼōmar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah's Fourth Vision’, JBL 94 (1975), 343–55.
Tollington, Janet E., Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, JSOTS 150 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Tournay, R., ‘Le Psaume cx’, RB 67 (1960), 5–41.
Treves, Marco, ‘Two Acrostic Psalms’, VT 15 (1965), 81–90.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 351
—— The Dates of the Psalms: History and Poetry in Ancient Israel (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1988).
Tuell, Steven Shawn, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992).
VanderKam, James, ‘Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?’, in Gary Anderson and Saul M.
Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, JSOTS 125 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 67–91.
—— ‘Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3’, CBQ 53 (1991), 553–70.
Vaux, R. de, Les Institutions de L'Ancien Testament, 2 vols. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1958–60 (ET Ancient Israel: Its Life
and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961)).
Vawter, Bruce, On Genesis (London: Cassell and Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1977).
Vermes, Geza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1997).
Vincent, Albert, La Religion des Judéo-Araméens d'Éléphantine (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1937).
Vries, Simon J. De, ‘Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–39.
Wacholder, Ben Zion, ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’, in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds.), Josephus, the
Bible and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 147–72.
Walbank, F. W., ‘Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas’, in F. W. Walbank et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, VII Part
I: The Hellenistic World, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 62–100.
Ward, William A., ‘Temples and Sanctuaries: Egypt’, in ABD vi. 369–72.
Weinberg, Joel, ‘Administration in the Achaemenid Empire’, in id., The Citizen-Temple Community, trans. Daniel L. Smith-
Christopher, JSOTS 151 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 105–26.
Weiser, Artur, Die Psalmen, II: Psalm 61–150, 7. Auflage, ATD 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).
Welch, Adam C., Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1935).
—— The Work of the Chronicler (London: The British Academy, 1939).
Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2. Ausgabe (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1883).
—— ‘Israel’, in id., Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: A. & C.
Black, 1885), 427–548.
Wenham, G. J., ‘Were David's Sons Priests?’, ZAW 87 (1975), 79–82.
—— Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987).
Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12–50, BKAT 1/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
352 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Neukirchener Verlag, 1977–82) (ET Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Scullion (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg;
London: SPCK, 1985)).
Wevers, John W., Ezekiel, Century Bible New Series (London: Thomas Nelson, 1969).
Whybray, R. N., Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975).
Widengren, Geo, ‘The Persian Period. §2A: The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’, in John H. Hayes and
J. Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite & Judaean History, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1977), 503–9.
Williamson, H. G. M., ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT 26 (1976), 351–61.
—— ‘The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities XI.297–301’, JTS n.s. 28 (1977), 49–66.
—— Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
—— ‘The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses’, VTSupp 30 (1979), 251–68.
—— 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982).
—— ‘The Composition of Ezra i–vi’, JTS n.s. 34 (1983), 1–30.
—— Ezra-Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985).
—— Ezra and Nehemiah, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
—— ‘The Governors of Judah under the Persians’, Tyndale Bulletin, 39 (1988), 59–82.
Wolff, Hans Walter, Dodekapropheton 6: Haggai, BKAT 14/6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986) (ET
Haggai: A Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1988)).
Woude, A. S. van der, ‘Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the
Habakkuk Commentary’, JJS 33 (1982), 349–59.
—— review of Studies in the Hasmonean Period by Joshua Efron, in JSJ 20 (1989), 91–4.
Wright, G. Ernest, ‘Deuteronomy’, in IB ii (1953), 309–537.
Wright, John Wesley, ‘Guarding the Gates: I Chronicles 26:1–19 and the Roles of Gatekeepers in Chronicles’, JSOT 48
(1990), 69–81.
—— ‘The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of I Chronicles 23–27’, JBL 110 (1991), 229–42.
Yarden, Leon, ‘Aaron, Bethel and the Priestly Menorah’, JJS 26 (1975), 39–47.
Zeitlin, Solomon, The First Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).
—— The Second Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954).
Zevit, Ziony, ‘Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P’, ZAW 94 (1982), 481–511.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 353
Zimmerli, Walther, Ezechiel 1–24, 2. Auflage, BKAT 13/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) (ET Ezekiel
1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1979)).
—— Ezechiel 25–48, 2. Auflage, BKAT 13/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) (ET Ezekiel 2, trans.
James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1983)).
Zwickel, Wolfgang, ‘Die Kultreform des Ahas (2 Kön 16, 10–18)’, SJOT 7 (1993), 250–62.
Index of Textual
References
Note: For Old Testament references where the Hebrew and English
versification differ, verse numbers in the Hebrew are followed by H
and those in the English translation by E.
1. Old and New Testament

