The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity 9783666550430, 9783525550434, 9783647550435

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements

Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabrück), Ester Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St Andrews), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University) Volume 10

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Eyal Regev

The Hasmoneans Ideology, Archaeology, Identity

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

To my five sons Nadav, Tomer, Ori, Yotam and Amit ”AN9L975 9MF LM4 N954 =MFB 9L?:” (1 Macc 2:51)

With 17 plates and 10 figures

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55043-4 ISBN 978-3-647-55043-5 (e-book)  2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch Print und digitale Medien GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Preface This book emerged from the study of the Hasmonean palaces as a window to the ideology and self-identity of the Hasmoneans themselves. In the course of the analysis of the evidence I realized that previous scholars did not attempt to examine fundamental questions regarding the ways in which the Hasmoneans ruled, as well as their self-identity and political and religious agenda. My aim here is to integrate historical and archaeological evidence in order to see more clearly who the Hasmoneans actually were. Scholarship on the Hasmoneans risks falling into the traps of both the critical outlook of ancient Greco-Roman authors on these rulers who shattered Greek cities and sanctuaries, and the modern nationalistic Jewish-Israeli admiration of such acts. Yet, the thin line between Hellenistic culture and Jewish identity characterizes the Hasmoneans’ rule. I suggest that the maintenance of this dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism in the study of the Hasmoneans and their ethos is simplistic and anachronistic. According to my interpretation of the ideological and symbolic world of the Hasmoneans, and to certain extent that of their Jewish subjects, they created a new sense of Jewish identity using certain features of Hellenistic culture. Several colleagues have read earlier drafts of the entire manuscript, chapters, or previous studies on which they were based. My thanks to Professors Eric Gruen, Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Joshua Schwartz, Albert Baumgarten, Boaz Zissu, and to the anonymous reviewers of my articles published in BASOR, JSQ, Zion, and Tarbiz. I would also like to thank the editors of these journals for the permission to use the contents of these articles. I am especially grateful to Hanan Eshel z”l, from whom I first learned about the Hasmonean state, and Ehud Netzer z”l for his support and advice concerning my study of the Hasmonean palaces. I hope that this book will be a fitting memorial for these two great and kind scholars. I would like to thank Devroah Netzer for the permission to use Ehud Netzer’s plans of the Hasmonean palaces, Mr. Michael Krupp for the pictures of the Hasmonean coins, and Mr. Zeev Radovan for the permission to use the pictures of the Hasmonenan palaces. My sincere thanks to my dear mother-in-law, Andi Armon, and to Dr. Ruth Clements for editing the manuscripts, and to my student Esther CohenShadmi, for her assistance. Special thanks are due to Armin Lange and the editorial board of the Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements for accepting this book into the series, and Christoph Spill and the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht staff for handling the publishing process. The publication of this book was supported by research grants from the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

6

Preface

Koschitzky Chair of the Department of Land of Israel and Archaeology at BarIlan University, the Dr. Simon Krauthammer Chair in Archaeology, the Dr. Irving and Cherna Moskowitz Chair in Land of Israel Studies, the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center of Jewish History, and the Bar-Ilan University Rector’s research fund. I would like to thank my parents, Zvi and Hannah Regev, and my brother and sister Yoav and Ofra for their encouragement. This book is dedicated to my loving wife Tanya, and my five sons, Nadav, Tomer, Ori, Yotam and Amit. Eyal Regev Neve Daniel, Gush Etzion, Israel

Sivan 5972/June 2012

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Hasmonean Ideology : Previous Scholarship and Methodology 2. The Maccabean Revolution: The Transformation of Jewish Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Pursuit of Hellenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Sources: Panegyric and Hostile Historiographies . . . . . 1 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Ideology, Legitimization, and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. A Note on Terms and Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

11 12

. . . . . . .

15 18 25 25 27 31 35

Chapter One H. anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. H. anukkah as Days of Millu’im . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. H. anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees . . . . 3. Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology in the Second Letter of 2 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. H. anukkah as a Political Festival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Two The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology . . . . . . . . . 1. The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Eupolemus, Solomon’s Temple, and the Maccabean Ideology . 3. The Temple and Hasmonean Political Power according to Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage . . . 5. Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas . . . . . . . 6. Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple: Qumran and the Psalms of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Conclusions: When Politics Meets Religion . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Three Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority . 1. High Priesthood and Authority in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Mattathias the Zealot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Judah the Savior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Jonathan the Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 36 38 47 54

. . .

58 59 66

. . .

69 73 82

. .

93 98

. . . . . . . . 103 . . . .

. . . .

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

104 107 108 111

8

Contents

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Simon the Elected High Priest . . . . . . . . . . John Hyrcanus the Prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hasmoneans as Religious Leaders . . . . . . Priestly Descent and the Zadokite Problem . . . Becoming Monarchs: Hellenistic Honors and the Accumulation of Wealth . . . . . . . . . 10. Conclusions: Hasmonean “National” Monarchy

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

113 117 118 120

. . . . . . . . . 124 . . . . . . . . . 127

Chapter Four Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts . . . 1. Introduction: Were the Hasmoneans Legitimate Kings? 2. Hellenistic Royal Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Idea of Kingship in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . 4. The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism . . . . . . . 5. The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Chapter Five Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction: Background and Method . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Hasmonean Authority : High Priests or Kings? . . . . . . . 3. H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”? . . . . . . 5. Reading Political History in the Hasmonean Coins . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

129 129 131 142 147 154 173

. . . 175 . . . 175 . . . 182 . . . .

. . . .

Chapter Six Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction: Aims and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces 3. The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Royal Water: Swimming Pools and Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Hasmonean Bathhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Jewish Royal-Priestly Purity : Ritual Baths . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Excursus: Identifying the Palaces of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Unembellished Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Royal Feasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Disposal of Vessels and Priestly Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Conclusions: Internal Modesty and External Propaganda . . .

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

. . . . . . .

. . . .

186 199 214 221

. 224 . 224 . 225 . . . .

232 246 251 253

. . . . .

255 257 260 261 263

Contents

Chapter Seven Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity . . . . . 1. Popular Support for the Hasmoneans’ Territorial Conquests . 2. Wars, Judaization, and Hasmonean Transformations of Jewish Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Novel Features of Hasmonean Jewish Collective Identity . . . 4. Social Identity and the Symbolic Construction of Jewish Collectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Insights from Modern Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

. . 266 . . 267 . . 273 . . 278 . . 284 . . 288

Conclusions: Power through Piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Introduction In his description of the Hasmonean period, Josephus missed the spirit of the era. Josephus focused on military occupations and political tensions, without explaining what the Jewish people thought of the Hasmoneans and what the Hasmoneans thought of the Jewish people and themselves.1 This book aims to fill this lack, uncovering the cultural and social character of the Hasmoneans as rulers, from Jonathan (and in certain cases from as early as Judah Maccabee) to Mattathias Antigonus. It explores how the Hasmoneans ruled the Jewish people, namely, the ways in which they legitimized their authority and built relationships with their subjects. It focuses on the Hasmoneans’ construction and symbolic representations of their ideology in relation to the Temple cult, their early rule, and their subsequent kingship. The discussion is interdisciplinary in several senses. It merges historical sources with archaeological findings; Jewish and Hellenistic perspectives; traditional, text-oriented, and historical-critical methods with comparative and socioanthropological approaches. The first two chapters deal with the religious perceptions and activities of the Hasmoneans. Chapter 1 discusses the Maccabean view of H. anukkah as a Temple festival for the renewal of ancient cultic traditions. Chapter 2 examines the manner in which the Hasmoneans used the Temple, its protection, and its maintenance to legitimize their rule, and how they developed the Temple as the center of Judaism. Chapters 3 – 6 deal with manifestations of governmental and royal ideology. Chapter 3 explores how the Hasmoneans legitimized their rule, showing that they built their authority gradually as religious leaders, and suggesting that their state was not a conventional Hellenistic one. Chapter 4 explores Hellenistic royal ideologies and proposes that Hasmonean ideology resembled that of Macedonian “national” monarchy. The chapter also examines the emergence of Hasmonean kingship against its Jewish background. Chapter 5 aims to decipher the meaning of the symbols and epigraphs on the Hasmonean coins. It considers how Hellenistic symbols and Jewish concepts were used to reinforce Hasmonean authority and Jewish identity. Chapter 6 analyzes the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho, searching for the royal ideology they display by using the methodology of social archaeology, as well as comparisons with other Hellenistic palaces—especially the Herodian ones. The final chapter builds on the previous results, uncovering how the 1 This contrasts with his treatment of Herod’s rule, where Josephus treats the king’s self-image and the people’s responses, and also adds his own personal (and critical) comments. See Rocca 2008:19 – 63; Regev 2010.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

12

Introduction

Hasmoneans created a new Jewish collective identity. Here I use insights from sociology and anthropology as well as from theories of modern nationalism. My thesis is that in the course of the promotion and legitimization of their own rule, the Hasmoneans reinforced Jewish collective identity. This final chapter also demonstrates that the theme of this book is actually how the Hasmoneans created and represented elements of power and identity. The purpose of the following introduction is to set the stage for these chapters. Here I will present previous scholarship; the major historical sources; my basic assumptions about the Maccabean Revolt, Hasmoneans and Hellenism; and the methodological presumptions and attitudes I bring to this exploration of Hasmonean ideology, legitimacy, and power. This introduction therefore aims at situating the study in its historical and scholarly context.

