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)
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)
orion-list Onias and the Sons of Zadok
First things first.I want to express my unflinching solidarity with our Israeli colleagues, currently facing a difficult time. Ian wrote: 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.) 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 . It seems certain that the Zadokites where the most powerful clan within the priesthood - i.e the Sons of Aaron - who were the only leading group after the exile and chances are that they remained a fairly influential clan even after (herodian)political circumstances determined the change of the system of highpriestly dinasties. Whether or not Hasmoneans were Zadokites or not remains a matter of debate, although the mention of the first Hasmonean Highpriest saying he will remain in function until a true profet(?) will arise (if I recall this correctly) seems to indicate that his lineage was not above controversy. Hence the probability that Shimon and his brothers weren´t regarded as Zadokites. Anyhow, the problems with the purity of lineage became certainly worse after Johanan´s Hyrcanus acces to power, as we know from Josephus, (a Priest-King who was accused by a Pharisee, Elazar, to usurpe the highpriestly function, since his mother was said to have been captive before he was born). This incident -and for that matter Josephus own interpretation of it - is interesting as it denotes how much attention and importance was attached to the question of lineage throughout the 2,nd Temple period. (Remember also the genealogies in Qumran). All this can explain the popping up of a sect of Sadduccees, which I think, is absolutely rightly connected etimologically, to the sons of Zadok, as a group claiming the power on religious grounds, after it had been ousted from it, (or clinging to it despite opposition). However, there is nothing, appart from their name to suggest the Sadduccees succeeded what no other group did, namely to avoid succesive defections and schisms. As for the obsessive repetition of the phrase Sons of Zadok in the Qumran manuscripts I think it is logical to assume that it served both an ideological and a political purpose, being used against a temple hierarchy dominated by High priests chosen arbitrarily, from a religious point of view, for economic or political aims. This points to a rather late date of the manuscripts. It may very well be, that the vicious polemic on this issue was ultimately the reason for some extremely controversial appointments such as that of Pinchas, the derided last High priest of the Temple, right before its destruction by the Romans a man who must certainly have been considered a Zadokite by the Zealots appointing him after the casting of lots. Remarcable as well are the polemics against the zadokites (Sadduccees) throughout the Talmud and Tosefta, which reminds us a) of Johanan ben Zakai´s problems with the Zealots not letting him get out of the besieged Jerusalem and b) the great importance attributed to fighting them even at a late date after the destruction of the Temple, when their practical significance as a highpriestly class had all but vanished and the return and rebuiding had become utterly hypothetical. 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. Best regards, Peter Janku For private reply, e-mail to peter janku [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)