Genesis ; 12 83; 13 83; 14 82, 83, 84, 102 n. 75; 14: 1–11
82, 83; 14: 12–24 83; 14: 12–17 83; 14: 12 82; 14: 13
83; 14: 18–20 6, 80, 82–90, 94, 101, 102; 14: 18 84, 86,
101, 102; 14: 21–4 83; 15: 7 107; 17: 8 107; 23 83; 33:
18 85; 49: 8–12 92
Exodus, book of 1, 14, 15; 24: 13 38; 25–31 36; 25: 10–27:
21 16; 25: 10–22 50 n. 15; 25: 10–15 192; 25: 31–6 31
n. 50; 26: 1–27: 8 192; 26: 31 17; 26: 33 50; 27 31 n. 49;
27: 2 31 n. 49; 28: 1–43 16; 28: 1–3 52; 28: 1 57, 161;
28: 2–39 28; 28: 3 16; 28: 5–30 61; 28: 5–14 17; 28: 6
17; 28: 15–30 18; 28: 15 19, 158 n. 22; 28: 28–30 158 n.
22; 28: 30 34, 61, 157 n. 17; 28: 31–5 17; 28: 36 18; 28:
37 18; 28: 39 18; 28: 40–3 61; 28: 41 20 n. 24; 29:
1–37 20; 29: 5–6 28; 29: 6 18; 29: 7 20; 29: 21 20; 29:
29 20 n. 23; 29: 38–42 12 n. 2; 30: 1–10 21; 32: 11–14
164; 32: 25–8 164; 33: 11 38; 39: 1–31 16,
INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES 355
28; 39: 2–7 17; 39: 30 18; 40: 12–15 161; 40: 13 20 n.
23; 40: 14–15 20 n. 24
Leviticus, book of 14, 15, 26, 36, 290; 1–7 14n., 36; 1: 5 23 n.
36; 4: 1–21 22, 23 n. 36; 4: 3–4 23 n. 36; 4: 3 20 n. 23,
22, 23, 27, 28, 291; 4: 5 20 n. 23, 22, 27, 28, 291; 4: 6 22;
4: 7 22; 4: 10 22; 4: 13–21 30; 4: 13 23; 4: 16 20 n. 23,
22, 23, 27, 28, 291; 4: 17 22; 4: 20 22; 4: 22–6 35; 6: 1–2
(H) 29; 6: 8–9 (E) 29; 6: 13 (H) 20 n. 23; 6: 15 (H) 20 n.
23, 27, 28, 291; 6: 20 (E) 20 n. 23; 6: 22 (E) 20 n. 23, 27,
28, 291; 7: 31 29; 7: 34–6 30 n. 48; 7: 35–6 29; 7: 36 20
n. 24; 8–10 14n.; 8: 1–36 20; 8: 5–22 30; 8: 5–9 16; 8:
5 30; 8: 6–15 30; 8: 6–12 37; 8: 7–9 28; 8: 8 34, 151 n.
69, 157 n. 17; 8: 9 18; 8: 10–17 75; 8: 10–12 20; 8: 11
30; 8: 12 20; 8: 20 30; 8: 21 30; 8: 30 20; 9: 1–24 20; 9:
8–9 23 n. 36; 9: 18 23 n. 36; 10: 1–7 23, 31, 32; 10: 1–3
210 n. 53; 10: 6–11 29; 10: 7 20 n. 24; 10: 8–11 23, 26,
29; 10: 9–11 38; 10: 9 24; 10: 10–11 33, 34, 76; 10: 10
139; 10: 11 24, 29; 10: 16–20 36; 11–15 14n.; 12 36; 14:
1–32 36; 15: 1–2 36 n. 59; 15: 2 36 n. 59; 16–27 36; 16
14n., 24; 16: 2–3 50; 16: 3–4 24; 16: 6 23 n. 36; 16: 11
23 n. 36; 16: 15–25 30; 16: 23–5 25; 16: 32 20 n. 23, 23,
27, 28; 17–26 13n., 14n., 25; 19: 29 14n.; 19: 33–4 14n.;
21–2 25; 21: 1–22: 9 15; 21: 1–15 25 n. 41; 21: 10–15
25; 21: 10 16, 20 n. 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 74 n. 75; 21: 11
289; 21: 12
356 INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES
20 n. 23; 21: 14 25; 22: 2 29; 23: 24–5 24; 24: 1–4 31 n.
50; 24: 5–9 21, 61; 24: 8 61; 24: 9 61; 24: 10–23 37 n.
61; 25: 9 24; 25: 29–31 14n.; 25: 44 14n.; 27 14n.
Numbers, book of 14, 15, 26, 27, 36, 290; 1: 47–2: 31 114 n.
24; 2: 1–2 36 n. 59; 2: 34 36 n. 59; 3: 1–4 29, 35; 3: 3 20
n. 24, 35; 3: 4 35; 3: 10 35; 4: 1–7 192; 4: 15 192; 5–6
36; 6: 1–21 19; 6: 6–8 25 n. 40; 6: 22–7 29, 55; 7 36; 8
36; 9 36; 9: 6–14 37 n. 61; 15 36; 15: 32–6 36, 37 n. 61;
15: 33–5 27 n. 45; 16: 1–17: 26 (H) 57 n. 30; 16: 1–17: 15
(H) 31; 16: 1–17: 11 (E) 57 n. 30; 16: 1–17: 5 (H) 210 n.
53; 16: 1–50 (E) 31; 16: 1–40 (E) 210 n. 53; 16: 1–14 32
n. 52; 16: 8–11 29; 16: 40 (E) 31; 16: 41–50 (E) 31; 16:
46–50 (E) 36; 17: 1–13 (E) 26, 31, 37; 17: 1–10 (E) 50;
17: 5 (H) 31; 17: 6–15 (H) 31; 17: 7–11 (E) 32; 17:
11–15 (H) 36; 17: 13 (E) 27; 17: 16–28 (H) 26, 31, 37;
17: 16–25 (H) 50; 17: 17 (H) 36; 17: 21 (H) 36; 17: 22–6
(H) 32; 17: 28 (H) 27; 18 26; 18: 1–24 23 n. 38, 26, 29;
18: 1–20 29; 18: 1 26, 38, 161; 18: 5 26, 38; 18: 7 161;
18: 25–32 36; 19: 1–10 309; 19: 1–3 36 n. 59; 19: 1 36
n. 59; 19: 2 36 n. 59; 19: 3 36 n. 59; 20: 22–9 16, 32, 33;
20: 25–9 52; 20: 27 32; 20: 29 37; 25 52 n. 18, 281 n.
43; 25: 10–13 52, 281; 25: 13 52 n. 18; 26 33; 27: 2–7
27 n. 45; 27: 5–11 36; 27: 12–23 33; 27: 20 38; 27: 21
33, 39, 61; 28–30 36; 31 33; 31: 3 33; 31: 12–13 33; 31:
12 205; 31: 21–4 33; 31: 25–31 33; 31: 25–7 205; 31:
26 33; 31: 29 33; 31: 31
33; 31: 41–7 33; 31: 41 33; 31: 48–50 33; 31: 51 33,
205; 31: 54 33, 205; 32: 2 33; 32: 28 33; 34: 17 33, 205;
35–6 36; 35: 9–34 46; 35: 22–34 27; 35: 25 20 n. 23, 28,
53, 74 n. 75; 35: 28 28, 53, 74 n. 75; 35: 32 28
Deuteronomy, book of 6, 37 n. 61, 43, 44 n. 45, 45–7, 50, 53,
54, 76, 180 n. 31, 193; 1: 16 98; 5: 1–26: 19 164; 7: 1–5
164; 8: 8 137; 9: 20 54; 10: 1–5 50 n. 15; 10: 2 50; 10: 5
50; 10: 6 54; 10: 12–13 50; 12 49n.; 12: 2–14 43, 45; 12:
8–11 49n.; 12: 8 49n.; 12: 13–14 45; 12: 16 45; 12:
17–18 45; 12: 23–4 45; 12: 26–7 45; 16: 1–17 45; 16: 2
45; 16: 5–7 45; 16: 15 45; 16: 16 45; 17: 8–12 47; 17:
8–10 45; 17: 8 208; 17: 9 45; 17: 12 46; 17: 14–20 35,
47, 51; 17: 18–20 49; 17: 18 76, 164; 17: 19 45; 18: 1–8
45, 46, 54; 18: 1–7 57 n. 30; 18: 3–4 45; 18: 5 46; 18:
6–7 45; 18: 7 46; 18: 15–22 37 n. 61, 45; 18: 15–20 47
n. 9, 59; 18: 21–2 59; 19: 1–13 27, 46; 20: 16–18 164;
21: 5 45, 54; 24: 8 45; 26: 2 45; 26: 3–4 47 n. 8; 26: 3
47; 32: 50 54; 33: 7 92; 33: 8 19; 33: 9b–10 76; 33: 10
164; 34: 8 32; 34: 10 47 n. 9
Joshua—2 Kings 43
Joshua, book of 12, 52, 53, 54, 285, 290; 3 52 n. 19; 3: 3 52 n.
19; 3: 8 52 n. 19; 3: 13 52 n. 19; 3: 14 52 n. 19; 3: 17 52
n. 19; 4 52 n. 19; 4: 9 52 n. 19; 4: 11 52 n. 19; 4: 16 52
n. 19; 4: 17 52 n. 19; 4: 18 52 n. 19; 13: 15–19: 51 107;
14: 1 53, 54,
205; 17: 4 53, 54; 19: 51 53, 54, 205; 20: 1–9 46; 20: 6
53; 21: 1 53; 22 54; 22: 13 53; 22: 30 53; 22: 31 53; 22:
32 53; 24: 33 53
Judges, book of 49, 52, 53, 285; 2: 16 284; 2: 18 284; 3: 11
285; 3: 30 285; 5: 31 285; 6–8 284; 8: 27 17 n. 10; 8: 28
285; 10: 3 284; 12: 7 284; 17–18 59; 17: 1–13 51, 206;
17: 5 17 n. 10; 17: 6 49; 17: 12 59; 18: 19–20 59; 19: 10
85; 19: 11 85; 20: 27–8 53
Samuel, books of 12, 53, 54, 55, 70n., 81
1 Samuel 99, 285; 1–3 57; 1: 3 55; 1: 9 54, 55; 2: 11 54; 2:
12–17 55; 2: 18 17 nn. 10, 11; 58; 2: 20 55; 2: 21 55; 2:
27–36 57, 63; 2: 27–8 57; 2: 35 57 n. 27, 204; 3: 1–18
59; 3: 1 55; 3: 3 50; 3: 19 59; 3: 20 58; 4: 3–4 56; 4:
12–14 56; 4: 18b 55, 56; 7: 6 58; 7: 15–17 58; 7: 16–17
59; 8: 4–9 51; 8: 19–20 282; 8: 20b 282; 9: 6 58; 9: 7
58; 9: 8 58; 9: 10 58; 9: 11 58; 9: 18 58; 9: 19 58; 10:
17–19 51; 11: 1–11 285; 12: 12–15 51; 13: 8–14 100;
14: 3 19, 54, 59, 63, 206, 207; 14: 18–19 19, 62; 14: 18
59; 14: 19 59, 60; 14: 31–5 100; 14: 33–5 60; 14: 36 54,
59, 60, 62; 15: 10–23 100; 16: 4 59; 19: 20 58; 21–2 60;
21 61; 21: 1–6 (E) 22; 21: 1 (E) 54; 21: 2–7 (H) 22; 21:
2 (E) 60; 21: 2 (H) 54; 21: 3 (H) 60; 21: 4–6 (E) 61; 21:
5–7 (H) 61; 22 61; 22: 12–17
60; 22: 15 61; 22: 18 17 nn. 10, 11; 61; 22: 20–3 54; 22:
20 54, 60 n. 35, 64, 206, 207; 22: 22–3 59, 62; 23: 6 62,
71; 23: 9 62, 71; 24: 6 (E) 51; 24: 7 (H) 51; 24: 10 (E)
51; 24: 11 (H) 51; 26: 9 51; 26: 11 51; 26: 16 51; 27: 6
295n.; 30: 7 62, 71
2 Samuel 99; 1: 14 21 n. 29; 6 71 n. 70; 6: 1–19 57, 71, 81 n.
6; 6: 3 68, 71 n. 69; 6: 4 71 n. 69; 6: 12–19 52, 192; 6:
14–19 62; 7: 1–29 190; 7: 4–17 51; 8: 17 54, 62, 63, 66,
70, 202, 206; 8: 18 51n.; 12: 1–15 71; 15: 24–9 62, 70,
71; 15: 25–9 70n.; 15: 35–6 62, 70; 17: 15 70; 19: 11 (E)
70; 19: 12 (H) 70; 20: 25 62, 70; 23: 20–3 213; 24:
11–13 71; 24: 18 71
Kings, books of 12, 49, 53, 54, 81
1 Kings ; 1–2 204; 1: 24–6 54; 1: 5–48 70; 1: 38–9 201; 2:
26–7 62; 2: 26 70; 2: 27 63, 70, 204, 206 n. 47; 2: 35 54,
63, 70, 204, 206 n. 47; 4: 1–5 69, 71 n. 70; 4: 2–3 69 n.
67; 4: 2 54, 69, 70, 194 n. 19, 200; 4: 3 69 n. 67; 4: 4 69;
6: 1–38 49; 8 71 n. 70; 8: 1–66 71, 81 n. 6; 8: 1–13 50;
8: 3 71 n. 70; 8: 4 71 n. 70; 8: 5 75; 8: 6 71 n. 70; 8: 9
50; 8: 10 71 n. 70; 8: 11 71 n. 70; 8: 12–50 191; 8:
14–66 52; 8: 57–8 50; 8: 61 50; 8: 62–4 75; 9: 1–9 191;
9: 1–5 51; 9: 6–9 51; 9: 25 192; 12: 26–13: 1 52; 12:
26–33 49; 12: 31 54; 12: 32–13: 1 81 n. 6; 14: 15–16 23
n. 37; 14: 19 48 n. 11; 14: 29 48 n. 11; 15: 9–15 49; 15:
14–15 49; 15: 26 49; 16: 13
49; 17–19 48 n. 10
2 Kings 12, 78, 290; 1 48 n. 10; 2: 13–14 33 n. 53; 3: 4–27 48
n. 10; 6: 8–23 48 n. 10; 8: 17–22 190; 11–12 54; 11:
1–20 77, 209, 316 n. 27; 11: 4–12 316 n. 27; 11: 4–9 73;
11: 12 71, 73, 209; 12: 1–16 (E) 12 n. 2; 12: 2–17 (H) 12
n. 2; 12: 2 (E) 73, 209; 12: 3 (H) 73, 209; 12: 4–16 (E)
170 n. 52; 12: 4–8 (E) 49; 12: 4–7 (E) 144; 12: 5–17 (H)
170 n. 52; 12: 5–9 (H) 49; 12: 5–8 (H) 144; 12: 7 (E) 73,
76; 12: 8 (H) 73, 76; 12: 9 (E) 210; 12: 10–12 (E) 209;
12: 10 (E) 73, 75, 150, 215; 12: 10 (H) 210; 12: 11–13
(H) 209; 12: 11 (H) 73, 75, 150, 215; 13: 2–3 23 n. 37;
15: 1–7 195 n. 21; 15: 3–5 210; 15: 35 49; 16: 2–4 74 n.
76; 16: 10–18 49; 16: 10–16 52, 54, 74, 144, 170 n.52,
194 n.19, 195 n. 21; 18: 1–6 49, 121; 18: 1–4 307; 18:
4–7 211; 18: 15–16 49; 18: 32 137; 20: 1–6 23 n. 37; 21:
5 49; 21: 7 49; 21: 10–12 23 n. 37; 22–3 54; 22 74 n.
75, 75; 22: 3–23: 25 121; 22: 3–7 49, 170 n. 52; 22: 3–4
75; 22: 4 75, 150; 22: 8–10 75; 22: 8 45, 75, 150, 215; 22:
11–18 50; 22: 14 76; 23 74 n. 75, 75; 23: 1–25 307; 23:
1–23 45; 23: 4–20 215; 23: 4 49, 75, 76, 150; 23: 6–7
49; 23: 11–12 49; 23: 26–7 23 n. 37; 23: 31–25: 26 180;
23: 31–24: 20 79; 23: 32 79; 23: 37 79; 24: 1–7 301; 24:
9 79; 24: 11–16 106; 24: 18–25: 30 77 n. 82; 24: 19 79;
25: 6–9 49; 25: 7 77; 25: 8–12 106; 25: 18–21 106; 25:
18 54, 77, 161 n. 30, 194 n. 19, 212n., 214; 25: 19 77; 25:
27–30 78
Chronicles, books of 7, 12, 54, 58 n. 30, 66 n. 54, 74 n. 75, 81
n. 6, 94, 133 n. 23, 141 n. 45, 152 nn. 1, 2;
161 n. 31, 169 n. 49, 183, 184–218, 219, 230 n. 33, 328
1 Chronicles 169 n. 49; 1–9 186, 194, 195–200; 3: 1–24 195;
3: 10–15 199; 3: 21 195–6 n. 23; 3: 22–4 195 n. 23; 5:
27–6: 66 (H) 57 n. 30; 5: 27–41 (H) 194 n. 19, 196, 198,
200 n. 34, 206, 207, 281; 5: 29–41 (H) 52; 5: 29–34 (H)
205 n. 44; 5: 30–41 (H) 199; 5: 34 (H) 52 n. 18; 5: 35–6
(H) 194 n. 19; 5: 36 (H) 70, 200, 203; 5: 37 (H) 199; 5:
40 (H) 199; 5: 41 (H) 200; 6: 1–81 (E) 57 n. 30; 6: 1–15
(E) 194 n. 19, 196, 198, 200 n. 34, 206, 207, 281; 6: 3–15
(E) 52; 6: 3–8 (E) 205 n. 44; 6: 4–15 (E) 199; 6: 8 (E)
52 n. 18; 6: 9–10 (E) 194 n. 19; 6: 10 (E) 70, 200, 203; 6:
11 (E) 199; 6: 14 (E) 199; 6: 15 (E) 200; 6: 34–8 (H)
198, 206, 207; 6: 34 (H) 200, 205 n. 44; 6: 35–8 (H) 199,
200, 205 n. 44; 6: 49–53 (E) 198, 206, 207; 6: 49 (E) 200,
205 n. 44; 6: 50–3 (E) 199, 200, 205 n. 44; 8: 33–40 195;
9: 1–34 195, 197; 9: 10–34 197; 9: 11 198, 199, 206, 215;
9: 35–44 195, 197; 10–2 Chr. 34 186 n. 6; 10: 1–14 191;
10: 6 195; 11: 1 188; 11: 4 85; 11: 5 85; 12 202; 12:
23–38 (E) 66, 67; 12: 24–9 (E) 66, 67; 12: 24–39 (H) 66,
67; 12: 25–30 (H) 66, 67; 12: 27–8 (E) 65, 66, 67, 68; 12:
28–9 (H) 65, 66, 67, 68; 12: 28 (E) 67, 201, 202, 205; 12:
29 (H) 67, 201, 202, 205; 15: 1–16: 3 81 n. 6; 15: 11 201,
202, 204, 205, 206–7, 216; 15: 15 192; 16: 2 211; 16:
8–22 21 n. 29; 16: 22 21 n. 29; 16: 39–40 12 n. 2, 192,
202; 16: 39 72 n. 73, 192 n. 16, 201, 202, 205; 17: 7–15
190; 18: 16 201, 202, 206 n. 47, 207; 18: 17 51n.; 21: 26
211; 22: 9–10 190; 22: 12–13 191; 23–7 186, 202 n. 37;
24 202 n. 37, 205 n. 44, 206, 207, 281; 24: 3 201, 202,
204, 205, 206, 207, 216; 24: 4 281; 24: 6 201, 202, 204,
205, 206, 207; 24: 7 281; 24: 31 201, 202, 204, 205, 207;
27
202 n. 37; 27: 5 213; 27: 16 205; 27: 17 201, 202, 204,
205; 28: 1–29: 9 203; 28: 1–19 191; 28: 4 190; 28: 6
203; 28: 7 191; 28: 9 191; 28: 10 203; 28: 20 203; 29
193; 29: 22 199, 201, 202, 203, 204
2 Chronicles 184, 290; 1: 3–6 192; 1: 3 192 n. 16; 1: 6 211; 5:
2–7: 10 81 n. 6; 6: 16 191; 7: 5 211; 7: 7 211; 7: 17–22
191; 8: 12–13 192, 211; 8: 13 192; 10: 1–19 194 n. 20;
13: 5 190; 13: 10 205 n. 44; 15: 1–2 191; 19: 1–11 216;
19: 11 161 n. 30, 194 n. 19, 207, 208, 213; 21: 7 190;
22–4 207, 216; 23: 1–21 209; 23: 2–3 209; 23: 3 209;
23: 6–7 209; 23: 11 209; 23: 18 205 n. 44; 23: 19 209;
24: 1–27 190; 24: 1–25 190; 24: 1–14 12 n. 2; 24: 2 209;
24: 3 209; 24: 4–14 209, 215; 24: 6 161 n. 30, 209, 213;
24: 8 209; 24: 11–12 209, 212; 24: 11 74, 161 n. 30, 214,
215; 24: 12 74; 24: 23–5 210; 26: 4–5 210; 26: 5 191;
26: 16–23 190; 26: 16–20 81 n. 6, 207, 210, 215; 26:
17–20 194 n. 19, 195 n. 21; 26: 20 161 n. 30, 214; 28:
22–3 194 n. 19; 29: 1–31: 21 211; 29: 2 211n.; 29: 21–4
211; 29: 21 205 n. 44; 29: 25–7 211n.; 29: 27 211; 29:
30 211n.; 30: 26 211n.; 31: 8–13 216; 31: 10 161 nn. 30,
31; 194 n. 19, 195 n. 21, 205 n. 44, 208, 211, 213n., 214;
31: 13 194 n. 19, 195 n. 21, 208, 211, 212, 215; 31: 19
205 n. 44; 34: 8–14 215; 34: 9 208, 215; 34: 14–15 208;
34: 14 212; 34: 15 215; 34: 18 208; 34: 20–2 212; 34:
20 208; 34: 22 208; 34: 29–35: 7 212; 34: 33
215; 35–6 152 n. 2; 35: 8 208, 212, 215; 35: 10–15 212;
35: 14 205 n. 44; 35: 16–19 212; 36: 15 191; 36: 16–17
191; 36: 21 189 n. 12; 36: 22–3 13, 183, 184, 189 n. 12,
197; 36: 23 189
Ezra, book of 6, 54, 74 n. 75, 76 n., 126 n. 2, 133, 145 n. 61,
150 n. 68, 152, 155, 168 n. 46, 169, 172, 173, 174, 181 n.
33, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 n. 6, 188, 189 n. 12, 217, 219 n.
2, 220, 230 n. 33, 238, 290, 291 n. 55; 1–6 155, 157, 230
n. 33; 1: 1–4 183; 1: 1–3 184, 189 n. 12; 1: 2–4 153 n. 4;
1: 9–11 153 n. 3; 2: 1–70 153 n. 3, 157 n. 16, 197; 2: 2
155, 158; 2: 36 159 n. 23; 2: 63 157, 158, 162n., 169, 204;
3: 2 155, 157 n. 15, 230 n. 33; 3: 8 155, 230 n. 33; 4: 3
155; 4: 4 129; 4: 7–22 153 n. 4; 5: 1–6: 22 203; 5: 1 126,
127 n. 6; 5: 2 155; 5: 6–17 153 n. 4; 6: 6–12 153 n. 4; 6:
14 126, 127 n. 6; 7–10 155, 157 n. 16, 159–69; 7: 1–5
162, 169; 7: 5 160, 161, 213n.; 7: 12–26 153 n. 4, 166; 8
152; 8: 1–14 153 n. 3; 8: 24 168; 8: 29 168; 9: 2 163; 9:
5 164; 9: 11–12 164; 9: 13 163; 10: 1 164; 10: 5 168;
10: 6 153, 155 n. 9, 159, 160, 168; 10: 11 164; 10: 18–24
153 n. 3; 10: 18 140, 159, 163
Nehemiah, book of 6, 54, 74 n. 75, 76, 133, 145 n. 61, 150 n.
68, 152, 157 n. 16, 159, 168 n. 46, 169–74, 181, 182, 183,
184, 185, 186 n. 6, 188, 189 n. 12, 217, 219, 220, 222 n. 5,
230 n. 33, 238, 260, 290, 291 n. 55; 2: 1 153; 2: 16 261; 3
172; 3: 1–32 153 n. 3; 3: 1 157, 159, 169, 171, 174; 3: 20
169; 3: 35 (H) 260; 4: 3 (E) 260; 5: 7 261; 5: 15 173; 6:
17–19
261; 7 172; 7: 6–73 153 n. 3, 157 n. 16, 197; 7: 7 169; 7:

