A memorable name in the history of David. See both the books of Samuel. His name is derived from a root, signifying just.
son of Ahitub, high priest of the Jews, of the race of Eleazar. At the death of Ahimelech, or Abiathar, he came to the pontificate, A.M. 2944. For some time there were two high priests in Israel, 2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 15:24, &c; 2Sa 19:11-12; 1Ki 1:8, &c. After the death of David, 1Ki 2:35, Solomon excluded Abiathar from the high priesthood, because he espoused the party of Adonijah, and made Zadok high priest alone.
Za´dok (just). There are several men of this name mentioned in the Old Testament.
Zadok, 1
In the reign of David, Zadok (the son of Ahitub and father of Ahimaaz) (1Ch 6:8) and Ahimelech were the priests (2Sa 8:17). Zadok and the Levites were with David, when, after the middle of the eleventh century B.C., he fled from Absalom; but the king ordered Zadok to carry back the ark of God into the city (2Sa 15:24-25; 2Sa 15:27; 2Sa 15:29; 2Sa 15:35-36; 2Sa 18:19; 2Sa 18:22; 2Sa 18:27). The king also, considering Zadok a seer, commanded him to return to the city, stating that he would wait in the plain of the wilderness until he should receive such information from him and his son Ahimaaz, and also from the son of Abiathar, as might induce him to remove farther away. On hearing that Ahithophel had joined Absalom, David requested Hushai, his friend, to feign himself to be also one of the conspirators, and to inform Zadok and Abiathar of the counsels adopted by Absalom and his rebellious confederates. The request of David was complied with, and the plans of the rebels made known to David by the instrumentality of Zadok and the others.
After Absalom was vanquished, David sent to Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, saying, ’Speak unto the elders of Judah, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house?’ etc. (2Sa 19:11; 2Sa 20:25). When Adonijah attempted to succeed to the throne, Abiathar countenanced him, but Zadok was not called to the feast at which the conspirators assembled. King David sent for Zadok and Nathan the prophet to anoint Solomon king (1Ki 1:32-45).
Zadok, 2
In 1Ch 6:12, and Neh 11:11, another Zadok is mentioned, the father of whom was also called Ahitub, and who begat Shallum. This Zadok descended from Zadok the priest in the days of David and Solomon, and was the ancestor of Ezra the scribe (Ezr 7:2). We learn from Eze 40:46; Eze 43:19; Eze 44:15; Eze 48:11, that the sons of Zadok were a pre-eminent sacerdotal family.
Zadok, 3
Zadok was also the name of the father-in-law of Uzziah and the grandfather of King Jotham, who reigned about the middle of the eighth century before Christ (2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1).
Zadok, 4
Two priests of the name of Zadok are mentioned in Neh 3:4-29, as having assisted in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem about B.C. 445.
The Zadok mentioned in Neh 10:21 as having sealed the covenant, and Zadok the scribe named in Neh 13:13, are probably the same who helped to build the wall.
Za’dok. (just). Son of Ahitub and one of the two chief priests, in the time of David, Abiathar being the other. Zadok was of the house of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, 1Ch 24:3, and eleventh in descent from Aaron. 1Ch 12:28. He joined David at Hebron, after Saul’s death, 1Ch 12:28, and thenceforth, his fidelity to David was inviolable. When Absalom revolted and David fled from Jerusalem, Zadok and all the Levites bearing the Ark accompanied him. When Absalom was dead, Zadok and Abiathar were the persons who persuaded the elders of Judah to invite David to return. 2Sa 19:11.
When Adonijah, in David’s old age, set up for king, and had persuaded Joab, and Abiathar, the priest, to join his party, Zadok was unmoved, and was employed by David, to anoint Solomon to be king in his room. 1Ki 1:34. For this fidelity, he was rewarded by Solomon who "thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord," and "put in Zadok the priest" in his room. 1Ki 2:27; 1Ki 2:35. From this time, however, we hear little of him. Zadok and Abiathar were of nearly equal dignity. 2Sa 15:35-36; 2Sa 19:11. The duties of the office were divided, Zadok ministered before the tabernacle at Gibeon, 1Ch 16:39, Abiathar had the care of the Ark at Jerusalem.
