2 Samuel 8:18

[kryoung1983]

I ran across this blog from Dr. Cluase Mariottini who is a proffessor of Old Testament at Northern baptist Seminary in illinois. It is in regards to 2 Samuel 8:18

"The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that â??Davidâ??s sons were priestsâ? is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (â??priestsâ?) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as â??priestsâ?:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Todayâ??s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that Davidâ??s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that Davidâ??s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

â??Chief ministersâ?: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

â??Chief officialsâ?: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

â??Chief rulersâ?: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

â??Princesâ?: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

â??Royal advisersâ?: the New International Version ( NIV).

â??Priestly leadersâ?: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

â??Princes of the courtâ?: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as â??chief rulersâ? or â??royal advisors,â? some commentators acknowledge that the word â??kohenâ? means â??priest,â? but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as â??confidants,â? cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathanâ??s son, is a kohen (â??priestâ?) and â??the kingâ??s friend,â? that is, the kingâ??s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that Davidâ??s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where Davidâ??s sons are called â??the chief officials in the service of the king.â? This description of the office occupied by Davidâ??s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of Davidâ??s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chroniclerâ??s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word â??priestsâ? but calls the sons of David â??chief officials at the kingâ??s sideâ? (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

â??Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.â?

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as â??priestsâ? rather than â??royal advisors.â? Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini

Professor of Old Testament

Northern Baptist Seminary"

[Smith]

And your feeling about this is? Or the point you raise it here is?

[kryoung1983]

And your feeling about this is? Or the point you raise it here is?

My point is that the text says, or should say in a accurate translation that Davids sons were priests. Only the levites were allowed to have the priesthood, and we know that psalms says David is a priest after the order of melchizedek, and That christ is a high priest after the order of the melchizedek priesthood. A high priest also seems to imply lesser priests. After all how can you be a high priest if you are the only priest in a given order? The verse contradicts the standard view that only livites had priesthood obligations and duties.

[Billy]

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as â??priestsâ? rather than â??royal advisors.â? Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

Did David have the Priesthood? Some would point to Psalm 110 as proof that he had the Melchizedek Priesthood, but is this speaking about David or rather is this a Messianic Psalm speaking about Christ?

It seems to indicate in the NT that David was not priest when Christ was speaking about David taking the Bread from the temple.

Luke 6:3 Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

[kryoung1983]

Then please explain why the accurate translation in 2 Samuel 8:18 Says "Davids sons were priests" It seems that the Bible is contradicting itself. how are we to explain this contradiction and how this played out in israelite life?

[Billy]

Then please explain why the accurate translation in 2 Samuel 8:18 Says "Davids sons were priests" It seems that the Bible is contradicting itself. how are we to explain this contradiction and how this played out in israelite life?

Maybe they weren't priests, as YOU already made reference to in your OP.

Most of the translations that say that Davidâ??s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where Davidâ??s sons are called â??the chief officials in the service of the king.â? This description of the office occupied by Davidâ??s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of Davidâ??s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chroniclerâ??s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word â??priestsâ? but calls the sons of David â??chief officials at the kingâ??s sideâ? (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

[Smith]

Then please explain why the accurate translation in 2 Samuel 8:18 Says "Davids sons were priests" It seems that the Bible is contradicting itself. how are we to explain this contradiction and how this played out in israelite life?

An interesting question and now I see your point, and I must admit I have no clue how this conundrum is solved. Perhaps Priest is not the best translation, perhaps Prince or advisor is the closer intended meaning??

[The_Monk]

Why are we assuming that the Bible is 100% internally consistent, and that there is some Israelite piece of data that harmonizes these?

[cjcampbell]

We know that David had the blessings of marriage under the new and everlasting covenant because the Doctrine and Covenants says that these blessings were taken away from him because of his murder of Uriah. These blessings are available only to those who hold the Melchizedek priesthood.

[soren]

I ran across this blog from Dr. Cluase Mariottini who is a proffessor of Old Testament at Northern baptist Seminary in illinois. It is in regards to 2 Samuel 8:18

"The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that â??Davidâ??s sons were priestsâ? is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (â??priestsâ?) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as â??priestsâ?:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Todayâ??s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that Davidâ??s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that Davidâ??s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

â??Chief ministersâ?: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

â??Chief officialsâ?: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

â??Chief rulersâ?: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

â??Princesâ?: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

â??Royal advisersâ?: the New International Version ( NIV).

