Ian, You seem to be thinking along somewhat similar lines to Boccaccini, at least with regards to the identification of the Sons of Zadok and their relation to the Maccabees. Have you taken a look at his Roots of Rabbinic Judaism? I put up a post a couple of months ago in which I commented on it.
David Suter Saint Martin's College -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok Peter Janku wrote: >I donīt think there is any way to date anything (after Antiochus >Epiphanes) on the basis of the mention of the Sons of Zadok. Thanks for the response, Peter, and sorry for the delay. We have a problem: 1) Ezekiel knows of the sons of Zadok, but of the rest, only mentions the sons of Levi, though I think 40:45-46 makes a distinction between sons of Zadok and other priests, the former in charge of the altar, the latter in charge of the temple. (No signs of any sons of Aaron.) 2) 1QS & 1QSa know both the sons of Aaron and the sons of Zadok, though both give priority to the latter. It's worth noting that the same terminology is used in Ezekiel and 1QS for the sons of Zadok, based on the verb $mr (to keep) in Ezekiel, the sanctuary, in 1QS, the covenant, and the notion not following the way of the nation, terminology not used for the sons of Aaron. 3) Cave 4 copies of S have no references to the sons of Zadok where they are found in 1QS, and it is unlikely that they were inserted into the Serekh tradition for 1QS. It is more likely that for chronological continuity the sons of Zadok were in the earliest layers of Serekh. Together all this seems to indicate that, while the sons of Zadok were important before the period of the DSS and important in the earlier forms of 1QS, that importance is later eclypsed, ie the eminent place of the sons of Zadok was lost during the era of the production of the scrolls. 1 Chr 24 in no way relates Zadok to any of the 24 descendent families of Aaron and there is no intersection between the lineage from him and any of the Aaronid families. The major cultic events recorded during this period are that the Oniad family migrated to Egypt to set up a Jewish temple at Leontopolis, and that the Hasmonean family took control of the high priesthood under Simon. These latter originally had the support of the Pharisees, suggesting that they didn't get to power in the due course, but needed the help of a non- priestly group. It was only after the Eleazar affair that the Sadducees gained the Hasmonean ear. The more conservative section of the upper class population were ready to give their support to the Hasmoneans. As all signs we have indicate that the Sadducees reflected priestly positions and that the Pharisees didn't, I think it only wise to concluded that the Hasmoneans didn't originally have much priestly support, ie they were usurpers (as you hint at: "Hence the probability that Shimon and his brothers werenīt regarded as Zadokites."). For private reply, e-mail to "David Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