2. According to the genealogy of the high priests in 1Ch 6:12, there was a second Zadok, son of a second Ahitub, son of Amariah, about the time of King Ahaziah. It is probable that no such person as this second Zadok ever existed, but that the insertion of the two names is a copyist’s error.
3. Father of Jerushah, the wife of King Uzziah and mother of King Jotham. 2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1.
4. Son of Baana, a person who repaired a portion of the wall in Nehemiah’s time. Neh 3:4; Neh 3:29.
5. Son of Immer, a person who repaired a portion of the wall in Nehemiah’s time. Neh 3:4; Neh 3:29.
6. In 1Ch 9:11 and Neh 11:11, mention is made, in a genealogy, of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub; but it can hardly be doubtful that Meraioth is inserted by the error of a copyist, and that Zadok, the son of Ahitub, is meant.
1. Son of Ahitub, of the house of Eleazar, son of Aaron (1Ch 24:3). Joined David at Hebron after Saul’s death, with 22 captains of his father’s house. At Absalom’s revolt Zadok and the Levites bearing the ark accompanied David in leaving Jerusalem, but at his request returned with the ark and along with Hushai and Abiathar became David’s medium of knowing events passing in the city, through Jonathan and Ahimaaz. At Absasalom’s death David desired Zadok and Abiathar to persuade the elders of Judah to invite him to return (2 Samuel 15; 2 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 19). Zadok remained faithful in Adonijah’s rebellion when Abiathar joined it. Zadok, with Nathan the prophet, anointed Solomon at Gihon by David’s command (a second anointing took place subsequently: 1Ch 29:22). So Solomon put Zadok instead of Abiathar, fulfilling the curse on Eli (1 Samuel 2; 3; 1Ki 2:27; 1Ki 2:35; 1Ki 4:4; 1Ch 29:22).
David made him ruler over the Aaronites (1Ch 27:17); their number in 1Ch 12:27-28, is said to be 3,700 under Jehoiada. Zadok did not survive to the dedication of Solomon’s temple, but Azariah his son or grandson (1Ch 6:8-9) was then high priest (1Ch 6:10; 1Ki 4:2). His descendants continued in the high priesthood (compare 2Ch 31:10, "Azariah of the house of Zadok chief priest") until the time of Antiochus Eupator. The double high priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar answers to that of the chief priest and second priest (2Ki 25:18; Luk 3:2 "Annas and Caiaphas being high priest);" compare 2Ch 31:10, "Azariah the chief priest of the house of Zadok." Zadok ministered mainly before the tabernacle at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39). Abiathar bad charge of the ark in Jerusalem; so formerly Eleazar and Ithamar, Hophni and Phinehas, were joint chief priests. Even while the line of Ithamar in the person of Eli was foremost, Eleazar’s house held its ground on a kind of parity, Ahitub, Zadok’s father, being called "ruler of the house of God" (1Ch 9:11; Neh 11:11).
2. A second Zadok, son of a second Ahitub, son of Amariah; in king Amaziah’s time. (
3. Father of Jerushah, king Uzziah’s wife (2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1).
4. Son of Baana, repaired the wall (Neh 3:4), signed the covenant (Neh 10:21); a chief of the people, of the tribe of Judah (for Baana was a Netophathite of Judah, 2Sa 23:29). Intermarriages of Judah with the tribe of Levi were frequent, Whence Zadok appears in Judah (Mat 1:14).
5. Son of Immer, a priest; repaired over against his own house (Neh 3:29); of the 16th course (1Ch 24:14).
6. Neh 11:11; 1Ch 9:11. Son of Meraioth, son of Ahitub; some omission or error of copyists is suspected from comparing the list, Ezr 7:1-5; 1Ch 6:3-14, where a Meraioth is grandfather or great grandfather of Zadok. The name is equivalent to the "Justus" of Act 1:28; Act 18:7; Col 4:11.
