RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Herb Basser Sent: 30 May 2002 00:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but here is what we find:yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughters married priests and their grandchildren offered sacrifices-- this doesnt make rechabites priests at all-- lineage follows males. ** I would like to consider Josephus' claims to priesthood and royal descent. Have you noticed Josephus' tetchy protestations in regard to his ancestry (somewhat like Paul in the NT)? He is aware of those who would imply that he was of inferior descent when he retorts 'so bid adieu to those who calumniate me,(as of a lower original).'(Life 1). Here was someone who at least THOUGHT he was a kosher priest, even if others had doubts. So what evidence does Josephus give us in support of his claims? He does say that he found his genealogy in the public records. Perhaps that was more than what many priests of his day could claim. He also says that he is descended all along from the priests. One must then ask through which family line does he make this claim? According to Life 1, Josephus' grandfather's father had a grandfather (Josephus omits two generations) who was one Simon Psellus for whom Josephus makes no claim to fame but only that he lived at the same time (say about 120 BCE) as the high priest and king Hyrcanus I (the son of the high priest Simon who was the son of Asmoneus). If Simon Psellus was a priest, then surely Josephus would at least have said so. Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias Ephlias, born say about 90 BCE. He married the daughter of the high priest Johnathan the eldest son of Asmoneus. Why does Josephus need to tell us who Matthias married? The reason could have been to show how important this ancester Matthias was? But was this marriage to a high priest's daughter recognised by Josephus' ancestors as the route to priesthood? Earlier Josephus says 'for the children of Asmonius FROM whom THAT FAMILY(the priestly family in which Josephus found himself) WAS DERIVED, had both the office of the high priesthood and the dignity of a king.' Josephus appears to be pinning his claim to priesthood to this connection with the line of Asmonius. His claim to royal descent is not from the line of Asmonius but through his mother who he says was of 'royal blood' (presumably Herodian, and also possibly Hasmonean). To complete the genealogy, in 63 BCE (the first year of the government of the high priest and ethnarch Hyrcanus II), Matthias Curtus was born to Matthias Ephlias. In 28 BCE (the ninth year of the reign of Herod -- the text has Alexandra), Joseph (Josephus' grandfather) was born to Matthias Curtus. In 6 CE (the 10th year of the reign of Archelaus), Matthias (Josephus' father) was born to Joseph. In 37 CE, Josephus was born to Matthias. So who were Josephus' ancestors back along the male line from Simon Psellus? I think I can understand now why Paul said (Rom.11.1 ,Phil.3.5) that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. The Rechabites came from that tribe which had a tradition of stealing daughters to take as wives. Presumably, high priest's daughter's were fair game and the most prized. Paul was of Rechabite origin, as was Josephus. Both went into the desert for a time to practise the life -- Josephus with another Rechabite called Banus (or was it Barnabus, or James as Eisenman suggests?). Strangely, the NT is silent about naming Paul's relatives, but he did have Herodian kin living in a mansion in Rome (Rom.16.10,11), and there are plenty of Rechabite allusions in his theology. Geoff For private reply, e-mail to Geoff Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Dear Geoff: You quote this text: I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but here is what we find:yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughters married priests and their grandchildren offered sacrifices-- Your reply was: this doesnt make rechabites priests at all-- lineage follows males. Well, it would be nice if someone could provide the exact text to BOTH citations I quote from Eisenman. For the 2nd citation says that their SONS married the daughters of the high priests. So no matter which lineage you want to follow the male line, or the female line, there is warrant for priestly descent. Can anyone provide the FULL texts of BOTH citations? I'm sure it would help advance the discussion. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George Brooks wrote: Can anyone provide the FULL texts of BOTH citations? I'm sure it would help advance the discussion. May I politely suggest, given that it's your interest that you want to see pursued here, that you be the one to do the leg work on this one? Surely, Tampa has libraries that have the Mishnah and Talmud? JG -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Floor 1 Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Jeffrey B. Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George Brooks wrote: Can anyone provide the FULL texts of BOTH citations? I'm sure it would help advance the discussion. May I politely suggest, given that it's your interest that you want to see pursued here, that you be the one to do the leg work on this one? Surely, Tampa has libraries that have that Mishnah and Talmud? JG -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Floor 1 Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Jeffrey B. Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Dr. Altman, Thank you for your response. Included in it was your comment: There are things we simply cannot know -- not now, not ever. What a dead author was thinking when he wrote something must forever rest in the realm of the unknowable. Accept it. This pretty much applies to everything that we examine here on Orion. So it seems obvious that we cannot just accept it. We have to correlate information from other sources and come up with a working model for what could have been met. Not that this PROVES what was being thought but so that other conclusions or assumptions can be tested against the working model. What interests me about the Rechabite area is the potential for triangulation that has not yet been exploited. Some say I should not rely on Eisenman's conclusions. I don't believe I am relying on his conclusions. I do not share his opinions about the relationship of the DSS to New Testament personalities. But I am making use of some of Eisenman's knowledge of obscure texts; this seems to be a fairly conservative approach, as long as I'm willing to double- check his sources. Something very interesting was going on with the Rechabites - - and with the Enochian Jewish community. And this is one of those rare times when an exploration of the two different groups might determine in what ways were they really different, or in what ways they were really the same. I'm perfectly happy to consider the guild aspects of the Rechabites, but would also want to investigate the guild aspects of the Levites as well. Perhaps the reasons we should not consider the head of a Rechabite guild a true priest is the same reason we should not consider the head of a Levite family a true priest. I am ordering the various sources mentioned by you and others in order to see where these correlations take the thread. