Dear Greg,
> Russ Gmirkin:
> What makes you so sure Ben Sira, and therefore the Zadokite
> hymn assuming it is part of Ben Sira, are dated so early, to
> c. 180-175 BCE? Apart from this being the unanimous
> consensus of secondary literature, is there any actually good
> reason for believing this?
In my opinion, the standard reasons are overwhelmingly convincing - and
I'm not one to blindly accept the current consensus view.
First, on the dates. The grandson wrote in the 38th year of Ptolemy
Euergetes, who ruled from 170 (joint rule) or 145 (sole rule) to 116 BCE, if
I have my facts straight. If the date was from sole rule, the 38th year
would be 107 BCE, after the end of Ptolemy's rule. So the 38th year will
have been calculated from 170 BCE, arriving at a date of translation of 132
BCE.
From all the fatherly advice in b. Sirach, including marriage and career
(i.e., it's better to get an education and become a scribe), I would assume
he wrote it when he had a son aged 10-15. This is just my guess. So however
old Jesus Sirach was, his son was about 10-15 in c.180 BCE by the traditional
dates. Meanwhile, if we assume the grandson was about 25-30 when he did his
translation, the grandson was born in 157-162 BCE, when the son was 33-43
years old. So I don't really see a chronological problem here.
Perhaps one might have been justified in saying that the translation of
his grandfather's book was just a literary device when we only possessed a
Greek version -- and indeed Thomas Thompson still claims this in The Mythic
Past, as Sirach's early date is inconvenient for Thompson's dates for the HB
-- but now that we have most of the Hebrew version among the Dead Sea Scrolls
and at Masada, there is verification that this is indeed a translation.
The book of Sirach has Simon the son of Onias (i.e. Simon the Just) the
pinnacle of the high priests. The description of his glory serving on the
day of Atonement appears to be eyewitness. Commentaries such as AB point out
that while Sirach's other historical material is all drawn from Biblical
sources, but the description of Simon isn't, and this (as well as its
vividness) is the main argument for first-hand description, (not e.g. verb
tenses). Moreover, the description of his architectural achievements,
building Jerusalem's walls, digging a water cistern, fortifying Jerusalem
against seige (Sir. 50.1-4) -- such contemporary details would hardly be
remembered, much less considered important enough to record, decades later.
Again, as you mention, there is zero awareness of the Hellenistic Crisis, the
Maccabean War, the Hasmonean high priests. Why would someone record the
glories of the Oniad priestly line in the Hasmonean period? There is zero
polemics against the Hasmonean high priests, and indeed no thought that the
Oniad priestly line would ever be supplanted. What I consider the clincher
is Sir. 50.24, only present in the Hebrew:
"May his [God's] kindness toward Simon be lasting;
"may he fulfill for him the covenant with Phineas
"So that it may not be abrogated for him
"or for his descendants, while the heavens last."
This wishes on Simon and his descendants the office of high priest (as
promised to Phineas) forever. Such a sentiment would not have been voiced
after his son Onias III was deprived of the office of high priest in 175 BCE.
Sirach was written after Simon's death (Sir. 50:1, "in his lifetime") in c.
180. Hence a date of composition of 180-175 appears secure.
I agree with you that Sirach's praise of the sons of Zadok "belongs in
the literary context of the Qumran texts's Zadokites," especially since
Sirach was found at Qumran. But given Sirach's secure dating to c. 180-175
BCE, this rather undermines your theory linking the Zadokites with the
Sadducees of the late 2nd/early 1st BCE.
> There is no
> text, no inscription, that has the Oniads as Zadokites, for
> example, although it can be reasoned they were by descent,
> but there is no text or testimony which has the Oniads called
> Zadokites or has them claiming they were.
Of course one can trace the high priests from Zadok (in the time of
David) to the fall of Jerusalem, and then down to c. 400 BCE, from the
Chronicler -- for what that's worth; and from Josephus, down to Onias -- for
what that's worth. So the Oniads probably claimed a descent from Zadok, as
you note. But as for a text that calls the Oniads Zadokites, I would say
Sirach, with its high praise of Simon the son of Onias, and similar praise
for the "sons of Zadok", comes pretty close to what you ask.
Finally, (1) there is no evidence that the yachad as a whole was called
Zadokite (i.e., Sadducee per your interpretation). In 1QS [but not in some
4QS parallels] the priests _only_ are called sons of Zadok, not the group as
a whole. (2) One must also note that 1QS, which has Zadok terminology, has
Essene affinities, while there is no Zadok terminology in the "halachic"
texts with demonstrable Sadducee affinities (i.e., 11QT, 4QMMT, and older
portions of CD).
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
For private reply, e-mail to [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.