7. Set over the treasuries by Nehemiah (Neh 13:13) to distribute to brethren; "the scribe."
Zadok (zâ’dok), just. Son of Ahitub, and one of the two high priests in the time of David, Abiathar being the other. 2Sa 8:17. He joined David at Hebron, 1Ch 12:28, and subsequently anointed Solomon king, 1Ki 1:39, and was rewarded by Solomon for his faithful service by being made sole high priest. There are seven persons of this name mentioned in the Bible.
[Za’dok]
1. Son of Ahitub, of the house of Eleazar. He was priest in the reign of David, and though Abiathar was called high priest, at times Zadok is named before him. Abiathar was set aside by Solomon, and Zadok became high priest. 2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 15:24-36; 2Sa 17:15; 2Sa 18:19-27; 2Sa 19:11; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 1:8-45; 1Ki 2:35; 1Ki 4:2; 1Ki 4:4; 1Ch 6:8; 1Ch 6:53, etc.; Eze 40:46; Eze 43:19; Eze 44:15; Eze 48:11.
2. Son of another Ahitub, a priest. 1Ch 6:12; Ezr 7:2.
3. Father of Jerusha, or Jerushah, wife of Uzziah king of Judah. 2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1.
4. A descendant of Levi and a man of valour who joined David at Hebron. 1Ch 12:28.
5, 6. Son of Baana, and son of Immer: they helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem. Neh 3:4; Neh 3:29.
7. One who sealed the covenant. Neh 10:21.
8. Son of Meraioth, a priest. 1Ch 9:11; Neh 11:11. This may be the same as No. 1 or 2.
9. A scribe who was made one of the treasurers for the Lord’s house. Neh 13:13.
By: Richard Gottheil, Samuel Krauss, Joseph Jacobs, Schulim Ochser
1. A priest, perhaps the high priest during the reign of David. He was the son of Ahitub (II Sam. viii. 17), but the attempt to trace his genealogy back to Eleazar, the third son of Aaron, as opposed to Abiathar, his contemporary and colleague, who was regarded as a descendant of Eli and considered a member of the house of Ithamar, was first made by the Chronicler (I Chron. v. 30-34 [A. V. vi. 4-8]; comp. vi. 35-38 [A. V. vi. 50-53]), thus assuring the preeminence of the Zadokites over the descendants of Eli. In the beginning of his career he was associated with Abiathar (II Sam. xx. 25) and with his son (ib. viii. 17; I Chron. xxiv. 3, 6, 31). The hypothesis has accordingly been advanced that Zadok officiated in the Tabernacle at Gibeon (I Chron. xvi. 39; comp. I Kings iii. 4), while the sons of Eli were stationed as high priests at Jerusalem or, more probably, at Shiloh (comp. Keil on I Kings i. 8). Such a division of functions is very doubtful, however; and it is more plausible to suppose that Zadok gradually won equality of rank with the sons of Eli by his good fortune in gaining the favor of David.According to the somewhat improbable statement of the Chronicler, a certain Zadok, as a young man, had been one of those who joined David at Hebron and helped him win the crown of all Israel, his house then including twenty-two captains (I Chron. xii. 29); and Josephus expressly identifies this Zadok with the high priest of the same name ("Ant." vii. 2, § 2).During the rebellion of Absalom, Zadok gained still greater prominence. He and the Levites wished to accompany the fleeing David with the Ark of the Covenant, but the king begged them to remain at Jerusalem, where they could do him better service (II Sam. xv. 24-29; comp. 35), so that it actually happened that Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, brought the king an important message (ib. xvii. 21). In all these passages Zadok is mentioned before Abiathar. According to the Hebrew text of II Sam. xv. 27, David addressed the priest with the words "ha-ro'eh attah," and the Vulgate consequently regards Zadok as a seer, although this interpretation is incorrect. These two difficult words are emended by Wellhausen to 