65 157, 169, 204; 7: 70 261; 8 152, 155, 162n., 164, 167,
168, 173 n. 65; 8: 1–10: 40 (H) 134; 8: 1–10: 39 (E) 134;
8: 1–8 153; 8: 9 154, 167, 173 n. 65; 10: 1–27 (E) 153 n.
3, 172; 10: 1 (E) 172 n. 61; 10: 2–28 (H) 153 n. 3, 172;
10: 2 (H) 172 n. 61; 10: 2 (E) 172 n. 61; 10: 3 (H) 172 n.
61; 11: 3–36 153 n. 3; 11: 11 76, 144, 169, 215; 12 127,
168, 170–2, 254; 12: 1–26 153 n. 3; 12: 4 127; 12: 5 255
n. 35; 12: 7 170, 171; 12: 10–11 159, 160, 171, 185, 219,
231, 232; 12: 10 160 n. 26, 221; 12: 11 159, 160, 171n.,
231 n. 39, 232; 12: 12 170; 12: 16 127; 12: 18 255 n. 35;
12: 22 153 n. 5, 159, 160, 170, 175; 12: 23 159, 160, 170
n. 57, 175; 12: 26 160, 170; 12: 27–43 172; 12: 31 172 n.
61; 12: 36 154, 172 n. 61; 13: 4–5 260; 13: 7–8 260; 13:
4 76, 145, 169, 170, 174, 260; 13: 23–7 153; 13: 28 153
n. 5, 157, 163, 169, 172, 222 n. 5
Esther, book of 220
Job, book of 94 n. 47; 5: 8 100
Psalms, book of 96; 2 91 n. 41; 2: 7 52, 81 n. 5; 44: 24 306n.;
48: 1–3 (E) 120; 48: 2–4 (H) 120; 72 52, 298, 301, 321
n. 35; 72: 4 299; 72: 7 298, 299; 72: 8 298; 72: 9 299;
72: 11 299; 72: 12–13 299; 72: 14 299; 72: 15 298; 72:
16 299; 76: 2 (E) 85, 86; 76: 3 (H) 85, 86; 105: 15 21 n.
29; 110 82, 84, 90, 91 n. 41, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101,
102, 103, 148 n. 67, 289–90, 329; 110: 1–2 103; 110: 1
52, 90; 110: 2 86, 90, 96; 110: 3 90; 110: 4 6, 52, 80, 86,
90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 290; 110: 5 99; 110:
6 90; 110: 7 90; 132: 18 19
Proverbs ; 31: 9 98
Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), book of 94, 100, 219
Isaiah ; 4: 2–6 144; 4: 2 143, 144; 11: 1 141; 43: 16–21 164
n. 39; 49: 8–11 164 n. 39; 51: 9–11 164 n. 39; 55: 3 189
n. 13
Jeremiah ; 7: 1–34 79 n.; 11: 20 98; 22: 24 131; 23: 5 141,
143; 33: 15 141, 143; 44: 15–18 180; 52: 1–34 77 n. 32;
52: 24 214
Lamentations ; 4: 20 21 n. 29
Ezekiel, book of 6, 19 n. 21, 58 n. 30, 104–19, 121, 122, 131 n.
19, 328; 1: 2 104; 1: 3 105; 1: 4–28 113 n. 20; 8: 1–11:
12 79n.; 8: 3–16 105; 8: 5–16 107, 110; 9: 1–10: 2 107;
10: 4 105; 10: 18–19 105; 12: 19–20 107; 17: 11–21
104; 17: 12–14 106; 18: 5–9 104; 20 111, 112; 20: 6
107; 20: 28 107; 20: 33 112; 20: 42 107; 21: 25–6 (E)
107, 110; 21: 26 (E) 19; 21: 30–1 (H) 107, 110; 21: 31
(H) 19; 22: 6–12 105; 22: 6 107, 110; 22: 25 110; 22:
26 105, 107, 110; 22: 27 110; 23: 22–34 104; 24: 1–2
104; 24: 21 107; 33: 21 104, 109; 33: 25–6 105; 34–48
106; 34 108, 109, 111, 113, 115 n. 26; 34: 1–16 109 n. 8;
34: 7–10 107; 34: 23–4 107, 109 n. 8, 112; 34: 23 109,
110; 34: 24 109, 110; 36: 26–7 107; 37 108, 109, 111,
112, 115 n. 26; 37: 15–19 107; 37: 20–3 109 n. 8; 37: 21
107; 37: 22–5 109 n. 82, 112; 37: 22 111; 37: 23 107; 37:
24 107, 109, 111; 37: 25 109, 110, 111, 117; 37: 26–8
107; 40–8 72 n. 74, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113,
114, 116, 117, 119; 40–6 105, 113; 40: 1 104; 40: 5–42:
20 107; 43: 1–5 105; 43: 4–5 115; 43: 7–9 114; 43: 7b-
27 108 n. 7; 44: 1–3
115; 44: 3–46: 24 108 n. 7; 44: 3 107; 44: 9–31 57 n. 30,

107; 44: 10 72 n. 74; 44: 15–31 114, 116; 44: 15 58 n.
30, 72 n. 74; 45 281 n. 42; 45: 1–8 107; 45: 1–6 114; 45:
1–4 114; 45: 7–9 107; 45: 8 115 n. 25; 45: 10–12 113,
115; 45: 13–15 113; 45: 16–17 115; 45: 17 107; 45: 19
116 n. 30; 45: 21–5 107; 46: 1–18 107; 46: 1–3 114; 46:
2 115; 46: 12 115; 46: 18 113; 47: 13–48: 29 107, 108 n.
7; 47: 13–14 107; 48: 8–22 107, 108; 48: 8–10 107; 48:
21–2 107, 114; 48: 35 107
Haggai, book of 6, 74 n. 75, 95 n. 52, 114 n. 23, 117 n. 33, 125,
126, 127–35, 150, 151, 152, 155, 158, 188 n. 10, 196, 203
n. 40, 214 n. 61, 218, 230 n. 33, 290; 1: 1 127, 128, 157,
171, 196; 1: 2 127 n. 8; 1: 3 127 n. 8; 1: 4–11 127 n. 8; 1:
11 137 n. 33; 1: 12–13a 127 n. 8; 1: 12 128, 129, 157,
171, 196; 1: 13 128 n. 10; 1: 13b 127 n. 8; 1: 14–2: 2 127
n. 8; 1: 14 128, 157, 171, 196; 1: 15 128 n. 10; 1: 15a
128; 2: 1–9 128; 2: 2 128, 157, 171, 196; 2: 3–9 127 n. 8;
2: 3 127 n. 7; 2: 4 128, 129, 130, 132 n. 21, 157, 171, 196;
2: 10–14 128 n. 10; 2: 10 127; 2: 11–19 127 n. 8; 2:
15–19 128; 2: 20–3 114 n. 23, 128 n. 10, 131, 135, 159; 2:
20 127 n. 8; 2: 21–3 127 n. 8; 2: 21 129; 2: 23 117, 129,
188
Zechariah, book of 95 n. 52, 114 n. 23, 117 n. 33, 125n. 1, 127,
152, 196, 203 n. 40, 290; 1–8 6, 74 n. 75, 125, 126,
135–49, 150, 151, 158, 188 n. 10, 214 n. 61, 218, 230 n. 33;
1: 1 126, 127, 135; 1: 7–6: 15 135, 138; 1: 7–2: 13 (E)
139; 1: 7–2: 17 (H) 139; 1: 7 126, 135; 3: 1–10 95 n. 52,
130, 135, 137, 138, 143, 144–5, 150; 3: 1
157; 3: 2 139; 3: 3–5 33 n. 53; 3: 3 139, 140; 3: 5 139; 3:

6–10 140; 3: 7 141, 144, 149; 3: 8 138, 141–2, 144; 4
136; 4: 1–6a 139, 145–6; 4: 3 143; 4: 6 143; 4: 6b-10a
138, 142; 4: 10–14 132 n. 21; 4: 10b-14 139, 145–6; 4:
10b 136; 4: 14 95 n. 52, 136, 137; 5: 1–11 139; 6: 1–8
139; 6: 9–15 94, 95 n. 52, 137, 138, 143, 146–9; 6: 9–14
136, 148; 6: 10–11 147; 6: 10 260; 6: 11 95, 157, 196; 6:
12–13 146, 148; 6: 13 95, 141, 149; 6: 14 148, 260; 7: 1
135; 9–14 125 n. 1
Hebrews ; 5–7 80; 9: 4 50 n. 16
2. Apocrypha and
Septuagint
Esdras A 152n.2, 156n.13, 167–8 n. 46, 184, 291 n. 55; 1: 1–5:
65 186 n. 6; 5: 40 158 n. 22; 5: 65 156 n. 13; 8: 2 161; 9:
39 162n.; 9: 40 162n.; 9: 49 162n., 167
Esdras B 156 n. 13, 167–8 n. 46; 2: 63 158 n. 22; 4: 2 156 n.
13; 7: 5 161; 12: 16 261; 15: 7 261; 17: 70 261; 18: 9
167; 23: 28 173 n. 63
1 Esdras 291 n. 55
1 Maccabees 219, 243, 266–7, 268, 269, 280, 281, 282, 283,
284 n. 46, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298 n. 67,
299, 302, 304, 322, 326; 1: 1–8 220; 1: 9 220; 1: 29–35
276; 1: 41–50 278; 2 266; 2: 1 266 n. 1, 312; 2: 2–5 280;
2: 6 281; 2: 26 281; 2: 40–1 287; 2: 42–8 282; 2: 52–60
282; 2: 54 282; 2: 66 282; 3: 1 282; 7: 5–9 279 n. 37; 7:
5 292; 7: 8–11 279; 7: 8–9 283; 7: 9 279 n. 37, 285,
292; 7: 14 225 n. 36; 7: 21–5 279; 7: 21 291 n. 56; 7:

22–5 279; 7: 22 279; 9: 1 279; 9: 3–4 280 n. 40; 9: 3
282; 9: 18 280 n. 40; 9: 28–31 303; 9: 28–30 282; 9: 30
282; 9: 50–3 280; 9: 53 284; 9: 54–6 280 n. 40; 9: 54
279; 9: 55–6 279; 9: 57 280, 283, 285; 9: 58–69 283; 9:
70–2 284; 9: 72 285; 9: 73 284, 286; 10: 1–21 324; 10:
1–6 288; 10: 6–10 286; 10: 15 287; 10: 18–21 283; 10:
20 256, 291 n. 56, 301; 10: 21 289; 10: 25–44 287; 10:
32 291 n. 56; 10: 38 291 n. 56; 10: 59–65 301; 10: 65
294; 10: 69 291 n. 56, 294; 10: 70–3 289, 295; 10: 73
313; 10: 74–85 289, 295; 10: 87 295; 10: 89 295; 11:
8–19 295; 11: 20–37 295; 11: 27 291 n. 56; 11: 52–3
295; 11: 57–8 295, 301; 11: 57 291 n. 56; 12: 3 291 n.
56; 12: 5 262; 12: 6 291 n. 56; 12: 7 291 n. 56; 12: 20–3
292; 12: 20 292; 12: 39–48 296; 13: 7–9 303; 13: 9 296;
13: 10 297; 13: 12–24 296; 13: 36 291 n. 56, 296; 13: 42
291; 14 298; 14: 4–15 297, 298, 321, 322; 14: 4 298; 14:
5–6 298; 14: 7 299; 14: 8 299; 14: 11 299; 14: 12 299;
14: 13 299; 14: 14 299; 14: 15 300; 14: 17 291 n. 56; 14:
20 292; 14: 23 291 n. 56, 292; 14: 27 291, 296; 14: 30
291 n. 56, 296; 14: 32–7 296; 14: 35 291 n. 56; 14: 38
291 n. 56, 296; 14: 41–5 297; 14: 41–3 311; 14: 41 91,
291 n. 56, 297 n. 64, 301, 304; 14: 43 301, 312; 14: 47
291 n. 56, 311; 15: 1–9 297 n. 63; 15: 1 292; 15: 2 292;
15: 6 305; 15: 17 291 n. 56; 15: 21 291 n. 56; 15: 24 291
n. 56; 15: 25–16: 10 324; 15: 27–31 297 n. 63; 15: 32
301,
312; 15: 33–4 303; 16: 11–22 303; 16: 12 291 n. 56; 16:
15–16 301, 312; 16: 23–4 267, 304; 16: 24 291 n. 56,
304
2 Maccabees 219, 220, 266, 267–8, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274,
280 n. 40, 287 n. 52, 322, 325; 1: 1–10a 268 n. 5; 1:
10b–2: 18 268 n. 5; 2: 19–32 268 n. 5; 2: 23 268; 3:
1–15: 39 268 n. 5; 3–5 268; 3: 4–8 270; 3: 4 255 nn. 35,
36; 270, 272; 3: 11 260, 272; 3: 22–8 270; 4: 1–6 270; 4:
1–2 273; 4: 4–6 273; 4: 7–10 255, 285; 4: 9–10 274; 4:
23–5: 23 274, 275; 4: 23–6 285; 4: 23 255 nn. 35, 36;
272, 275; 4: 25 255 n. 35, 274; 4: 29 288; 4: 33–4 278 n.
35; 4: 39–50 277; 4: 43–50 275; 5: 5–7 276; 5: 11 276,
277; 5: 15 275, 278; 5: 22–3 278; 6: 1–2 277, 278; 6: 7
277; 7: 1–42 268; 13: 1–7 279 n. 37; 13: 3–8 278; 13: 4
277; 14: 3–14 279 n. 37; 15: 1–36 268; 15: 37 268
3 Maccabees 268
4 Maccabees 268
Wisdom of Ben Sira 244, 262, 325; 45: 6–25 262; 45: 6–22
263; 50: 1–4 4, 262, 263; 50: 1–3 264; 50: 1–2 263; 50:
1 293; 50: 2–3 263; 50: 3 263; 50: 4 263, 264; 50: 5–24
263
3. Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha
Letter of Aristeas 179, 244, 256, 257, 325; 89 263 n. 52; 312–16
257
Psalms of Solomon 310, 319, 320, 322, 327; 1: 2 320; 1: 9 320;
2 319, 320; 2: 1 319; 2: 2 319; 2: 3 320; 2: 6 319; 2: 20
319; 2: 30–1 319; 2: 38–9 320; 3
320; 3: 16 320; 4: 7 320; 4: 9 320; 8: 13 320; 8: 40 320;

9: 6 320; 13: 9 320; 14: 1–2 320; 14: 2 320; 14: 7 320;
17 320, 321, 322; 17: 5–8 320; 17: 5–6 320; 17: 8 320;
17: 23–51 320; 17: 23–35 322; 17: 28 320; 17: 32–5
321; 17: 33–8 323; 17: 47 323; 18: 9 320
2 (Slavonic) Enoch; 71–2 80 n. 1
4. Dead Sea Scrolls

Genesis Apocryphon (IQapGen) XXII. 13 85 n. 21
Commentary on Habakkuk (IQpHab) 256, 283 n. 44
Commentary on Hosea (4Q167) 315
Commentary on Nahum (4Q169) 315
Melchizedek (IIQMelch) 80, 87, 88, 96 n. 59
Temple Scroll (IIQT) 56 12ff. 315
5. Other Jewish and Hellenistic

Papyri
Elephantine Papyri (numbering according to Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri); 2: 3 170 n. 54; 21: 1–2 176 nn. 1, 11; 179 n. 26;
21: 11 176 nn. 1, 11; 22: 120–1 176 n. 5; 22: 121 176 n.
12; 22: 123–5 179 n. 27; 30 177 n. 15, 182 n. 34, 222 n. 7;
30: 1 176n.4, 177 n.16, 178 n.24, 179n.25; 30: 4 176 n. 4;
30: 18–19 178 n. 24, 182 n. 36; 30: 18 153 n. 5, 170 n. 55;
30: 22 176 n. 4; 31 177 n. 15, 182 n. 34; 31: 1 176 n. 4;
31: 3 176 n. 4; 31: 21 176 n. 4; 33: 1–6 176 n. 6; 33: 1
176 nn. 4, 12, 13; 33: 6 176 n. 13, 178 n. 23; 34: 4–5 176
n. 6, 178 n. 22; 34: 5 176 n. 12; 37: 1 176 nn. 2, 10; 37:
17 176 nn. 2, 10; 38: 1 176 nn. 3, 14; 38: 12 176 n. 3; 63:
9 170 n. 54
Rainer Papyrus 24552 251
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum; i. 115–29 254n.; i. 126–7 272 n.
13
6. Rabbinic Works
Mishnah 306, 309
Maʽaser Sheni ; 5: 15 306
Soḥah ; 9: 10 306; 9: 12 157 n. 18
Parah ; 3: 5 306–7
Yadayim ; 4: 6 307
BabylonianTalmud 308; Yoma 69a 22n.; Qiddusin 66a 308 n. 10;
Horayot 12a 21 n. 30
Leviticus Rabbah; 13. 5 221n.
Scholion to Megillat Taʼanit, ; 21 Kislev 221n.
7. Classical and
Hellenistic Writers
Hecataeus of Abdera ; Aegyptiaca 246
Diodorus Siculus ; 5. 45. 4–5 248 n. 16; 16. 47–51 223; 40. 3.
1–8 246; 40. 3. 2–3 248; 40. 3. 3 246, 248; 40. 3. 4–5
246; 40. 3. 4 248; 40. 3. 5 248; 40. 3. 5–6 247; 40. 3. 6
249; 40. 3. 8 246
Josephus ; Against Apion 228i. 183–204 227 n. 17i. 186–7
226–7i. 187 237, 245; Jewish Antiquities 220i. 180–1 85 n.
21xi 220xi. 1–4 220xi. 297–301 220–1, 233, 236, 237,
238xi. 297 223xi. 302–12 221xi. 302–3 222 n. 5xi. 302 235,
237xi. 306–11 222 n. 5xi. 306 221xi. 321–4 221xi. 321–2
222 n. 5xi. 325–39 171n.xi. 326–39 221xi. 326 237xi. 347
228, 237xii 256xii. 39–57 256xii. 43–4 228, 254, 256xii.
110–13 257xii. 138–46 255, 272 n. 14xii. 138–44 262,
269xii. 138 262xii. 142 262xii. 145–6 272xii. 157 254,
256xii. 158–236 257xii. 158–85 256xii. 158 258, 259, 264,
269
xii. 159–64 260xii. 160 260xii. 168 272 n. 13xii. 169 259xii.
186–9 272 n. 13xii. 190–236 272 n. 17xii. 209–21 273xii.
210–14 272 n. 13xii. 224–5 254xii. 228 272xii. 237–8 255
n. 36xii. 238–9 255 n. 35xii. 238 272 n. 16xii. 239 260, 272,
275xii. 240–1 274 n. 21xii. 252 276xii. 265 266 n. 1xii. 384
277xii. 385 279 n. 37xii. 387–8 278 n. 35xii. 413–4 280 n.
40xii. 413 284 n. 46xii. 414 313xii. 419 313xii. 434 280 n.
40, 313xiii. 5–6 284 n. 46xiii. 22 284 n. 46xiii. 25 284 n.
46xiii. 26–34 284 n. 46xiii. 62–73 278 n. 35xiii. 88 294 n.
60xiii. 171–3 307 n. 7xiii. 230–48 305xiii. 234–5 306xiii.
236–48 324xiii. 241–2 306xiii. 251–2 306xiii. 255–6
306xiii. 255 305, 306xiii. 257–8 306xiii. 257 305xiii.
259–66 306xiii. 272–3 305xiii. 275–81 305xiii. 280 305xiii.
282–3 306xiii. 288–96 308, 309xiii. 288 311xiii. 289
309xiii. 291 310xiii. 297–8 307 n. 7xiii. 298 311xiii.
299–300 306, 311xiii. 301–4 312xiii. 301 267 n. 4, 313xiii.
318 313xiii. 320–404 314xiii. 320 314xiii. 323 314xiii.
372–83 315xiii. 372 308 n. 8xiii. 400–4 314xiii. 407 315xiii.
408–9 316xiii. 408 315xiv. 4–7 317xiv. 8–18 317xiv. 19–21
317xiv. 29–33 317xiv. 40–5 317xiv. 41 317xiv. 46–7 317xiv.
48–53 317xiv. 54–62 318xiv. 62 319xiv. 66–7 319xiv.
69–71 318xiv. 73 318xiv. 79 318, 319xviii. 12 307 n. 7xviii.
15 307 n. 7xviii. 17 307 n. 7xx. 237 280 n. 40xx. 261 254;
Jewish War i. 54–69 309i. 54–61 305i. 63 305, 306i. 65 305i.
66 305i. 68–9 306i. 85–106 314i. 85 314i. 88–98 315i. 107
315; i. 109 315; i. 110–11 316; i. 120–2 317; i. 123–6

