McConville, Priesthood in Joshua to Kings

1 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 128, 141-42 = Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883), pp. 132, 146-47; cf. P.K. McCarter,1 Samuel (New York, 1980), p. 136.

2 M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (SheYeld, 1981), pp. 92-93 = berlieferungs-geschichtliche Studien (Tbingen, 2nd ed., 1957), pp. 103-104.

3 Noth, p. 94 (German, p. 105).4 Noth, p. 93 (German, p. 104).5 G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London, 1953), pp. 84-89 = Deuteronomium-Studien

(Gttingen, 1947), pp. 59-63.

PRIESTHOOD IN JOSHUA TO KINGS

by

J.G. McCONVILLECheltenham

In scholarly interpretation of the meaning of the DeuteronomisticHistory (DtrH), the accent has largely fallen on the attitude of the au-thor or authors (Dtr) to the monarchy. As a result, the topic of priest-hood in DtrH has often been neglected as a theme in its own right.A habit of regarding material that re ected priestly interests as some-how intrusive to the historical books is well established. Literary criticstended to think that texts such as 1 Sam. vi 15 and 2 Sam. xv 24,which carefully record that the Levites handled the ark of the cove-nant, betray the harmonization of old narratives to later practice andbelief.1 And the tradition criticism of M. Noth supposed that priestlyelements were residues that Dtr could not help but preserve, thoughhe had no intrinsic interest in them. Indeed, (Dtr) likes to confer uponcult objects a signi cance not strictly speaking cultic, as well as indi-cating [he concedes] their original and actual function.2 Dtrs atti-tude, furthermore, was not merely driven by force of circumstance,rather: he did not see the end of regulated cult as any great loss.3

His portrayal of ark, temple and sacri ce follow naturally from thisview.4

While other views, notably that of G. von Rad, have been morepositive,5 and some modern studies have brought new perspectives tobear, as we shall notice, Noths appraisal continues to be in uential.The most interesting recent contribution has come from R.D. Nelson,

Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, 1999 Vetus Testamentum XLIX, 1

j.g. mcconville74

6 R.D. Nelson, The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History, inJ.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (Leiden, 1991), pp. 132-147.

7 Nelson, p. 132.8 Nelson, pp. 134-5.9 Nelson, p. 132.

10 Nelson, pp. 132, 138.11 Nelson, p. 141.12 Nelson, p. 144.13 R.E. Clements, The Deuteronomic Law of Centralisation and the Catastrophe

of 587 B.C.E., in John Barton and David J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile: Essays in

who adopts a modi ed version of Noths position.6 The present articleis in some respects a response to his.

Nelson notes several features of Dtrs positive interest in priests.First, there are elements of priestly theology in, for example, Solomonsdedicatory prayer (at 1 Kgs viii 10-11) and at 2 Kgs xvi 15. Second,priests appear in the narrative from beginning (Deut. xxxi 9) to end(2 Kgs xxv 18).7 Third, Dtr distinguishes between priests and Levites.8

And fourth, he identi es 1 Sam. ii 27-36 and 2 Kgs xxiii 5-9 as keypassages for the topic.9 However, Dtrs interest in priesthood shouldnot be exaggerated, in Nelsons view. Despite Dtrs intervention in thepromissory oracle at 1 Sam. ii 35, shifting the expectation towards awhole priestly family (and away from Samuel) as Elis successor, heshows no genealogical interest in Zadok.10 Eli and Zadok, in the end,merely serve as redactional pointers to what is really important toDtr, namely, divine dynastic promise and royal obedience and dis-obedience.11 In the account of Josiahs treatment of priests (2 Kgsxxiii 5-9), while Dtr distinguishes ve diVerent categories of them, heis merely working out the eVects of the reform.12

Nelsons position is thus signi cantly diVerent from that of Noth.This is not surprising, given that in his view Dtr is Josianic, while forNoth he was exilic. It must make a diVerence whether Dtr was writ-ing at a time when the royal priestly cultic establishment was ourishing,and appeared to have a golden future, or at a time when it had beendestroyed, perhaps for ever. Yet the question of dating is not the onlyfactor. It may be asked whether Dtr would have considered the reli-gious traditions associated with Jerusalem to have been entirely boundup with the Davidic dynasty, as R.E. Clements has well pointed out:. . . the Deuteronomic equivocation regarding the Davidic kingshipcontrasts rather unexpectedly with its wholehearted commitment toJerusalem as the chosen sanctuary after events that had so seriouslydamaged the reputation of both institutions.13 If the status of Jerusalem

priesthood in joshua to kings 75

Honour of Rex Mason (Macon GA, 1996), pp. 5-25, here p. 24, and see also p. 25. Ihave elsewhere disputed this alleged attachment of Dtr to Jerusalem as such, in J.G.McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (SheYeld, 1994).