, thus implying the promise of the high-priesthood to him. On the suppression of the rebellion, the king sent Zadok and Abiathar to the elders of Judah, urging them to hasten to bring the monarch back (ib. xix. 12). Zadok again manifested his loyalty to the king when he espoused the cause of Solomon against Adonijah (I Kings i. 8 et seq.), and in his gratitude the new king appointed him sole high priest (ib. ii. 35). In his account of this event Josephus states ("Ant." viii. 1, § 3) that Zadok was a scion of the house of Phinehas, and consequently a descendant of Eleazar.Reliable historical data show that the high-priesthood remained in the hands of the Zadokites from this time until the rise of the Maccabees. The descendants of Zadok increased in rank and influence, so that his son Azariah was one of the princes of Solomon (I Kings iv. 2), and the Ahimaaz who marrieda daughter of Solomon was probably another of Zadok's children (ib. iv. 15). Either Zadok himself or his grandson was the ruler of the Aaronites (I Chron. xxvii. 17), and Jerusha, the mother of Jotham, is apparently termed the daughter of Zadok to emphasize her noble lineage, since her father may have been a descendant of the first Zadok (II Kings xv. 33; II Chron. xxvii. 1). A Zadok is also mentioned in the genealogy of Joseph, the father of Jesus (Matt. i. 14).G. S. Kr.
2. Sadducean leader. The only data concerning the origin of the Sadducees are based on certain deductions drawn from their name, for a late rabbinical source alone appears to be founded on actual knowledge. Two pupils of Antigonus of Soko are said to have misinterpreted their teacher's statement that God should be worshiped without hope of reward as meaning that there is no recompense, either for good or for evil, in the world to come. These two scholars, Zadok and Boethus, are accordingly regarded as the founders of the heresies of the Sadducees and the Boethusians (Ab. R. N. recension A, 5; recension B, 10). This statement is devoid of historicity, however, since it incorrectly postulates denial of the future life as the cardinal doctrine of the Sadducees, while it betrays also its lack of authenticity by making the origin of the Boethusians synchronous with the rise of Sadduceeism, although the former sect derived its name from the high priest Boethus, who flourished during the reign of Herod.The only historical portion of this legend is the part which connects the origin of each of these heresies with a personal name, for the Hebrew 
is derived from 
just as are 
from 
and 
from 
, while Herod was the eponym of the party of the Herodians.Geiger's theory of the derivation of the name of the Sadducean party from the Biblical appellative "Zadok" is, therefore, the most probable one. This name 
, which occurs ten times in Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, is transliterated 
(= "Ẓadduḳ"). The only moot point is the problem whether the appellation of the sect is to be derived from a Zadok who is no longer known or from the priestly family of the Zadokites. An unknown Zadok was assumed to be the founder of the Sadducees by Kuenen (though he later adopted the opposing theory), Graetz, Montet, and Lagarde, while the second hypothesis, which is the more probable, was maintained by Geiger and Schürer, and is now confirmed by the Hebrew Ben Sira (see Schechter's note in "The Wisdom of Ben Sira," 1899, p. 35). A third conjecture, deriving the word from the adjective 
, which was advocated in ancient times by Jerome and Epiphanius, and was defended more recently by Joseph Derenbourg and Hamburger, is untenable both on linguistic and on historical grounds.From the days of Solomon the descendants of the priest Zadok were regarded with great reverence, which must have been much increased by the Deuteronomic legislation concentrating all cults at Jerusalem. In Ezekiel's prophetic vision the "sons of Zadok" are described as the only priests worthy to discharge their holy office (Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11); and although in the Second Temple certain prerogatives were allowed the sons of Ithamar, the Zadokites alone formed the priestly aristocracy, so that the Chronicler assigns twice as many priestly divisions to the Zadokite descendants of Eleazar as to the Ithamarites (I Chron. xxiv.). In Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), in like manner, the Zadokites alone receive praise (li. 12 [9], Hebr.). Despite the fact that those members of this powerful family who adopted the Sadducean doctrines were but few, they gave the teachings such support that the entire sect bore their name, and Josephus expressly states that scions of the priestly aristocracy, i.e., the Zadokites, were preeminently adherents of Sadduceeism. See Sadducees.Bibliography: Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 20, 102; Wellhausen, I. J. G. 4th ed., p. 294; idem, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, Göttingen, 1874; Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 408-411.J. S. Kr.