1. Hasmonean Ideology : Previous Scholarship and Methodology Most of the studies on the Hasmonean period or the Hasmonean rulers have dealt with foreign affairs, relationships with the Seleucids, military campaigns, and territorial occupations, as detailed in 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus’s War and Antiquities.2 Many studies have also discussed the religious developments in that period, such as the emergence of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the struggles between them, the development of Jewish law (halakhah), etc.3 Others have discussed the Hasmoneans in relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran sect.4 Yet, a detailed history of the Hasmoneans’ internal affairs, namely, their political institutions and their relationships with the people, cannot be written; the sources are too scarce,5 and are highly biased either for or against the Hasmoneans.6 The archaeological data (mainly fortifications, palaces and coins) are also not very helpful for reconstructing the political and social structure of the Hasmonean state, and in any event require a thorough analysis in order to serve as more than mere illustrations of Josephus. What remains for the historian is a more 2 See Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973:137 – 286; Grabbe 1994:285 – 307; Stern 1995; Kahser 1990:58 – 191; Bar-Kochva 1989; 1996a; 1999; 2010:399 – 439. Notwithstanding its title, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, Efron 1987, does not deal with the Hasmonean rulers. 3 E.g., Baumgarten 1997; Regev 2005:247 – 292 and references. 4 See especially Eshel 2008. 5 See the reconstruction of Schalit 1972. His main conclusions are refuted throughout Chapters 4 – 6 below. See also the partial but valuable attempts of Bar-Kochva 1977 and Appelbaum 1989, discussed in Chapter 7. 6 See below the discussions of 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Josephus and his Hellenistic sources. Eshel 2008 turned to the Dead Sea Scrolls, attempting to understand the Hasmoneans’ portrait and actual events from within the world of the Qumran sects. The result is an extremely negative assessment of their rule; but one should bear in mind that these texts were written by an opposition party.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hasmonean Ideology : Previous Scholarship and Methodology

13

conceptual discussion of the character of the Hasmoneans as rulers and of the very notion of their statehood; namely, the reconstruction of certain features of Hasmonean policy, and especially of the political and cultural means they used to present themselves to the people. My decision to address Hasmonean ideology and identity in its entirety instead of its direct historical development is derived not only from the unfortunate paucity of detailed historical sources, but also from the recognition of the bias in the historical evidence at hand. There is a considerable amount of evidence that represents the Hasmoneans’ own outlook—1 Maccabees and to a certain extent also 2 Maccabees, as well as their coins and palaces—which provide keys to the Hasmoneans’ own reflections on their beginnings: their self-presentation, or “narrative.” The literary and archaeological data therefore enable us to reconstruct Hasmonean political and cultural ideology.7 Nonetheless, even if we knew much more about the political and personal lives of the individual Hasmonean rulers, we should still be interested in understanding the broader picture of their agenda: what were their political and cultural aims and how did they try to implement them? Ideology is the heart and soul of every strong political regime, as will be shown further below in this chapter. Discovering the essence of Hasmonean ideology would contribute substantially to our understanding of the individual Hasmonean rulers, as well as the culture, religion, and political system of the Judaean Jews in this period. As we shall see, the evidence on which this analysis is based is rich and varied, and it enables us to approach the question from several different angles, including the aspects of Temple, kingship, and Jewish collective identity. Attempts to make sense of the self-image and political ideology of the Hasmoneans have been few and limited.8 One study which requires special attention demonstrates the need for further research. In her article, “Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,” Tessa Rajak discusses the manner in which kingship was conceptualized by the Jews in the Hasmonean period, in light of the background of biblical traditions, and in the context of the views of Ben Sira and certain Qumran scrolls on high priesthood and kingship. Rajak notes that the Hasmoneans drew their formal governmental power from the Seleucids and needed to legitimize it based on 7 Note the distinction between history and narrative in the debate on postmodern history. Cf. Regev 2007:20 – 22 and references there. 8 Scholars have preferred to address the subject of the hellenization of the Hasmoneans (Rajak 1990; Rappaport 1991; Gruen 1998:1 – 40), as discussed below. Seth Schwartz (1991) regarded the “nationalistic” ideology of 1 Maccabees as predating John Hyrcanus and Jannaeus. He also characterized the rise of the Hasmonean family as that of village strongmen who exploited local disorder to seize power, much like the Tobiads and Herodians (Schwarz 1993a). Provocative as they are, his studies do not seek to penetrate the Hasmonean belief system, and actually imply that the Hasmoneans only sought power.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

14

Introduction

traditional Jewish traits, including anti-Gentile and militaristic tendencies.9 Rajak’s study shows the complexity of Hasmonean rule in terms of political and cultural perceptions and the challenges faced by the Hasmoneans in justifying their political and military power. Rajak made some general observations on which she did not elaborate, stressing the potential of the Jewish background of Hasmonean rule, but a lot more needs further study. It is necessary to gather and analyze the actual evidence for Hasmonean views on politics and culture, both Jewish and Hellenistic, as gleaned from literary sources and the archaeological record. Furthermore, while it is clear that the Hasmoneans were affected by Hellenism, scholarly discussions on the subject have barely penetrated the Hellenistic foundations of Hasmonean political ideology and modes of action. What is needed is not only to identify Hellenistic elements, but to engage in the more delicate task of identifying the ways these were used and legitimized, as well as the needs they served. The present project raises several challenges. First of all, it integrates very different materials: Second Temple Jewish literary sources (1 and 2 Maccabees, the Letter of Aristeas, the Psalms of Solomon, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls); Hellenistic political and cultural history ; and Hasmonean and Hellenistic coins and palaces. Second, the evidence is not straightforward, and requires sifting relevant pieces without neglecting the context. For example, one cannot adduce Aristeas’s attitude towards the Temple without demonstrating the Hasmonean date of the letter and the relevance of the theme of the Temple to the author’s general purpose. The Hasmonean coins and palaces are almost meaningless without a comprehensive comparison to their Hellenistic counterparts. The archaeological data should not be merely described but analyzed thoroughly in order to provide socio-cultural meaning, which requires the use of new socio-anthropological methods of architectural analysis. Furthermore, the discussion demands conceptual sophistication and methodological complexity. The political and cultural intentions of the Hasmoneans and the manner in which these aims were represented to the masses are not transparent. I will use the concept of ideology according to which ideas and representations mask political, cultural, or social discrepancies and legitimize power. I will borrow additional models from sociology, anthropology, and critical theory to explore the nexus between power, ritual, and “nationalism.” What follows is therefore an interpretive study rather than merely descriptive. My use of Hellenistic (and sometimes also early Roman) evidence requires specific attention. In adducing this evidence, I seek to go beyond the conventional parallelism which simply argues for “influence.” Comparisons with Greek and Roman notions of kingship, symbols on coins, palatial 9 Rajak 1996.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Maccabean Revolution: The Transformation of Jewish Identity

15

architecture, etc., will not be confined to the identification of Hasmonean adaptations. The comparative method begins with pointing to similarities, but it becomes more productive when differences are noted, especially when their meaning or purpose is recognized.10 Comparison provides theoretical perspectives and promotes generalization and explanation. It is an essential means of scientific interpretation, based on evidence rather than idiosyncratic intuition. Hence the Hellenistic evidence (as well as the more ancient biblical traditions) broadens our perspective on the Hasmoneans, even when the latter were not directly inspired or affected.11

2. The Maccabean Revolution: The Transformation of Jewish Identity In 152 BCE, when Jonathan was nominated high priest and the Hasmoneans initiated their government, Judaean society and religion were already undergoing a process of transformation. Hasmonean rule was a consequence of three successive revolutions that took place beginning in 175 BCE (when the high priest Jason instituted hellenizing reforms in Jerusalem): the hellenization of the Jerusalem elite; the religious persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes; and the successful revolt against the Seleucids led by the Maccabees. The traditional political system and socio-religious worldview of the Judaean Jews had collapsed. Substantial portions of the Zadokite high priesthood and other priestly circles had been proven greedy, manipulative, and violent. The Seleucid kingdom, which had supported Jewish legal privileges in 198 BCE, became unpredictably antagonistic. And the core of Jewish identity, the Torah, was now endangered from two different angles: on the one hand, between 167 and 164 it was dangerous to live according to its precepts; and on the other hand, already from 175 BCE some Jews had come to be seen as less than committed to the Torah, even though they were members of the religious or priestly elite. All this must have occasioned not only daily distress but also overall confusion for Judaean Jews. Military resistance, total commitment to the Torah, and the Maccabean leadership supplied alternatives to the overturning of the earlier political, cultural, and religious status quo. The military successes of Judah Maccabee gradually led to the development of an alternative system. Militarism was an innovation for the Jews, and its use in the service of religion was even more revolutionary. 10 Poole 1986. For the methodology of comparison, see Regev 2007:22 – 25 and references there. 11 For example, types of inscriptions on Greco-Roman coins that are unattested on Hasmonean coins show that the Hasmonean coins were intended to convey different messages.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

