Dear George,
I certainly can't get involved in all these issues, yet I must comment on
one of your points below. You say that the first city was named Hanoch. In
fact, William Hallo, in his JCS article on Antediluvian Cities has
suggested that the first city was Irad, and that this is a reflection of
Mesopotamian tradition which regarded Eridu as the first city. Hallo
understands wayyiqra $em ha`ir ke$em beno Hanok as meaning "he named the
city after the name of Hanok's son" (the waw is like the waw in wehayto
eretz in Gen 1:24). So later sources, anticipating your interpretation,may
have indeed understood the first city to have been named Hanok, but this
may not be the plain meaning of the biblical text.
Victor
On Mon, 6 May 2002, George Brooks wrote:
>
> On 13 April 2002, David Suter made some interesting
> comments about Boccaccini's "Sources of Rabbinic Judaism".
>
> "This particular publication identifies the opposition between Zadokite
> and Enochic Judaism as an intrapriestly dispute representing the
> aftermath
> of the push for power of the sons of Zadok back in the early Restoration
> period, pushing aside the Davidic line to establish the high priesthood
> and the high priestly theocracy (this is the origin of the high priestly
> office, he argues I think correctly, since prior to the exile the king
> had
> been the chief official in charge of the cultus)....There is reason on
> the
> part of the royal and non-Zadokite priests to object, since, if I follow
> his analysis correctly, the Zadokites cooperated with the Babylonians
> during the exile and are therefore perceived to have betrayed the nation.
> ...While I don't necessarily agree with Boccaccini's dating in every
> case, the advantage that I see to the argument is that it traces the
> fragmentation of Second Temple Judaism to a dispute within the
> priesthood in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods...."
> [END OF QUOTE]
>
> I found these comments more than enough encouragement to
> look at where the "intra-priestly" factions might actually be best
> seen in the O.T.
>
> And I have to wonder if Jeremiah isn't the most obvious place!
>
> We read:
> Jer 35:16 "Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have
> performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded
> them; but his people hath not hearkened unto me....
>
> Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus
> saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed
> the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts,
> and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
>
> Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel;
> Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me
> for ever."
> [END OF TEXT]
>
>
> I believe most will agree that the phrase "stand before me" is a
> standard phrase meaing, "perform priestly duties before me".
> And so what we have here is a fairly explicit reference to a
> Rechabite priesthood, "standing before" the God of Israel.
>
> This text is usually just passed over. But there really isn't
> a more dramatic indication of a RIVAL priesthood than this.
> Some have suggested that Jeremiah himself was of Rechabite
> extraction. And I am sympathetic to these views.
>
> But who were these Rechabites? Do we see any other clues that
> would suggest that the Rechabites were "part & parcel" of the
> Yahwist community? In fact, there are so many clues it makes
> one wonder whether the identity of the Rechabites was intentionally
> hidden?.... or in fact made quite easy to trace.
>
> Conventionally speaking, the Rechabites are descended from
> the Midianites who are, in turn, descended from the Kenites.
>
> Does this offer us a clue?
>
> One possible clue is the identity of Enoch/Hanoch.
>
> Strong's has the following:
>
> 02585 Chanowk {khan-oke'}
> from 02596;
> AV - Enoch 9, Hanoch 5, Henoch 2; 16
> n pr m
> Enoch = "dedicated"
> 1) eldest son of Cain
> 2) son of Jared and father of Methuselah whom God
> took home to heaven without dying
> n pr loc
> 3) the city which Cain built and named after his
> son Enoch
> n pr m
> Hanoch = "dedicated"
> 4) a son of Midian, the third child
> 5) the eldest son of Reuben
> [END OF DEFINITION]
>
>
> And here we see the following:
> a) phonetic linkage between "Khan" of Hanoch and "Ken"
> of Kenites - with Cain being the first born of Adam;
> b) the first born of Cain;
> c) the name of the city Hanoch/Enoch;
> d) a son of Midian, with the Kenite connection to Midian;
> and finally...
> e) the first born of Reuben.
>
>
> There's an awful lot of "first born" aspect to this Enoch/Hanoch.
> And this leads one to wonder more about the Reuben connection.
> Reuben was the first born of Jacob/Israel. And yet we know practically
> nothing about this tribe. We know that it had the first position in
> front
> of the ark. And that it settled the first territory of the Transjordan
> Moab region.
>
> Certainly by the time of Meshe of Moab, there doesn't appear to
> be a trace of Reuben left. What has happened to this entire tribe?
> Could it in fact be just another name for a tribe of "Rechob"?
>
> Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Reubenite is phonetically not
> that distant from "Rechob-im":
>
> 07206 Reh'uwbeniy {reh-oob-ay-nee'}
> patronymic from 07205;; adj
> AV - Reubenite 17, Reuben 1; 18
> Reubenite = see Reuben "behold a son"
> 1) a descendant of Reuben the son of Jacob
> [END OF DEFINITION]
>
>
> And in the story of Exodus we hear Moses successfully
> persuading the Midianites to lead his people into the lands
> they are familiar with. This would put the Midianites into the
> "first" position. Wouldn't this be ahead of Reuben? Or was
> it, in fact, Reuben that they came to represent.
>
> I know that all of this is very speculative. But the inescapable
> "nugget" in this discussion is that Jeremiah says that there will
> ALWAYS be a Rechabite priest serving the Lord of Israel.
>
> These are incredibly strong words. And if we look at the
> links to the name Enoch/Hanoch, it seems clear that Enochian
> "echoes" can be heard in the Rechabite/Kenite matrix.
>
> So before responders rush to demolish this humble piece of
> speculation, I think it is necessary to explain who the Rechabite
> priests must have been during the time of Jeremiah. And if they
> were, indeed, a priesthood..... then have we not discovered the
> roots of the Enochian priestly faction?
>
> I look forward to an exploration of these issues.
>
> George Brooks
> Tampa, FL
>
>
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)
