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-----
On Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:30 PM
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

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

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.

Reply via email to