16

Introduction

Although Judah began his career as a local military and (as we shall see in Chapter 3) religious leader, it seems that he already had political aspirations in 164, when he took over the Temple. Through their negotiations with the Seleucids on the cancellation of Antiochus IV’s decrees, Judah and the Maccabees first became involved in politics, as defenders of Jewish religious rights.12 In 162 – 161, after the religious persecutions had ended, Judah continued to fight against Nicanor, as the latter attempted to rule Jerusalem (1 Macc 7). During this period he also made a treaty with Rome (1 Macc 8). These acts show that he believed that the Judaean Jews should not live under Seleucid rule.13 The revolt led to far-reaching consequences following the reoccupation and rededication of the Temple, the death of Antiochus IV, and the cancellation of his decrees, when the Maccabees’ antagonism became generalized against the Gentile (mostly Hellenistic) environment. In 163 BCE, Jews were harassed and threatened by Gentiles in the Hellenistic cities on the west coast and in Idumaea, the Galilee, and the Transjordan. Judah and his brothers went to save them and fought several battles far away from Jerusalem, bringing back thousands of refugees. They defeated the Gentiles and ruined and burnt several cities and temples, but did not attempt to capture any land (1 Macc 5). In order to examine the religious cultural and political context of the Hasmoneans’ rule in 152 – 37 BCE, it is essential to pay attention to their starting point as the leaders of the revolt. During the Maccabean revolt the Judaean Jews were beginning to transform themselves from a passive ethnoreligious local community into a political entity which struggled against several surrounding ethno-political groups. The Jews became much more active politically and militarily. When the Seleucid decrees were cancelled the necessity for militarism only increased, due to new threats by the neighboring Gentiles who were not ready to accept the Jewish increase of power. This chain reaction to the Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem and the decrees of Antiochus IV Epiphanes inevitably paved the way not only for a new Jewish political system, but also for a new type of Jewish identity. The Maccabees and their supporters were ready to die in the battlefield for religious freedom and to protect the lives of other Jews. Their identity was based on commitment to the Torah and hatred towards the idolatrous Gentiles. A new, “nationalistic” sense of Jewish collective identity was created. This construction of reality is provided by the author of 1 Maccabees.14 The renewed sense of Jewishness 12 2 Macc 11:17 – 26, 34 – 38; Habicht 1976b; Flusser 1996:64 – 71. 13 Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973:171; Flusser 1996:70 – 71. For the treaty with Rome, see Stern 1991:51 – 76. 14 For a historical survey based on 1 Maccabees, see, e. g., Mendels 1992:115 – 135, 161 – 178. Some read 1 Maccabees as mere propaganda, which conceals the true interests of the Hasmoneans. For Schwartz (1993a), Mattathias’ family was considered, from a Hellenistic perspective, local aristocracy or “village strongmen,” who resisted the loss of their political and civil status, and sought their own advancement within the “system.” It should be noted that not all the Jews who suffered the persecutions thought highly of the Maccabees. For Daniel (11:34) they were of “little

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Maccabean Revolution: The Transformation of Jewish Identity

17

expressed in 1 Maccabees is thought to demonstrate the public atmosphere that promoted the Hasmoneans’ rise to power and the emergence of an independent Jewish state in 152 BCE, and, I may add, nourished the flourishing of the Hasmonean dynasty (see Chapter 7). The revolt and Hasmonean independence also involved special religious phenomena that need attention. Throughout the persecutions and the revolt, the Maccabees and their supporters stressed the ethos of commitment to the Torah and its commandments, which had been endangered by the Seleucid persecutions. Observing the scriptural commandments under the threat of death changed the meaning of commitment to the Jewish law. Devotion to the law was now a far-reaching and dangerous decision. Zeal for the Torah led to unexpected acts by the Maccabees, and this zealousness continued under the Hasmoneans. Mattathias and his supporters practiced forced circumcision of babies whose parents were too afraid of the Seleucids to perform this basic Jewish ritual. Later on John Hyrcanus and Judah Aristobulus forcibly converted the Idumaeans and Ituraeans.15 When the citizens of Pella refused to embrace the ancestral practices of the Jews, Jannaeus destroyed the city (Ant. 13.397). Judah and Simon burned pagan temples in Qarnayim and Azotus.16 Simon purified pagan defilement in Gezer and the Jerusalem Acra. Later on Jannaeus assaulted the Hellenistic cities in the coastal plain and the Transjordan: Ptolemais, Dor, Straton’s Tower, Abthedon, Gaza and Raphia, Gadara, Amathus, Dium, Gerasa and Pella.17 The Maccabean and Hasmonean ethos of purity and rejection of pagan culture is documented by the archaeological record. Jewish ritual baths emerged in the Hasmonean period, and all the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho had several baths (see Chapter 6). Hellenistic or Rhodian amphorae, in which Greek wine was imported, were virtually absent from Jerusalem between 145 BCE and the beginning of the Herodian period, and are also unattested in the Hasmonean palaces. Such amphorae were extremely common in Jerusalem in 180 – 151 BCE and were probably used by the Seleucid soldiers and hellenizing Jews who dwelt together in the Acra in 168 – 143 BCE.18 All this witnesses to the transformation of Jewish life in Judaea; its political, religious and ethnic manifestations were rapidly growing. But this was only one side of the coin. Hellenism was the other.

15 16 17

18

help.” A similar attitude may be implied in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90), on which see Regev 2007:204 – 211. Weitzman 1999. 1 Macc 5:44, 68; 10:83; 11:66; 12:11; 13:47 – 48, 50. 1 Macc 13:47 – 48, 50; 14:4; Ant. 13.262 – 264, 374; Stern 1991:139 – 140, 149 – 150; Shatzman 1991:72 – 82. Those who occupied the Acra are characterized as “lawless” (anomoi), as having abandoned the law and the commandments (1 Macc 9:23, 58, 69; 10:61; 11:21, 25). See Finkielsztejn 1999 and the discussion in Chapter 6.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

18

Introduction

The independent Hasmonean state was established by Jonathan in 152 BCE and collapsed when Mattathias Antigonus was defeated by Herod (37 BCE). For the first time after the fall of the Davidic monarchy in 586 BCE, the Jews in Judaea were not governed by a Gentile empire. The Hasmoneans were the first to hold full control of the secular government since the Davidic monarchs, and thus directed both internal matters and foreign affairs, but since they were also high priests, they had a certain control over religious matters as well. Political independence and the flourishing state led to the development of three major religious factions: the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes. This diversity in religious outlooks provoked social conflicts over the enforcement of religious law in the Jerusalem Temple. Hasmonean independence also had farreaching political consequences: later on, Judaean Jews had difficulties in coping with its loss under Roman rule, which resulted in the revolt against the Romans in 66 – 70 CE. Indeed, the Maccabean revolt and the emergence of the Hasmonean state sparked the rise of so-called Jewish “nationalism.”19

3. The Pursuit of Hellenism The turmoil of the Hellenistic reform, the anti-Jewish decrees of Antiochus IV, and the Jewish wars against the Seleucids and the Hellenistic cities are commonly seen as a clash of civilizations. For Elias Bickerman and Martin Hengel, the Jewish Hellenizers, especially Menelaus, attempted to force Hellenism on the Jews; the Maccabean revolt was directed against this coercion.20 Later, however, it is commonly stated, the Hasmoneans themselves became hellenized: they used Greek names, hired Greek mercenaries, put on royal diadems, and even had a queen. Their royal courts were full of intrigues, just like those of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.21 Assuming that the Maccabees rejected Hellenism and Hellenizers, the subsequent Hasmoneans’ infusion of Hellenistic elements would seem to have required compromise on issues of Jewish law and encouragement of assimilation. Eventually, according to this line of reasoning, Hellenistic civilization overcame its opponents.22 19 Farmer 1957; Mendels 1992:55 – 189. See Chapter 7. 20 Bickerman 1979; Hengel 1974. Compare the criticism of Millar 1974. 21 Tcherikover (1959:252) concluded that the Hasmoneans “were primarily military leaders who spent most of their time fighting…The Hasmoneans did the same as all the other monarchs of their time, having drinking parties, taking mistresses in addition to their lawful wives, and persecuting those of their relatives whom they suspected for personal or political reasons… The Hasmonean rule was a secular rule, hence the life of the court was secular also, possessing no higher a level than that of the courts of Antioch or the kings of Asia Minor.” See Rappaport 1991 for a comprehensive survey of the extent of the Hasmoneans’ hellenization. See already Bickerman 1962:153 – 165. 22 Bickerman 1962:133, 139, 149 – 150, 152 156, 178; Tcherikover 1959:235 –265; Fischer 1990:17 –19.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pursuit of Hellenism

19

Although the Hasmoneans’ dealings with Hellenism do not form the main subject of this book, it will be shown that the Hasmoneans adopted certain Hellenistic elements while rejecting others. In the following chapters, Hellenistic and especially Seleucid culture and politics will be used as the historical and cultural background for understanding the Hasmoneans, their intentions and the means by which they ruled. It is therefore necessary to build on previous scholarship on Hasmonean attitudes towards Hellenism, including the concept of Hellenism in 2 Maccabees; the character of the Hellenistic Reform; and the attitudes of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans towards Hellenistic culture and political institutions.