317; i. 126–9 317; i. 131–2 317; i. 139–51 318; i. 147
319; i. 150 319; i. 153 318; i. 154 319; i. 157 318; ii.
119–66 307 n. 7; ii. 119–61 307 n. 7; ii. 163 307 n. 7; ii.
165 307 n. 7; ii. 166 307 n. 7; vi. 438 85 n. 21; vii.
423–32 278 n. 35; vii. 423 278 n. 35; vii. 433–5 278 n.
35
Photius
Bibliotheca ; 244 246
Plutarch
Pompey ; 67–80 319n. 31
Polybius ; v. 40. 1 251 n. 24; v. 87. 6 251 n. 24
Amyrtaeus 165 n. 42
Index of Proper Names Ananiah 181
Andersen, F. I. 83 n. 14
Anderson, A. A. 64 n. 38, 70 n.
Anderson, B. W. 14 n.
Aaron 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, Anderson, G. 171 n.
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57 n. 29, 61, 67, 161, Anderson, G. W. 3 n. 10
162, 164, 196, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203 n. 39, 205, 206, 211 Andromachus 251 n. 24
n., 230 n. 33, 255 n. 36, 262, 281 Antigonus Monophthalmus 244
Abba, R. 3 n. 9
Abel, F.-M. 266 n. 2, 267 nn. 3, 4; 268 n. 7, 272 nn. 15, 17; 280
n. 38, 284 n. 48, 287 n. 49, 297 n. 64
Abiathar 54, 59, 60, 62–3, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 194, 201,
204, 206, 207
Abihu 23, 31, 32, 35, 36
Abiram 32 n. 52
Abram 82, 83, 84 n. 16, 85, 87, 89 n. 37, 90, 102, 103; see also
Abraham
Abraham 89 nn. 35, 37
Absalom 66, 70
Achtemeier, P. J. 108 n. 7
Ackroyd, P. R. 2 n. 6, 55 n. 24, 60 n. 35, 126, 127–8 n. 8, 154 n.
6, 158 n. 20, 185 n. 4, 189 n. 13, 203 n. 39, 208 n. 48
Adam 197
Adonijah 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 204
Adora 305
Agrippa 268 n. 7
Ahaz 74, 75, 144, 195 n. 21
Ahaziah 209
Ahijah 54, 59, 59–60, 62, 63
Ahimaaz 70
Ahimelech 54, 60–1, 62, 63, 64, 71, 194, 201, 202, 206, 207
Ahio 71 n. 69
Ahitub 60 n. 35, 63, 64, 66, 144, 169, 199, 206
‘Ain et-Tabgha 140 n. 43
Albertz, R. 4 n. 14, 261 n.
Albright, W. F. 53 n. 20, 85
Alcimus 255, 256, 274 n. 23, 279–80, 283, 284, 285, 287, 292,
305, 312, 318, 326
Alexander Balas 280, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 294,
295, 296, 297, 324
Alexander the Great 6, 7, 125, 171 n., 220, 221, 222, 231 n. 39,
232, 234, 243, 244, 254, 300
Alexander Jannaeus 267 n. 4, 305 n. 3, 308, 309, 310, 312 n.
18, 314–5, 316, 326–7
Alexandria 251 n. 24, 257
Allan, N. 107 n., 130 n. 16
Allen, L. C. 96 n. 58, 108 n. 6, 109 n. 8, 113 n. 21, 115 n. 26
Amariah 194 n. 19, 195, 199, 207, 208, 212, 213, 217
Amarna 85
Amon-Re 253
Amsler, S. 128 n. 10, 137 n. 34, 146 n. 63, 147 n. 66
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES 375
Antioch 273, 278 n. 35, 283 Bagoses 221, 222, 223, 224, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238
Antiochus III the Great 255, 262, 263 n. 53, 269, 270, 272, Bailey, J. W. 293
274, 277 Baldwin, J. 142 n. 51
Antiochus IV Epiphanes 220, 255, 258, 266, 268, 273, 274, Balgea 255 n. 35
275, 276, 277, 278, 279 n. 37, 281, 285, 298, 303, 318 n. Bar-Kochva, B. 227 nn. 17, 19; 228 n. 23, 231, 233, 244 n. 1,
29, 322, 325 246 nn. 6, 7; 247 n. 10, 248, 249 n. 20, 250 n. 21
Antiochus V Eupator 279 n. 37 Barag, D. 225 n. 12, 226 n. 15, 228 n. 20, 229, 230, 231, 232,
Antiochus Vl Epiphanes Dionysus 295 233, 234
Antiochus VII Sidetes 292, 297 n. 63, 301, 305, 306, 324 Barker, M. 86, 87 n. 32, 88, 89 n. 35, 95 n. 52, 96 n. 59, 143–4
Antiochus IX Cyzicenus 306 Bartelmus, R. 126 n. 5
Antipater 317 Bartlett, J. R. 51 n., 58 n. 30, 116 n. 29, 161 n. 34, 172 n. 59,
Ap-Thomas, D. R. 21 n. 27, 81 n. 7 198 n. 28, 199 n. 32, 201, 208 n. 49, 211 n., 214, 257 n. 38,
Apollonius (finance minister of Ptolemy II) 252 n. 27, 254 n., 266 n. 2, 267 nn. 3, 5; 268 n. 7, 270 n. 10, 272 n. 17, 273 n.
260, 272 n. 13 19, 275 n. 26, 279 n. 38, 284 n. 48, 287 nn. 49, 50, 51; 297
Apollonius (governor of Judah under Seleucus IV) 270, 273, nn. 62, 64; 300 n. 69, 305 n. 2
278 n. 35 Barton, D. 46 n. 6
Apollonius (governor of Judah under Demetrius II) 289, 294, Batten, L. W. 153 n. 6, 154 n. 7, 158 nn. 19, 20; 161 n. 28, 169
295 n. 50
Aretas 317 Baudissin, W. W. G. 20 n. 25, 35 n. 57, 47 n. 8, 118 n. 36
Areus 292 Baumgartner, W. 80 n. 2
Aristobulus I 3, 267 n. 4, 312, 313–4 Beer, G. 17 n. 13, 19 n. 22
Aristobulus II 317–8, 319 Benaiah 213 n.
Armerding, C. E. 51 n. Benjamin (tribe) 108, 156, 195, 255
Arnan 195–6 n. 23
Artaxerxes I 153
Artaxerxes II 153 n. 6
Artaxerxes III 223, 234
Asher 205
Asia Minor 244
Assyria 74 n. 76
Astour, M. 83 n. 11, 89 n. 35, 91 n. 41
Athaliah 77, 190, 209, 316 n. 27
Athena 226, 231, 232 n. 42
Athenobius 301
Auld, A. G. 184 n. 1
Azariah ((grand-)son of Zadok, priest of Solomon) 54, 62, 69,
70, 71, 194 n. 19, 200
Azariah (son of Johanan) 70, 200, 203
Azariah (king of Judah) 195 n. 21, 210; see also Uzziah
Azariah I (chief priest of Uzziah) 194 n. 19, 195, 207, 210, 211,
214, 215, 217
Azariah II (chief priest of Hezekiah) 161 n. 31, 194 n. 19, 195,
207, 211–12, 213, 214, 215, 217
Azariah (post-exilic priest) 199
Babylon 14 n., 77, 110 n. 11, 134, 138, 141, 147
Babylonia 2
Bacchides 280, 283–4, 286, 292
Baentsch, B. 17 n. 13, 18 n. 14, 19 n. 22, 20 n. 26, 23 n. 35, 39
n.
Bagnall, R. S. 251 n. 24, 259
Bagohi 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 234, 236, 238; see also
Bagoses
376 INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
Bentzen, A. 64, 69 n. 64 Cockerill, G. L. 87, 88

Berea 280 n. 40 Cody, A. 51 n., 56 n. 26, 57 n. 30, 58 n. 32, 71 n. 72, 215 n.
Berechiah 126 Coele-Syria 250, 251 n. 24, 256, 264, 294, 295, 317
Berenice (queen of Ptolemy I) 250 Cogan, Mordechai 74 nn. 75, 76, 77, 78; 75 n. 80
Beth-Zur 226 n. 15, 227 n. 18, 299 Cogan, Morton 74 n. 76
Bethbasi 283 Coggins, R. 126 n. 4, 132 n. 21, 142 n. 50, 154 nn. 6, 7; 185 n.
Bethel 53, 58, 59, 78, 120 4, 186 n. 7, 197 n. 26, 200 n. 33, 208 n. 48
Betlyon, J. W. 226 n. 13, 228 n. 20, 229 n. 30, 305 n. 3 Cooke, G. 81 n. 5
Beuken. W. A. M. 132 Cooke, G. A. 108 n. 7, 109 n. 8, 111 n. 15, 116 n. 30
Bevan, E. 2 n. 2 Cornman, R. 279 n. 35
Bévenot, H. 267 n. 4, 279 n. 38, 287 n. 52, 297 n. 64 Cowley, A. E. 170 n. 54, 176, 177, 178, 179
Bewer, J. A. 127 n. 6, 136 n. 31, 141 n. 47, 146 n. 63 Cross. F. M. 11n., 44 n. 4, 57 n. 29, 64, 65, 66, 154 n. 6, 160 n.
Bič, M. 142 n. 50 26, 171 n., 186 n. 6, 195 n. 22, 222 n. 5, 231, 281 n. 43
Bickerman, E. 258 n. 41, 270 n. 9, 274 n. 22, 276–7, 278, 298, Curtis, E. L. 185 n. 4, 189 n. 12, 200 nn. 33, 34; 208 n. 49
323 n. Cyrus 2, 13, 183, 189, 196, 220
Bigvai 176, 177; see also Bagohi Dahood, M. 98, 99
Bilabel, F. 251 n. 23 Dan’el 80 n. 3
Bilde, P. 220 n., 257 n. 39 Danby, H. 306 n.
Black, J. S. 1 n., 105 n. 4, 280 n. 38 Dancy, J. C. 267 n. 4, 279 n. 38, 297 n. 64
Blenkinsopp, J. 12 n. 4, 13 n., 154 nn. 6, 7; 156, 158 nn. 18, 19,
20; 161 n. 28, 165, 166, 167, 169 nn. 50, 51; 172, 173 n. 64
Booij, Th. 96 n. 58, 101 n. 70
Bowden, J. 4 n. 14, 17 n. 12, 56 n. 26, 83 n. 11, 251 n. 25, 253
n. 33
Bowker, J. W. 90 n., 91 n. 41
Bowman, J. 105 n. 4
Bowman, R. A. 153 n. 6, 154 n. 7, 157–8 n. 18, 158 n. 21, 161
n. 28, 169 nn. 50, 51
Braun, R. L. 184 n. 2, 186 n. 6, 187 n. 9, 195 n. 22, 196 n. 23,
202 n. 37, 203 n. 39
Bright, J. 154 n. 6
Bringmann, K. 274 n. 21, 275 n. 26
Brockington, L. H. 154 nn. 6, 7; 158 n. 18, 169 n. 51
Bruyne, D. de 255 n. 35
Buck, A. de 18 n. 17
Budd, P. J. 14 n., 21 n. 28, 22 n. 34, 25 n. 42, 27 n. 46, 32 n. 51,
35 n. 55
Budde, K. 71 n. 69
Bunge, J. G. 267–8 n. 5, 268 nn. 6, 7; 279 n. 35
Buttenwieser, M. 91 n. 41
Canaan 12, 80 n. 3, 111
Caquot, A. 92 n. 42, 96 n. 58, 110 n. 10
Carley, K. W. 109 n. 8, 110 n. 11
Cate, R. L. 17 n. 13
Cazelles, H. 81 n. 4, 153 n. 6
Charles, R. H. 91 n. 40, 320 n. 33
Charlesworth, J. H. 257 n. 38, 315
Clements, R. E. 17 n. 12, 104 n. 2, 143, 189 n. 13
Clines, D. J. 154 nn. 6, 7; 158 nn. 18, 19; 159 n. 23, 161 n. 28,
169 nn. 50, 51; 170
Cleopatra III 312
Cobb, W. 91 n. 40
Daphnis 278 n. 35 Elisha 32 n. 53, 48 n. 10, 71