â??Priestly leadersâ?: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

â??Princes of the courtâ?: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as â??chief rulersâ? or â??royal advisors,â? some commentators acknowledge that the word â??kohenâ? means â??priest,â? but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as â??confidants,â? cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathanâ??s son, is a kohen (â??priestâ?) and â??the kingâ??s friend,â? that is, the kingâ??s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that Davidâ??s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where Davidâ??s sons are called â??the chief officials in the service of the king.â? This description of the office occupied by Davidâ??s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of Davidâ??s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chroniclerâ??s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word â??priestsâ? but calls the sons of David â??chief officials at the kingâ??s sideâ? (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

â??Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.â?

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as â??priestsâ? rather than â??royal advisors.â? Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini

Professor of Old Testament

Northern Baptist Seminary"

This is an important point but only as it argues against those who hold the Jesus was the only Melchizedek priest as an objection to Mormon teaching. Melchizedek priesthood is that priesthood which a person possesses by the kingly inheritance of a firstborn son, as in implied by the association of Ps. 2:7 and 110:4 in Heb 5:5.

[Billy]

Melchizedek priesthood is that priesthood which a person possesses by the kingly inheritance of a firstborn son, as in implied by the association of Ps. 2:7 and 110:4 in Heb 5:5.

All these verses are speaking of Christ who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. But I don't see how you are applying this priesthood to others using these verses.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

[maklelan]

My point is that the text says, or should say in a accurate translation that Davids sons were priests. Only the levites were allowed to have the priesthood, and we know that psalms says David is a priest after the order of melchizedek, and That christ is a high priest after the order of the melchizedek priesthood. A high priest also seems to imply lesser priests. After all how can you be a high priest if you are the only priest in a given order? The verse contradicts the standard view that only livites had priesthood obligations and duties.

It's been my contention for some time that included in Josiah's reforms was the vilification of non-Levitical priests, which is why Deuteronomistic books in the Hebrew Bible reference non-Levitical Israelite priests as comerim, and then equate them with the priests of Baal. Stephen Ricks has posited that a comer may be a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood (incidentally, c'murah is the modern Hebrew word for the non-Jewish priesthoods). I think this could be the case, but we are left to interpret that history through a scriptural framework designed by Deuteronomistic reformers.

[sean0scott]

Then please explain why the accurate translation in 2 Samuel 8:18 Says "Davids sons were priests" It seems that the Bible is contradicting itself. how are we to explain this contradiction and how this played out in israelite life?

I think I'm on your team, but this brought to mind a point...

The Children of Israel were not the only covenant people; the old testament hints at others. This came in handy when Moses needed the priesthood and a Midianite was there to deliver. (On this note, a wise man once pointed out, "How fitting that the very Midianites who sold Joseph into Egypt gave Moses the power to get them out.")

Taking into account these other covenant people it would be erroneous to claim that the only people who could hold the priesthood were the Levites. Since the Midianites preceded the 12 tribes and were still the seed of Abraham they were benefactors of the Abrahamic covenant, but not necessarily subject to the same stipulations as the Children of Israel.

[Billy]

This came in handy when Moses needed the priesthood and a Midianite was there to deliver.. . .

Taking into account these other covenant people it would be erroneous to claim that the only people who could hold the priesthood were the Levites. Since the Midianites preceded the 12 tribes and were still the seed of Abraham they were benefactors of the Abrahamic covenant, but not necessarily subject to the same stipulations as the Children of Israel.

This is an interesting theory, I assume you are talking about Jethro in Exodus 3.

What type of priesthood did Jethro have, the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or some other type of priesthood?

Where can I read about Jethro giving Moses the priesthood? And did he give Moses the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or both types of priesthood?

[sean0scott]

This is an interesting theory, I assume you are talking about Jethro in Exodus 3.

What type of priesthood did Jethro have, the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or some other type of priesthood?

Where can I read about Jethro giving Moses the priesthood? And did he give Moses the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or both types of priesthood?

Exodus 18 is the where I would guess it is implied... If you're one of those pesky Mormons, then D&C 84:6-7 is where it's spelled out in black and white (though pesky nonetheless); also the JST for 'priest' under Ex 18:1b elaborates that it is high priest or priest of Melchizedek. So, Jethro held the Melchizedek priesthood, and passed it to Moses... IFF you are a fan of the Doctrine and Covenants. If you don't buy into the restored gospel business it is still an interesting tidbit that Jethro is offering sacrifices, etc.

[Flyonthewall]

This is an interesting theory, I assume you are talking about Jethro in Exodus 3.

What type of priesthood did Jethro have, the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or some other type of priesthood?

