In the perennial search to understand why sons of Zadok are 
mentioned in the scrolls at all, I was reading Jeremias, 
"Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus", when I came across his 
reading of the Zadokite return to Jerusalem at the time of 
Menelaus. Jeremias is insistent that it was not Jason who 
recaptured Jerusalem but Onias son of the high priest Onias 
III, despite AJ 12,5,1 and 2 Macc 5. He argues, amongst 
other things, that the life of the temple at Leontopolis 
given by Josephus as 343 years at its destruction in 73 CE 
-- which is obviously wrong -- should read 243 years, 
putting its foundation by Onias at 170/169 BCE. He also 
cites BJ 1,1 (1.31) in which "Onias, one of the high 
priests got the better and cast the sons of Tobias out of 
the city" as evidence that it was Onias (for me, Onias IV 
-- Jeremias uses different numbering, Onias III), and not 
Jason, who took the city from Menelaus. (Jeremias accuses 
Josephus of having muddied the waters to preserve the high 
priestly line from any "irregularity" -- though he is 
silent over 2 Macc 5.) If he is right, this puts the 
departure of the Onias and his family in 169 BCE, ie before 
the persecution of Antiochus IV.

The importance of all this is that I take the high priestly 
family of Onias to have been the sons of Zadok. (There is 
some conflict over the status of Alcimus, who 2 Macc 14:3 
says was "a former high priest" and AJ 12,9,7 says was "not 
of the high priest stock".) While the sons of Zadok were 
theoretically sons of Aaron -- just as the sons of Aaron 
were theoretically sons of Levi -- 1QSa seems to make a 
sufficient distinction between the sons of Zadok, who were 
at the head of the community council of Israel, while the 
sons of Aaron had authority over the sons of Levi, the sons 
of Zadok apparently had authority over all Israel.

The mention of the sons of Zadok in 1QS, 1QSa and 1QSb 
would seem to date those texts very early. It would 
therefore not be strange to see neither 1QSa nor 1QSb 
represented in cave 4, and the fragments of 1QS have the 
references to the sons of Zadok removed.

1. If anyone has any light to shed on the Onias/Jason 
   problem I would be happy to read it.

2. The distinction between the sons of Zadok and the sons 
   of Aaron doesn't seem to have been debated, but I would
   like to hear if there are any bibliographical indications.
   Any comments would be welcome.

3. Does it seem reasonable to list members to use the 
   mention of the sons of Zadok for dating purposes?
   (Note, that I make a distinction between sons of Zadok 
   and Sadducees, the rump of the priesthood which followed 
   older religious traditions and did not adhere to the 
   "innovations" of the Pharisees.)


Ian


For private reply, e-mail to "Ian Hutchesson" <[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)

Reply via email to