Darius I 127, 135, 156, 165 n. 41, 166 Elkanah 55
Darius II 223 Elliger, K. 22 n. 32, 23 n. 35, 127 nn. 6, 7; 128 n. 10, 130, 132
Darius III 221 n. 20, 136 n. 31, 137 n. 34, 146 n. 63, 147 n. 66
Dathan 32 n. 52 Elmslie, W. A. L. 185 n. 4, 189 n. 12, 192 n. 16, 195 n. 22, 202
David 1, 2, 3, 48, 51, 58 n. 30, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, n. 36, 203 n. 41
70, 71, 78, 89, 92, 96, 99, 100, 101–2, 107, 109, 110, 111, Elnathan 173 n. 64
117, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 200, 201, 202, Emerton, J. A. 11 n., 82 n. 9, 83 nn. 10, 11, 15; 84, 85 n. 24, 86,
203, 204, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213 n., 295 n., 320, 322 89 nn. 36, 38; 90 n., 154 n. 6
Davidson, A. B. 109 n. 8 Enoch 101 n. 71
Davidson, R. 82 n. 9, 83 nn. 11, 12, 15; 85 n. 22, 89 n. 37, 90 n. Ephraim 58
Davies, E. W. 27 n. 46, 32 n. 51, 39 n. Eskenazi, T. C. 152 n. 2, 165 n. 42, 172 n. 61
Davies, P. R. 61 n., 71 n. 71, 163 n. 37 Euhemerus 248 n. 16
Davies, T. W. 91 n. 40 Evans, W. 99, 100 n. 67
Davies, W. D. 163 n. 36 Ezekias 227, 228, 237, 245–6 n. 5
Day, J. 51 n., 81 n. 7, 93 n. 45 Ezekiel 1, 79, 104, 105, 108 n. 7, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117,
Delcor, M. 86 n. 29, 89 n. 37, 90 n., 102 n. 76, 278 n. 35 118, 127, 131, 143
Demetrius I 279 n. 37, 285, 286, 287, 288–9, 294, 324 Ezra 13 n. 5, 134, 152 n. 2, 153, 154, 155, 159, 160, 161, 162,
Demetrius II 289, 294, 295, 296 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172 n. 61, 180, 186 n. 6
Demetrius III Akairos 314–5
Dequeker, L. 281 nn. 41, 42
Deutero-Isaiah 13, 164
Deutsch, R. 226 n. 15
Dillmann, A. 86 n. 29, 89 n. 37
Diodorus Siculus 243
Doeg the Edomite 61
Doran, R. 267 n. 5, 272 n. 13
Driver, S. R. 17 n. 13, 47 n. 8, 54 n., 55 n. 23, 64 n. 37, 70 n.,
82 n. 9, 83 n. 11, 85 nn. 22, 26; 136 n. 31, 141 n. 47, 146 n.
63
Duguid, I. M. 104 n. 1, 108 n. 7, 111 n. 16, 115 n. 26, 116 n. 30
Duhm, B. 91
Dumbrell, W. 190 n. 14
Durham, J. I. 17 n. 13
Eaton, J. H. 81 n. 7, 96 n. 58
Efron, J. 314 n. 22, 321–2
Egypt 50 n. 15, 57, 110 n. 11, 165 nn. 41, 42; 166, 180, 244,
246, 248 n. 16, 251, 252 n. 27, 253, 268 n. 5, 277, 278, 312,
319
Eichrodt, W. 108 n. 7, 110
Ekron 295
El Elyon 64
Eleazar (son of Aaron) 15, 26, 27 n. 45, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 52,
53, 54, 205, 206, 281
Eleazar (third-century BCE high priest) 228, 254, 256
Eleazar (Pharisee) 308, 310
Elephantine 5 n. 18, 6, 7, 150 n. 68, 153, 157 n. 15, 160, 170,
174, 175–83, 222, 223, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238
Eli 47 n. 8, 54, 55–7, 58, 59, 60, 64, 71, 204
Eliashib 145, 151, 153 n. 5, 159, 160, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,
173, 221, 222 n. 5, 223, 260
Elijah 32 n. 53, 48 n. 10, 71
Fairweather, W. 280 n. 38 157 n. 15

Fearghail, F. Ó. 262 n. 49 Gunkel, H. 91 n. 42, 95
Feldman, L. H. 248 nn. 15, 16; 249 nn. 19, 20; 304 n. Haggai 3, 114 n. 23, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 151,
Finkelstein, L. 163 n. 36 159, 162, 238
Fischer, T. 270 n. 10, 274 n. 20, 275 n. 26, 277–8, 280 n. 39 Halpern, B. 138, 142 n. 51
Freedman, D. N. 83 n. 14, 185 n. 3, 195 n. 22 Hammershaimb, E. 110 nn. 10, 11; 112 n. 20, 115
Fisher, L. R. 89 n. 37 Hananiah 195–6 n. 23
Floyd, M. H. 128 n. 8, 131 n. 18 Hanhart, R. 255 n. 35
Fuks, A. 254 n., 260 n. Hannah 55
Gad 71 Hallo, W. 100 n. 67
Gager, J. G. 226 n. 15, 227 n. 17, 247 n. 11, 248 n. 15, 249 n. Hanson, P. D. 134 n. 29
20 Haran, M. 13 n., 17 nn. 10, 11, 12, 13; 18 n. 18, 19 n. 22, 22,
Galling, K. 150 n. 69 105 n. 4, 115 n. 26
Gammie, J. G. 85 nn. 25, 26; 86, 89 n. 36, 97–8 Hardy, E. R. 92 n. 42, 94 n. 50, 96
Gane, R. 22 n. 34 Hartley, J. E. 18 n. 16, 20 n. 25, 23 n. 35, 25 n. 42
Garizim (Gerizim) 221, 305, 306 Hata, G. 304 n.
Garrone, D. 50 n. 14 Hauer, C. E. 64, 65, 68
Gaza 221, 227 Hawthorne, G. F. 51 n.
Gazara 299 Hayes, J. H. 154 n. 6, 158 n. 19
Gedaliah 180 Hayward, C. T. R. 226 n. 15, 263 n. 52, 278 n. 35
Geller, M. J. 306 n., 308, 309 Hebron 65, 66, 201, 202
Gemariah 176 Hecataeus of Abdera 227, 243, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 261 n.,
Gerleman, G. 92–4 321
Gerstenberger, E. H. 36 n. 58 Heliodorus 270
Gese, H. 108 n. 7
Gibeon 12 n. 2, 72 n. 73, 192, 201, 202, 206
Gideon 284
Gilboa 195
Gilgal 59
God 3, 14, 22, 25, 38, 45, 47, 51, 58, 59, 63, 71, 76, 77, 79, 102,
105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 114, 120, 136, 144, 169, 170, 174,
190, 192, 194 n. 20, 199, 201, 212, 215, 268, 282, 283, 284,
287, 306 n., 310, 320, 321, 322, 323; see also Lord (the),
Yahweh
Godman, S. 2 n. 6
Goldingay, J. 187 n. 9, 190 n. 13
Goldstein, J. A. 267 nn. 3, 4, 5; 268 nn. 6, 7; 269 n., 272 n. 17,
273 n. 18, 274 n. 22, 275 n. 26, 279 n. 38, 284 n. 48, 287 n.
52, 292 nn. 57, 58; 295 n., 297 n. 64, 300 n. 69, 314 n. 21,
322 n. 37
Goodblatt, D. 262 n. 46, 263 n. 53
Gordon, R. P. 56 n. 26, 58 n. 32
Gorman, F. H. 15
Goulder, M. D. 85 n. 24, 95 n. 51
Grabbe, L. L. 4 n. 15, 165 n. 42, 166 n. 43, 183 n., 222, 234 n.
47, 247 n. 11, 255 n. 35, 269 n., 270 n. 9
Gray, G. B. 32 n. 51, 320 n. 33
Gray, J. 53 n. 20, 74 n. 76, 80 n. 3
Greenberg, M. 36 n. 60, 104 n. 2, 108 n. 7, 110, 113 n. 22, 117,
118
Grelot, P. 180 n. 31
Gunneweg, A. H. J. 64 n. 40, 69 n. 65, 154 nn. 6, 7; 156 n. 12,
Hengel, M. 251, 253 n. 32, 255 n. 35, 258 n. 40, 269 n., 270 n. Jason 255, 258, 259, 260, 272, 273–4, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279,
11, 272 n. 15, 277, 315 285, 287, 288, 305, 312, 318, 322, 325
Herbert, A. S. 83 n. 11, 85 n. 22, 89 n. 37 Jason of Cyrene 268
Herod the Great 318 n. 28 Jebus 85
Hertzberg, H. W. 56 n. 26, 57 n. 27, 58 n. 32, 60 nn. 34, 35; 64 Jeconiah 131
n. 37 Jedaniah 175–9, 181, 182
Hess, R. S. 84 n. 18 Jefferson, H. G. 96 n. 55
Hezekiah (king of Judah) 78, 121, 189, 195 n. 21, 208, 211, Jehiel 212, 215
212, 307 Jehohanan 159, 160
Hezekiah (governor of Judah) 228 n. 23 Jehoiachin 78
Higgins, A. J. B. 93 n. 45, 96, 136 n. 31 Jehoiada (Aaronide chief) 65, 66, 67, 68, 202 n. 38, 213 n.
Hilkiah 45, 54, 75–6, 77, 150, 161, 170 n. 52, 176, 195, 200, Jehoiada (pre-exilic chief priest) 12 n. 2, 54, 71, 73–4, 75, 77,
208, 212, 215, 217 144, 150, 170 n. 52, 176, 195, 196, 207, 209–10, 211, 212,
Hobbs, T. R. 74 nn. 75, 76, 79 213, 215, 216, 217, 316 n. 27
Hoglund, K. G. 165 Jehoiada (post-exilic high priest, son of Eliashib) 172, 222 n. 5;
Hooke, S. H. 185 n. 3 see also Joiada
Hophni 55 Jehoiakim (king of Judah) 180, 199, 301
Hor (Mount) 32 Jehoshaphat 207, 208, 216
Horeb 50 n. 15; see also Sinai Jehozadak 94, 95, 129, 130, 196, 200; see also Jozadak, Yozadak
Homer, T. M. 91–2 n. 42 Jenson, P. P. 25 nn. 41, 43; 38
Horst, F. 128 n. 10, 129 n. 11 Jeremiah 79, 127, 143
Horton, F. L. 81, 82, 85 n. 26, 86, 94
Houlden, J. L. 186 n. 7
Houtman, C. 17 n. 13, 21 n. 31
Huldah 76, 212
Hurvitz, A. 13 n., 83 n. 14
Hvidberg, F. 110 n. 10
Hyatt, J. P. 17 n. 13, 18 n. 15, 19 n. 20
Hyrcanus the Tobiad 260, 272–3
Hyrcanus II (Hasmonean ruler) 305 n. 3, 315, 316, 317–8
Iddo 126, 127
Idumaea 305
Israel 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14 n., 19, 22, 29, 30, 32 n. 52, 36 n. 59,
37, 38, 43, 44 nn. 4, 5; 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 nn. 14, 15; 52, 55,
56, 58, 61, 71, 72, 81 n. 5, 86, 89, 97 n. 59, 105, 106, 107,
110 n. 11, 111, 112, 113, 114, 157 n. 15, 163, 164, 165,
186, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199 n. 31, 201, 203, 204,
206, 209, 217, 282, 284, 285, 286, 290, 295 n., 299, 302,
314 n. 22, 320, 321, 322, 323, 330
Israel, F. 50 n. 14
Ithamar 206, 281 n. 42
Jacob 85
Jaddua 171 n., 232
Jaddua II 231
Jaddus 221, 228
Jaeger, W. 248 n. 13, 249 n. 20
Jagersma, H. 253 n. 33, 258 n. 41, 261 n., 269 n., 270 n. 9, 305
n. 3, 314 n. 21
James, M. R. 319 n. 30, 320
Japhet, S. 157 n. 15, 184–5 n. 2, 185 n. 4, 186 n. 5, 189 n. 12,
196 n. 23, 197 n. 26, 202 n. 37, 203 nn. 39, 40; 208 n. 48,
210, 213 n.
Jeroboam 54, 78 Judah 2, 3, 4, 44, 48 n. 11, 70, 77, 79, 86, 92, 93, 104, 106, 108,
Jerome 152 n. 2 117, 125, 126, 127, 131, 138, 140, 143, 148, 152, 155, 156,
Jerusalem 2, 3, 5, 7, 51 n., 52, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69 n. 64, 165, 166, 173 n. 64, 175, 176, 180, 187, 188 n. 11, 189,
70, 71, 72, 74 n. 76, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 191, 194 n. 20, 195, 197, 201, 208, 219, 222, 224, 225, 226
94, 96, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 112, 116 n. 29, 120, n. 15, 236, 238, 239, 243, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250, 251,
126, 130 n. 16, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 147, 148, 150 n. 252, 253, 257, 258, 259 n. 43, 260, 261, 262, 264, 269, 271,
68, 153, 155, 160 n. 27, 169, 170, 171 n., 175, 176, 178, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 288, 295, 297 n. 63,
179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 187, 192, 193, 195, 196, 201, 204, 299, 305, 316, 317, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327,
206, 207, 208, 214, 219 n. 1, 220, 221, 222, 225, 236 n. 51,
238, 246, 248, 249, 250, 256, 258, 259 n. 43, 262, 263 n.
53, 264, 268, 270 n. 11, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 278, 280,
281, 286, 297, 298, 305 n. 3, 314 n. 22, 315, 317, 318 n. 28,
319, 320, 325
Jeshaiah 195–6 n. 23
Jeshua (high priest) 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 169, 171, 172,
173, 230 n. 33; see also Joshua (high priest), Yeshua son of
Yozadak
Jesse 141
Jesus (high priestly pretender) 221, 222, 223, 224, 233, 235, 238
Joannes (high priest) 221, 222, 223, 224, 233, 234–5, 236, 237,
238
Joash 12 n. 2, 71, 73, 77, 144, 190, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212,
213, 215, 216, 316 n. 27
Johanan (high priest) 150 n. 68, 153 n. 5, 159, 160, 175, 178,
182, 223, 234, 238
John Hyrcanus 266 n. 1, 267, 303–13, 314, 316, 324, 326–7
Johnson, A. R. 21 n. 27, 81
Johnson, M. D. 196, 197
Joiada (son of Eliashib) 160; see also Jehoiada
Joiakim (high priest) 127, 160
Joiarib 281
Jonathan (grandson of Eliashib) 159, 160
Jonathan Maccabee 219 n. 1, 266, 267 n. 4, 269, 280, 282–9,
290, 294–6, 296–7, 299, 300, 301, 303, 307, 310, 311, 313,
324, 326, 329
Jones, G. H. 74 nn. 75, 76; 75 n. 80, 197 n. 26
Joppa 298, 324
Joseph the Tobiad 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 272 nn. 13, 17
Josephus 7, 85 n. 21, 171 n., 220, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228, 230,
233, 234, 235, 236, 243, 244, 246 n. 5, 253, 254, 255 n. 35,
256, 257, 262 n. 51, 266, 267 n. 4, 268, 269, 272, 275, 280
n. 40, 284 nn. 46, 47; 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310,
311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 325, 327
Joshua (high priest) 1, 2, 33 n. 53, 94, 95, 116, 117, 127, 128,
129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 157
n. 15, 161 n. 28, 196, 203, 238; see also Jeshua (high priest),
Yeshua son of Yozadak
Joshua (son of Nun) 33, 34, 38, 39, 48, 53, 192, 205
Josiah 44, 75, 76, 78, 79, 121, 180, 189, 212, 215, 307
Jozadak 155, 159, 160, 230 n. 33; see also Jehozadak, Yozadak
Judaea 2, 4, 246, 247, 248, 249, 284 n. 46
330; see also Judaea, Judea, Yehud McCullough, J. C. 90 n.