3. Tanna of priestly descent; father of Eleazar. He flourished in the years preceding and following the beginning of the common era. According to an account which must refer to him in the prime of life, he was taken as a captive to Rome, where he was sold to an aristocratic house. Its mistress attempted to force him to marry one of her beautiful slaves, but Zadok refused, claiming that not only did he belong to one of the most influential families of Jerusalem, but that he was of priestly lineage, whereupon his mistress gave him his freedom (Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 32a and note 11; Ḳid. 40a). A historical account dating from the time of the Temple vouches for the fact that he was a priest. During a sacrifice a strife broke out between two priests, perhaps brothers, because one had taken precedence of the other at the altar, and one of them was stabbed. There was great excitement among the congregation, whereupon Zadok ascended the steps of the "ulam," from which the priests were accustomed to give the benediction, and there calmed the people by an address based on Deut. xxi. 1 et seq. Since, however, it has been proved that only priests were allowed to mount the ulam, Zadok must have been a priest (Yoma 23a; Tosef., Yoma, i. 12; Yer. Yoma ii. 39d).
Zadok and Gamaliel.
Together with Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah, Zadok was present at the marriage of the son of Gamaliel II. in Jabneh. On that occasion Gamaliel II. himself poured out the wine and handed it round. Joshua and Eliezer began to praise Gamaliel, whereupon Zadok became angry, declaring that they should not turn away from the worship of God, who had created everything for man, and worship a mortal (Ḳid. 32a). According to Bacher, however, this incident occurred not at a wedding, but at another feast, which Gamaliel gave to the scholars of Jabneh.
The whole life of this tanna fell within the period of the dissolution of the Jewish state, and he declaredthat he had fasted forty years in his endeavor to prevent the destruction of the Temple. When this took place, however, Zadok had become so weak that Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to appeal for him to Titus, who had him treated by a physician (Giṭ. 56b; Lam. R. i. 5). Zadok moved to Jabneh together with Johanan b. Zakkai and other scholars, and his few halakot, found in 'Eduy. vii. 1-5, date from this period. He was the most influential personality in Gamaliel's tribunal, and always sat at the right of the latter (Yer. Sanh. 19c), while on one occasion he was present at the eating of the sacrificial lamb in Gamaliel's house (Pes. 74a). Together with Johanan b. Zakkai and Gamaliel, he rendered a decision on the conditions under which food might be eaten outside the Tabernacle during the Feast of Weeks (Suk. 26b). Although he was theoretically an adherent of the principles of the Bet Shammai, in practise he always made his rulings in accordance with the Bet Hillel (Yeb. 15b). His motto in ethical matters was, "Do not make learning a crown to make thyself great thereby, nor a spade to dig with it" (Ab. iv. 5). The thirtieth chapter of the Tanna debe Eliyahu Rabbah relates that Zadok once came to the place where the Temple had formerly stood. In his grief at the desolation he reproached God Himself, whereupon he fell into a sleep in which he saw God and the angels mourning over the destruction of Zion. The Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eli'ezer ascribes to Zadok haggadic sayings concerning the descendants of the giants (ch. xxii.), the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (ch. xxi.), the Flood (ch. xxiii.), and Noah's prayer in the ark (ib.).
Bibliography:
Bacher, Ag. Tan. i. 43-46;
Derenbourg, Hist. pp. 342-344;
Zacuto, Sefer Yuḥasin ha-Shalom, ed. Filipowski, pp. 32a, 76a, b;
Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, pp. 70-71;
Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii. 319-320;
Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus, p. 126, note 1, Vienna, 1895;
Neubauer, G. T. p. 375.
ZADOK.—1. Founder of an important branch of the priesthood in Jerusalem. The reading of MT
George R. Berry.