“Hellenismus” and the Hellenistic Reform In modern scholarship, Hellenism denotes “Greek ways,” and hellenization is the adoption of Greek culture (including language and religion) by nonGreeks. Following the conquests of Alexander, the East was ruled by Macedonian kings who encouraged the immigration of new populations of Greek origins, took for granted the superiority of Greek culture, and preferred Greeks as administrators, friends and courtiers.23 Hellenism, however, had no specific substance but was a cultural trend that could be adapted in various ways. The noun Hellenismus, which first occurs in 2 Maccabees (4:10, 13; 11:24), is the invention of Jason of Cyrene, and means “the Greek way of living.” The author also invented another novel noun, Ioudaismos (2:21; cf. 8:1; 14:38), a set of values based in the Jewish religion, for which one ought to fight. Although he never juxtaposes these two nouns,24 since the book describes the clash between Seleucids and Jews, some readers might gain the impression that there is a conceptual opposition between Judaism and Hellenism as distinct and competitive cultural systems. The relationship between the two and the manner in which Jews were influenced by Hellenism has been the subject of many monographs in the past decades.25 However, conflict between Jews and “Greeks” (those of Greek descent or culture) was hardly inevitable. Both Josephus and the rabbis stressed Alexander’s friendly encounter with the Jews and his acknowledgment of the Jewish religion. The earliest reports of Greek authors on Jews and Judaism were favorable.26 Antiochus III affirmed the Judaean Jews’ right to live according to their traditional laws; but this right was dependent on the king’s 23 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:141 – 187; Levine 1998:16 – 25. Cf. Rajak 1990:263 – 265. 24 Habicht 2006:92. 25 E.g., Lieberman 1950; Tcherikover 1959; Hengel 1974; Kasher 1990; Gruen 1998; Collins 2000; Levine 1998; Bar-Kochva 2010. See also Habicht 2006. 26 Ant. 11.317 – 345; b. Yoma 69a. Note the mostly positive outlooks of Greek authors during the third century BCE (Bar-Kochva 2010:15 – 135).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

20

Introduction

will, and the Seleucids were also able to deny the Jews the right to live according to the Torah, as did Antiochus IV. Jewish religious freedom was a privilege, and not irrevocable.27 The Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem was initiated in 175 BCE by Jason, the Zadokite high priest, who established a gymnasium and ephebeion in Jerusalem, and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis.28 In fact, Jason and Menelaus paid Antiochus a total sum of 5790 talents to allow them to take power.29 Bickerman and Hengel argued that this was a religious reform and that Menelaus stood behind the institution of a pagan cult in the Temple.30 Most contemporary scholars, however, believe that the reform was cultural, without aiming to countermand Jewish law, and that Menelaus and his associates were not involved in Antiochus IV’s decrees and the erection of “the abomination of desolation.”31 The reformers were attracted to a Hellenistic lifestyle, which appealed especially to elites, but they may also have used Hellenistic culture to win the favor of the Seleucids. Thus, the Maccabean conflict with the Jewish Hellenizers also had political motivations and not only religious ones. Antiochus IV’s decrees against Judaism and the establishment of a pagan cult at the Jerusalem Temple were probably a reaction to local resistance to Menelaus.32 The king used the imposition of Hellenism as a means of political suppression.33

The Hellenization of the Maccabees The report of Antiochus IV’s decree that the Jews must change over to Greek ways (Helle¯nika, 2 Macc 4:10; 6:9; 11:24) is misleading. The Maccabees did not resist everything that had to do with Hellenism, but only specific aspects which they found threatening. They opposed pagan cults and fought against 27 Hydahl 1990:190. See Ant. 12.138 – 144; Bickerman 1980b. 28 Tcherikover 1959:152 – 174; Bringmann 1983. 29 The Seleucid debt to the Romans following their defeat and the peace of Apamea in 188 BCE was 15,000 talents. The annual Roman tax on Judaea during the reign of Archelaus was 600 talents. See Hydahl 1990:191 – 192. 30 Bickerman 1979; Hengel 1974. Their views about Menelaus were partially followed by Bringmann 1983. 31 Tcherikover 1959:153 – 174; Hydahl 1990:193 – 194; Gruen 1998:29 – 31. See also the bibliography in Schwartz 2008:42 – 43. The letter of Antiochus IV to Menelaus and the gerousia (2 Macc 11:28 – 33), in which the king announced that Jews who ceased their resistance would be allowed to follow the Jewish law, was addressed to the Jewish Hellenizers (Tcherikover 1959:215 – 218; Habicht 1976b:11). Since the Hellenistic reform movement attempted to abort the decrees, it probably did not initiate them. Yet, the abundance of Rhodian amphorae in Jerusalem in 180 – 151 BCE (and to lesser degree, already from 211 BCE) is an archaeological indication of the halakhic laxity (or low social boundaries in relation to Gentiles) of the hellenized Jews. 32 For the view that the rebellion preceded the decrees, and not the other way around, see Tcherikover 1959:175 – 203; Habicht 2006:95. 33 Habicht 2006:96 – 97.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pursuit of Hellenism

21

the Seleucid troops who forced them to transgress the Jewish Torah. Their rebellion was against the political system which persecuted their religion and imposed paganism upon them.34 According to 1 Maccabees, Judah fought against the Gentile mercenaries of the Seleucids (“the nations”), not against “Greeks.”35 The non-Jews with whom Judah clashed in Transjordan and elsewhere were not designated as Greeks, but as “the surrounding nations.”36 The Maccabean wars against the Hellenistic cities resulted from ethnic and territorial conflicts, and not from an anti-Hellenistic attitude.37 The Maccabees did not confront “Hellenists” as such, but Seleucids and other Gentile neighbors. They learned soon enough to negotiate and cooperate with the Seleucids when political interests were at stake. Hyrcanus captured and demolished the Hellenistic-Idumaean city of Marisa, but also maintained good relations with the Ptolemies and Romans.38 All the Hasmoneans refrained from attacking Askelon, an independent Greek polis and an ally of the Ptolemies.39 In 164 BCE Judah and his supporters were involved in negotiations with Antiochus IVand the Seleucid authorities headed by Lysias, as well as with the Roman delegates.40 In 152 – 143 BCE Jonathan and Simon collaborated with the Seleucid kings Alexander Balas, Tryphon, Demetrius II and Antiochus VII against their Seleucid foes. When Alexander Balas appointed Jonathan high priest he sent him purple garb and a gold crown (1 Macc 10:20). Jonathan attended Balas’s wedding to the daughter of Ptolemy IV at Ptolemais (Akko); the king enrolled him among his “first friends” (and later on, following his military successes, among the king’s “kinsmen”) and named him strategos and meridarch (1 Macc 10:59 – 66, 89). Later on, Antiochus VI, guided by Tryphon, accorded Jonathan the privilege of wearing purple and gold (1 Macc 11:57), and nominated Simon strategos of the coastal plain.41 Maccabean politics went far beyond the Seleucids. Judah established a treaty with Rome that was continued by Jonathan, Simon, and John 34 Gruen 1998:4. Compare Rajak 1990:267 – 269. 35 Gruen 1998:5 – 8. On the ethnic composition of the Seleucid army, which also included Macedonians; see Bar-Kochva 1989:90 – 105. 36 Schwartz 1991. 37 Gruen 1998:27 – 28; Rajak 1990:272. Cf. Tcherikover 1959:247 – 249. 38 Kasher 1990:123 – 125. 39 Kasher 1990:150 – 151. 40 Lysias’s letter (2 Macc 11:17 – 21) addresses the Jews as a crowd (ple¯thos), that is, as an unconstitutional body that is not competent to take part in negotiations. Note that the Jewish agents have Hebrew names rather than Greek ones. The letter from the Romans (2 Macc 35 – 38) was also addressed to the Maccabees. See Habicht 1976b:10 – 12. 41 Gruen 1998:14 – 18. For a summary of the relationship between the Maccabees and the Seleucids, see Fischer 1990. The extent of hellenization implied by these nominations is demonstrated by the identities of previous strategoi: Apollonius son of Tharseas and Apollonius son of Menestheus (2 Macc 3:5; 4:4; Goldstein 1980:204, 222). For the Seleucid political perspective, see Stern 1995:23 – 87. For purple as a sign of the kings’ friends in the Seleucid kingdom, see Bikerman 1938:41 – 44.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

22

Introduction

Hyrcanus.42 Jonathan and Simon also fostered an alliance with Sparta; the author of 1 Maccabees ascribed to the Spartans special virtues and fantasized about Jewish participation in Greek civilization.43 Thus, Judah and his brothers were more than willing to enter into formal relationships with Western Gentile powers. 1 Maccabees therefore discloses a “complex pattern of reciprocal relations and mutual dependency that undermines the concept of fundamental antagonism.”44 In fact, the growth of Maccabean authority in Judaea owed much not only to success in the battlefield but also to associations cultivated by the Hasmoneans with various Hellenistic rulers, who were also dependent on the favors of the Seleucids and granted public recognition by them. “Hasmonean success in war and politics owed more to connections than to conflict with the Hellenistic world.”45 Put simply, the Maccabees became an integral part of the Hellenistic political milieu. As observant Jews, the Maccabees rejected many of the components of Hellenistic culture, but they did embrace others. Judah’s commanders and delegates to Rome had Greek names: Eupolemus, Jason, Dositheus, and Sosipater.46 Jonathan and Simon sent to Sparta and Rome delegates whose fathers’ names were also Greek: Numenius son of Antiochus, and Antipater’s son Jason.47 Greek language was an integral part of the Hasmonean cultural milieu. Without it the Hasmoneans could not communicate with the world. Simon built a monumental tomb for his father and brothers in Mode’in. It consisted of seven pyramids topped by trophies of armor and ships, inspired by Hellenistic (and Roman) monumental art—patterns also used by Seleucid generals. Simon thus employed Hellenistic models to commemorate the Maccabean family.48 This attests to adjustment, adaptation, and the creative appropriation of Hellenism.

