Zadok (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. The most important of the many persons who bore this name was the founder of the leading branch of the priesthood in Jerusalem. We have no reliable information concerning his origin or his early history. He comes liefore us first in a list of David's ollicers, where we are told that ' Ziidok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests ' (2 S 8"). The text of this veree is obviousl}' corrupt. Ahimelech wafl murdered at Nob, and his son Abiutiiar wiui David's attendant and pripst to the end of his reign. If Ahitiili, in our pasMa^je, is the priest mentioned in 1 S 143 he can hardly have lii-en Z.vlr)lc's father, for we are certainty meant to understand tliat Zadolt (lid not tielong to the descendants of Eli (1 S 2^, I K 2"^). Comparing 1 S 2220 it would eecra that 2 H 8' should run : Al>i.ithar the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Zatlok, were pricsta.' Zndok and Abiathar appear again when David fled from Jerusalem before Absalom. They iiur- pos(-(i accompanying him and taking with tliem the ark, but the king bade them return with it to the city, watch tlie course of events, and send him news (2 S 15, "-)- Accor<linK to the Vulff. (0 eidens) and many modem versions, he addrt-sseM Zadok as a seer. ' Art thou not a seer? (A V and RV text 2 S l.'i")- But the Heb. will not bear this rendering. A Zeehariah the son of Jebertchiah ' is mentioned in Is 8- out it is quite unlikely that be w^ thought of in Mt 23^. VOL. IV. — 6l and it is ditflcult to be content with any pointing or tranFlatloo of it. The L.\X w-i ("ISiTi) is better. Wellhauscn (2>rt litr Bb. Sam. p. 177) proposes to read eiinn )n3,T tor njiSri [nscr: U the two words are a late insertion this would be an improve- ment. In any case, there is no rc-uson for believing that Zodok bore the title of ' seer.' At the close of David's reign Abiathar joined the party of Adonijah (1 K 1'), but Z.adok gave in his adhesion to Solomon (v."), and was ordered by the king to anoint him (v.'). When Solomon had made sure of his position he deposed Abiathar from tlie priestly oilice, ' and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abi.'ithar.' Tliis event has inlluenced the earlier narratives in Samuel, whore Zadok is from the first put before Abiathar. There can be no doubt that the descendants of Zadok continued during many centuries to take the lead amongst the priests of the temple. The Deuteronomic reform raised them to an even higher Sosition than they had occupied previously, for it enied the legitimacy of all .sacrilices oll'ered else- where than at Jerusalem, and thus brought the provincial priesthood into discredit. Ezekiel went further. To him tlie sons of Zadok were the only legitiniiite priests (40^" 4:i'» 44"> 48") ; the rest of the Levitts, because of their unfaithfulness, were to be degraded, nothing but the menial work of the sanctuary being left in their hands (44'"-"). The Chronicler's accounts require separate treat- ment. 1 Ch 12- states that amongst ' the beads of them tliat were armed for war, which came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him,' was 'Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father's house twenty and two captains.' As he is said to have been of the house of Aaron, we cannot wonder that Joseplius (Ant. Vll. ii. 2) identities him with the priest. But the narra- tive as a whole is coneei\ed in a totally different spirit from those in Samuel, and the details do not comm.and our credence. Tlie numbers alone are sulUcient to condemn it. Equally unsatisfactory are the genealogical lists in which Zadok's descent from Eleazar is traced (1 Ch 6-">'«'-™ 24»). Their object is to make out that the Zadokite priests belonged to the elder branch of Aaron's descenci- ants, and the descendants of Eli to the younger br.inch of Ithamar. The most cursory inspection reveals their artilicial construction and their un- reliableness. The utmost we can gather from the Chronicler is the fact that after the return from the Exile some families which traced no connexion with Zadok managed to vindicate tlieir right to minister at the altar (1 Ch 24"- ■•), but that his representatives were both more numerous and more highly placed (1 Ch 24»- 27"; 1 S 2^"- "« points in the same ilirection). See, further, art. Pkiests AND LEVITE.S. The filT vo(mli/.ation, pl^y. Is probably mistaken. The LXX fre(|ucntly has IxiheCx, a translit(,'ration of pn;(. From 2a^So(^« was derived licc^ituKetit; , although it cannot be unhesitatingly attlnned that the Sadduckks took their name immediately from the orij,'inal Zadok. There can, however, he no doubt as XA their close connexion with the priestly aristocracy. 2. In 2 K IS", 2 Ch 27', we are told that Jotham succeeded Uzziah, his fatlier, and that bis mother's name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. In the statements concerning the accession of a king it is not usual to give the maternal grandfather's name; possibly, therefore, Jotham's grandfather was a person of considerable importance, not im- probablv a priest. — 3. Neh 3 mentions a Zadok, son of Jiiuina (Kjy:), as one of Nehemiah's willing heliiers in rebuilding the city wall. His father seems to be mentioned as one of those who came to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2^ Neh V. — 4. Zadok, the son of Immer, Neh 3-", rejiaired the wall ' over against his own house,' on the east side of the city, near the horse -gata. We have no 962 ZAHAM ZANOAH means of deciding positively wliether he is to be identified witli the bearer of the same name in a later passage of the book. But there is no con- clusive reason against the identification. Zadok 'the scribe' is appointed by Nehemiah to be one of the 'treasurers over the treasuries' (Neh 13"). He would seem to have been a priest. Shelemiah the priest and himself are distinguished from the Levites. Ezra's example shows tliat the priest may also be the scribe. In this case Zadok must have been the head of ' the chUdron of Immer.' — 5. Zadok is distinguished from the priests as one of 'the chiefs of the people' who sealed the cove- nant (Neh 10=')-— 6. 1 Ch G'-, compared with Ezr "'■' and Neh 11", appears to refer to a liijjli priest of the name of Zadok later than tlie founder of the line. But it is impossible to rely on these lists, and, in any event, nothing is known of the man. Mt l^ mentions a Sadoo (^ahux) as one of the progenitors of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Jij^ephus {Ant. xviii. i. 1) states that one Zadok, a Pharisee, assisted Jndas of GaHlee (Ac5-*~) in rousing the people a^^ainst the 'enrolment' under QuiriniiiB (Lk 21). Jost {Gcgch. den Judeiithums, ii. 20) refers to a Zadok who is mentioned in the Talmud as ha\'in<: fasted fort.v .years, until the destruction of Jerusalem. He pro]ioniids a theologi- cal puzzle first to Rabbi Joshua and next to Rabban Gamaliel, who give him discordant answers. Thereupon Joshua is pub- licly rebuked and put to shame by Gamaliel {Bech, 36a). J. Taylor.