Judah (patriarch) 93 McCullough, W. S. 297 n. 62, 305 n. 3
Judas Maccabee 219 n. 1, 266, 268, 279 n. 37, 280 n. 40, 282, McHugh, J. 3 n. 8
284 n. 47, 303, 306, 313 McKay, J. 74 n. 76, 96 n. 58
Judea 89 n. 35, 234 McKeating, H. 104 n. 1
Katzenstein, H. J. 196 n. 24 Madsen, A. A. 185 n. 4, 189 n. 12, 200 nn. 33, 34; 208 n. 49
Kaufmann, Y. 36 n. 60 Manasseh 13 n., 180
Kellermann, D. 30 n. 47, 35 n. 55 Manasses 221, 222
Kellermann, U. 154 n. 6 Manasses (uncle of the high priest Eleazar) 254
Kennett, R. H. 58 n. 31 Manson, T. W. 2 n. 3
Keret 80 n. 3 Marcus, R. 236 n. 51, 311 n. 16
Kidner, D. 154 n. 7 Margolis, M. 180 n. 29
Kiessling, E. 251 n. 23 Marinkovic, P. 126 n. 5
Kindler, A. 231, 233, 244 n. 1 Marisa 305
Kissane, E. J. 95, 96 Marks, J. H. 83 n. 11
Klein, R. W. 58 n. 32, 154 n. 6 Martin, J. D. 26 n., 53 n. 20, 104 n. 2
Knibb, M. 126 n. 4 Mason, R. 3 n. 11, 126 n. 4, 127 nn. 6, 8; 128 n. 10, 129 n. 11,
Knohl, I. 13 n. 130 n. 15, 136 n. 31, 137 n. 34, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 48, 146 n.
Kobelski, P. J. 87 63, 186 n. 7
Koch, K. 11 n., 105 n. 3, 114, 115 n. 25, 154 n. 6, 164 n. 38 Mattathias 93, 266, 281, 282, 286, 329
Kohl, M. 105 n. 3, 128 n. 10 Mauchline, J. 55 n. 24, 56 n. 26, 57 n. 27, 58 n. 32, 60 n. 35, 64
Köhler, L. 137 n. 37, 70 n.
Korah 31 Mazar, B. 259, 260 n.
Kraemer, D. 152 n. 2 Mayes, A. D. H. 43 n. 2, 47 n. 8, 54 n.
Kraus, H.-J. 94, 96 n. 58 Mayes, J. L. 108 n. 7
Krüger, T. 126 n. 5
Kuenen, A. 44 n. 4
Kuhrt, A. 189 n. 11
Laato, A. 142 n. 49
Lacocque, A. 128 n. 10
Landau, Y. H. 252 n. 26
Laperrousaz, E.-M. 3 n. 12, 173 n. 64
Lapp, P. W. 259 n. 43
Lebanon 299
Lella, A. Di 262 nn. 48, 50, 51
Lemke, W. 110, 112
Leontopolis 278, 318 n. 28
Levenson, J. D. 109 n. 9, 112, 118, 119
Levi 54, 93, 196, 205
Liebesny, H. 251 n. 23, 252
Lipiński, E. 136 n. 30, 140 n. 43
Lods, A. 185 n. 3
Lord (the) 25 n. 40, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37 n. 61, 38, 39,
46, 51, 52 n. 18, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 75, 76, 86, 107, 112,
114, 115, 126, 135, 137 n. 33, 139, 143, 164, 188, 190, 191,
192, 208, 209, 210, 213, 306 n., 319, 320, 322; see also God,
Yahu, Yahweh
Lot 82, 83, 84 n. 16
Lysias 279 n. 37
Lysimachus 288
McCarter, P. K. 57 n. 27, 60 n. 35, 64 n. 38, 70 n.
McConville, J. G. 84 n. 18
Medaba 306 222 n. 5, 234, 260, 261, 297, 298

Medico, H. E. Del 84, 98–9, 101 Nelson, R. D. 44 n. 4, 57 n. 27
Meek, T. J. 58 n. 31 Neusner, J. 269 n.
Melchizedek 5 n. 18, 6, 69 n. 64, 79, 80–103, 148 n. 67, 290, Newsome, J. D. 184 n. 2, 185 n. 3, 195 n. 22
329 Nicanor 268
Mendels, D. 247, 248 n. 13, 249 n. 20, 315 Nicholson, E. 11 n., 50 n. 14
Menelaus 255, 258, 259, 260, 261, 272, 274–5, 276, 277, 278, Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 283 n. 44
279, 280, 287, 288, 305, 312, 318, 326 Nicolaus of Damascus 304
Menzies, A. 1n., 105 n. 4 Noah 92
Meraioth 199 n. 32 Nob 60, 62, 86
Meshorer, Y. 225, 228 n. 20, 229 nn. 24, 26; 231 n. 38, 232, North, F. S. 58 n. 31, 128 n. 9
233, 244, 245, 250 n. 22, 305 n. 3, 314 n. 21 North, R. 187 n. 8, 198 nn. 29, 30
Meyers, C. L. 133, 134, 136 n. 31, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 48 Noth, M. 2 n. 6, 12, 14 n., 17 nn. 12, 13; 18 n. 19, 19 n. 20, 21
Meyers, E. M. 133, 134, 136 n. 31, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 48 n. 27, 26 n., 32 n. 51, 43, 56, 57, 305 n. 3, 316 n. 26
Michaeli, F. 17 n. 13, 18 nn. 16, 18, 19; 19 n. 22, 20 n. 26, 154 O'Brien, M. A. 44 n. 5
n. 6, 157 n. 16, 158 n. 19, 169 n. 51, 172 n. 60, 185 n. 4, Obadiah 195–6 n. 23
196 n. 23, 197 n. 26, 199 n. 31, 202 n. 36, 208 n. 48, 210 n. Oesterley, W. O. E. 158 n. 19, 308 n. 9
51 Olyan, S. M. 65, 66, 67, 68, 171 n., 202 n. 38
Micah the Ephraimite 49, 59 Onias I 228, 254, ?292
Midian 33, 205
Mildenberg, L. 225, 226 n. 16, 228 nn. 20, 21; 229 nn. 24, 26,
27; 230, 244 n. 1, 245, 250 n. 22
Milgrom, J. 13 n., 18 n. 16, 21, 22, 24
Millar, F. 227 n. 18, 277
Miller, J. M. 154 n. 6, 158 n. 19
Mitchell, H. G. 127 n. 6, 136 n. 31, 141 n. 47, 146 n. 63
Mizpah 59
Moab 33
Modrzejewski, J. M. 279 n. 35
Möhring, H. R. 274 n. 22
Mölleken, W. 279 n. 37
Montgomery, J. A. 69 n. 67, 74 n. 75, 77 n. 83
Moore, G. F. 53 n. 20
Morgenstern, J. 5, 74 n. 76, 145 n. 62, 150 n. 68, 210 n. 53, 236
n. 51
Moses 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
44 n. 5, 45, 47 n. 9, 50, 57 n. 29, 59, 71 n. 72, 75, 122, 157
n. 15, 164, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 203 n. 39, 205, 246,
248, 249
Mørkholm, O. 225 n. 11
Mowinckel, S. 64, 81
Moyer, J. 100 n. 67
Murray, O. 246 n. 6, 248 nn. 13, 18; 249 n. 20
Muuss, R. 180 n. 29
Myers, J. M. 53 n. 20, 154 nn. 6, 7; 158 nn. 18, 19, 21; 161 n.
28, 169 n. 51, 172 n. 60, 185 n. 4, 196 n. 23, 208 n. 48
Nadab 23, 31, 32, 35, 36
Nathan 71
Nebuchadnezzar 77
Nebuzaradan 77, 212 n.
Nehemiah 134, 145, 151, 152 n. 2, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159,
160, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 183, 219,
Onias II 254, 256, 259, 260, 261, 269, ?292 245, 247 n. 10
Onias III 220, 254, 255, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 278, 287 Ras Shamra 80 n. 3
Onias IV 278, 318 n. 28 Redditt, P. L. 4 n. 16, 138, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 47, 142 n. 51, 146
Origen 152 n. 2, 322 n. 37 n. 63, 183 n.
Ostanes 182 Reinhold, M. 249 n. 20
Oswald, H. C. 94 n. 49 Rendtorff, R. 11 n., 23 nn. 35, 36
Palestine 6, 171 n., 243, 244, 251, 252 n. 27, 253, 254, 259, 264 Rephaiah 195–6 n. 23
Panchaia 248 n. 16 Reventlow, H. G. 127 n. 6, 128 n. 10, 129 n. 11, 130 nn. 14, 15;
Parente, F. 306 n. 132 n. 20, 137 n. 34, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 46, 144 n. 58, 147
Pelatiah 195 n. 23 nn. 65, 66
Perdue, L. 100 n. 67 Richards, K. H. 165 n. 42
Persia 2, 166, 298 Riley, W. 197 n. 26
Petersen, D. L. 4 n. 13, 127 n. 6, 129 n. 11, 130 n. 15, 136 n. Robinson, H. W. 47 n. 8, 54 n.
31, 140 n. 42, 141 n. 47, 142 n. 51, 145, 183 n. Robinson, J. 69 n. 67, 74 nn. 75, 76
Petersen, J. E. 12 n. 4 Robinson, T. H. 128 n. 10, 129 n. 11
Petitjean, A. 146 n. 64 Rogerson, J. W. 96 n. 58
Petuchowski, J. J. 93 n. 45 Rome 267, 268, 283, 306, 319
Pharnadates 166 Rooke, D. W. 51 n.
Phillips, A. 54 n., 126 n. 4 Rosenberg, R. 69 n. 64
Phinehas (grandson of Aaron) 52, 53, 54, 262, 281–2, 285, 286, Rostovtzeff, M. 253 n. 29
289 Rowley, H. H. 64, 71 n. 69, 72 n. 73, 80 n. 2, 89 n. 38, 90 n.,
Phinehas (son of Eli) 55 100 n. 68, 101–2, 104 n. 1, 154 n. 6
Phoenicia 244, 251 Rudman, S. 134 n. 29
Photius 243 Rudolph, W. 127 nn. 6, 7; 128 n. 10, 129 n. 11, 154 n. 6, 154 n.
Plöger, O. 134 n. 29 7, 157 n. 16, 158 n. 19, 185 n. 4, 189 n. 12, 196 n. 23, 197
Plutarch 319 n. 26, 208 n. 48
Polybius 251
Polzin, R. 186 n. 5
Porten, B. 170 nn. 54, 56; 176, 177, 180, 181
Pompey 7, 243, 317–8, 319, 327
Porter, J. R. 127 n. 6, 160 n. 25
Preisigke, F. 251 n. 23
Propp, W. H. C. 11 n.
Psammetichus I 179 n. 28
Psammetichus II 179
Ptolemy I Soter 225, 227, 244, 246, 250
Ptolemy II Philadelphus 225, 228, 243, 250 n. 22, 254 n. 34,
256, 257, 260
Ptolemy III Euergetes 225
Ptolemy VI Philometor 295
Ptolemy (governor of Antiochus III) 269
Ptolemy son of Abubus 303, 305, 306
Quinn, C. 108 n. 7
Qumran 80, 87, 88, 256, 278 n. 35, 283 n. 44, 315
Rabin, C. 314 n. 22
Rad, G. von 45 n., 54 n., 83 nn. 11, 12, 15; 85 n. 22, 86 nn. 28,
29
Rahmani, L. Y. 226 n. 15
Rajak, T. 305 nn. 3, 4
Ramah 59
Raphia 251 n. 24
Rappaport, U. 225 n. 10, 226 nn. 13, 15, 16; 228, 244–5 n. 1,
Russell, D. S. 261 n., 305 n. 3, 324 Smith, J. M. P. 127 n. 6, 136 n. 31, 141 n. 47, 146 n. 63
Ryle, H. E. 157 n. 18, 161 n. 28, 19 n. 30, 320 Smith, M. 154 n. 6, 163 n. 36, 219 n. 1
Salem 84, 85–6, 102 Smith, R. H. 82 n. 9, 83 n. 12, 85, 89 n. 37
Salome Alexandra 312 n. 18, 314, 315–7, 327 Smith, R. L. 136 n. 31, 141 n. 48
Samaga 306 Smith, W. F. 318 n. 28
Samaria 54, 75, 76, 194, 221, 222 n. 5, 234, 305 Smith-Christopher, D. L. 182 n. 35
Samuel 48, 50, 55, 56, 57 n. 27, 58–9 Snaith, J. G. 262 nn. 50, 51; 263 n. 54
Sanballat 172, 221, 222 Snaith, N. H. 2 n. 3, 35 n. 55, 74 n. 75
Satterthwaite, P. 84 n. 18 Sodom 82, 84
Saul 48, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 100, 191, 195, 197, 198, 285 Soggin, J. A. 53 n. 20
Sayce, A. H. 179 n. 28 Solomon 48, 49, 50, 51, 62, 69, 70, 71, 75, 192, 193, 194, 198,
Scaurus 317 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 210, 212, 300 n. 69
Schaper, J. 133 n. 26 Spaer, A. 231, 232, 233
Scharbert, J. 17 n. 13, 18 nn. 16, 19; 20 n. 26, 31 n. 50, 35 n. 56 Speiser, E. A. 83 nn. 11, 15; 85 n. 22, 110
Schreiner, S. 94–5, 148 n. 67 Spieckermann, H. 74 n. 76
Schunk, K.-D. 258 n. 40, 261 n., 269 n., 270 n. 11, 274 n. 23, Stähelin, F. 278 n. 35
280 n. 39 Steckoll, S. H. 278 n. 35
Schwartz, D. R. 222 nn. 4, 5; 223 n., 236 Sterling, G. E. 227 nn. 17, 18; 246 n. 6, 247, 248, 249 n. 20
Schwartz, S. 173 n. 64, 258 n. 41, 267 n. 4
Scullion, J. J. 11 n., 83 n. 10
Scythopolis 252 n. 26, 305
Ṣedeq 69 n. 64
Seleucus IV 220, 270, 273
Seraiah 54, 77, 161, 194 n. 19
Seters, J. Van 88, 94
Shaphan 75
Shealtiel 155, 188
Shecaniah 195–6 n. 23
Shechem 85, 86, 120
Shem 92
Sheshbazzar 117 n. 32, 173 n. 64, 203
Shiloh 47 n. 8, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 78, 86, 120
Shutt, R. J. H. 257 n. 38
Sievers, J. 267 n. 4, 275 n. 25, 279 n. 37, 283 n. 45, 287 n. 52,
297 n. 64, 305 n. 3, 306 n., 308, 309, 312 n. 19, 316 n. 27
Simon I (high priest) 228, 254
Simon II the Just (high priest) 221, 254, 255 n. 35, 262, 263,
264, 293
Simon (captain of the Temple) 255 n. 35, 258 n. 40, 270, 271,
272, 273
Simon Maccabee 91, 220 n., 266, 267 n. 4, 269, 280, 287, 289,
290, 292, 296–302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 310, 311, 313, 321,
322, 324, 326, 330
Simpson, C. A. 83 nn. 11, 12; 85 n. 22
Sinai 38, 50, 187, 192, 196
Skeat, T. C. 252 n. 27
Skehan, P. W. 262 nn. 48, 50, 51
Skinner, J. 75 n. 80, 83 nn. 10, 11, 12, 13; 85 n. 26, 86 n. 29, 89
nn. 36, 37; 90 n., 115 n. 26
Smith, D. L. 163 n. 37
Smith, G. A. 47 n. 8, 54 n.
Smith, H. P. 58 n. 32, 60 n. 34, 64 n. 38, 70 n.
Stern, M. 226 n. 15, 227 n. 17, 247, 248 nn. 14, 16 Wellhausen, J. 1, 57 n. 29, 105 n. 4, 106, 208
Stevenson, W. B. 86 n. 29 Wenham, G. J. 51 n., 83, 84 nn. 16, 18
Streane, A. W. 109 n. 8 Westermann, C. 83, 85 nn. 22, 26; 89 n. 38, 90 n.
Sturdy, J. 27 n. 46 Wevers, J. W. 108 n. 7, 109 n. 8, 111 n. 15
Susa 165 n. 41, 166 Whybray, R. N. 190 n. 13
Syria 244, 251, 252 n. 27, 324 Widengren, G. 154 n. 6
Tadmor, H. 74 nn. 75, 76, 77, 78; 75 n. 80 Williamson, H. G. M. 154 nn. 6, 7; 155 n. 9, 157 n. 16, 158 n.
Talshir, D. 185 n. 2 19, 160 n. 25, 161 n. 28, 169 nn. 50, 51; 172 n. 60, 173 n.
Tamar 92, 93 64, 184–5 n. 2, 185 n. 4, 187 n. 9, 189 n. 12, 192, 193 n.
Tcherikover, V. 221 n., 247, 251 n. 24, 254 n., 260 n., 261 n. 17, 195 n. 23, 197 n. 26, 200 n. 33, 202 nn. 36, 37; 203 n.
Tchernowitz, C. H. 306 n. 41, 208 n. 48, 209, 217, 223 n., 234 n. 49
Tennes 234 Wolff, H. W. 128 n. 10
Thebes 178 Woude, A. S. van der 256 n., 283 n. 44, 322 n. 36
Theodotus 251 n. 24 Wright, G. E. 47 n. 8, 54 n.
Thoma, C. 306 n. Wright, D. P. 83 n. 14
Thomas, D. W. 127 n. 6, 128 n. 10, 136 n. 31, 140 n. 42, 141 n. Wright, J. W. 202 n. 37, 210 n. 52, 214
47, 146 n. 63 Yaddua 231, 232, 233, 237
Throntveit, M. A. 185 n. 2 Yahu 179, 181; see also God, Lord (the), Yahweh
Tidwell, N. L. 58 n. 32, 141 n. 44
Tobiah (contemporary of Zechariah) 260, 261
Tobiah the Ammonite (contemporary of Nehemiah) 145, 260,
261
Tobias 254, 259, 260, 272 n. 13
Tollington, J. E. 145 n. 62
Tournay, R. 2 n. 7, 94
Transjordan 260, 306
Treves, M. 91 n. 41
Trypho 295, 296
Tuell, S. S. 105 nn. 2, 4; 108 n. 7, 115, 116, 117 nn. 31, 32
Tyre 221
Udjahorresnet 165 n. 41, 166, 168
Uriah 54, 74–5, 144, 170 n. 52, 194 n. 19, 195 n. 21
Urusalim 85
Utzschneider, H. 126 n. 5
Uzzah 68, 71 n. 69
Uzziah 190, 195 n. 21, 207, 210, 211, 213, 215; see also Azariah
(king of Judah)
VanderKam, J. 144, 171 n., 232 n. 41
Vaux, R. de 3 n. 8
Vawter, B. 82 n. 9, 83 n. 12, 85 n. 26, 86
Vermes, G. 80 n. 1, 315 n. 23
Vincent, A. 176, 180 n. 29
Vuilleumier, R. 128 n. 10
Wacholder, B. Z. 304 n.
Waggoner, N. M. 225 n. 11
Walbank, F. W. 300 n. 69
Ward, W. A. 253 n. 30
Weinberg, J. 182
Weippert, H. 226 n. 16
Weiser, A. 96 n. 58
Welch, A. C. 158 n. 19, 184 n. 2, 187 n. 8, 189 n. 12, 195 n. 22,
202 nn. 36, 37
Yahweh 3, 5, 15 16, 17, 21 n. 31, 22 n. 34, 23, 30 n. 48, 36, 48