42 1 Macc 8:1 – 32; 12:1 – 4; 16:15 – 24; Ant. 14.145 – 148; Stern 1991:51 – 98; 1995:89 – 91; Sievers 1990:68 – 70. 43 1 Macc 12:7 – 23; 14:16 – 23; Gruen 1996. Katzoff 1985, however, pointed to the special unhellnized background of this treaty (based on a supposed descent from Abraham): both the Jews and Spartans had recovered laws that were abolished by the Acheaens or Seleucids. 44 Gruen 1998:9. 45 Gruen 1998:28. 46 1 Macc 8:17; 2 Macc 4:11; 12:24, 35. 47 1 Macc 12:16; 14:22, 24; 15:15. 48 1 Macc 13:27 – 30. Cf. the account of Josephus in Ant. 13.211, where the trophies and carved ships are omitted and the stress is put on the roofed colonnades. Fine 2005:61 – 65 stressed the aniconic character of the monument. For Greco-Roman parallels, see Sievers 1990:106 – 107 and references. The monument was still familiar to Eusebius, Onomasticon (ed. Klostermann, p. 132).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pursuit of Hellenism

23

The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans In light of the hellenization of the Maccabees, the Hellenistic elements used by the Hasmoneans no longer seem innovations, but rather the continuation and acceleration of an existing cultural trend, although it is necessary to note the limits of this usage. Hyrcanus, Alexander, Aristobulus, Antigonus, and Alexandra were all Greek names (the Hebrew names of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II are not recorded by Josephus). But these names are recorded by Josephus and other sources written in Greek, whereas the Hasmonean coins use mostly Hebrew names.49 Roman edicts mention Hasmonean delegates; some had Greek names, such as Lysimachus son of Pausanias, Alexander son of Theodorus, and Patroclus son of Chaireas (Ant. 14.222, 307). The Hasmonean coins also adopted Hellenistic symbols, such as the cornucopia and the helmet, commonly seen on Seleucid coins.50 Hyrcanus and Jannaeus hired Greek mercenaries, and the battlefield was the center of their kingdom.51 In fact, from the time of Judah’s battle in Beth Zachariah the Maccabean army adopted Hellenistic models of warfare, including the use of cavalry and semi-heavy and heavy infantry. The Hasmoneans used Hellenistic, and to certain extent also Roman, military weapons and tactics.52 Had they done otherwise, any confrontation in the open battlefield would have resulted in swift defeat. Some have regarded the institution of Hasmonean kingship as Hellenistic, and the reign of Queen Salome Alexandra may seem to have been directly influenced by that of the Ptolemaic Cleopatra.53 Judah Aristobulus and his widow persecuted even their relatives, confining mothers and brothers to prison (Ant. 13.302, 320). Jannaeus had mistresses (Ant. 13.380). Some scholars have characterized the Hasmoneans negatively as Hellenistic rulers who pursued their rule at the price of jailing and even killing their sibling rivals.54

49 See Chapter 5. Rappaport 1991:486 – 487 concluded that the Greek names aimed to reflect openness towards the Hellenistic world, noting that Parthian and Nabataean rulers kept their native names. 50 Kindler 1993. See Chapter 5. 51 Ant. 13.374, 377 – 378; Rappaport 1991:492 – 493. Schalit (1972:283 – 284) pointed to the military character of Jannaeus’s kingdom, in which noble warriors controlled the country. Thus, for example, the warrior aristocracy, like the members of any Hellenistic court, supported Aristobulos II’s bid to take over the kingdom (Ant. 13.408 – 429; 14.45). 52 Bar-Kochva 1989:69 – 81, 432 – 437; 1999; Shatzman 1991:11 – 35. 53 Rappaport 1991:500 – 501. For conflict and marriages related to succession and the Hellenistic influences, see Geiger 2002. 54 Tcherikover 1959:252. Compare Plutarch, Demetrius 3.4, who termed the murder of brothers a common practice among princes who want to secure their rule. See also Josephus’s lament on the decline and fall of the Hasmoneans Ant. 14.77 – 48, 490 – 491, which points to the internal stasis that ruined their rule.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

24

Introduction

Scholars have concluded that the Hasmoneans conformed to the conventions of the Hellenistic world, but also accepted the restraints of Jewish law (e. g., no graven images).55 In evaluating the extent and motivation of their hellenization, it is appropriate to distinguish between conscious and unconscious influences.56 Some of the Hellenistic elements mobilized by the Hasmoneans were necessary for political survival (military tactics, armor, and mercenaries). Others, such as the institution of kingship, were predictable and even natural in antiquity (see Chapter 4). Certain practices penetrated the Hasmonean court in consequence of communication with the Hellenistic world (Greek names, diplomatic treaties). The tensions and intrigues within the Hasmonean family were not necessarily an imitation of the Hellenistic courts, but merely consequences of the centralization of political power.57 Perhaps the most striking evidence for conscious hellenization is Josephus’ assertion that Judah Aristobulus styled himself philhellene.58 However, Aristobulus is also praised by Timagenes of Alexandria, as cited by Strabo, for converting some of the Ituraeans and acquiring their land. The impression is that his attraction to Hellenistic culture was not at the expense of commitment to Jewish identity. In fact, the very concept of mass conversion may have been inspired by the Hellenistic concept of politeia.59 We have seen how the success of the Maccabean revolt made it possible for ancient Jews to transform Greek culture for their own purposes. The adoption of Greek ways by the later Hasmoneans does not represent a reversal of Maccabean ideals. In many cases the association with Hellenistic kings advanced Jewish interests and did not result in compromises of Jewish integrity.60 This is not very surprising once we realize that Judaism and Hellenism were not distinct or contrasting cultural entities, and that Judaism was not merely influenced by Hellenism or assimilated into it. Jews took an active part in Hellenistic culture and society from the time of Alexander throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods.61 The Hasmoneans applied Hellenistic conventions towards their own (Jewish) ends, just like other rulers of the age. This does not mean that Hellenistic culture prevailed in Judaea and its environs outside of the Hasmonean court. Until the Herodian period it penetrated slowly and gradually.62 Also in Syria there was relatively slight 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Tcherikover 1959:250 – 253; Rappaport 1991:489, 502; Rajak 1990:esp. 277 – 278. Rajak 1990:265 – 266. Rajak 1990:277 – 278. Ant. 13.318. The title is typical of non-Greek rulers who supported Greek cultural values, including the Nabataean king Aretas III (Kasher 1990:134 – 136). Ant. 13.319; Cohen 1998:109 – 139. See also Chapter 7. Gruen 1998:40. Satlow 2008 and references. Stern 1991:3 – 21. Millar (1978:20) concluded: “The evidence shows how un-Greek in structure, customs, observance, literary culture, language and historical outlook the Jewish community had remained down the earlier second century, and how basic to it the rules reimposed by Ezra and Nehemiah had remained.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Sources: Panegyric and Hostile Historiographies

25

Hellenistic influence, and only several new cities were established. There is a lack of evidence for “fusion” of Near Eastern and Hellenistic cultures outsides the urban centers and the upper classes. But even among the latter the Greek culture was absorbed without losing local traditions and non-Greek identity. In the Phoenician cities, which were not colonized but were hellenized at their own initiative, Phoenician culture nevertheless prevailed.63 It therefore seems that the Hasmoneans were not exposed to low levels of Hellenism in the borders of their own territories but rather to the highest levels, found in the royal courts of the Seleucids and Ptolemies.64 Affirmation of this impression will be provided later in the discussion of the swimming pools in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho, and I will try to show that their inclination towards Hellenistic culture was geared towards the strengthening of their rule. My treatments of the hellenization of the Hasmoneans in the following chapters will therefore not deal with its extent but rather in the manner in which it was used: how the Hasmoneans translated Hellenistic features into their own culture and for what purposes these elements were implemented.

4. The Sources: Panegyric and Hostile Historiographies Although the historical evidence on the Hasmoneans is relatively rich, the sources are notoriously unbalanced. 1 and 2 Maccabees praise the Maccabees; Josephus sometimes sympathizes with them, but mostly denounces them. A general assessment of the major sources, their dates, and their approaches towards the Hasmoneans is necessary before they may be used to uncover cultural history. 1 Maccabees The author of 1 Maccabees expressed admiration and respect towards the Hasmoneans. He may even have been a Hasmonean court scribe.65 Schunck argued that the author had transferred stories from Judah, or even Hyrcanus, back to Mattathias, in order to lend legitimacy to the Hasmonean dynasty through its founder.66 63 Millar 2006a:esp. 27, 30; 2006b. 64 Kasher 1990:137. For their good relationship with the Ptolemies, see Stern 1991:88 – 124. 65 Geiger 1928:206 – 219; Goldstein 1976:4 – 36, 72 – 78; Fischer 1992:441 – 442; Rappaport 2004:48 – 49. For admiration of the Hasmoneans, see, e. g., 1 Macc 2:65 (Simon); 5:62 (the family in general); 13:54; 16:23 – 24 (Hyrcanus). 66 Schunck 1954:62.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

26

Introduction

Some scholars have dated 1 Maccabees to the days of Alexander Jannaeus.67 Goldstein argued that the concluding reference to the reign of Hyrcanus (16:23 – 24) indicated that the book was written after his death, and that hence the author was an advocate of Jannaeus.68 Goldstein also noted that Mattathias encouraged his descendants to be both high priests and kings (2:54, 57), thus foreseeing their appropriation of the royal title. Goldstein, however, needed to explain why, if the author supported Jannaeus, the wearing of the diadem was condemned (8:14)—which seems to critique the Hasmonean appropriation of kingship; Jannaeus was a king and the diadem itself appears on Jannaeus’s coins.69 Most scholars have dated 1 Maccabees to the days of John Hyrcanus. Seth Schwartz argued that the nationalistic outlook attests to the beginning of Hyrcanus’s reign, prior to the hellenization of the Hasmoneans. Rappaport noted that there is no mention of Hyrcanus’s death, and thus dated the book to ca. 125 – 115 BCE.70 Stern observed that since the author admires the Roman republic (8:14), he did not wholeheartedly support Jewish monarchical government. Bar-Kochva dated the book to the beginning of Hyrcanus’s reign (ca. 129 BCE) since most of Hyrcanus’ achievements and conquests are not mentioned, probably because the author was unacquainted with them. The only significant act that is ascribed to Hyrcanus is the building of the walls of Jerusalem (16:23), which most likely occurred at the beginning of his rule after the siege of Antiochus VII.71 It therefore seems that there are sufficient arguments for ascribing the Hasmonean ideology of 1 Maccabees to John Hyrcanus and his associates. The sources and reliability of 1 Maccabees were studied by Bar-Kochva. He concluded that the author, who wrote the original book in Hebrew, used eyewitness reports, oral testimonies, official archives of documents and chronicles (note the references to exact dates in Seleucid reckoning). The author was a witness to the Maccabean revolt, reliable and accurate in his detailed battle descriptions, despite his tendency to use biblical associations. Although he did add passages, especially speeches, from his own imagination, he produced consistent and coherent historical writing, especially in comparison to 2 Maccabees.72 67 Abel 1949:xxviii-xxix dated it to 100 BCE (with bibliographic survey). 68 Goldstein 1976:62, 64, 72 – 73. 69 Goldstein 1980:71 – 75, 81. He explained that the book was written before 90 BCE, when Jannaeus had struck only his high priestly coins (which are considered by some to be the earlier types). 70 Schwartz 1991:17, 36 – 38; Rappaport 2004:61; cf. Stern 1991:348 – 349. Momigliano 1980:564 – 566 dated 1 Maccabees no later than 129 BCE because of the absence of any reference to the elimination of Pergamum and the establishment of the Roman province Asia in chapter 8. For dating to the later days of Hyrcanus, see Fischer 1992:441 and references. 71 Stern 1991:348 – 349; Bar-Kochva 1989:162 – 164. 72 Bar-Kochva 1989:152 – 162, 166 – 170, 401 – 402. On the Hebrew original, see ibid., 168 – 169. Schunck 1954:36 – 51 suggested that the author also drew on Seleucid chronicles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Sources: Panegyric and Hostile Historiographies

