Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

52 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
On the other hand, it would be too rash to conclude that the division of
the cult personnel is not known at all in Ezr.-Neh. Some of the lists in Neh.,
i.e., Neh x 1-8 (2-9); xii 1-7; xii 12-21 do testify to such a division, at least among
the priests, as each of them contain twenty two88 names of priests, who are
designated “The chiefs of the priests” (Neh. xi 17) or “Heads of fathers’ houses”
(Neh. xii 12). Moreover, in Neh. xii 12-21 the priests are enumerated according to
their families, whose names are already quite fixed.89 A hint to such a division
among the Levites could be found in the eliptic statement of Neh. xii 22-23.
Without attempting to solve the problem concerning the development of
these orders, we might say that the above mentioned lists in Neh. testify that,
although some division did exist, it was still in its beginnings and there was no
fixed term to designate it.
In later sources the division of the cult personnel into fixed units is wellknown.
It is attested to in Rabbinic literature,90 in the Piyyutim91 and even
on pieces of marble plate from Caesarea.92 It is also found in the literature of
the Qumran sect, although the units are there twenty-six in number and not
twenty-four.93
In all this vast literary realm the only term which designates these units
is משמרות (courses) and, in sing., משמר or ‎94‎‏.משמרת Nowhere is the term
has nothing to do with the cult organisation. However, from a textual point of view it should be
asked whether this isolated and unconnected obscure verse is actually original.
88) In the third list, Neh. xii 12-21, only twenty-one names occur at present. But it seems very likely
that one name has fallen out in v. 18. Cf. Rudolph ad. loc. and B.H.
89) While comparing the lists in Neh. xii 1-7 and 12-21 we find that all the twenty-two names
(except Hattush which has fallen) are found in both lists, although some of them are differently
written. Kaufmann emphasizes that “The priests . . . are divided into fathers’ houses but there
is no hint of the fact that these fathers’ houses serve in the Temple in changing courses” (Toledoth
Ha’emunah Haisraelit VIII, 1960, p. 361 (Hebrew). But even the fact that the number of the
“father’s houses” is fixed, although their names do change, cannot be so easily dismissed.
90) Mishnah Taanit iv 2, Tosefta Taanit II, Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit iv 2, Babylonian Talmud
Taanit 27a, b.
91) Cf. S. Klein, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas, Leipzig 1909, pp. 102-108; idem:
Neue Beiträge, Wien 1923: M. Zulay, “Contribution to the History of the Liturgical Poetry in
Palestine”, Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem (Hebrew), V, 1937, p. 107ff.
92) M. Avi-Yonah: “The Caesarea Inscription of the 24 Priestly Courses”, Eretz-Israel VII, 1964,
pp. 24-25. S. Talmon: “The Calendar Reckoning of the sect from the Judean Desert”, Scripta Hierosolymitana
IV, 1958, p. 171.
93) Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, 1962, pp. 202-
206. P. Winter: “Twenty-six Priestly Courses”, VT 6, 1956, pp. 215-217. S. Talmon, op. cit., pp. 168ff.
94) The masc. משמר is the regular term in the Mishnah and the Talmud. In the inscription from
Caesarea משמרת is applied and both are used in the Piyyutim. No sing. form has yet been found
in the DSS.