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 try to remember these techniques when someone tries to build their own explanations on sentences that seem even LESS clear to the reasonable mind. 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)