27

2 Maccabees In contrast to 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees was written in Greek by a Diaspora Jew, Jason of Cyrene, and abridged by an anonymous epitomist (2:23). The book describes the Jewish hellenization movement, the Seleucid persecutions, and the Maccabean revolt led by Judah Maccabee, ending with his victory over Nicanor in 161 BCE. The book’s title is “on Judah Maccabee” (2:19). After his final victory over Nicanor, Judah is characterized as “he who with his whole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fellow citizens” (15:30). Several scholars have characterized the book as a “festal legend” which aimed to encourage the observance of H. anukkah and Nicanor’s day.73 The author’s attitude towards the Hasmoneans is sometimes considered to be indifferent, if not downright hostile: Mattathias is not mentioned at all, and the accomplishments of Judah’s brothers also go unmentioned.74 However, such assessments ignore the book’s genre, that of pathetic-rhetorical Hellenistic historiography (also affected by the “tragic” school), which focuses on a single figure. For this reason 2 Maccabees focused its attention on Judah, and there is no reason to see here an opposition towards the Hasmoneans.75 To the contrary, the admiration of Judah implies that the subsequent struggle of his brothers for the very same aims would have been favorably seen as well. Dating 2 Maccabees based on internal evidence is difficult. The conventional view presumes that Jason of Cyrene wrote very close to the days of Judah Maccabee.76 The epitome may be dated more concretely, based on the chronologies of the preceding letters. Momigliano and Habicht dated the epitome to 124 BCE, the presumed date of the first letter (1:9 – 10).77 Doran argued that the epitome postdated the first letter since it was edited in order to align it with this letter ; thus, the epitome was composed in the days of 73 For these holidays, see 2 Macc 10:8; 15:36. See Doran 1981:75, 105 – 106; Schwartz 2008:7 – 10, following Bunge and Momigliano. Nicanor’s Day was still celebrated in Josephus’s time (Ant. 12.412), and was mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit (Noam 2003:298 – 302). Schwartz, however, argued that the book originally established Nicanor’s Day, while H . anukkah came only at a later stage. In his opinion, 2 Macc 10:1 – 8 is a later insertion, which separates Antiochus IV’s death (ch. 9) from the summary of this event (10:9), and which was added when the introductory letters were joined to the epitome. Schwartz also noted that H. anukkah is not mentioned in the epitome except for this section (but, I would also add, Nicanor’s Day is also mentioned only once). 74 Hengel 1974:1.97. Goldstein 1980:17 related this to his view of the Hasmoneans as “ineffective and at worst tainted by treason and sin.” Goldstein’s attempt to find anti-Hasmonean polemic in 2 Macc 10:19 – 22; 12:36 – 40 is forced, since the author mentioned sins amongst the Maccabean soldiers that were dealt with seriously by Judah. 75 Habicht 1976a:188; Geiger 1984; Bar-Kochva 1989:172 – 178. 76 E.g., Habicht 1976a 175 – 176 n. 45. 77 Momigliano 1975:82 – 84; Habicht 1976a:172 – 176.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

28

Introduction

Hyrcanus.78 Daniel Schwartz, however, dated the first letter to 143/142 BCE, and hence dated the epitome slightly earlier.79 The admiration of Judah, and the implied favorable view of the Hasmoneans, should therefore be dated to the early days of John Hyrcanus, or perhaps to the days of Simon. Although 2 Maccabees may have been written far from Jerusalem, the author had reliable knowledge of the Seleucids and their relationship with the Jews; note the authentic official documents in chapter 11.80 Even the legendary story of Heliodoros (chapter 3), who attempted to plunder the Temple, has gained a certain credibility following the recent discovery of an inscription from the very same years in which Heliodorus was assigned to supervise the temples in Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯.81

Josephus Josephus’s descriptions of the Hasmoneans and their rule pose complex methodological problems. Not only did he use various Hellenistic sources (some are critical and others more neutral), but his own attitude to the Hasmoneans was ambivalent. There is a general agreement that Nicolaus of Damascus was Josephus’ sole source for his account of the Hasmonean period in the Jewish War. In Antiquities, Josephus continued to use Nicolaus, but he also employed other Hellenistic historians, especially Strabo.82 This technique gave his presentation of the Hasmoneans strong Hellenistic characteristics that distorted the picture of their rule as seen by their Jewish contemporaries. Nicolaus of Damascus was Herod’s (Gentile) advisor and envoy. When he wrote his Universal History he glorified Herod, painted the Hasmoneans in dark colors, and minimized their achievements, in order to legitimize Herod’s rule. He portrayed the reign of Hyrcanus II negatively, stressing the centrality of Antipater, Herod’s father. The official Roman documents included in Antiquities Book 14, however, praise Hyrcanus II and attest to his authority, as earned from Julius Caesar, while Antipater is barely mentioned. Hence 78 Doran 1981:5, 112 – 113. Goldstein 1980:82 – 83 argued that the original book was written in response to (hence, later than) 1 Maccabees, possibly in 86 BCE. 79 Schwartz 2008:11 – 12, 139 – 140, 143 – 144, 519 – 529 followed the date “year 169” in 2 Macc 1:7, since he read in 2 Macc 1:9 – 10 “year 148” (164 BCE; he argued that this refers to the original festival of H. anukkah), instead of the conventional reading “year 188” (143/142 BCE). 80 Habicht 1976b. See also Bar-Kochva 1989:171. 81 Gera 2009a:148 – 150. Different conjectures have been raised concerning the author’s sources, such as eyewitness testimony, oral traditions, and written sources. Schunck 1954 and Hengel 1974:1.96 argued that a history of Judah Maccabee was the common source of both 1 and 2 Maccabees, along with perhaps also a chronicle of the Seleucids. 82 See Ant. 13.251, 286 – 287, 318 – 319; 14.35, 68, 104; Hölscher 1916:esp. 1944 – 1949; Laqueur 1920. On Nicolaus and Strabo, and Strabo’s incorporation of Posidonius and Timagenes, see Bar-Kochva 1996a: 2010:399 – 439; Stern 1991:425 – 431; Shatzman 1992:54 – 55; 1993; Schwartz 1994: 210 – 211.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Sources: Panegyric and Hostile Historiographies

29

Josephus’ narrative was based on Nicolaus, who gave Antipater the credit for Hyrcanus’s achievements in order to justify Herod’s rule.83 Furthermore, Josephus’s description of Jannaeus’s wars included more details about his enemies and the non-Jewish population than about the Jewish side, and was accompanied by sympathy toward the Greek cities, especially Gaza. Jannaeus’s military achievements, such as his defeat of Antiochus XII and the Nabataeans, which is implied only in the references to Jannaeus’s final territorial occupations, are minimized or even muted. The presentation of Judah Aristobulus’s short reign focused on his court’s intrigues with his brother Antigonus, whereas Strabo (based in turn on Timagenes) presented Aristobulus as an extremely successful ruler : he was kind, acquired further territories for the Jews, joined some of the Ituraeans to the Jewish nation, and called himself philhellene.84 Although Nicolaus probably did not fabricate his descriptions of internal tensions within the Hasmonean family, or their Hellenistic court style,85 he stressed these factors while understating other, more favorable characteristics. Josephus was a descendant of the Hasmoneans (Life 2). He praised them as “a splendid and renowned (royal) house because of both their lineage and their priestly office, as well as the things which its founders achieved on behalf of the nation” (Ant. 14.490). This outstanding statement catches the essence of the Hasmonean ideology (see Chapter 3). In his rewriting of 1 Maccabees, for example, Josephus stressed the courage, piety, and righteousness of the Maccabees, but also their alliance with the Seleucids. They are committed to the law and fight for the liberty (eleutheria) of their people—namely, the right to live in accordance with the laws and customs of the fathers (Ant. 12.303; 13.198)—but not for political independence. In order to reduce the opposition between Jews and Gentiles, Josephus also omitted passages that condemn the Gentiles’ idols, as well as Judah’s call to fight against “the nations.”86 In Antiquities Josephus is much more sympathetic to the Hasmoneans than in

