NOTE:
This post has been withdrawn. The post has been published in my book, Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding. The approach taken in the book is to compare how different translations have approached difficult texts in the Old Testament. The goal of the book is to invite readers to reread the biblical text in light of the new understanding of the intent of the original writer of the text. You can order the book from Amazon.
Rereading the Biblical Text
Visit my Amazon author’s page to purchase the book (click here).
Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
A Note About This Post:
Before “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests’” was withdrawn for publication, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests’” was read by 4813 readers. “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests’” was also shared 43 times by readers who enjoyed reading the post. You can read “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests’” and other articles on problems in Bible translation by reading my book Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding. Below is the content of the book:
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments – Page xi
Abbreviations – Page xii
Introduction – Page xv
SECTION 1 — THE PENTATEUCH
Chapter 1. The Creation of Animals in Genesis 2:19 – Page 3
Chapter 2. The Serpent Was Right (Genesis 3) – Page 7
Chapter 3. The Seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15) – Page 11
Chapter 4. Were They Really Giants? (Genesis 6:4) – Page 17
Chapter 5. “As Far as Dan” (Gen 14:14) – Page 20
Chapter 6. Abraham and the Promises of God – Page (Genesis 12:7) – Page 23
Chapter 7. The Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:8) – Page 26
Chapter 8. The Rape of Bilhah (Genesis 35:22) – Page 29
Chapter 9. Miriam, a Leader in Israel (Exodus 15:20) – Page 32
Chapter 10. Azazel (Leviticus 16:8-10) – Page 35
Chapter 11. Understanding Numbers 24:24 – Page 38
SECTION 2 — THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Chapter 12. The Levite and His Concubine (Judges 19:1–30) – Page 43
Chapter 13. The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 47
Chapter 14. The Fate of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 4750
Chapter 15. The Virginity of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 54
Chapter 16. Who Went Back to the City? (Ruth 3:15) – Page 59
Chapter 17. Was Ruth Barren? (Ruth 4:13) – Page 59
Chapter 18. King Saul: Little in His Own Eyes (1 Samuel 15:17) – Page 63
Chapter 19. How Old Was Saul? (1 Samuel 13:1) – Page 64
Chapter 20. David and Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4) – Page 67
Chapter 21. David’s Sons Were Priests ((2 Samuel 8:18) – Page 70
Chapter 22. “Him that Pisseth against the Wall” (1 Samuel 25:22) – Page 72
Chapter 23. Whose Cloak Did Ahijah Tear? (1Kinga 11:4–7) – Page 78
Chapter 24. The Challenges of Parenthood (2 Kinga 21:25–26) – Page 82
SECTION 3 — THE WISDOM AND POETICAL BOOKS
Chapter 25. Psalm 8:5: In Search of a Better Translation – Page 87
Chapter 26. Understanding Psalm 17:14 – Page 90
Chapter 27. Jezebel’s Wedding Song (Psalm 45:1–17) – Page 93
Chapter 28. Psalm 100:3: In Search of a Better Translation – Page 99
Chapter 29. Sons or Children? (Psalm 127:3-5) – Page 103
Chapter 30. Proverbs 29:18 – Page 106
Chapter 31. “Black and Beautiful” or “Black but Beautiful”? (Song of Songs 1:5) – Page 108
SECTION 4 — THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS
Chapter 32. The Use of Gender Inclusive Language (Isaiah 9:1) – Page 115
Chapter 33. “You Have Increased Their Joy” (Isaiah 9:3) – Page 118
Chapter 34. Who Will the Messiah Strike? (Isaiah 11:4) – Page 120
Chapter 35. The Way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:3) – Page 122
Chapter 36. “All Their Goodliness” (Isa 40:6) – Page 126
Chapter 37. The Proclaimer of Good News (Isaiah 40:9) – Page 129
Chapter 38. The Problem of Divorce in the Old Testament (Isaiah 50:1) – Page 132
Chapter 39. Beulah Land (Isaiah 62:4) – Page 135
Chapter 40. The Balm of Gilead (Jeremiah 8:22) – Page 138
Chapter 41. The Mother of Seven (Jeremiah 15:9) – Page 142
Chapter 42. The Coming of the Messiah (Daniel 9:25–27) – Page 144
Chapter 43. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel (Daniel 9:25–27) – Page 148
Chapter 44. The Knowledge of God (Hosea 4:1) – Page 152
Chapter 45. The Word “Hesed” in the Book of Hosea (Hosea 4:1) – Page 154
Chapter 46. The Word “Justice” in Amos (Amos 5:24) – Page 157
Chapter 47. “What the Lord Requires” (Micah 6:8) – Page 160
Bibliography – Page 165
Index of Subjects – Page 169
Index of Authors – Page 171
Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Documents – Page 173
Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
VISIT MY AMAZON AUTHOR’S PAGE
BUY MY BOOKS ON AMAZON (Click here).