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George, ...and no doubt quasi-religious is probably a more useful term. Quasi-religious is not merely a more useful term, it is, for a change, an extremely accurate term. All, repeat *all*, craft and/or skill clans/guilds/corporations/etc. are quasi-religious. An ancient clan craftmaster or a Medieval guild master (or Modern CIO for that matter), *is* a priest -- of sorts. Ancient or modern, all crafts quite understandably go to a great deal of effort to guard their industrial secrets. Among the most common techniques used to guard their secrets from being copied are to require incantations and rituals to perform a procedure. Who performs the incantations and oversees the rituals? Why the craftmaster/guildmaster of course. He or she is the teacher and guardian of the clan/craft/guild rituals and secrets. While definitely not what we mean by religious, there is a superficial similarity between the role of a clan craftmaster and a priest. But in the meantime, I caution us against getting too fixated on the smith nature of the Rechabites I do not think Eusebius would have been too confused between quasi-religious and priestly. It is not a fixation; it is a reality. An ancient clan craftmaster/Medieval guild master/etc., is essentially the priest of his/her craft/guild/etc. Remember, if something can be misunderstood, it will be. As superficially there are similarities, it is extremely easy to see why an outsider observing a craftmaster in action could confuse the teacher-guardian functions of a craftmaster with those of a priest -- IF that really is what Eusebius wrote. Then, smiths, in particular, cultivated a magical aura -- again quite easy to understand. As makers of weapons and tools, they wanted to maintain their economic edge. Further, smiths not only were essential workers, but because of their cultivated link with magic held a unique position -- they were protected. (And the protection of smiths as essential workers is registered in the MT; one does not kill descendants of Cain without fear of reprisal.) ... spiritual fusion going on with these guild-like clans. Guilds were, and are, groups bound together by economics and a specialty. These clans were not guild-like; they were guilds with whatever specialty upon which they were economically dependent passed down within the clan/guild and whose secrets were guarded by the clan craftmaster. The role of clan craftmaster has nothing to do with what we normally think of as spiritual. The superficial resemblances between the functions of a priest and that of a clan craftmaster can be misunderstood as being priestly, hence spritual; however, the concept of a spritual fusion is simply wrong. There seems to be quite a bit of re-thinking to do. Regards, Rochelle -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
I haven't been following this thred too much, but something just struck me in this message. In Mesopotamia there are guilds and they take loyalty oaths. David Weisberg studied this genre in his PhD dissertation, published on the YNER series. the Mesopotamian craftsmen who produced cult statues in the bit mummi (workroom) actually depicted themselves as gods! For this see the recent publication by M. Dick and C.B.F Walker of the Mis Pi ritual. For secret lore in Mesopotamia and craftguilds see as well the article on Geheimnissweisheit in the Reallexikon des Assryiologie. You may come across some interesting analogies. Victor On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Rochelle I. Altman wrote: George, ...and no doubt quasi-religious is probably a more useful term. Quasi-religious is not merely a more useful term, it is, for a change, an extremely accurate term. All, repeat *all*, craft and/or skill clans/guilds/corporations/etc. are quasi-religious. An ancient clan craftmaster or a Medieval guild master (or Modern CIO for that matter), *is* a priest -- of sorts. Ancient or modern, all crafts quite understandably go to a great deal of effort to guard their industrial secrets. Among the most common techniques used to guard their secrets from being copied are to require incantations and rituals to perform a procedure. Who performs the incantations and oversees the rituals? Why the craftmaster/guildmaster of course. He or she is the teacher and guardian of the clan/craft/guild rituals and secrets. While definitely not what we mean by religious, there is a superficial similarity between the role of a clan craftmaster and a priest. But in the meantime, I caution us against getting too fixated on the smith nature of the Rechabites I do not think Eusebius would have been too confused between quasi-religious and priestly. It is not a fixation; it is a reality. An ancient clan craftmaster/Medieval guild master/etc., is essentially the priest of his/her craft/guild/etc. Remember, if something can be misunderstood, it will be. As superficially there are similarities, it is extremely easy to see why an outsider observing a craftmaster in action could confuse the teacher-guardian functions of a craftmaster with those of a priest -- IF that really is what Eusebius wrote. Then, smiths, in particular, cultivated a magical aura -- again quite easy to understand. As makers of weapons and tools, they wanted to maintain their economic edge. Further, smiths not only were essential workers, but because of their cultivated link with magic held a unique position -- they were protected. (And the protection of smiths as essential workers is registered in the MT; one does not kill descendants of Cain without fear of reprisal.) ... spiritual fusion