Dear George Brooks,
First, let me clarify my intended point. When I questioned whether the
Sadducees would have been praised in c. 180-175 in Sirach, I was not
suggesting that it was more likely they would have been vilified. Rather,
what I had in my mind is that it seems doubtful that the Sadducees even
existed as a sect in 180-175 BCE.
I do not believe that Jewish sects had emerged by the time of Simon the
Just (c. 200-180 BCE) or the tenure of Onias III as high priest (c. 180-175
BCE). This is mainly based on two pieces of evidence. First, Sirach
contains not the slightest hint of sectarian polemics (warlike arguments) in
his book of c. 180-175 BCE. Rather, he sees all of Judaism (if one can even
use this term so early) united under the glorious leadership of the high
priest. Second, this picture is confirmed by the fact that in rabbinical
literature, the Pharisees claimed Simon the Just as their (legendary)
founder. This has no historical basis -- for instance, the Pharisees do not
attach any halakhah to the name of Simon the Just. See Neusner's two-volume
book on rabbinic traditions of the second temple period for this, if it's
important (sorry, I don't have the exact title handy). Now let us suppose
that Simon the Just was a Sadducee. Would the Pharisees have claimed a
famous Sadducee high priest as their founder? I think not. The first
Pharisee halakhah attached to historical rabbis date to the Maccabean
uprising, and I don't believe Sadducees or Pharisees predate that period,
based on available evidence.
With respect to your suggestion that it is unlikely that high priests
prior to the Hellenistic Crisis would have been vilified, I agree. Shimeon
"ha-Zedek" is praised in all available sources (Sirach and Talmudic). Onias
III is given high praise in 2 Macc. 3.1: "The holy city was inhabited in
unbroken peace and the laws were strictly observed because of the piety of
the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness." (The underlying Greek
does not connect with the phrase "doers of the law" -- the Greek here for
"observed" is suntereo, which never translates the Hebrew 'oseh="do" [see
LXX]. Nevertheless, the spirit of this passage is close to the loyalty to
the Torah and hatred of wickedness seen in Qumran texts.) However, the
emergence of partisanship in Judaism is seen in the conflict of Onias III and
his temple captain Simon (2 Macc. 3:4, etc.) and in the ouster of Onias III
and replacement as high priest by Jason (175-173 BCE) and then by Menelaus
(173-163 BCE), both of whom are roundly condemned in 2 Maccabees. Simon the
Just and Onias III were the last legitimate Zadokite high priests (the
so-called high priest of the intersacerdotium is a chimera), and I think
sectarian partisanship first arose out of the struggle for the high
priesthood during the Hellenistic Crisis and ensuing Maccabean War.
My own view is that the major sectarian scrolls were written by the
supporters of the Oniad (Zadokite) high priestly dynasty c. 175-160 BCE, but
that doesn't really figure into the above discussion on the origins of
Sadducees and Pharisees, which is based solely on Sirach and rabbinical
writings. However, I will note here that I consider 11QT, the older
"halachic" portions of CD, and 4QMMT to represent Oniad legal materials of
the period c. 200-163 BCE (as I plan to discuss in upcoming articles). My
conclusion is that the Sadducees did later emerge out of the Zadokite
priestly heritage of the Oniads, but had not yet appeared as a sect per se in
the lifetime of Simon and Onias III.
I hope this clarifies matters for you.
Best wishes,
Russell Gmirkin
> Russell,
>
> I have been thinking about your helpful analysis of "sons of Zadok"
> in Sirach and related ideas.
>
> You write:
> ""...the "sons of Zadok" / "Shimeon ha-Zedek" terminology documented at
> such an early date calls into question the correlation of
> Zadok/Zedek/Sadducee,
> unless one is prepared to see the Sadducees praised c. 180-175 in
> Sirach."
>
> Now maybe all I'm doing is undermining some of my own positions here,
> but I figured you'd have some thoughts about the High Priestly line
> BEFORE Maccabees and the High Priestly line AFTER the Hasmoneans
> [I'm going to skip the intervening time for the purposes of this email].
>
> It seems possible to me that it wasn't until the Maccabeean conflict,
> and then later after the rift between the "Wilderness community(ies)" and
> the Hasmoneans kings that the High Priestly line would have been
> vilified.
>
> In the 5 year period you specify (180 - 175) wouldn't the High Priests
> had been relatively respected if not admired?
>
> Looking forward to your clarifications.
>
> George Brooks
> Tampa, FL
For private reply, e-mail to [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.