(1) Zadok the son of Ahitub (2Sa 8:17) - not of Ahitub the ancestor of Ahimelech (1Sa 14:3) and of Abiathar, his son (1Sa 22:20).
(2) Zadok father of Jerusha, mother of Jotham, and wife of Uzziah king of Judah (2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1).
(3) Zadok the son of Ahitub and father of Shallum (1Ch 6:12) or Meshullam (Neh 11:11), and the ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7:1, Ezr 7:2).
(4) Zadok the son of Baana, a wall-builder in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:4), and probably one of the signatories to the covenant made by the princes, priests and Levites of Israel (Neh 10:21) - in both places his name occurring immediately after that of Meshezabel.
(5) Zodak the son of Immer, and, like the preceding, a repairer of the wall (Neh 3:29).
(6) Zodak a scribe in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 13:13). Whether this was the same as either of the two preceding cannot be determined.
The first of these filled a larger place in Old Testament history than either of the others; and to him accordingly the following paragraphs refer. They set forth the accounts given of him first in Samuel and Kings and next in Chronicles; after which they state and criticize the critical theory concerning him.
1. In Samuel and Kings:
(1) In these older sources Zodak first appears in David’s reign, after Israel and Judah were united under him, as joint occupant with Ahimelech of the high priest’s office and his name taking precedence of that of his colleague Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar (2Sa 8:17).
(2) On David’s flight from Jerusalem, occasioned by Absalom’s rebellion, Zadok and Abiathar (now the joint high priest), accompanied by the whole body of the Levites, followed the king across the Kidron, bearing the Ark of the Covenant, which, however, they were directed to carry back to the city, taking with them their two sons, Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar, to act as spies upon the conduct of the rebels and send information to the king (2Sa 15:24-36; 2Sa 17:15, 2Sa 17:17-21).
(3) On the death of Absalom, Zodak and Abiathar were employed by David as intermediaries between himself and the elders of Judah to consult about his return to the city, which through their assistance was successfully brought about (2Sa 19:11).
(4) When, toward the end of David’s life, Adonijah the son of Haggith, and therefore the crown prince, put forward his claim to the throne of all Israel, taking counsel with Joab and Abiathar, Zodak along with Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, espoused the cause of Solomon, Bathsheba’s son, and acting on David’s instructions anointed him as king in Gihon (1Ki 1:8, 1Ki 1:26, 1Ki 1:32-45).
(5) Accordingly, when Solomon found himself established on the throne, he put Zodak in the room of Abiathar, i.e. made him sole high priest, while retaining Abiathar in the priestly office, though deposed from a position of coordinate authority with Zodak (1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27, 1Ki 2:35; 1Ki 4:4).
2. In Chronicles:
(1) As in the earlier sources so in these, Zodak’s father was Ahitub and his son Ahimaaz - the information being added that they were all descendants from Aaron through Eleazar (1Ch 6:50-53).
(2) Among the warriors who came to Hebron to turn the kingdom of Saul to David was “Zodak, a young man mighty of valor,” who was followed by 22 captains of his father house (1Ch 12:26-28).
(3) Along with Abiathar and the Levites, Zodak was directed by David to bring up the Ark from the house of Obed-edom to the tent pitched for it on Mt. Zion, when Zodak was appointed to officiate at Gibeon, while Abiathar, it is presumed, ministered in Jerusalem (1Ch 15:11; 1Ch 16:39).
(4) Toward the end of David’s reign Zodak and Abimelech the son of Abiathar acted as priests, Zodak as before having precedence (1Ch 18:16).
(5) To them was committed by the aged king the task of arranging the priests and Levites according to their several duties, it being intimated by the narrator that Zodak was of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech (in 1Ch 18:16, named Abiathar; see above) of the sons of Ithamar (1Ch 24:3). In 1Ch 24:6 Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar, while in 1Ch 18:16, Abiathar’s son is Abimelech - which suggests that the letters
(6) When Solomon was anointed king, Zodak was anointed (sole) priest (1Ch 29:22).