going on with these guild-like clans. Guilds were, and are, groups bound together by economics and a specialty. These clans were not guild-like; they were guilds with whatever specialty upon which they were economically dependent passed down within the clan/guild and whose secrets were guarded by the clan craftmaster. The role of clan craftmaster has nothing to do with what we normally think of as spiritual. The superficial resemblances between the functions of a priest and that of a clan craftmaster can be misunderstood as being priestly, hence spritual; however, the concept of a spritual fusion is simply wrong. There seems to be quite a bit of re-thinking to do. Regards, Rochelle -- For private reply, e-mail to avigdor horovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Dr. Altman, You wrote: These clans were not guild-like; they **WERE** guilds [emphasis mine] with whatever specialty upon which they were economically dependent passed down within the clan/guild and whose secrets were guarded by the clan craftmaster. The role of clan craftmaster has nothing to do with what we normally think of as spiritual. The superficial resemblances between the functions of a priest and that of a clan craftmaster can be misunderstood as being priestly, hence spritual Dr. Gibson very kindly sent me the entire text from the Anchor articles that David Suter strongly recommended that I read concerning the guild nature of the Rechabites. I appreciate the assistance with that, Dr. Gibson. Dr. Altman, Do you think this priestly role of the guild master, is what is at the heart of Eusebius' reference to Rechabite Priests? Or do you think Talmudic references to Rechabites marrying into the family of the High Priest is the source of the idea that there were Rechabite Priests around at the time of the death of James (the brother of Jesus). I am wondering if BOTH points of view might be true? George Brooks Tampa, FL P.S. You wrote in a subsequent posting: (Here are three more for George when he is done with the ABD article) But I couldn't make out what the three more items were. Please advise on the additional articles or writers that have a bearing on these themes. I look forward to further research. For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George, It's easy to explain why quasi-religious is an accurate term to describe craft-clans and guilds. It's also easy enough to explain why the teacher/ guardian role of craftmaster can be confused with a priestly role. But your question is unanswerable by anybody except the Talmudists and Eusebius -- IF that really is what Eusebius wrote. There are things we simply cannot know -- not now, not ever. What a dead author was thinking when he wrote something must forever rest in the realm of the unknowable. Accept it. Don't waste effort on the unknowable. It is far better to build on things we can know -- such as the superficial similarities between guildmaster functions and priestly functions or the quasi-religious nature of craft clans and guilds or that eyeless cult statues date back to at least 22,000 BCE or that perspective in drawing is not an invention of the Renaissance for back in 28,000 BCE ancient artists knew all about perspective but did not use it to give life to a human figure. Please also remember that terms, tags, and names automatically bias thinking. The term history is biased towards modern perceptions. For example, we say pre-historic, yet this term actually means prior to written records of history. There are, in fact, written records that do not record what we think of as history, yet are indeed history; these also date back to the Magdelene. P.S. You wrote in a subsequent posting: (Here are three more for George when he is done with the ABD article) I was referring to the 3 sources mentioned by Avigdor. It may be a good idea to see if you can get a copy of that diss by David Weisberg from Michigan... or the published book form... if Avigdor will supply the exact bib ref for you. Regards, Rochelle -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Ian Hutchesson writes: The book of Jeremiah is clear about the fact that the house of the Rechabites was not a priesthood. The book says much about priests, so there is no reticence at all talking of priests, so, if the Rechabites had been priests, there is no reason for them not to have been called so. Perhaps it would make Ian more comfortable if the Rechabite's eternal service before Yahweh was because they had Levite status, rather than priestly? The point is, of course, not so much what the Rechabites were during the time of Jeremiah, but what they had become by the time of James (the brother of Jesus). It would seem that Ian has conveniently forgotten that Jeremiah is notorious for its variants that exist notably the difference between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions. So are we more surprised by what Jeremiah does NOT say? Or by what it DOES say? And which version? In anycase, the advocacy of the Rechabites by Jeremiah is indisputable. So why does he do it? What status DO the Rechabites have? David Suter suggests they are, more or less, some mystic order of smiths. And I would suggest that the Levites themselves are ALSO a mystic order of craftsmen. I might even speculate some day that the Levites obtained their inspiration from the priestly ranks of Midian. But I won't do that today. The Rechabites, said to be derived from Midianite stock, would be linked to the Priests of Midian. And it was a Priest (a king?) of Midian that taught Moses how to serve Yahweh and organize his system of justice (administered then, or ultimately, by the Priests and Levites of the tabernacle). So, again, we find the role of the Midianites/Rechabites to be rather mysteriously linked to the Hebrew faith, yes? But rather than get wrapped up in a dispute over the importance of Moses' father-in-law, and the Midianites in general, let's get to the point: The explicit mention in Eusebius of Rechabim and Sons of Rechab and their linkage to the *same* Rechabites that Jeremiah discusses is something that cannot be overlooked. By the time of the N.T. period, has the uniqueness of the Rechabites evolved to the point where some of their members are now full Priests? Eusebius and his sources seem to think so. Now, if I can locate those 2 Talmud citations that are said to EXPLICITLY state that the Rechabites married into the family of the High Priesthood, then we can begin