n. 10, 49, 50, 63, 78, 81, 91, 96 n. 59, 97, 107, 108, 111,
112, 113, 114, 117, 120, 126 n. 5, 131, 135, 136, 137, 140,
143, 145 n. 62, 146, 149, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197,
204, 208, 211, 217, 218; see also God, Lord (the), Yahu
Yarden, L. 31 n. 50
Yardeni, A. 177
Yeb 177
Yedoniah 175, 177; see also Jedaniah
Yeḥezqiyah 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 236, 237, 244, 245,
246 n. 5, 250
Yehud 220, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 236, 238, 243,
244, 245 n. 2, 250, 259 n. 43; see also Judah
Yehudah 225, 245; see also Judah, Yehud
Yeshua 230; see also Jesus
Yeshua son of Yozadak 230 n. 33; see also Jeshua (high priest),
Joshua (high priest)
Yoḥanan (the priest) 227 n. 19, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234,
235, 236, 237, 244 n. 1
Yozadak 230 n. 33; see also Jozadak, Jehozadak
Zadok 12 n. 2, 51 n., 52 n. 18, 54, 57, 58 n. 30, 62, 63, 63–72,
80 n. 2, 90 n., 95, 101–2, 116 n. 29, 161, 164, 192, 194,
196, 198–9, 200, 201–6, 207, 211, 281, 311, 322
Zebadiah 208
Zechariah (prophet) 3, 4, 114 n. 23, 126, 127, 135, 136, 137,
138 n. 35, 139, 142 n. 50, 143, 149, 151, 162, 238, 260, 261
Zechariah (Temple official) 212, 215
Zedekiah 191
Zeitlin S. 2 nn. 4, 5; 183 n., 267 nn. 3, 4; 268 n. 7, 272 n. 17,
279 n. 38, 287 n. 52, 297 n. 64
Zeno 243, 252, 254, 259, 260, 271
Zerubbabel 1, 2, 3, 4, 94, 114 n. 23, 116, 117, 127, 128, 129,
130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146, 148 n. 67, 149, 150, 151, 152 n. 2, 155, 156, 157
n. 15, 158, 159, 169, 173, 188, 189, 195, 203, 230 n. 33,
238, 318
Zevit, Z. 13 n. 5, 306 n.
Ziklag 295 n.
Zimmerli, W. 104 n. 2, 108 n. 7, 109 n. 8, 111 n. 15
Zion 85, 86, 90, 296
Zscharnack, L. 91 n. 42
Zwickel, W. 74 n. 76

Deborah - W. - Rooke-Zadok's - Heirs - The - Role - and - Development - of - The - High - Priesthood - in - Ancient - Israel (2000) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Deborah - W. - Rooke-Zadok's - Heirs - The - Role - and - Development - of - The - High - Priesthood - in - Ancient - Israel (2000) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Oxford Theological Monographs

‘WORKING THE EARTH OF THE HEART’

THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST

BEAUTY AND REVELATION IN THE THOUGHT OF

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE

CHRISTOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY

KIERKEGAARD AS NEGATIVE THEOLOGIAN

EARLY ISRAELITE WISDOM

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD FROM ORIGEN TO

RIGHT PRACTICAL REASON

JOHN NEWTON AND THE ENGLISH EVANGELICAL

The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel

HAR Hebrew Annual Review

NTSupp Novum Testamentum Supplement series

(‘the priest who is great/senior/eldest among his brothers, upon

a person, speciﬁcally the king of Salem. But where or what is Salem?

Thou art a priest for ever

Yahweh has sworn

Part II: Summary

where judgements of a more factual nature which rely on it are concerned.

kings represent the same religious outlook, which Zadok personiﬁes.496

Part III: Summary

Part IV: Summary

Auld, A. Graeme, Kings Without Privilege (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994).

Gerleman, Gillis, ‘Psalm cx’, VT 31 (1981), 1–19.

VTSupp 43 (1991), 298–313.

(London: SCM Press, 1973).

Myers, Jacob M., ‘Judges’, in IB ii (1953), 675–826.

ii (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 7–34.

1. Old and New Testament

261; 7 172; 7: 6–73 153 n. 3, 157 n. 16, 197; 7: 7 169; 7:

115; 44: 3–46: 24 108 n. 7; 44: 3 107; 44: 9–31 57 n. 30,

157; 3: 2 139; 3: 3–5 33 n. 53; 3: 3 139, 140; 3: 5 139; 3:

292; 7: 14 225 n. 36; 7: 21–5 279; 7: 21 291 n. 56; 7:

320; 3: 16 320; 4: 7 320; 4: 9 320; 8: 13 320; 8: 40 320;

4. Dead Sea Scrolls

5. Other Jewish and Hellenistic

315; i. 109 315; i. 110–11 316; i. 120–2 317; i. 123–6

Bentzen, A. 64, 69 n. 64 Cockerill, G. L. 87, 88

Daphnis 278 n. 35 Elisha 32 n. 53, 48 n. 10, 71

Fairweather, W. 280 n. 38 157 n. 15

330; see also Judaea, Judea, Yehud McCullough, J. C. 90 n.

Medaba 306 222 n. 5, 234, 260, 261, 297, 298

Yahweh 3, 5, 15 16, 17, 21 n. 31, 22 n. 34, 23, 30 n. 48, 36, 48

Вам также может понравиться