14 E.J. Revell has made interesting observations from a novel angle in The Designationof the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (Kampen, 1996). He considers therelationship between designations and narrative intent in Judges, Samuel and Kings,the term priest being one important case. Certain usages can show, for example,that a particular character is deemed to show too little respect for the priest; see pp.158, 161. He does not oVer a sustained interpretation of Dtrs view of priesthood,however.

15 For the connections between Exodus and Samuel see R.E. Friedman, From Egyptto Egypt, in B. Halpern and J. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation (WinonaLake, IN, 1981), pp. 167-92; B. Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History(Atlanta, 1985).

remains open in DtrH, presumably that of the priests, hitherto stronglyassociated with the temple city, does so also.

Systematic analyses of priests and priesthood in DtrH, however, arelacking.14 There is a case, therefore, for returning to the questionwhether Dtr was interested in priests and priesthood as such. In whatfollows I intend to examine the topic in the books that compose DtrH.In doing so I take a cue from Nelson, who said (as we noted) thatpriests appear from the beginning to the end of the corpus. I also fol-low, with quali cations, the convention that DtrH constitutes a distinctliterary entity. However, it would be misleading, as Nelson also noted,to expect complete congruity between deuteronomic and deuteron-omistic points of view, for that would allow the latter no scope fordevelopment or response to new factors.

In support of this point it may be observed that the historical booksdraw their theological impetus not only from Deuteronomy, but fromother parts of the Pentateuchal material.15 The Philistines, in theiralarm at the arrival of the ark on the eld, recall the power of thegods at the exodus from Egypt (1 Sam. iv 7-8, cf. Num. x 33-36),and are subsequently themselves cast in the role of Pharaoh (1 Sam.vi 6). In the same context the motif of the glory of God occurs,borrowed from the presence theology of Exodus-Numbers (1 Sam. iv21-22; cf. Exod. xxiv 16-17; xxxiii 22; Num. xiv 10, 21-22; xvii 7 [xvi42EVV]).

There is in this passage, therefore, a cluster of ideas (ark, exodus,land, Yahweh war, glory of God) that the Dtr narrative appears toshare with that of the older traditions. The belief that such featuresmight simply be residual in DtrH is weakened by the fact that the traitsin common with the narrative of Exodus-Numbers are so carefully

j.g. mcconville76

16 J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: the Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville,KY, 1994), p. 197 (citing, in turn, H.H. Schmid, Der Sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungenund Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung [Zrich, 1976], pp. 67-68). The passages he notes inDeuteronomy are i 41-46; vi 15; xxxi 17.

17 Van Seters, p. 135.18 Peckham, p. 65.19 See for example, V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua (Tbingen, 1994), p. 52; A. Cody, A

History of Old Testament Priesthood (Rome, 1969), pp. 138-40.20 Noth, pp. 36-37 (German, p. 42); the verses are iii 2-34b, 6, 8.21 Noth, p. 37 (German, p. 42).22 Noth, p. 39 (German, p. 43).

drawn. J. Van Seters has elaborated such connections, and commentedspeci cally on the notion of Yahweh in our midst as a motif com-mon to the Zion-theology, the holy war and Deuteronomy.16 He hasalso noticed echoes of the miracle at the crossing of the Sea (Exod. xiv)in both Josh. x 6-11 and 1 Sam. vii 7-10.17 And on priesthood in particular, B. Peckham has commented: (Dtr) ascribes to individualpriests, from Aaron to Hilkiah, a dominant role in the history of thenation.18

We proceed now to the books of DtrH. The theme of those bookshas often been stated in terms of Israels leaders, interpreted as judgesand kings. But is it possible to discern a separate story, and theology,of priesthood and its associated theme of divine presence?