to piece together the HOW of the Rechabite connection with the priesthood. Assuming Eisenman has not grotesquely taken these citations out of context, even the Rabbis acknowledge the priestly status of SOME Rechabites. so to have David and Ian question this status... without referring to the Talmud's citations is a little surprising. Despite the agonizing semantic gymnastics that some members of the list are proposing, there appears to be a strong case that regardless of exactly what role the Rechabites played in the time of Jeremiah, they seem to represent at least a noticeable faction within the ranks of the Priests by the time of the New Testament period. And because of the explicit reference in Ezekiel to a faction of priests that pray to the rising sun (rather than to the holy of holies), and the rather surprising similarity this description has to the Josephus references to his Jewish Essenes, it seems not to be a huge leap to conclude that the Rechabites of Jeremiah and the apparently STILL-EXISTING Rechabites in the times of James (the brother of Jesus) may have something to do with both references. The clincher? That the Greek Suidas, from out of nowhere... and with no apparent axe to grind, says that the Rechabites, the sons of Rechab no less!, were the source of the Essenes. Yes, we can dispute Suidas. But sometimes disputing *explicit* texts put forward in what appears to be a completely objective and reliable way, smacks of the kind of special pleading that we become weary of when people try to interpret Bible prophecies on this and other lists. Ian writes: Eisenman has made a remarkable amount out of these few references. My reply is that it is a good thing he did otherwise the more interesting correlations between the Rechabites, and the Jerusalem Priesthood, and the Essenes would have been missed entirely. I will look for the Talmud citations unless someone else can dig them up first, and I have ordered the 2 books by Boccaccini mentioned by David Suter. In the meantime, I will leave it to the other contributors to this list to hem and haw about gee we really can't be sure what we are reading here and so on. Considering the intricate and sometimes persuasive conclusions that can be extrapolated from just a few *words* of the DSS, or the Jewish Bible, or the New Testament, I'm always interested to follow the path of reasoning when someone takes a sentence that seems to say something fairly obvious and turns it into an artificial morass of confusion and doubt. I will
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George, I believe that I used the word quasi-religious, not mystic -- there's a big difference in connotation. Again, I recommend the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Rechab, which will explain the implications of the hypothesis in much greater detail. ADB should be readily available in library reference collections. Although I can't immediately suggest how to get at it, there is also material from Comparative Religion on the guilds of smiths in the ancient world (again, please don't confuse Comparative Religion with mystic, even through both kinds of books are shelved together in many bookstores). David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Brooks Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim In anycase, the advocacy of the Rechabites by Jeremiah is indisputable. So why does he do it? What status DO the Rechabites have? David Suter suggests they are, more or less, some mystic order of smiths. And I would suggest that the Levites themselves are ALSO a mystic order of craftsmen. I might even speculate some day that the Levites obtained their inspiration from the priestly ranks of Midian. But I won't do that today. For private reply, e-mail to David Suter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
David, Thank you for your clarifying that you said quasi-religious rather than mystic. I stand correctedand no doubt quasi- religious is probably a more useful term. I will get to the Anchor Bible Dictionary article ASAP. I look forward to reading about the religious links between Rechab and the ancient clans of metalworkers (and maybe involving other crafts like linen weaving and so on). Perhaps this is the clue to the meaning of the father-in-law of Moses being a priest of some sort? He, like the original Rechab would have been Kenites (Cain-ites)... and there seems to be an interesting spiritual fusion going on with these guild-like clans. But in the meantime, I caution us against getting too fixated on the smith nature of the Rechabites I do not think Eusebius would have been too confused between quasi-religious and priestly. And I am trying to focus on the Rechabites of the Essene time period, or at least of the New Testament period... rather than of the Jeremiah period. But there is no doubt that I will want to refer back to Jeremiah's time when we start discussing some of the Enochian influences that either work for or against an identity of Enochian Jews with Rechabites. David, I promise, I will get to the Anchor item! George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeffrey B. Gibson Sent: 28 May 2002 20:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim Jeffrey wrote about the Rechabite passage from Eusebius: More accurate, I think, is the translation of which renders the passage: Thus they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, a son of the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying,'Cease, what are you doing? In other words, the text you refer to seems to say that while there were priests who were Rechabites, not all Recabites were -- or were even thought to be -- priests. * The above posting and Herb's last posting have given me an idea. Why does the passage refer to one of the 'sons of Rechab', and then seemingly repeat itself with its emphasis that the priest was 'a son of the Rechabites'? This could imply that a 'son of Rechab' is not necessarily a descendant of Rechab. Was there a possibility that he could have been a priest who was a Rechabite by practice only? The idea that non-descendants could be described as 'sons of Rechab' is very interesting to me at least. I can think of at least two characters from NT times to whom the epithet could be applied. Josephus, a priest, is one (for at least a part of his life). The other even more interesting possibility is that non-priests could adopt the Rechabite spirit-led lifestyle and become 'sons of