Priestly Backbiting in the Tanakh

[lpetrich]

This is something I recall from a Robert M. Price essay at secularhumanism.org one that's now been paywalled, it seems. So I'm doing this mostly from memory.

The ancient Israelites had more than one priestly guild, notably the Aaronids and the Sons of Korah.

The Aaronids presided over animal sacrifices, getting a share of the meat of the sacrificed animal. Animal sacrifices were usually slaughter rituals, with a god also getting a share, usually in burnt form. The God of the Tanakh seemed to like burnt offerings. That aside, the Aaronids became the best-off priests, likely through all the meat that they acquired.

The Sons of Korah were choral singers, and they likely composed several of the Psalms. They did not quite have the Aaronids' source of income.

Here's the backbiting part.

In Numbers 16, Korah rebelled against Moses, and God punished him and his supporters in various ways. Fire from heaven, the Earth opening up, plague.

Some of the Psalms slam animal sacrifice as not having much religious merit.

Thus, the Aaronids claimed that the Sons of Korah had a disloyal founder, while the Sons of Korah claimed that the Aaronids' big source of income was illegitimate.

[beowulf]

This is something I recall from a Robert M. Price essay at secularhumanism.org one that's now been paywalled, it seems. So I'm doing this mostly from memory.

The ancient Israelites had more than one priestly guild, notably the Aaronids and the Sons of Korah.

The Aaronids presided over animal sacrifices, getting a share of the meat of the sacrificed animal. Animal sacrifices were usually slaughter rituals, with a god also getting a share, usually in burnt form. The God of the Tanakh seemed to like burnt offerings. That aside, the Aaronids became the best-off priests, likely through all the meat that they acquired.

The Sons of Korah were choral singers, and they likely composed several of the Psalms. They did not quite have the Aaronids' source of income.

Here's the backbiting part.

In Numbers 16, Korah rebelled against Moses, and God punished him and his supporters in various ways. Fire from heaven, the Earth opening up, plague.

Some of the Psalms slam animal sacrifice as not having much religious merit.

Thus, the Aaronids claimed that the Sons of Korah had a disloyal founder, while the Sons of Korah claimed that the Aaronids' big source of income was illegitimate.

Have you read Numbers 16? and if the answer is yes, then, please explain what do you want us to consider.

[lpetrich]

I thought I stated it, that it was the Aaronids' way of putting down the Sons of Korah as unjustifiably rebellious.

[beowulf]

I thought I stated it, that it was the Aaronids' way of putting down the Sons of Korah as unjustifiably rebellious.

Are you asking a question?

[austendw]

The ancient Israelites had more than one priestly guild, notably the Aaronids and the Sons of Korah.

The Aaronids presided over animal sacrifices, getting a share of the meat of the sacrificed animal.

[...]

The Sons of Korah were choral singers, and they likely composed several of the Psalms.

It's an interesting theory, but that division of labour is a late one, after the struggle for supremacy had been won. I think that the geopolitical issue is the root of the conflict. In admittedly priestly sources, the Aaronids are allocated 13 cities in the tribal territories of Judah, Simeon & Benjamin - ie in southern territories, with Hebron the key city. The Kohathites (to whom Korah belongs) get 10 cities in Ephraim, Dan & the western Manasseh area, including Shechem & Taanach in the Jezreel valley - ie in the heartland of the northern kingdom. That surely implies that the Kohathite/Korahite priests (for they were not "mere" Levites at that time) connected to the northern kingdom and somehow - along with the Merarites and Izharites - somehow survived in the Judean cult, with a lower priestly status than the native southern - Aaronid - priesthood. Korah's rebellion seems to dramatise the struggle for power that the Korahites lost.

[semiopen]

I haven't seen anything new about this in many years.

The Zadokite dynasty ( Zadok) seems to be second temple, although we have the stories that Zadok was appointed by David, etc. Maybe there is some weird relationship between Zadak and Melchizedek

The major dispute, of course, seems to have between the Aaronid and Mushite (academic for Mosaic I guess) families. We see different degrees of criticism of Aaron's fuck up with the golden calf between Exodus and Deuteronomy, etc. And the dispute is visible in the prophets.

The Korach incident appears to be mainly an inspiration for bad sermons.

At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative
Author(s): Alan M. Cooper and Bernard R. Goldstein
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 201-215

discusses this.

In his 1988 SBL Seminar Paper, Ellis Rivkin claims that the Torah contains traces of three distinct "authority systems," which he terms prophetic absolutism, power sharing, and priestly absolutism, respectively.' The way to
understand the literary history of the Torah, in Rivkin's view, is to parse out those distinct systems of authority. Once Rivkin delineates his three strands, he reaches conclusions that are, in broad outline, consistent with Wellhausen's:
Rivkin's prophetic stream is represented by the Moses of RJE, power sharing by the levitical priests of D, and priestly authoritarianism by the Aaronids of P. Rivkin argues that those characters stand for successive moments in the
struggle for power in biblical Israel, the final ascendancy of the Aaronids being signified by the demise of the Levites in Korah's rebellion. It follows that the Korah story in its present form marks the end point of Torah redaction-a
notion that has now been confirmed by Israel Knohl, who identifies the final redactor as H rather than p.2

Depending on what "final redaction" means, this seems reasonable and interesting.

It seems like things were settled when the Zadokites took control in second temple times.

Footnote 2 refers to -
Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School - http://www.amazon.com/The-Sanctuary-Sil ... 1575061317

He is supposed to give dates about when all this happened but I haven't been able to find someone to give me a hint. I've got a feeling it wasn't before the exile.