Obviously a large measure of agreement exists between the two narratives. Yet some points demand explanation.
3. Harmony of the Accounts:
(1) The seeming discrepancy between the statements in the earlier sources, that Zodak’s colleague in the high priest’s office is first named Ahimelech (2Sa 8:17) and afterward Abiathar (2Sa 15:24), should occasion little perplexity. Either Ahimelech and Abiathar were one and the same person - not an unlikely supposition (see above); or, what is more probable, Abiathar was Ahimelech’s son and had succeeded to his father’s office.
(2) Zodak’s appearance as a young soldier among the captains who brought David to Jerusalem (assuming that Zodak the soldier was Zodak the priest, which is not absolutely certain) need create no difficulty, if Zodak was not then of age to succeed his father in the priestly office. The earlier sources do not make Zodak an acting priest till after David’s accession to the throne of all Israel.
(3) Neither should it prove an insoluble problem to explain how, soon after David’s accession to the throne of Judah and Israel, Zodak should be found engaged along with Abiathar in bringing up the Ark to Mt. Zion, as by this time Zodak had obviously entered on the high-priestly office, either in succession to or as colleague of his father.
(4) That Zodak was left to officiate at Gibeon where the tabernacle was, while Abiathar was selected to exercise office in the capital, in no way conflicts with the earlier account and seems reasonable as a distribution of official duties. Why Zodak was sent to Gibeon, where the tabernacle was, and not kept at Jerusalem whither the Ark had been brought, he being always named before Abiathar and probably looked upon as the principal high priest, may have had its reason either in the fact that the king regarded Gibeon as the central sanctuary for national worship, the tabernacle being there (Solomon obviously did; see 2Ch 1:3), and therefore as the proper place for the principal high priest; or in the fact that Zodak was younger than Abiathar and therefore less fitted than his older colleague to be at court, as an adviser to the king.
(5) That toward the end of David’s reign, not Abiathar, but his son Ahimelech (or Abimelech), should be introduced as joint high priest with Zodak will not be surprising, if Abiathar was by this time an old man, as his father was at the beginning of David’s reign. That grandfather and grandson should have the same name is as likely to have been common then as it is today.
(6) That Zodak should have been appointed sole high priest on Solomon’s accession (1Ch 29:22) is not inconsistent with the statement (1Ki 4:4) that under Solomon Zodak and Abiathar were priests. Abiathar might still be recognized as a priest or even as a high priest, though no longer acting as such. The act of deposition may have affected his son Ahimelech as well, and if both father and son were degraded, perhaps this was only to the extent of excluding them from the chief dignity of high priest.
4. The Higher Critical Theory:
The higher criticism holds: (1) that the Zadok of David’s reign was not really an Aaronite descended from Eleazar through Ahitub, who was not Zadok’s father but Ahimelech’s (Gray in EB, article “Ahitub”), but an adventurer, a soldier of fortune who had climbed up into the priest’s office, though by what means is not known (Wellhausen, GJ, 145); (2) that up till Zadok’s appearance the priesthood had been in Ithamar’s line, though, according to the insertion by a later writer in the text of 1 Sam 2 (see 1Sa 2:27 ff), in Eli’s day it was predicted that it should pass from Eli’s house and be given to another; (3) that when Abiathar or Ahimelech or both were deposed and Zadok instituted sole high priest by Solomon, this fictitious prophecy was fulfilled - though in reality there was neither prophecy nor fulfillment; (4) that during the exile Ezekiel in his sketch of the vision-temple represented the Zadokites as the only legitimate priests, while the others of the line of A were degraded to be Levites; (5) that in order to establish the legitimacy of Zadok the writer of the Priestly Code (P) invented his Aaronic descent through Eleazar and inserted the fictitious prophecy in 1 Samuel.