Where can I read about Jethro giving Moses the priesthood? And did he give Moses the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or both types of priesthood?

It has already been pointed out that there is but one priesthood of God. The Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood did not exists until the Lord assigned Aaron and his sons(the tribe of Levi) to be the administers in the temporal ordinances. At this point, it was just a portion of the priesthood of God sufficient to complete the duties they were assigned.

So anyone before Aaron, could not have had the "Aaronic " or "Levitical" Priesthood. If anything, it was the Melchizedek Priesthood, but possibly it was just called THE priesthood.

[Billy]

It has already been pointed out that there is but one priesthood of God. The Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood did not exists until the Lord assigned Aaron and his sons(the tribe of Levi) to be the administers in the temporal ordinances. At this point, it was just a portion of the priesthood of God sufficient to complete the duties they were assigned.

So anyone before Aaron, could not have had the "Aaronic " or "Levitical" Priesthood. If anything, it was the Melchizedek Priesthood, but possibly it was just called THE priesthood.

Can you give me some references prior to Moses where it was called "THE priesthood" or the "Melchizedek priesthood" beside the reference about the character Melchizedek in Gen 14:18?

[Flyonthewall]

Can you give me some references prior to Moses where it was called "THE priesthood" or the "Melchizedek priesthood" beside the reference about the character Melchizedek in Gen 14:18?

Before Moses married Zipporah, which is before Moses became a prophet, Jethro was a priest

Exodus 2

15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their fatherâ??s flock.

17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.

18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?

19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.

20 And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.

21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.

And how can there be a priest, without the priesthood?

Edited to add:

The Bible clearly states that there were priests, before Moses, Jethro being one, and Melchizedek being another. Now since Jesus is referred to as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, there was a priesthood at least from the time of Melchizedek, to which his name is lended to. A priesthood order of Melchizedek. Now before Aaron and the tribe of Levi came along, there was no distinction given of priesthoods(at least in the Bible), only that there were priests.

We know that there was a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, but Aaron and the tribe of Levi did not have it, else it would have been identified as such. The Melchizedek priesthood was recognized in one of David's Psalms, and Jesus is described to have that priesthood.

The NT also says that the Law of Moses could not bring Salvation and that necessitated a change in Priesthood(Hebrews 7)...which Jesus had.

This is very obvious to me that there was a Melchizedek priesthood, and an Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

[structurecop]

Before Moses married Zipporah, which is before Moses became a prophet, Jethro was a priest

Exodus 2

And how can there be a priest, without the priesthood?

I think you're projecting your LDS conception of priesthood onto an ancient near eastern text that probably does not share your views. I think the difficulty in the text is the result of political struggles and someone overlooking the passage as they finished the redaction.

[Flyonthewall]

I think you're projecting your LDS conception of priesthood onto an ancient near eastern text that probably does not share your views. I think the difficulty in the text is the result of political struggles and someone overlooking the passage as they finished the redaction.

Can you expound upon this? I'm not sure I follow. Was Jethro a priest or not? Apparently the author(s) of the books of Moses believed that he was.

[sean0scott]

Can you expound upon this? I'm not sure I follow. Was Jethro a priest or not? Apparently the author(s) of the books of Moses believed that he was.

If there's one thing I know it's that Structurecop is smarter than I am. If I know two things, it's that he's smarter than me and handsomer. But since he's probably posting from a foxhole, I may be able to give you a sub-par answer while he flanks somebody or something.

From what I understand of the Midianites, they descended from Abraham via the wife of his (extremely) old age, Keturah . Therefore they had a shot at the blessings offered to the other seeds of Abraham. Jethro was a Midianite priest, what that means depends on how many books of scripture you believe in. If you just believe in the Bible, and need no other Bible, this verse is a bit enigmatic; if you have a hankerin' for more modern scripture, then you know that Jethro was a priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. I'm sure Structizzle will scoff at my layman's view, but he should remember the times when my sub-par yet timely responses bought him enough time to formulate an actual response, and sigh with delight.

[Billy]

. . .then you know that Jethro was a priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Jethro had the Melchizedek Priesthood? Where is this from?

Genesis 41

44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt." 45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, [e] to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt.

Do you know if the priest of On had the Melchizedek priesthood as well?

[structurecop]

If there's one thing I know it's that Structurecop is smarter than I am. If I know two things, it's that he's smarter than me and handsomer. But since he's probably posting from a foxhole, I may be able to give you a sub-par answer while he flanks somebody or something.

