Steven James Schweitzer, «The High Priest in Chronicles: An Anomaly in a Detailed Description of the Temple Cult», Vol. 84 (2003) 388-402
The high and chief priests mentioned in both the genealogy of 1Chr 6,1-15 and the narrative of Chronicles (Zadok and Hilkiah) are compared with priests mentioned only in the narrative (the Azariah under Uzziah, the Azariah under Hezekiah, and Jehoiada); the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, possibly Amariah II in 1 Chr 6,11, is treated separately. This article concludes: Chronicles has not enhanced the Zadokite high priests; the three priests not mentioned in the genealogy are presented with increased cultic roles which delineate some of their duties; leading priests in Chronicles operate within the cultic sphere while their precise ceremonial role is unclear.
As in 2 Kings, not only does Jehoiada save the Davidic line from destruction, but also his actions place him in a position temporarily superior to it28. Joash is only seven years old when these events occur, so Jehoiada takes these actions as an exceptional case. However, the exception proves the rule. When Joash is old enough, Jehoiada is depicted as under the king’s authority and answerable to him (2 Chr 24,4-14). Jehoiada is not presented as an equal to the king or as having political power29.
He also is apparently in charge of cultic matters and in charge of both the Levites and the priests (2 Chr 31,9-10). Joash summons Jehoiada and seems to assume in his comments that Jehoiada is responsible for the actions, or rather inactions, of the Levites (2 Chr 24,4-6)30.
Jehoiada is buried in the royal tombs while Joash is not (2 Chr 24,15-16.25-27). The fact that Chronicles allows, or even creates the idea, that a "worthy" leading priest can have a royal burial may be significant. However, this is clearly an exception, which once again proves the rule. Leading priests are not typically given royal burials, but the possibility is at least held out as an option. Could this be a retrojection of Second Temple practice by the Chronicler? Possibly, but no conclusion on this point can be definitive.
Finally, the most explicit statement made regarding Jehoiada which may reflect an actual Second Temple practice concerns the dismissal of the gatekeepers on the Sabbath (2 Chr 23,4.8). The explanatory statement that "the priest Jehoiada did not dismiss the divisions" is apparently added in Chronicles to account for how the large number of priests and Levites in the temple all at once was possible. This statement may indicate that the leading priest was