Priesthood in the Book of Joshua

While it is usually supposed that there are priestly additions to theDtr narrative of Joshua, it is clear that the role of priests and ark is rmly embedded in it.19 Noth thought that Dtr, having found the arkin the older accounts, actually added some verses emphasising theleading role of this sacred object.20 This emphasis is created by therepeated characterization of the priests as the bearers of the ark. InNoths view, Dtr also introduced the priests in the story of the con-quest of Jericho ( Josh. vi 6a), both as ark-bearers and as those incharge of the trumpet-blowing.21 Finally in this connection, he addedthe note about the ark (and thus necessarily the priests) to the covenantceremony in Josh. viii 30-35.22 This activity of the priests, therefore,not only marks the ark out as holy, but by the same token, shows thatDtr holds cultic matters and the priestly role in them to be verysigni cant.

The priests bearing of the ark is part of the larger themes of divine


23 Cf. T.W. Mann, The Pillar of Cloud in the Red Sea Narrative, JBL 90 (1971),pp. 15-39, especially pp. 24-27. Van Seters attributes the similarities between Joshuaand Exodus in this respect to the Yahwist (Life of Moses, pp. 143-145).

24 Noth, p. 40 (German, p. 45); Nelson, p. 133.25 It is not certain whether the phrase as he promised them (Deut. xviii 2) is an

allusion to Num. xviii; see S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (Edinburgh, 1895), pp. 214-215.26 For the Levites exclusion from territory in an ancient Near Eastern setting, see

G. Ahlstrm, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden, 1982),pp. 7-8.

guidance and presence, which hark back to Pentateuchal traditions. Inthis connection the parallel between the crossing of the Jordan andthat of the Sea in Exodus becomes important. The ark, indeed, prob-ably functions in a similar way to the pillar of cloud and re in thatbook.23 The crossing into the land (iv 13), the capture of Jericho (vi 8, 13, 26), the tribes casting of lots for the land at Shiloh (xviii 6,8, 10; xix 51), and their meeting at Shechem for the covenant renewal(xxiv 1) all happen before Yahweh and/or before the ark of Yahweh.(In Noths scheme Josh. xiii-xxii is all post-Dtr, but close to Dtr inoutlook. Nelson appears to suppose that these chapters are Dtr.)24 Theassociation between ark, priests and presence emerges from these texts.The tent theme, often seen as separate from the ark, appears inJosh. xviii. The expression before Yahweh spans both these themes;it is also characteristic of both Deuteronomy and P (cf. Deut. xii 7;Exod. xxviii 29-30; Lev. i 3, 5, 11).

A further mark of the importance of the priests in Joshua concernstheir exclusion from an inheritance of tribal territory on the groundsof their priesthood ( Josh. xiii 14, 33; xiv 3; xviii 7; xxi), a theme thatis highlighted at the beginning of the distribution (2x), and in theShiloh section. Joshua may be said to be closer to Deuteronomy thanto P on this topic (Deut. x 9; xviii 2; cf. Num. xviii 23-24),25 becauseit preserves the concerns of Deut. x 9 (in the same order), namely: i)the Levites bear the ark (in Num. xviii, Levites are not expressly bearersof the ark), ii) they have no land inheritance. It uses a term for priest-hood, however, that is more typical of priestly texts (but not exclu-sively), namely k^hunn ( Josh. xviii 7; cf. Exod. xxix 9; xl 15; Num. iii10; xvi 10; xviii 1, 7; Ezra ii 62; but also 1 Sam. ii 36; [Num. xxv13]). Here too, DtrH has its own clear rationale for the priesthood.The concept that the priestly tribe has no inheritance because of itsservice at the altar may be said to constitute an exalted view of theirrole.26

j.g. mcconville78

27 Noth, p. 121, n. 29 (German, p. 54, n. 2).28 R. Boling includes Judg. xvi 1-xviii 31 within his Deuteronomic framework, and

xix 1-xxi 25 in his Deuteronomistic one, in Judges (New York, 1975), pp. 30, 258-259, 278. B. Lindars view (as reconstructed by A.D.H. Mayes Introduction to hisincomplete commentary) was that the stories of Judg. xvii-xxi, in common with theother stories in the book, were compiled by DtrG, with additions in chs. xx-xxi. Theconcluding stories prepare the ground for the rise of monarchy in Samuel: Judges 1-5:a Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh, 1995), pp. vii-viii.

29 While in the Numbers passages the term is used of the tribes gathering togetheragainst Moses, it is in Joshua, Judges and Kings that it is used of cultic assembling,arguably therefore a Dtr usage.

30 See D.W. Gooding, The Composition of Judges, Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historicaland Geographic Studies 16 (1982), pp. 7-79; here pp. 77-78.

