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

As the term bny cdwq is apparently never used for the
Sadducees, and that it disappeared from the texts during the
DSS era, there is little hope of connecting the Sadducees to
the sons of Zadok and the two terms do not refer to the same
thing. (The current tendency to use the term "Zadokite" for
"sons of Zadok" can only add to the obfuscation of the
significance of bny cdwq, which is obviously a term of

>As for the obsessive repetition of the phrase "Sons of Zadok"

There is no "obsessive repetition" at all. The sons of Zadok
are found only on the 1QS/Sa/Sb scroll and three times in
cave 4 (4Q163, 4Q174, 4Q266) -- that's not very frequent at
all. It is its lack of use, given the importance which Ezekiel
holds them, which requires explanation.

>Remarcable as well are the polemics against the zadokites
>(Sadduccees) throughout the Talmud and Tosefta,

bny cdwq are not cdykym. cdyqym appears 23 times in cave 4 and
only twice in cave 1. If by "zadokites" you mean cdykym, how
do you relate the term to "sons of Zadok"?

>As for Alcimus (AJ) not being of highpriestly stock, this is an
>extremely ambigious note, since it may mean anything, from
>Alcimus not being a Zadokite, to him not being the son of the
>previous Hight Priest as was the custom at that time, to him not
>being off aaronite descent.

1 Macc 7:14 has the Hasidaeans saying of Alcimus, "A priest of
the line of Aaron ... will not harm us."


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

Reply via email to