Rechab'. Geoff For private reply, e-mail to Geoff Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Dear David, Thank you for your response. First off, you ask me about my comment to Jeffrey. You write: I think that you'reunfair to Jeffrey to demand that he support you rather than BLOCK you. Perhaps you have not had the pleasure of reading Jeffrey's posts to ANY of my lines of inquiry on the few listservers in which we share membership. I gave up on trying to discuss issues with Jeffrey when I noticed that I could never get him to answer questions of mine. He would lecture me on semantics, and etiology, and the differences between a lexicon and a dictionary and so on. and of course he enthusiastically emphasized my lack of academic training with the implication that I shouldn't even be attempting to discuss the topics at hand. So please let me clarify something you said that is not correct. I did **not** ask Jeffrey to SUPPORT me. I merely asked him to stop trying to block my every inquiry and to provide some information that would be useful to everyone... such as: how would HE characterize the Enochian community that would contribute to our knowledge by comparing/contrasting the Enochian community with either the Essenes or the Rechabites. Not surprisingly, Jeffrey, in 2 separate posts, chose not to respond to my question. And so I will choose not to respond to the points that he raises (especially since they seem to be a bit forced, and not really on-point). I do agree with you about something important. You write: I ...suggest actually reading Boccaccini's book on Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (my comments on this book elicited your response) to see what he thinks about conflict within the priesthood prior to the Maccabean period. I have been re-reading your posts on this book and I definitely need to read his work. Your summary of his views suggests that there was some factionalism between the Enochian community and the Zadokite community and I think that would fit very well my thoughts that Ezekiel's writings (or those of his students) were opposed to the Rechabim. You write: As far as the Book of Enoch goes, both the Book of the Watchers and the Similitudes are fascinated by metalworking, but from a negative slant. The Watchers teach the art to their wives, causing war and violence inthe Book of the Watchers. If the Kenites and Rechabites were smiths (whose primary function in the ancient world was to manufacture weapons), then the Enoch literature is on the other side. This is a thought that I've pondered. The story of Cain and Abel has always struck me as a 2-layered story one layer describing Cain as the first child of Adam and Eve... and the source of all the arts of civilization. and the 2nd layer being a co-opting of the story of Cain, as an attempt to discredit the Kenite lineage where Cain becomes a murderer, and Seth becomes the NOBLE lineage with having many of the same names in the family tree of Seth that Cain has (until Cain's lineage disappears... and no effort is made to explain how the Cain lineage in metal and music is shared with the Seth-ite clans). This 2-layered aspect *might* also be applicable to the Book of Watchers... but I will have to read that work again now that I have this thesis to test. Or perhaps Zadok, who some have presumed to be a non- Hebrew ethnic name, is more closely aligned with the Rechabim?... rather than Ezekiel? I've not really examined that idea but I will have to examine that idea just to be as rigorous as possible. David, your comments on the the Book of Watchers and the Similitudes is exactly the kind of discussion that I'm looking for. We could have become mired down in semantics (in an attempt to stop a useful exchange of views)... or we can talk about the issue at a higher level with an EXCHANGE of ideas. Your suggestions are very helpful. Thanks. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
-Original Message- From: Geoff Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed by the tradition in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the Rechabites served in the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the Priests.' Perhaps someone would comment. Geoff, Aside from the fact that the Yalkut is quite late, serving in the Temple and marrying the daughters of priests does not necessarily make them priests. Check out the Anchor Bible Dictionary on the Rechabites with regard to the idea that they were smiths. The article makes some interesting connections between the customs attributed to the Rechabites and the technological role that smiths would have played in the ancient world. David Suter Saint Martin's College For private reply, e-mail to Suter, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Ian writes: On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes We shall see below how the Rabbinic tradition also connects these Rechabites [..] with the High Priest or High Priest class... Then on page 241 he writes If we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that the sons or daughters of the Rechabites married those of the High Priest... The trouble is, looking below page 229 and above page 241, I could find no Rabbinic tradition cited... * Geof writes: On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed by the tradition in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the Rechabites served in the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the Priests.' I have foolishly let go of my copy of JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS. But I specifically remember a footnote that quotes the 2 sections of Talmud that testify to Rechabites gaining entre into the priestly world by marrying the children of the High Priest. I wish I had the footnotes right in front of me but if someone has a copy of the book in front of them... it should be straightforward to find. I will be responding to some of the other posts today or tomorrow. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