Priesthood in the Book of Judges

The priesthood is not at all prominent in the Book of Judges, textsconcerning it being con ned to the closing section, Judg. xvii-xxi. Nothregarded these chapters as post-Dtr,27 but more recent studies havetended to show that they are rmly integrated into the storyline andmessage of the book, and they are now widely regarded as Dtr.28 Inthe two stories of religious decline in these chapters, though they areclearly interested in kingship, priestly and cultic matters play a part.Israel is constituted as a cultic assembly in the Benjaminite war, asthe terms of Judg. xx 1 make clear (wattiqqhl hd, cf. Num. xvi 3;xvii 7 [EVV xvi 42]; xx 2; Josh. xviii 1; xxii 12; 1 Kgs viii 1-3).29 Fur-thermore, both Jerusalem and Shiloh make entrances here. Jerusalem,as Jebus, is mentioned more or less in passing as a city of foreigners(xix 12), recalling incidentally the failure of Benjamin to possess itrecorded in the prologue (i 21).30 Shiloh appears unobtrusively at theconclusion of each of the two stories. In xviii 31 the cult of Micahsidol, served by the priesthood derived presumably from the Leviteappointed by him (xvii 7-13; xviii 30), is made co-extensive with thetime during which the house of God was at Shiloh. This strikes animportant Dtr theme, namely that Shiloh was for a period the onesanctuary for all Israel (1 Sam. i-iii; Jer. vii 12). The priesthood of theDanites is thus criticized in terms that are precisely Dtr, and whichdepicts the rotten state of Israel by the use of those categories. If thereis a parody of the holy war in the Danites slaughter of the unsuspect-ing people of Laish, it may be that their venal priesthood also parodiesthe true priesthood that once bore the ark into the land.

The second story nishes with a cameo of the annual festival ofYahweh at Shiloh, at which a measure of restoration between Israel


31 Its occurrences are largely in P, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel and the Chronicler; how-ever, it appears in a number of passages in DtrH in its sense of cultic service (1 Sam.ii 11, 18; iii 1; 1 Kgs viii 11; 2 Kgs xxv 14).

32 I take the priests at Nob to be related to the house of Eli; note that the nameAhimelech is common to Nob and the family of Abiathar (1 Sam. xxi 1; 2 Sam. viii 17).

and Benjamin is achieved by the provision of wives for the Benjaminitesfrom the daughters of that region (xxi 15-24). Together the two storiesprepare for the next phase of DtrH, in which the Shiloh temple andthe priesthood of Eli will play an important role. If the regular Shilohpriesthood remains rmly behind the scenes in Judges, the tale of theDanites priesthood and the allusions to the worship of Yahweh atShiloh at least raise the question as to its character and condition.

It may nally be noted that the ark is mentioned once in Judges,parenthetically, at xx 27-28. Its location at Bethel, and the mentionof Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, sits oddly with the viewoVered otherwise in these chapters of a cult at Shiloh. Its bracketingout of the main line of the narrative signi es in any case a signi cantnegligence on the part of the Israel of the day.

While Dtrs theology of priesthood is not fully or explicitly workedout in Judges, an ideal view of its role as an institution may be said tobe present in the background, hinted at by its shadowside in priestlycorruption.

Priesthood in the Books of Samuel

In Samuel, the cradle of the new monarchic society is Elis Shiloh.Samuel himself is the harbinger of monarchy (1 Sam. ii 10), and theplenipotentiary who has the authority to sacri ce where the edglingking Saul has not (1 Sam. x 8). The child Samuel himself ministersto the LORD (m^rt"et yhwh; ii 11), a term reserved almost exclusivelyfor priestly activity (in both P and Deuteronomy, cf. Num. iii 6, 31;Deut. x 8; xvii 12).31 The corruption of Hophni and Phinehas, thesons of Eli, leads to the downfall of their house, and to the promiseof another faithful priest (1 Sam. ii 27-36), in a passage of the dramathat echoes the yielding of the judges to the kings. A scion of Eli,Ahijah, is still priest in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xiv 3); and the housemust still suVer that kings ire at Nob (1 Sam. xxi).32 In this agony ofthe priestly family the fate of the ark is also at stake, captured by thePhilistines, and lamented in a presage of exile (1 Sam. iv 21-22; seeabove). This ark is no mere box, as the Philistines, and then Uzzah,

j.g. mcconville80

33 David P. Wright, David Autem Remansit in Hierusalem: Felix Coniunctio! inD.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and Avi Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studiesin Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom(Winona Lake IN, 1995), pp. 215-30.