83 Schwartz 1994:esp. 211. For Nicolaus’s history of Herod and his attitude towards Judaism, see Regev 2010:215 – 219. In his writings on the Hasmonean period before the rise of Hyrcanus II and Antipater, Nicolaus probably used earlier Hellenistic historians; most of them are unknown, although it seems that he used Diodorus for the description of the three delegations to Pompey (Ant. 14.37 – 46; see Chapter 4). See Stern 1991:459 – 460. Nicolaus’s writings, however, were not entirely anti-Hasmonean. He designated Ptolemy Lathyrus’s troops as “the enemy” in Ant. 13.388, 340, whereas Strabo (who used Timagenes of Alexandria, and hence identified with the Ptolemies) designates the Jews as the enemy (Ant. 13.280, 359, 360). See Bar-Kochva 1999:14. 84 Stern 1991:461 – 463. Compare Shatzman 1991:117 – 122. For Aristobulus, see Ant. 13.301 – 319; Stern 1993. 85 See Aristobulus’s jailing of his brothers (Ant. 13.302, 320); John Hyrcanus’s hatred of his son, Jannaeus (ibid., 322); and the call of Jannaeus’s supporters to his daimo¯n after his death (ibid., 415 – 416). 86 Feldman 1994:esp. 45 – 47, 65. For Josephus’ distortion of the Maccabean religious ideology of national freedom and his addition of the idea of martyrdom, see Gafni 1989.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

30

Introduction

War ; several explanations have been offered for this difference, which is certainly related to his exclusive use of Nicolaus in War.87 Nonetheless, Josephus criticized Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, and later on Mattathias Antigonus, lamenting the fact that their civil wars had led to the loss of the independence of the Jewish nation and its subjection to the Romans, as well as the loss of the land to “the Syrians” (Ant. 14.77 – 78, 490). In fact, Josephus is not overtly pro-Hasmonean in Antiquities, and it seems that several critical comments regarding Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra stem from his own pen.88 In contrast to his admiration of John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.282, 299 – 301), Josephus described his grandson Hyrcanus II as unsuited for politics. He stressed Hyrcanus II’s lack of capability and criticized the manner in which he accepted Antipater’s rise to power. It seems that he would have preferred that Hyrcanus II withdraw from politics and let Aristobulus II rule.89 Other Hellenistic and Roman historians provide both positive and negative assessments of the Hasmoneans, especially in relation to their conquests of non-Jewish populations and the (supposed) destruction of Hellenistic cities. Most of the negative ones derived from cultural and political interests, such as siding with the Greek poleis. According to Shatzman, Strabo’s characterization of the Hasmoneans as tyrants derived from Theophanes of Mytilene, who chronicled Pompey’s conquests and was therefore hostile to the Hasmoneans.90 On the other hand, the Roman historian Pompeius Trogus expressed a 87 Josephus’s nationalist standpoint in Ant. has been broadly acknowledged, e. g., Stern 1991:453 – 459. According to Laqueur 1920:128 – 221 Josephus rewrote Ant. 14, altering Nicolaus by incorporating a more nationalist tone and a polemic against Antipater and Herod. Fuks 1990 suggested that during the period of 79 – 94 CE, after the Great Revolt, Josephus felt that the Romans had become less sensitive to Jewish nationalism; Josephus could therefore glorify the Hasmonean rulers, even though the later Hasmoneans resisted Roman occupation. For example, he added an account of Hyrcanus’s destruction of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim (Ant. 13.256), along with detailed explanations for Jannaeus’s cruel punishment of and revenge on the rebels, including the crucifixion of 800 of them and the slaughter of their families before their eyes. Josephus also mentioned that when the king was injured in the battles against the rebels, his opponents sought the aid of foreigners, and that due to the rebellion, he had lost to the Nabataeans territories in the Transjordan (Ant. 13.380 – 382); and he included Antigonus’ claim that the Romans should not give the kingship to Herod, who was half a Jew and not a priest, but rather to Antigonus’s royal family, “to those members who had committed no offence against the Romans” (14.403 – 404). 88 Schwartz 1994:215 – 216, 219. Jannaeus: Ant. 13.323, 381 – 383; Alexandra: Ant. 13.417, 430 – 433 (note the conflicting assessments of her reign and personality). Shatzman 1992:56 – 57 argued that the hostility towards the Hasmoneans also derived from Jewish traditions, e. g., the Pharisees’ opposition. 89 Schwartz 1994:210, 218 – 232, esp. 228. 90 Strabo, Geographica 16.2, 40; Stern 1976:296 – 297, 301 – 302, 307 – 308; Shatzman 1992:39. For Strabo’s evaluations, both positive and negative, see Shatzman 1992:35 – 40. For Diodorus’s hostility and criticism, see Shatzman 1992:52. See also Tacitus, Histories 5.8, 3 (Stern 1980:20, 28, 47 – 49; Shatzman 1992:47 – 48) who stressed Jannaeus’s brutal violence (perhaps referring to the civil war between Jannaeus and the Pharisees), as an expression of Roman stereotypic

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Ideology, Legitimization, and Power

31

positive attitude towards the Hasmoneans as kings and priests, and associated Jewish independence with the Hasmonean treaty with Rome, although he also condemned the Hasmonean wars as robbery.91

5. Ideology, Legitimization, and Power In the following chapters I draw on the concepts of legitimacy, ideology, and power. It is necessary to make clear what I mean when I use these terms and to articulate the social-scientific theoretical background that guides my analysis.

Legitimization Legitimization is essential for every ruler or government who wishes the public to ascribe legitimacy to their acts and very existence.92 The ruler’s aim is that his subjects judge their own behavior by the criteria of their rulers, achieving ethical coherence.93 The process of legitimization asserts the ruler’s distinctive identity since this process entails being recognized as marked by particular qualities. It involves the construction and manifestation of identity, mainly through the use of symbols. Identification, however, also means sharing the same values with others (the ruler’s subjects).94 As we shall see, some of the Hasmoneans’ vehicles of legitimization, especially their coins and palaces, are also addressed to the Hasmoneans themselves. Here Barker’s model of self-legitimization is especially relevant. According to Barker, it is important for rulers to cultivate their own selfidentification, apart from the instrumental function of seeking prestige and power. They aim to mark their identity as distinctive, and to obtain a coherent sense of identity.95 This self-legitimization of rulers through the symbolic enactment of their unique identity (e. g., in the case of the Hasmoneans, by using both Jewish and Hellenistic symbols of power on their coins) is part of the rationalization of their rule. When this rationalization fails, government fails.96 Every ruler and government aims to legitimate their actions. Roman imperial “ideology” during the Principate, for example, aimed to please the

91 92 93 94 95 96

views on eastern monarchies. On the Hasmonean policy towards the Hellenistic cities, see Shatzman 1991:43 – 82; 1992:53 – 54, 58 – 63. Stern 1976:332, 338 – 342. See Shatzman 1992:45 – 46. Weber 1948:78 – 79; 1978:213. Eagelton 1991:55; Barker 2001:37 – 38. Barker 2001:32, 35 – 36. Barker also reviewed previous scholarship on the subject. Barker 2001:135, 137, 139. Cf. ibid., 2 – 4, 13 – 14, 30 – 31. Barker 2001:65

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

32

Introduction

urban plebs, feeding and entertaining them, continuing the republican tradition. The conciliation of the Roman masses was necessary to achieving their consent.97 In the Aztec state, the rulers validated their office through religious and legal institutions. The deities of conquered people were incorporated into the Aztec pantheon, while the Aztecs’ major god was promoted to a preeminent place as a symbol for the unity of the entire empire. State benefits such as food distribution during crisis periods demonstrated the power of the state and enhanced the citizens’ commitment.98 An important aspect of Hasmonean self-legitimization was the use of the religious sphere to achieve political justification: the establishment of the festival of H. anukkah to commemorate the rededication of the Temple (a festival that also involves ritual symbolism, which promotes political power); the exploitation of the relationship to the Temple to gain authority ; and the portrayal of the Hasmoneans as religious leaders (for the latter, see Chapter 3). Geertz had pointed to the inherent sacredness of the sovereign power (e. g., the sacred characteristics of kings). He discussed several cases in which symbolic forms of expressing power justify its existence. Geertz concluded that this “political theology,” in which sacredness is inherent in central secular authority, is required to produce a cultural framework to define political authority and advance its claims.99

Ideology For some, ideology is a pejorative term, synonymous with propaganda, illusion (Marx), or “false consciousness” (Engels). According to Mosca, the ruling class possesses some resources or attributes which are esteemed by or influential in the society, and exploits these resources to advance its own power. The ruling class rules using ideology or “the political formula” to convince the population of its legitimacy ; e. g., through the exploitation of religious and national sentiments.100 A more positive view of ideology was introduced by Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks. Gramsci inverted the classical Marxist theory, claiming that the struggle for hegemony by a social class depends not on the seizure of economic power but on the establishment of a political and a moral-intellectual leadership. For Gramsci, ideology is a worldview with norms for action, just 97 Griffin 1991. 98 Kurtz 1978. 99 Geertz 1977. For the claim that authority or kingship is a gift from God, used as a means of legitimization in the ancient Near East, ancient Israel, and ancient Greece, see Launderville 2003. 100 Mosca 1939. “Ruling classes do not justify their power exclusively by de facto possession of it, but try to find a moral and legal basis for it, representing it as the logical and necessary consequence of doctrines and beliefs that are generally recognized and accepted” (70).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Ideology, Legitimization, and Power

