Re: orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
>Perhaps others on the list can be more convincing than >I can be from your point of view. But having just >finished Boccaccini's BEYOND THE ESSENE HYPOTHESIS, I >would have to say his discussion of HOW MUCH to conclude >from the classical sources, and which sources mean what, >is about as good a presentation as I've seen online or >in hard copy. This is because there are no serious arguments online or in hardcopy that justify the Essene Hypothesis. One can sift only so far through the same stuff that we have had before us for the last 50 years. There is nothing new in the way of source materials, other than scrolls made available which argue against the Essenes. (Think for example of 4Q502 [Ritual of Marriage], which cites a part of 1QS, the so-called sectarian foundational document. Oh, I know, it must be those marrying Essenes again.) To nearly all those parallels that people like Dupont- Sommer put together, the answer is either "too generic" or "unsubstantiated". We are left with the same lack of argument: "if the Essenes didn't write the scrolls, well, who did?" This is no argument whatsoever. Qumran is not off the littoral zone of the sea, yet Pliny tells us the Essenes flee from the littoral. (Salt land grows nothing. Fish hazarding into the sea die almost immediately and are eventually found along the shore.) As Pliny's itinerary at this point goes from east to west, there is no downstream movement not north to south movement, so the usually Essene Hypothesis explanations of Pliny's "infra hos engada oppidum fuit" simply don't hold water. - I think it's extremely hard to argue against the fact that the community in some of the scrolls reflects the temple centred community, with its reliance on the written torah (as opposed to the Pharisees), reliance on bloodlines (as opposed to the Essenes), headed by the sons of Zadok. This seems like a community based in the temple. One would expect those who maintain purity in order to go into the temple would ostensibly have little or nothing to do with women and those who belonged to the community were expected to maintain temple purity, similar to haburot. What we have in scrolls like 1QS may be an association of those who maintain temple purity -- which had its own possessions, while individuals maintained theirs, which was a male-only association, while individuals were almost certainly married (there is a lot about marriage in the scrolls). 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)
Re: orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
>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, The only book of Boccaccini's I have is Middle Judaism in which he has already, unexplicably accepted the Essene connection with the scrolls. This didn't endear me to his thoughts, given that the few classical sources tell us -- with little that is exact enough to say what is and what is not an Essene position in a literary source. My position on the sons of Zadok is a longheld view explaining the references to them in the scrolls. I have previously mentioned the relationship between priests and the two top angelic levels found in Jubilees, angels of the presence (connected with the sons of Zadok) and angels of holiness (with the sons of Aaron). This becomes partially clear in the analysis of 1QSb which I posted sometime back on the list. If Boccaccini has developed similar lines of thought, it is a good sign for the idea, in that at least someone else has arrived at the same point from some other direction! 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)
RE: orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
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 don´t 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 weren´t 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)
Re: orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
Peter Janku wrote: >I don´t 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 weren´t regarded as Zadokites."). 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 lineage.) >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." 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)