34 H.-D. Preuss has noted a predominance of the language of going/being with(i.e. God with Israel) in Joshua and Samuel, in . . . ich will mit dir sein, ZAW 80(1968), pp. 139-173, here p. 140. This concentration is not surprising as these are thetwo great books of transition in DtrH.

discovered to their cost. The view of it in these texts is highly cultic,as shown, for example, by 1 Sam. iv 4, the ark of the covenant ofYHWH-Sebaoth who sits [on] the cherubim (echoing Exod. xxv 22).1 Sam. vi also brings in the glory theme (associated with the tent,incidentally); and as we have noted already, the exodus is in the back-ground of the narrative here (1 Sam. iv-vi; e.g. iv 7).

In 2 Samuel the relationship between king and priest is established.The uneasy balance of power between Zadok and Ahimelech (son ofAbiathar), may re ect Davids concern to commend himself to bothnorthern and southern populations. These, together with Davids sons,oYciate as priests (2 Sam. viii 15-18). Zadok and Abiathar play animportant role in the story of Absaloms rebellion, staying in the citywith the ark, while David is forced to ee (2 Sam. xv). In this tensesituation, the priests mediate between the absentee monarch and keyplayers in the story (2 Sam. xvii 15; xix 11-12). Part of the dramatictension of this story consists in the presence of the ark in the capital,while the king is forced to be absent. There is a dissonance within theintimate triangle of king, priest and ark, and between priest and priest,which may be said to be resolved nally when Zadok anoints Solomon(1 Kgs i 39).

The priestly aYnities of the narrative in 2 Samuel emerge not onlyfrom the storyline, but also from the categories of religious purity whichcan be discerned in the story of David and Bathsheba, as D.P. Wrighthas shown.33

In Samuel, the story of the priesthood undergoes its rst substantialdevelopment since Joshua. In line with that book it proceeds in closeassociation with the ark and the holy war.34 But in addition it nowbecomes fatefully entwined with the story of kingship.

Priesthood in the Books of Kings

There are a number of aspects to the theme of the priesthood inKings: 1) the continuing story of Zadok, 2) priestly elements in the


35 V.A. Hurowitz, Solomons Golden Vessels (1 Kings 7:48-50) and the Cult of theFirst Temple, in Wright, Freedman and Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells,pp. 151-64, has argued that the cult presupposed by Dtr here is not identical withthat of P, but re ects the practice of the Solomonic temple which P actually reformed.The former, especially as exempli ed by 1 Kgs vii 48-50, was somewhat richer, a bitmore complex, and perhaps slightly more anthropomorphic than the cult of P (p. 164).He does not directly assess Dtrs view of cult however.

36 Jerome Walsh, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry: 1 Kings (Collegeville,1996), p. 112.

37 Walsh, pp. 111-12.

construction and dedication of the temple, 3) the priests appointed byJeroboam, and 4) the role of Jehoiada and Joash in the deposing ofQueen Athaliah.

1. With the rustication of Abiathar, the prophecy against Eli is nowful lled (1 Kgs ii 22, 26-27, 35; cf. 1 Sam. ii 27-30 [v. 27]). The familyof Zadok now seems foremost in the kings household (1 Kgs iv 2note the priest, recalling the title of Eli, 1 Sam. i 9; ii 11). The closeinterdependence of king and priest is nowhere more evident than inZadoks leading role in Solomons accession (1 Kgs i 38-40), whereSamuels prerogative of anointing the king has devolved primarily uponthe priest, though the prophet Nathan is not forgotten (vv. 43-45).Nelsons observation that Dtr shows no interest in the genealogy ofZadok should be counterbalanced by the importance of his role in thenarrative, to which we shall return.

