[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Qumran question (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:02:20 EST
From: David Jay Kaufman <djk2@acpub.duke.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: Qumran question (fwd)

On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 RGGOLDENBERG@ccmail.sunysb.edu wrote:

> To David Kaufman:
> The idea that the Seleucids were pro-Oniad seems to depend on the 
> assumption that Menelaus was an Oniad; otherwise, his displacement of Jason 
> would appear to suggest that the royal authorities had written off the 
> Oniad dynasty as no longer serving their ends.  Do you have an opinion 
> about this?
> Bob Goldenberg
> SUNY/Stony Brook
This actually hits the bulk of my thesis and goes well beyond what I can 
reasonably relate in this forum. Part of my thesis deals with reanalyzing 
the fall of the Oniad High Priesthood. In essence, I conclude that Simon, 
the Prostates was Simon III, the son of Onias III, and father of Onias 
IV. Further, Menelaus, who is said to have been the brother of Simon, 
would then have been an Oniad as well, not to mention, also a son of Onias 
III. Without putting the whole thesis here, and it is in excess of 
100 pages, I can not present my entire argument. Suffice it to say that I 
come to the conclusion that Menelaus was indeed an Oniad.

Hopefully, I will finish my thesis soon, God willing in the next couple 
of weeks,

-David K.