From what I understand of the Midianites, they descended from Abraham via the wife of his (extremely) old age, Keturah . Therefore they had a shot at the blessings offered to the other seeds of Abraham. Jethro was a Midianite priest, what that means depends on how many books of scripture you believe in. If you just believe in the Bible, and need no other Bible, this verse is a bit enigmatic; if you have a hankerin' for more modern scripture, then you know that Jethro was a priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. I'm sure Structizzle will scoff at my layman's view, but he should remember the times when my sub-par yet timely responses bought him enough time to formulate an actual response, and sigh with delight.

My good associate and long-time friend Sean is being far too generous here. First of all, he is much better looking than me and much smarter. Second, he has rescued me from embarassment many a time while my slow intellect struggled to keep up with the pace of conversation. Third, he throws a mean frisbee.

The political controversies that divided the camps of biblical writers often surfaced in the form of slams on the legitimacy of the other group's priesthood. Two of these groups were the descendants/adherents to a Moses-centric priesthood tradition and the descendants/adherents to an Aaronid-centric priesthood tradition. Since the Moses-centric priesthood tradition derives its authority from an ordaining at the hands of a Midianite, we have writers from the Aaronid camp slamming the Midianites as apostates, sinners, etc whenever they get the chance (e.g. Numbers 25). The Moses/Shilonite/Levitical descendents in turn make Aaron to look like an idolater when Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the Commandments. And it goes on and on like this.

The priesthood tradition of early Israel was not unified and received influence from surrounding Near Eastern civilizations and cultures. Their methods for officiating in or passing on priesthood authority varied widely. So to say "this person had the Aaronic priesthood" or "this person had the Melchizedek priesthood," though perhaps useful for LDS purposes, isn't entirely accurate because the reality is much more nuanced.

[Flyonthewall]

My good associate and long-time friend Sean is being far too generous here. First of all, he is much better looking than me and much smarter. Second, he has rescued me from embarassment many a time while my slow intellect struggled to keep up with the pace of conversation. Third, he throws a mean frisbee.

The political controversies that divided the camps of biblical writers often surfaced in the form of slams on the legitimacy of the other group's priesthood. Two of these groups were the descendants/adherents to a Moses-centric priesthood tradition and the descendants/adherents to an Aaronid-centric priesthood tradition. Since the Moses-centric priesthood tradition derives its authority from an ordaining at the hands of a Midianite, we have writers from the Aaronid camp slamming the Midianites as apostates, sinners, etc whenever they get the chance (e.g. Numbers 25). The Moses/Shilonite/Levitical descendents in turn make Aaron to look like an idolater when Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the Commandments. And it goes on and on like this.

The priesthood tradition of early Israel was not unified and received influence from surrounding Near Eastern civilizations and cultures. Their methods for officiating in or passing on priesthood authority varied widely. So to say "this person had the Aaronic priesthood" or "this person had the Melchizedek priesthood," though perhaps useful for LDS purposes, isn't entirely accurate because the reality is much more nuanced.

Since I'm not as smart as either one of ya cut in half, and no where near as good looking either(I mean just look at Scott's avatar ), I hope you will have some patience with me as I try to follow along....

The authors of the manuscripts or texts, that the Books of Moses was written from, took opportunity to slam their "rivals"(for search of a better word) and made them look bad, or made themselves look better.

So the author(s) of the passage that made a point of stating that Jethro was a priest, may have taken liberties to falsify Jethro's status or position?

I can envision a "rivaly" between groups happening, but I don't know that I accept that either one tried to deny the priesthood the other had.

In my previous post, my point was that before Aaron, and the tribe of Levi, there was but one priesthood, which was THE priesthood of God. This priesthood order had Melchizedek's name lended to it at least later on in the scriptures.

The tribe of Levi and Aaron and his sons were given the priesthood, but was not identified as being after the order of Melchizedek, it was identified as being "Levitical' or "priesthood of Aaron"(they had slightly different functions).

So in my mind, though the rivalry between the two groups may have raged on, the issue of who held the priesthood was not affected. At the time the Bible was going on, it was just God's priesthood, but when there was priesthood given that was not identical to what they had before, then the differentiation of priesthoods took place.

[sean0scott]

Jethro had the Melchizedek Priesthood? Where is this from?

Genesis 41

44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt." 45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, [e] to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt.

Do you know if the priest of On had the Melchizedek priesthood as well?

I think I posted it earlier, but here it is again. D&C 84:6-7

I have not seen anything on this priest of On, but I believe On is an Egyptian God, so I doubt he was anything more than a priest of On.