2. The building of the temple (1 Kgs vi-vii) has certain evident simi-larities with that of the tabernacle in Exod. xxv-xxxi. As the templeplays an important role in the narrative of the fall of Judah, it is natu-ral enough to suppose that DtrH simply draws on priestly theology at this point.35 As priests attended the procession of the ark into theholy land ( Joshua), so they accompany it to its resting place in theJerusalem temple. Of the frame-narrative surrounding the story of the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs viii 1-13, 62-66), culminating insacri ces and a feast, J. Walsh observes that it has woven together anumber of theological traditions, including some associated with theexodus from Egypt (the Tent of Meeting, the tablets in the ark [v. 9;Deut. x 1-5] and the cloud signifying Gods presence), and others connected with David (procession with the ark [2 Sam. vi 1-15], theholy vessels [v. 4, cf. vii 51b], and the relationship between Yahwehand David [v. 66]);36 he notes additionally the use of the verb yb, possibly sit enthroned, not dwell (v. 13).37 The tension arising frompast failed attempts to bring the ark are thus now resolved here (1 Sam. iv-vi; 2 Sam. vi).

j.g. mcconville82

38 Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (SheYeld, 1981), p. 124.39 Nelson, The Role of the Priesthood, p. 132.40 Walsh, p. 113.

The inclusion of the framework of 1 Kgs viii, of course, begs thequestion of the view of priesthood and divine presence in the book,and thus the whole question under examination here. The key to theinterpretation of 1 Kgs viii is almost always found in the so-calledname-theology, thought by many to signify a desacralizing tendencyhere and in the deuteronomic literature generally. In line with thisthinking, 1 Kgs viii 9, 21 are often regarded as additions to an oldertext (i.e. vv. 1-13), reversing the thrust of it by introducing the idea ofthe ark as a mere box. Nelson thought Dtr introduced these passagesbecause he saw the ark as a threat to the reform.38 However, thisapproach merely poses the question of Dtrs attitude to cultic things,rather than answering it. Nelson, in fact, shows some ambivalenceabout this, when he cites 1 Kgs viii 10-11 among priestly texts thatare included within DtrH; yet when he says that these verses occurwithin (Dtrs) predominantly Deuteronomistic presentation it seemsthat he wishes at the same time to adhere to a de nition of Dtr asnon-priestly.39

In my view it is better to consider the narrative tendency of thewhole rst, as Walsh has done. In that case, v. 9 can hardly have theforce to reverse the thrust of a passage whose whole point is cultic/sacral. Walsh, then, is right to say that v. 9 is part of the narratorsbringing together of Exodus and David themes. Its comment on theark containing only tablets is best understood as a reaYrmation of the Old Testaments prohibition of the imaging of Yahweh. As for thesigni cance of the name, it is suYcient to nd in it an assertion ofYahwehs freedom in spite of the change from tent to temple.40

3) Jeroboams apostasy, which becomes paradigmatic for the sins ofthe northern kings, involves the appointment of his own priests as adirect challenge to the priesthood in Jerusalem (1 Kgs xiii 33), andshows clearly that he has departed from the main line of the story ofthe Davidic promise. Dtrs condemnation of Jeroboam raises the ques-tion whether Dtr is actually an apologist for the Jerusalem priesthood.In fact his view is more subtle, as will appear from a consideration ofthe next point.

4) The reform of religion under Joash is in my view one of the keypassages for the present topic. The most striking aspect of the narra-


41 B.O. Long, Sacred Geography as Narrative Structure in 2 Kings 11, in Wright,Freedman and Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells, pp. 231-238; here p. 235.

42 Long, pp. 236-238.

tive of it is the centrality of the priest Jehoiada, who, together with awhole contingent of cultic oYcials, re-establishes the kingship on rightlines (2 Kgs xi-xii). The point may be supported by noticing the fre-quency of the term priest. The word itself (hakkhn) occurs in vv. 4(some versions), 9[2x], 10, 15[2x], 18. Three times Jehoiada is referredto simply as the priest (vv. 10, 15, 18), recalling both Eli and Azariah,son of Zadok (1 Sam. i 9; 1 Kgs iv 2). This narrative device emphasizesthe priests control of events.

The action, furthermore, occurs largely in the temple, which func-tions not just as a hiding place, but in all its character as a holy place.The term bt yhwh, or sometimes just bayit, house, is repeated sev-eral times (vv. 3, 4, 10, 11[3x], 13, 15). There are other importantspatial indicators: the temple guard, with its times and divisions, guard-ing the king on four sides (vv. 5-8, 11; cf. Num. i 53); the double pro-cession from temple to palace, rst for the execution of Athaliah, whichmust not happen in the holy place (v. 16), then for the enthronementof Joash (v. 19); and the contrast between the house and the houseof Baal, as between the priest and the priest of Baal (v. 18).Indeed, as Burke O. Long has shown, the idea of cultic geographydominates the chapter. The spatial structure keeps apart life anddeath spheres; Joashs secret hideaway becomes public, sacred space,investing him with legitimacy, and at the same time denying it toAthaliah; the solemnity and special vocabulary used for the occasionhint at a traditional association of royal and priestly power that investsstate occasions with transcendent authority.41 The world is arrangedinto the holy over against the profane; Athaliah the Omride is classi edas outside. At her entry into the temple, the young Joash is stationedby the pillar, according to the custom (v. 14). The nature of the cus-tom is not speci ed, but the phrase asserts at least that there has everbeen a properly ordained way of making kings in Israel (cf. again 1 Kgs i 38-40), and that Athaliah has never had a part in the Judahiteroyal-sacral process. The procession of Joash into the kings housebrings it inside the holy sphere, though it was carefully kept outsideup to and including the death of Athaliah.42