well our best information is that historically converts could not marry into priestly families -- josephus makes a to-do about it when he is given a wife by the emperor and finally when he dumps his illegal wife that emperor had given him and marries a priestly wife he feels relieved, rabbinic literature also prefers that priests marry connected (read priestly) wives. the claims about the rechabite women's ability to marry into priestly families are based on a special status they receive from Moses-- all the days, and jeremiah's wording before the Lord always. and we can trace another tradition in this regard-- moses tells the israelites to love the ger (understood by the rabbis as convert) and give him bread and rainment-- say the rabbis-- bread, the temple showbread; rainment-- priestly clothes. -- allow his descendants to marry into priestly families. the rabbis were extraordinarily generous towards converts-- but that does not mean any converts were priests. of course, they were not. Herb - Original Message - From: George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim Ian writes: On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes We shall see below how the Rabbinic tradition also connects these Rechabites [..] with the High Priest or High Priest class... Then on page 241 he writes If we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that the sons or daughters of the Rechabites married those of the High Priest... The trouble is, looking below page 229 and above page 241, I could find no Rabbinic tradition cited... * Geof writes: On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: 'followed by the tradition in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the Rechabites served in the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the Priests.' I have foolishly let go of my copy of JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS. But I specifically remember a footnote that quotes the 2 sections of Talmud that testify to Rechabites gaining entre into the priestly world by marrying the children of the High Priest. I wish I had the footnotes right in front of me but if someone has a copy of the book in front of them... it should be straightforward to find. I will be responding to some of the other posts today or tomorrow. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to Herb Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Herb Basser wrote: thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but here is what we find: yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughters married priests and their grandchildren offered sacrifices-- this doesnt make rechabites priests at all-- lineage follows males. And if I take the some say correctly, this passage also indicates that there was some doubt that the claim itself (about daughters, etc.) is in any way reliable. If so, the peg upon which anyone might attempt to hang the thesis of a Rechabite priesthood, let alone a long established one, becomes even weaker than what you note it already is. Yours, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Floor 1 Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Jeffrey B. Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Herb, It's not clear to me you are looking at the right footnote or footnotes. Do you have the JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS book? And if you do, can you cite the footnote that Eisenman quotes in support of the marriage into the lineage of the High Priest? The footnotes were about marriage not about their access to the various parts of the temple. I think the Jeremiah text is more than sufficient to establish that we are talking about levitical or priestly service here rather than metal working. So I'm not looking for Talmud references that are silent on the marriage into the priestly lineage. George For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Prof. Suter, The view that the Rechabites were craftsmen in general is quite well established. But I'm not quite certain why you think these crafts preclude any capacity in Levitical or Priestly service. Priests made things in the service of Yahweh. so why wouldn't a priest be a metal worker too? If priests make incense to be burned for Yahweh, it would not be unheard of if Priests made the bells that they rang for Yahweh as well, yes? If Levites can carry wood, and guard a door then certainly Levites can be craftsmenand Priests can be craftsmen. Eusebius does not refer to the Rechabite defending James as a metal worker he calls him a priest. So why you keep wanting to return to the metalworker theme is sort of beside the point, don't you think? George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
No, George, I don't think it's beside the point, and I think that you're unfair to Jeffrey to demand that he support you rather than BLOCK you. You're overreading Jeremiah, I believe, and when the Rabbinic material didn't support your reading of Jeremiah you backed away from it. As I suggested before, you need to consult a Hebrew lexicon (I checked the recent Brill HALOT) about the various possible meanings of the key phrase in Jeremiah before reaching a conclusion about whether the Rechabites were priests on the basis of that passage. I also suggest actually reading Boccaccini's book on Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (my comments on this book elicited your response) to see what he thinks about conflict within the priesthood prior to the Maccabean period. As far as the Book of Enoch goes, both the Book of the Watchers and the Similitudes are fascinated by metalworking, but from a negative slant. The Watchers teach the art to their wives, causing war and violence in the Book of the Watchers. If the Kenites and Rechabites were smiths (whose primary function in the ancient world was to manufacture weapons), then the Enoch literature is on the other side. David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Brooks Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim Prof. Suter, The view that the Rechabites were craftsmen in general is quite well established. But I'm not quite certain why you think these crafts preclude any capacity in Levitical or Priestly service. Priests made things in the service of Yahweh. so why wouldn't a priest be a metal worker too? If priests make incense to be burned for Yahweh, it would not be unheard of if Priests made the bells that they rang for Yahweh as well, yes? If Levites can carry wood, and guard a door then certainly Levites can be craftsmenand Priests can be craftsmen. Eusebius does not refer to the Rechabite defending James as a metal worker he calls him a priest. So why you keep wanting to return to the metalworker theme is sort of beside the point, don't you think? For private reply, e-mail to David Suter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