5. Criticism of This Theory:
(1) This theory proceeds upon the assumption, not that the Chronicler was a post-exilic writer (which is admitted), but that he deliberately and purposely idealized and to that extent falsified the past history of his people by ascribing to them a faithful adherence to the Levitical institutions of the Priestly Code, which, according to this theory, were not then in existence - in other words by representing the religious institutions and observances of his own age as having existed in the nation from the beginning. Were this theory established by well-accredited facts, it would doubtless require to be accepted; but the chief, if not the only, support it has is derived from a previous reconstruction of the sacred text in accordance with theory it is called on to uphold.
(2) That the father of Zadok was not Ahitub, a priest of the line of Eleazar, is arrived at by declaring the text in 2Sa 8:17 to have been intentionally corrupted, presumably by a late redactor, the original form of the verse having been, according to criticism (Wellhausen, TBS, 176 f): “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Zadok were priests.” But if this was the original form of the words it is not easy to explain why they should have been so completely turned round as to say the opposite, namely, that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar, and that Ahitub was the father of Zadok., when in reality he was the father of Ahimelech. If, as Cornill admits (Einl, 116), the Chronicler worked “with good, old historical material,” it is not credible that he made it say the opposite of what it meant.
(3) If Zadok was not originally a priest, but only a military adventurer, why should David have made him a priest at all? Wellhausen says (GI, 20) that when David came to the throne he “attached importance to having as priests the heirs of the old family who had served the Ark at Shiloh.” But if so, he had Abiathar of the line of Ithamar at hand, and did not need to go to the army for a priest. If, however, it be urged that in making Zadok a priest he gave him an inferior rank to Abiathar, and sent him to Gibeon where the tabernacle was, why should both sources so persistently place Zadok before Abiathar?
(4) If Zadok was originally a soldier not connected with the priesthood, and only became a priest after David came to Jerusalem, why should the earlier source have omitted to record this, when no reason existed, so far as one can discover, why it should have been left out? And why should the priestly disposed Chronicler have incorporated this in his narrative when all his inclinations should have moved him to omit it, more especially when he was intending to invent (according to the critical theory) for the young warrior an Aaronite descent?
(5) That the prediction of the fall of Eli’s house (1Sa 2:27-36) was inserted by a late writer to justify its supersession by the line of Zadok has no foundation except the presupposition that prediction is impossible, which fair-minded criticism cannot admit. The occurrence of the word “anointed” it is contended, presupposes the monarchy. This, however, it only predicts; and at the most, as Driver sees (Introduction, 164), cannot prove the fictitious character of the prophecy, but merely that it has been “recast by the narrator and colored by the associations with which he himself is familiar”; and even this is entirely hypothetical.
(6) Ezekiel’s reference to Zadok’s descendants as the only legitimate priests in the vision-temple does not prove that Zadok himself was a soldier who climbed up into the priesthood. Even if the critical interpretation of the vision-temple were correct, it in no way affects the personality of Zadok, and certainly does not disprove his original connection with the priesthood or his descent from Eleazar.
Zadok and Abiathar were the two Levitical priests who became members of David’s royal court (2Sa 8:17). At the time of Absalom’s rebellion, they helped David by remaining in Jerusalem to become spies on David’s behalf (2Sa 15:24-37; 2Sa 19:11). Later, however, in the palace conflict over David’s successor, Zadok supported Solomon, and Abiathar supported Adonijah. As a result Solomon promoted Zadok to chief priest and sent Abiathar into exile (1Ki 1:5-8; 1Ki 1:43-45; 1Ki 2:26; 1Ki 2:35).
Since Zadok belonged to the line of chief priests that went back through Phinehas and Eleazar to Aaron (Ezr 7:2-5), his appointment to the high priesthood was in keeping with the plan and promise of God (Num 25:10-13). His descendants followed him as chief priests till the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC (2Ch 31:10). Because they remained faithful to God throughout that period, they were designated the chief priests in the religious system that Ezekiel looked for in the rebuilt nation (Eze 40:46; Eze 44:15).
History shows that after the reconstruction of Israel, descendants of Zadok continued to be the chief priests for several centuries. The Sadducees, who formed the priestly party that later became powerful in Israel, possibly took their name from Zadok (see SADDUCEES).