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter or Tumblr so that others may enjoy reading it too!
I would love to hear from you! Let me know what you thought of this post by leaving a comment below. Be sure to like my page on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, follow me on Tumblr, Facebook, and subscribe to my blog to receive each post by email.
If you are looking for other series of studies on the Old Testament, visit the Archive section and you will find many studies that deal with a variety of topics.
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.
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Interesting! You’re bringing back fond memories of my dissertation work in Hebrews (although my particular topic did not involve Melchizedek to any great extent).I hope you’ll eventually delve into ancient ideas about sacral kingship. Sometimes the king also acts as the society’s “chief priest” (I’m thinking especially of Egypt but there are many other examples) and sometimes there is a division of labor involving two kings: one for ritual functions and one for “secular” administrative duties. Wasn’t this more or less the Spartan system?
LikeLike
>Once again, you’ve offered a compelling argument I’d never considered before. And once again, I was paying attention enough to nitpick: in the fourth paragraph, didn’t you mean “New American Bible (NAB)”?Peace.
LikeLike
>D. P.,Thank you for your comment. It has been a long time since I read Ivan Engnell’s book Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. The book was published in 1965. I am not an expert on the topic but I am very curious. Maybe I need to do some additional reading in this area.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Milton,Thank you for your comment. You are right, the NAB should be the New American Bible. I will correct the error in my post. I hope things are well with you.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Thank you so much for this post. I am grateful for your research on this topic. I just have a couple of questions that perhaps you can enlighten me on:If David got his Priesthood solely due to the fact that he conquered Jerusalem and decided to take on the functions of that city’s tradition, why should we consider his Priesthood legitimate? Why would God allow him to function as a priest if God did not give him the priesthood (compare Hebrews 5:4)? And why would Jesus be connected to the Melchizedek Priesthood if David’s claim to it is so dubious?My thought is that the Melchizedek Priesthood was given to David by the prophet Samuel, who anointed him to be King. Furthermore, the Priesthood of Melchizedek was passed on from Melchizedek, who I take to be Shem, on to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then to Moses and subsequent prophets of Israel. Both the kings and the prophets, then, held this priesthood, which is why prophets like Elijah were able to carry out priestly functions. Does that make any sense or not really? :)Thanks again for your wonderful blog.
LikeLike
>Also, I forgot to mention that my wife is Brazilian and I lived in Brazil for 2 years as a missionary. Brazilians are wonderful people. Que Deus lhe abencoe.Abraco,David
LikeLike
>David,You must read Hebrews 5:4 in light of Hebrews 5:1: “Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” The priesthood in Israel was hereditary but many people who were not Levites still served as priests.How can you say that David’s priesthood was not legitimate, when the Lord himself said it was: “The LORD has taken an oath and will not break his vow: ‘You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek’” (Psalm 110:4).There is no biblical evidence that Shem was Melchizedek. This is an old speculation only to give legitimacy to Melchizedek as a priest of the true God. Melchizedek was the king of Salem and Salem is identified with Jerusalem in Psalm 76:2, thus, Melchizedek was a Canaanite, or a Jebusite who worshiped El Elyon, a Canaanite God.Another thing, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the prophets and Elijah were not priests. The fact is, that before the reforms of Josiah in 622 B.C. there was no rigid requirement that people could not offer sacrifices to God. A detailed study of the Old Testament clearly shows that they did.Say hallo to your Brazilian wife.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Thank you for your great response.I’m sorry I was not clear on this, but I wasn’t actually descrediting David’s Priesthood. I fully believe it was legitimate. I was making a hypothetical argument to disagree with your conclusions concerning how David got his priesthood. I believe that the prophets had the priesthood and that it was Samuel that passed it on to David.I don’t think Josiah’s reforms changed God’s pattern for only allowing those with priesthood authority to sacrifice. Can you show me where just anyone was allowed to offer sacrifice? I believe that others offered sacrifice besides aaronic priests, but not just anyone. There was always a distinction between priesthood and laymen.Clement of Rome, commenting before 100 AD, said: For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.The “Apostolic Constitutions” made this idea even more clear:Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for “no one taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God.” For such sacred offices are conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. (Apostolic Constitutions 3:10, in ANF 7:429.)Why is Melchizedek such a significant figure in both biblical and extra-biblical literature if he was merely a pagan Canaanite priest? Why would it say that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, instead of “after the order of David,” who was the legitimate king/priest of God? Were the Jebusites the original and/or only inhabitants of Jerusalem? Could there not have been a legitimate Semitic king/priest ordained to that position by God at an earlier time? I don’t believe that there is any biblical evidence that he was a pagan. Abraham certainly seemed to respect him as an authoritative figure.Despite my arguments, I do respect your brilliant research very much. I do not mean to turn your blog into a debate. Thank you for the great work you do.
LikeLike