no i dont have it-- i was merely responding to the yalkut passage and recalled a partial source in mechilta (not talmud but earlier) for what it said. I think the Eusebius passage is key and son of the rechabites I take to mean a descendant-- the term is strange because we have already heard he was a rechabite priest-- so perhaps the intent is to add a gloss to explain he was descended from them but not actually a rechabite. the gloss might have been added by Eusebius. the passage reads oddly unless we posit something along these lines. h - Original Message - From: George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:27 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim Herb, It's not clear to me you are looking at the right footnote or footnotes. Do you have the JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS book? And if you do, can you cite the footnote that Eisenman quotes in support of the marriage into the lineage of the High Priest? The footnotes were about marriage not about their access to the various parts of the temple. I think the Jeremiah text is more than sufficient to establish that we are talking about levitical or priestly service here rather than metal working. So I'm not looking for Talmud references that are silent on the marriage into the priestly lineage. George For private reply, e-mail to Herb Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Dear David Suter, You are correct. I did miss your response. Thank you for taking the time to re-send it. My responses are below: You write: The Rechabites as a priesthood seems unlikely. They are more likely smiths (the meaning of the name Cain), with their customs to be explained by the demands of their trade rather than a nomadic background. While this is conceivable, 1 Chron does specifically tell us that Rechabite clans were Scribes too. And the overlap between scribal tasks and priestly tasks is more likely than an overlap between metal work tasks and priestly tasks. You write: The phrase to stand before can mean to serve as a priest, but it also has other meanings that it would help your argument to eliminate (check a lexicon)... Could you provide an example of the use stand before as meaning anything other than priestly service? I will be happy to look at that. But since I've never seen a case like that, I have no starting place. I would certainly have to wonder what Jeremiah was talking about if he was trying to say that there would always be a Rechabite metalworker serving Yahweh. Wouldn't you think that kind of odd? You write: ...and as far as the connection to Enoch is concerned, it doesn't work linguistically (all Cain and Henoch have in common is the nun). I did not intend my comments to be interpreted that there was some unusual phonetic connection between Enoch and Cain. My point was a little more poetic than this. Enoch is the eldest son of Cain, and thus providing a context of meaning within the Enochian school of Judaism. What if the Enochian Jews saw that they had an unusual relationship with Kenites in general, and Rechabites in particular? Eisenman, in his JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS, states that he sees the Rechabites as proto-Essenes. And so does the Greek text Suidas. You write: There is mention of metalworking in the Enoch literature, but it is one of the arts that the Watchers teach that corrupts humankind, not something taught by Enoch. And yet, the lineage of Cain specifically implies that it was Cain's family that introduced the arts of metalworking (and other skills) to humanity. Rather than simply dismiss the references in Enoch as contradictory to the O.T., one might ponder if there is the INTENTION of linking the Cainites/Kenites to these personalities called The Watchers. What is the Hebrew term used for the word WATCHERS? I've heard it could it be a pun on the word Samaritan? Do you think this is possible? You write: There was someone back in the 60's or so who published on the Rechabites and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can't supply you with the reference at the moment, but you might want to check it out. I've not heard of this reference from the 1960's. Eisenman seems to have spent the most time thinking about it. But if you know about another writer, I would be very interested in reading it. Do you think you would be able to find your reference? Thank you, David Suter. For taking the time to provide your thoughts on my scenario for the Enoch - Rechabite linkage. George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Suter Sent: 28 May 2002 05:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim David Suter wrote: The Rechabites as a priesthood seems unlikely. George Brooks wrote in his initial post: ... the Rechabim (which the Fathers of the post-New Testament period mention as still in existence) ** So how does one explain the almost incidental remark about priestly Rechabites in Eusebius' history (2.23) and said to have been written by Hegesippus?: 'While they pelted him (James) with stones, one of the descendants of Rechab the son of the Rechabim -- the PRIESTLY family to which Jeremiah the Prophet bore witness, called out: Stop! what are you doing? the Righteous One is praying for you.' Presumably, there was more than one priestly descendant of Rechab around at the same time. Significantly, and in contrast to at least one recent interpretation (BT's) I have seen, they appear to be defending their fellow Rechabite colleague James, rather than attacking him. The 'one of them' wielding the fullers club was NOT one of the Rechabites but was on the side of 'they' who pelted him with stones. Who were the fullers, if not the Essenes? Geoff For private reply, e-mail to Geoff Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Geoff Hudson wrote: So how does one explain the almost incidental remark about priestly Rechabites in Eusebius' history (2.23) and said to have been written by Hegesippus?: 'While they pelted him (James) with stones, one of the descendants of Rechab the son of the Rechabim -- the PRIESTLY family to which Jeremiah the Prophet bore witness, called out: Stop! what are you doing? the Righteous One is praying for you.' One explains it first by noting that you rely too heavily not on the actual text of Eusebius, but on a particular English translation of it (that of G.A. Williamson) that is contains a bias toward seeing the Rechabites as priests. More accurate, I think, is the translation of which renders the passage: Thus they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, a son of the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying,'Cease, what are you doing? In other words, the text you refer to seems to say that while there were priests who were Rechabites, not all Recabites were -- or were even thought to be -- priests. Secondly, by noting that even IF the Rechabites were a priestly family in NT times, it does not mean they always were. The evidence for the idea of any Rechabite as priestly is late, as is the testimony that they were Levite singers, and in any case testifies to knowledge that they were NOT priestly from early on, but only came to assume this role after Rechabites who were not priests began to marry their daughters to priests. Third, by noting that Hegesippus' statement is itself suspect since Epiphanius (Heresy LXXVIII. 