Of the other cultic vocabulary in the chapter the most noteworthyis the term dt (v. 12), which the priest confers upon the king as part

j.g. mcconville84

43 Nelson, p. 144. N. Loh nk also allows that the term may at one time have referredto the covenant document, but thinks there is insuYcient evidence to decide, in d(w)tim Deuteronomium und in den Knigsbchern, BZ 35 (1991), p. 91. Other culticterms in the chapter include nzer (Exod. xxix 6), m (Lev. xxi 12) and p^quddt (Num.iii 32, 36).

44 Long, pp. 235-236.45 H.-D. HoVmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteron-

omistischen Geschichtsschreibung (Zrich, 1980), p. 110.46 HoVmann, pp. 251-4. From 2 Kgs xi he cites at this point only v. 17.47 N. Loh nk showed how the narrative in 2 Kings xxii-xxiii foregrounded the king

by its repetition of the phrases the king sent and the king commanded, in DieBundesurkunde des Knigs Josia, Biblica 44 (1963), pp. 270-71.

of the ritual of his coronation. If this refers to the book of the law,as Nelson thinks,43 it is an interesting echo of Exod. xxv 16 (P) wherethe term occurs in the same sense, in preference to the formula usedin 2 Kgs xxii 8. Alternatively it may refer to some symbolic insignia,showing the king is entrusted with responsibility for the keeping of thecovenantal law.44 In any case, the transaction occurs between king andpriest, and thus belongs to the essential concept of this passage.

This extraordinarily elaborate narrative of the relationship betweenking and priest at the young Joashs coronation contrasts strikingly withthe story of Josiahs reform. The two events are not, of course, pre-cisely similar in kind; Joash is a young king under protection, and hisreligious reform is at the same time a coronation. Nevertheless, theechoes between the two passages should not be missed. The priestHilkiah plays a part in Josiahs Reform; the temple is repaired; thereare arrangements for paying the workers; there is a renewal of covenant,at which Josiah stands by the pillar (xxiii 3), as did Joash, and Baalworship is destroyed.

The signi cance of the chapter has not always been appreciated,however, because, in my view, the emphasis in studies of DtrH hasfallen too heavily on Josiah. For example, H.-D. HoVmann has noticedthe parallels between the two reforms in question, as part of his excel-lent account of the books of Kings. In his view both Jehoiada andJosiah are perfect models of Dtrs demand for cult reform as a require-ment of the covenant.45 However, his comparison is too much domi-nated by his thesis that Josiahs reform is the climax of the theme ofreform in Kings, and as such is the sum of all the preceding.46 Thisfails to notice the exceptional character of the reform of Jehoiada.

In fact, the diVerences between the two accounts are as importantas the similarities. Hilkiah is a more passive gure than Jehoiada; itis Josiah who commands here.47 In the comparison between the two


48 So, for example, G. Garbini, David nella storiagrafa dei libri storici (Sam-Re)RSB 7 (1995), pp. 17-33, who thinks that third-century priestly authors overlaid theDtr traditions.

passages the fact that a priest dominates in one and a king in theother should not be underestimated. Yet where Josiahs reform is heldto be the climax of the main edition of DtrH this point is usuallymissed. On that hypothesis, the possibility can easily be overlookedthat the process in 2 Kgs xxii-xxiii is exposed to unfavourable scrutinyby the earlier narrative. The force of the contrast might be dimin-ished by supposing that the cultic worldview of 2 Kgs xi-xii has beensuperimposed by an interested party.48 Yet this does not explain theechoes between the two chapters, and the question remains why theJoash narrative has been selected to place the king carefully in rela-tion to the religious establishment. If the account of Josiahs reformmay be deposed from its customary position as the climax of the wholenarrative of Kings, it is possible to elevate in its place the Joash nar-rative, as the classic statement in the book of the true nature of bothroyal and priestly authority.

