John2 wrote:spin wrote:So" usually requires argumentation and evidence preceding it.
I thought I had ("The Damascus Document has an esoteric understanding of the priesthood, which, as Eisenman points out, involved altering Ezk. 44:15 by adding vavs to it ...").
This generic assertion may or may not be true: "The Damascus Document has an esoteric understanding of the priesthood". The significance of that "esoteric understanding" needs to be clarified and its relevance to the discussion needs to be presented. The relevance of Eisenman's point has not been made. The significance to any reality at time of writing of the addition of the waws (beside the claims of grammar) has not been ascertained, though it appears that there were three distinct priestly entities. What is certain from Ezek 33:19 is that the sons of Zadoq are a subset of "Levitical priests". Also in 1 Chr 9 there is a clear distinction between priestly families and Levitical families. The position of the sons of Aaron regarding the sons of Levi is made clear in various places including 1 Chr 6, where there is also a genealogy of the family of Zadoq. Together these facts provide the existence of three distinct entities, which the Dead Sea Scrolls also evince.