14) substitutes Symeon the brother of James for the Rechabite. Yours, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Floor 1 Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Jeffrey B. Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
Prof. Gibson provides some ideas regarding the interpretation of the Eusebius reference to the Rechabim. He writes: One explains it first by noting that you rely too heavily not on the actual text of Eusebius, but on a particular English translation of it (that of G.A. Williamson) that is contains a bias toward seeing the Rechabites as priests. More accurate, I think, is the translation of which renders the passage: Thus they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, a son of the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying,'Cease, what are you doing? In other words, the text you refer to seems to say that while there were priests who were Rechabites, not all Recabites were -- or were even thought to be -- priests. RESPONSE: Well, this hardly changes anything. The fact there are ANY Priests that belong to the same lineage as that spoken of by Jeremiah is quite an admission of any kind. And, in fact, it consolidates the meaning and value of Jeremiah's own advocacy of the Rechabites as eternally having someone stand before Yahweh. Again, Jeremiah doesn't say that ALL Rechabites are priests... but he does say that there will always be Rechabite priests. There is also the explicit references in Talmud (the exact references are in Eisenman's JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS) which ALSO say that the Rechabite sons and daughters married the daughters and sons of the High Priest. There doesn't seem much doubt that Jewish tradition (both in Talmud and in the Bible) spells out the existence of a Rechabite priesthood. And Ezekiel's references in opposition to a certain faction of the Jerusalem priesthood would also seem to support the same conclusion. Prof. Gibson writes: The evidence for the idea of any Rechabite as priestly is late, as is the testimony that they were Levite singers, and in any case testifies to knowledge that they were NOT priestly from early on, but only came to assume this role after Rechabites who were not priests began to marry their daughters to priests. REPLY: This fits fine with the scenario. The question, of course, is when these marriages occured. Since Jeremiah is very much a champion of Rechabite spirituality, it suggests that marriages with Priestly lines in Jerusalem were likely during the life span of Jeremiah, or just before. To reject the idea that Rechabites did not have some priestly members at the time of Jeremiah is to turn Ezekiel's opposition to a Jerusalem faction of priests into unexplainable gibberish. Who else is the most likely candidate? George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim
George, You apparently missed my response to your thesis (see below). David Suter Saint Martin's College The Rechabites as a priesthood seems unlikely. They are more likely smiths (the meaning of the name Cain), with their customs to be explained by the demands of their trade rather than a nomadic background. The phrase to stand before can mean to serve as a priest, but it also has other meanings that it would help your argument to eliminate (check a lexicon), and as far as the connection to Enoch is concerned, it doesn't work linguistically (all Cain and Henoch have in common is the nun). There is mention of metalworking in the Enoch literature, but it is one of the arts that the Watchers teach that corrupts humankind, not something taught by Enoch. There was someone back in the 60's or so who published on the Rechabites and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can't supply you with the reference at the moment, but you might want to check it out. David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Brooks Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim I'm still hoping that one of the more curious ORION members will tackle this long over-looked problem of Jeremiah's eternal lineage of Rechabite priests. He seems to believe: 1) That they will stand (serve as priests) before the Yahweh of Jerusalem. 2) That Yahweh looks favorably upon them, and thus will be sure they will have an eternal office. 3) His test of the Rechabite representatives seems designed more as a ritual, and designed to prove his point, rather than as an authentic test of their resolve. 4) That he links them with an Aramean migration into the territory, which may in fact inform modern audiences as to the source of the stories of Abraham the Aramean. From these points, one might then ask if the Rechabim (which the Fathers of the post-New Testament period mention as still in existence): 1) were directly linked to the Enochian community that seems to have been very active between the return of the exiles from Persia until the end of the BCE period; 2) and if, like the Greek Suidas specifically says, the Rechabim actually are the roots of the Essene movement. If so, it would explain the non-Jewish character of the Essenes, since the Rechabim seem clearly to be a non-Jewish sub-set of those devoted to Yahweh. But this should not be too far-fetched. By definition, the Benjaminites and the Levites are ALSO non-Jewish (which is sometimes difficult to remember). But the Benjaminites and Levites are Hebrew. And perhaps there is a Hebrew linkage between the Rechabites and the House of Judah as well. Comments? Thoughts? George Brooks Tampa, FL For private reply, e-mail to David Suter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