[semiopen]

It appears that Knohl may have said the last word on this subject - whatever that last word is.

A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Priests-A ... of+priests

is available online at -

http://natzraya.com/Books%20on%20Judais ... (2006).pdf

Martha Himmelfarb is mostly concerned with the Apocrypha - Watchers, Ben Sira, Aramaic Levi, Jubilees, etc.

She writes about Korah on pages 1 and 2

The idea of Israel as a holy people is of course a central biblical theme. But the notion that all Israelites are equally holy, as "a kingdom of priests" implies, is more problematic. After all, if all Israelites are equally holy, why bother with priests in the first place? The tension between the holiness of the whole people and the existence of priests receives dra­matic expression in the story of the rebellion of Korah during the Is­raelites' wandering in the wilderness (Numbers 16-17)

I agree that the meaning of Korach is closely tied in with the Holiness Code, it also seems clear that the story must have been redacted well into second temple times. Jacob Milgrom was the major holiness source expert

It sort of makes me wonder if the OP isn't over simplified. Korach doesn't seem to be a contender for priest in any realistic period and there is the little problem of his sons surviving (which also contributes to the bad sermons).

Holiness_code

According to most versions the documentary hypothesis, the Holiness Code represents an earlier text that was edited and incorporated into the Priestly source and the Torah as a whole, although some scholars, such as Israel Knohl, believe the Holiness Code to be a later addition to the Priestly source.

More recent critical scholarship, particularly that of Israel Knohl, and Jacob Milgrom, has argued instead that the Holiness Code (H) was the appendage, and the Priestly Code (P) the original. This view also identifies passages outside the traditional area of H, specifically in Exodus and Numbers, as belonging to the Holiness Code rather than P, such as the order to sound a trumpet on certain dates. In consequence, this view sees the author of H as the editor of P, rather than the reverse, in particular as P is able to be read coherently even when devoid of H. Nevertheless, the presence of what appears to be a clear ending to H, specifically Leviticus 26, which would be expected to have been moved, such as to be after Leviticus 27, if H was the addition, rather than the original, has presented some problems for such revising of the theory.

Not being a very deep fellow, my impression is that Milgrom assigned a first temple date to the Holiness code. Perhaps Knohl has "corrected" that.

[beowulf]

Korah is very interesting ,it is a problem always present in any society at any given time; how to prevent priests from becoming an oppressive nobility .

This commentary explains the conflict well:
"The Kohanim (actually Aharon, at this stage) are presented as a completely independent group, to whom the Leviim are given over. There is no equal ground between these two groups - the one is completely under the control of the other.
Korach's declaration that "the whole entire nation is holy and God is in their midst" burned like fire within the princes and gave them no rest.

They were demanding kedusha on behalf of the nation - the holiness inherent in God's covenant requires no intermediaries.


Particular attention should be paid to the Torah's repeated use of the term "eida" (congregation) in reference to the entire party that accompanied Korach, and the juxtaposition to the same term used in reference to the entire nation of Israel. God instructs Moshe to separate himself from amongst the "eida" (the entire nation of Israel), and Moshe instructs the people to separate themselves from amongst the "eida" (Korach's congregation). The term "eida" does not refer to a random collection of people. The word refers to an organic unit; a group of people unified by a single task. (It is for this reason that the term is also used to signify the ten congregants who come together to form a minyan.)

The 250 princes joined together with the aim of demanding a holy status for the congregation; they wanted Aharon - the individual - to be replaced by the entire holy congregation. The Divine response, as demonstrated by the test of the staffs, was that the status of Aharon was derived from his position within the organic community."
http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/38korach.htm

"the holiness inherent in God's covenant requires no intermediaries," those words will get the author murdered in biblical times and during the Reformation and ...

[semiopen]

Perhaps I should rest my case with Beowulf's exegesis.

Instead, perhaps we can consider the deep and profound Musical - Guys and Dolls.

Sky Masterson: One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.

Now consider Numbers 16:5-7

Then he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, "Come morning, the LORD will make known who is His and who is holy, and will grant him access to Himself; He will grant access to the one He has chosen.Do this: You, Korah and all your band, take fire pans, and tomorrow put fire in them and lay incense on them before the LORD. Then the man whom the LORD chooses, he shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!"
(Num 16:5-7 TNK)

You can dress the bible up in all the Jewey stuff you want, but at the end of the day, you just have an idiot getting bitch slapped.

[beowulf]

Korah is the religious reformer that would have felt at home among Tyndale, Huss and Luther.

Datan and Aviram are the secular opposition to what they perceive to be an undesirable taxation. They would have felt at home among Robespierre, Danton and Desmoulins


Numbers 15
4then whoever presents such an offering to the LORD shall present also a grain-offering, one-tenth of an ephah of choice flour, mixed with one-fourth of a hin of oil...
19whenever you eat of the bread of the land, you shall present a donation to the LORD...
Numbers 16
12 Moses sent for Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab; but they said, ‘We will not come
16And Moses said to Korah, ‘As for you and all your company, be present tomorrow before the LORD, you and they and Aaron;
19Then Korah assembled the whole congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting


The secular group is buried alive and the heretic group offering incense is burned alive.

The secular rebels are few and weak, but religious reformers have considerable support in the community. Heretics are a serious threat , but few in the community understand the absence of god as a way of life.
41 On the next day, however, the whole congregation of the Israelites rebelled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, ‘You have killed the people of the lord.
A religious war begins and the plague defeats the rebels.

Years later, in Europe, another great religious war was fought by religious reformers , but it was not until the French Revolution that the sons of Eliab fought their war under a secular flag.

Korah is very interesting ,.