It remains to ask, however, what is implied in the course of thestory of the priests in DtrH. After Jehoiada, the priest never againplays so glorious a role. Rather, the institution seems to roll with theups and downs of the monarchy. Under Ahaz, the priest Uriah dideverything that King Ahaz commanded (2 Kgs xvi 10-16)! We havenoted Hilkiahs muted role. The story of the priesthood is now, infact, subordinate to that of the kings. As the kings fall, so must they.The nal scene of Kings portrays the fate of Seraiah, the high priest(khn hr ), together with that of a second priest, three templeguards, and other oYcials of the royal household (xxv 18-21). Herethere seems to be a recognition of the pre-eminence of the priest inthe Judahite royal establishment. The execution of these leading gures,headed by the senior priests, is the last nail in the coYn of the kingdomof Judah (as indicated by the note of completion implied by 2 Kgsxxv 21b). But the signi cance of the fall of the priesthood cannot beevaluated apart from the attitude of Dtr to the royal-priestly synthesisthat has developed as a function of the history of Judah.

Conclusions

Priests and priesthood play an important role in the Dtr narrativeof Joshua to Kings, which draws also on themes in Exodus-Numbers.

j.g. mcconville86

49 This seems to me to be a better approach to the material than to attribute thesudden diminuendo of a theme or motif to the intervention of a diVerent hand. I havemade a similar point elsewhere regarding the silencing of the lamp for David motif;

While the topic surfaces in diVerent ways in the books, it has a rolein the narrative as a whole that may be seen as a function of Dtrsinterests, rather than as residual or incidental. The priests role as ark-bearers, for example, is widely accepted to be a concern of Dtr. Theyare also present at other key moments in the establishment of Israelsreligious life ( Josh. viii 33; 1 Kgs viii). In Samuel and Kings the rolesof priest and king become closely associated. In the reform of Joash(2 Kgs xi-xii), the priest Jehoiada represents faithfulness to the covenant,and exempli es the relationship between priest and king. Hilkiah playsa minor role in Josiahs reform, and the priests are involved in the nal ejection of Judah from its land.

The interpretation oVered here takes 2 Kgs xi to be a key text,with its priestly and cultic language and imagery. The respective rolesof Jehoiada and the young King Joash in the religious reform presidedover by the former are contrasted with that of King Josiah in hisreform, and it is suggested that Josiahs role as chief executive of thecult is implicitly criticized by the narrative in 2 Kgs xi. It is furthersuggested that the importance of priesthood to Dtr has been obscuredby the belief that Dtr presents Josiah as the culmination of the storyof covenant faithfulness.

This means that Dtr has an intrinsic interest in priesthood, ratherthan merely using it as a redactorial device to further his interest inthe theme of kingship. The question follows whether Dtr entertainsany hope for the future of the priesthood. This seems inseparable fromthe question of the future of the monarchy, which looks bleak. But itis not necessarily the same. If the priesthood nishes by being com-pletely bound up with the monarchy it was not always sothere wasno king in the days of Moses and Joshua. What fails in Kings is asynthesis, namely the Davidic royal cult. By de nition the monarchystands condemned for its failure. So does the priesthood inasfar as ithas become assimilated to a speci c concept of kingship in relation tocovenant, cult and people. There are narrative factors at play in DtrHin which silences are conspicuous. The retreat of the ark from viewafter Jehoiada, for example, may be an ominous measure of the increas-ing helplessness of Judah to avoid its destiny in degradation and sub-jugation.49 The absence of a genealogy for Zadok may be read in the


same way; if priesthood has a future it may not, after all, lie with thehouse that became so closely involved with David. And thus even thepromise of 1 Sam. ii 35 has only a limited scope.

For Dtr, priesthood is bigger than the Davidic synthesis of palaceand temple. When it falls into Babylonian exile, it is the end of a chap-ter in its story. But in Dtrs open-ended history, there is no obituaryfor priesthood as such.

Narrative and Meaning in the Books of Kings, Biblica, 1989, pp. 37-38. It mightalso be oVered in response to S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble With Kings (Leiden, 1991),p. 127, who has argued that the regression of the themes of David, centralization andbmt signi es the work of another author in the closing stages of Kings.

McConville, Priesthood in Joshua to Kings

Documents

Transcript of McConville, Priesthood in Joshua to Kings