33

like religion. It is the terrain in which people acquire all their forms of consciousness and organize actions and practices. All ideologies are expressions of communal life, and are by and large political. The formulation of the collective will is a product of intellectual and moral reform that rearticulates social meanings and identities, with a national-popular character.101 Current critical theorists concur with this view. Broadly defined, ideology denotes a set of ideas by which people posit, explain, and justify the ends and means of organized social or political action, whether to preserve, amend, or uproot the social order.102 Ideology serves to sustain relations of domination and submission, and legitimizes the power of a dominant social group or class. The dominant power may thus promote beliefs and values congenial to it, naturalize and universalize such beliefs to render them self-evident and apparently inevitable. It denigrates ideas which might challenge it, and excludes rival forms of thought and obscures social reality in ways convenient to itself.103 Successful ideologies render their beliefs natural and self-evident, creating a commonsense social order that nobody could imagine as organized differently. A tight correspondence is created between ideology and social reality, diminishing the relevance of critique against the ruler. The reality generated by ideology becomes a self-evident truth. When this is accomplished, the given ideology ceases to appear as a factional interest at all.104 This applies to the Hasmonean Temple ideology, since the centrality of the Temple was taken up as a Hasmonean interest. Ideologies are often thought to be unifying and action-oriented. They lend coherence to the groups or classes which hold them, thereby allowing them to impose a certain unity upon society as a whole.105

Power The manner in which these concepts of legitimization and ideology operated in practice depends on one’s understanding of governmental power. If one follows Hobbes’ Leviathan concerning society’s concession of power to the sovereign in exchange for protection of life and property, the Hasmoneans 101 Mouffe 1979. 102 Eagleton 1991:6 – 7, following Seliger. See also the various case studies in Claessen and Oosten 1996. 103 Eagleton 1991:5. 104 Eagleton 1991:57 – 58. For Althusser 2001:118 – 119, ideology is always implicit or concealed and never presents itself as an ideology. 105 Eagleton 1991:45. According to Althusser’s (2001:114 – 116) “material ideological apparatus,” ideology operates through actions, practices, and rituals and constitutes concrete individuals as subjects.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

34

Introduction

may be seen as imposing their ideology on the Jewish society through the establishment of a hierarchal relationship. In contrast, Foucault introduced a relational concept of power. For Foucault, power is not an objective and independent entity but a network of social relations which is not confined to the sovereign body, involving political institutions and a repressive relationship between sovereign and subject. Power also has a productive sense within society ; it generates concepts, ideas, and structures of institutions; it produces reality and “rituals of truth.”106 Thus, Foucault transforms politics into epistemology in what Rouse termed “epistemic sovereignty”: i. e., power relationships disseminated through extensive social networks which produce knowledge, social cohesion, etc. Power is constituted by the members of society who support or resist it.107 The implication is that the various means of Hasmonean organization or manipulation of consent went beyond a repressive state apparatus (i. e., a military and judicial system). Through H. anukkah, the Temple cult, the claim to uphold religious values, the messages on their coins, and the architecture of their palaces, the Hasmoneans built up power relations within Jewish society. They constituted or reinforced values and institutions that aimed to preserve the public’s appreciation of their rule. Some of these institutions and rites (H. anukkah and the Temple) or material transmitters of values (coins) created social relations not only between the rulers and their subjects, but also between the subjects themselves, deepening the Hasmoneans’ ideology and legitimacy. The analysis of the symbolic representation of Hasmonean authority in the following chapters therefore provides more than a glimpse into the culture and society of the Jews in Judaea, and to certain extent, the relationship with the Jewish Diaspora. The social-scientific concepts of legitimization, ideology and power enable us to look at the Hasmoneans’ own acts and discourse in a more objective manner. Still, a critical reader may feel ill at ease due to my very favorable presentation of the Hasmoneans. It should be stressed, however, that this book does not attempt to make an objective historical judgment concerning the Hasmoneans as rulers. The evidence at hand is too scant to afford this. This book is mainly about how the Hasmoneans themselves viewed their own role in history. It also discusses the people’s reception of and reaction to the Hasmoneans, but here too the evidence is general and unbalanced. I have therefore tried to uncover how the Hasmoneans attempted to rule and to what extent their ideology was successful, without attempting to give an after-thefact verdict on their moral conduct and politics.

106 See especially, Foucault 1977:194. 107 Rouse 2003:102 – 120, esp. 106 – 107.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

A Note on Terms and Translations

35

6. A Note on Terms and Translations Differentiating between the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans is difficult, since Judah, his brothers, and his nephew John Hyrcanus are all mentioned in 1 Maccabees. I use “Maccabees” for Mattathias, Judah, Jonathan, and Simon, and “Hasmoneans” to denote all the rulers from Jonathan to Mattathias Antigonus. Another complication is the proper translation of the Greek Ioudaioi, Hebrew Yehudim, namely, the ethnic terms for Jews in antiquity. In both linguistic contexts, the terms express descent, geographical location, and religious characteristics. For the sake of clarity, I usually use “Jews” for both the Jews within Judaea108 and those of the Diaspora, or the ancient Jewish people in general.109 I will specify the geographical, Judaean character of the term when necessary. Use of the terms national and nationalism is inevitable when addressing the Hasmoneans and Jewish identity in antiquity. This is due to the popular usage of these terms, which is, however, anachronistic in this context. Throughout the first six chapters I will use these terms in quotation marks to denote the developing sense of Jewish ethnic/collective identity. I will further clarify and nuance them (with the necessary cautions) in Chapter 7. For citations of ancient texts I have used the following translations: For Josephus, the Loeb Classical Library edition; for 1 Maccabees, Goldstein 1976; for 2 Maccabees, Schwartz 2008; for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar 2000; for the Letter of Aristeas and Psalms of Solomon, Charlesworth 1985; for the Mishnah, Danby 1987; for the Tosefta, Neusner 1977; for the Babylonian Talmud, Epstein 1936.

108 Admittedly another unclear term, referring to the state or geographical unit named after its Jewish/Judaean inhabitants, roughly identical to the Land of Israel. 109 For the problem and this solution, see Schwartz 2007. A more complicated terminology, distinguishing Judaeans (in the geographical and ethnic sense) from Jews (in the religious sense) was suggested by Cohen 1999:69 – 106. See the discussion in Chapter 7 below. Mason (2007) showed that Ioudaismos/Ioudaioi is an ethnic rather than religious term, deriving from the homeland Ioudaia, and therefore argued that their English designation should be Judaeans. Although the terminological similarity to modern Jews may seem anachronistic, in many cases it is difficult to ascertain to what extent the relationship of the ancient Ioudaioi to Judaea obtains.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter One H. anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees Shortly after Judah Maccabee defeated the Seleucid army at Beth Zur, and Lysias and his army retreated from Judaea, the Maccabees entered Jerusalem. On the 25th of Kislev, 164 BCE, Judah purified the Temple. This was a crucial turning point in the history of the Jews in general and of the Temple in Jerusalem in particular. Judah entered the Temple in Kislev since this was his first opportunity to have done so. The opportunity probably arose because Antiochus Epiphanes had been killed in the East and the Seleucids were too busy to oppose Judah’s capture of Jerusalem.1 However, the exact day of the rededication of the Temple on H. anukkah in 164 BCE was not chosen at random: it was the anniversary of the Temple’s desecration.2 This chapter will examine the ritual character of H. anukkah. It will articulate the religious and political ideology of the Temple from the perspective of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans. First I will discuss the cultic characteristics of the festival as “the festival of Tabernacles” (Sukkot) in 2 Maccabees and how they are related to the biblical days of millu’im (dedication of the Tabernacle/Temple). Then I will turn to the cultic ideology expressed in the second letter at the beginning of 2 Maccabees, which is attributed to Judah Maccabee. Finally, the political aspects of H. anukkah and its special significance for the Maccabees and Hasmoneans will be discussed.

1. H. anukkah as Days of Millu’im The original rededication of the Temple on H. anukkah in 164 BCE was structured as a ritual purification lasting eight days. It is therefore referred to as “the days of the dedication of the altar” (1 Macc 4:48). Judah and his men purified the Temple, built a new altar, consecrated it, and prepared new sacred vessels; they prepared new incense, lit the lamps in the Menorah, placed the showbread on the table, and rededicated the altar with numerous sacrifices, 1 For the military background of Judah’s achievement, see Bar Kochva 1989:276 – 282. For the chronology of the books of Maccabees and the evidence on Antiochus IV’s death, see Flusser 1996. VanderKam 1987:23 – 40 dated the dedication of the Temple to 165 BCE. 2 1 Macc 4:46; 2 Macc 10:5. Antiochus Epiphanes originally placed the “loathsome structure” in the Temple on 25 Kislev, that being the date of festivities in honor of Dionysus, as well as his own birthday ; see Hengel 1974:2.201 n. 271, 203 n. 289; VanderKam 1987:34 – 36.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. anukkah as Days of Millu’im

37

song, and prayer. 1 Maccabees explicitly states that the dedication of the altar lasted eight days and that Judah and his men declared that every year the eight days should be observed as a festival, beginning on the 25th day of Kislev (1 Macc 4:41 – 48). The festival is referred to as “the Purification (of the Temple)” (2 Macc 1:18; 2:16.) This purification involved certain sacrifices, for the purpose of the sinoffering (Hebrew H . at.t.at—with the connotation of cleansing or purging) was to purify the altar. It should be recalled that Exod 29 and Lev 8 – 9 define the days of millu’im as a ceremony of seven or eight days in which the altar was consecrated and the priests ordained (the term millu’im is related to the term used in Exod 29:9 for the ordination of the priests), so that they would be able to perform their ritual duties.3 It therefore appears that the description in 1 Maccabees is essentially a millu’im ceremony, although there are no details of the sacrifices, nor is it stated that the priests were ordained. Josephus, who relied on 1 Maccabees, also stated that the festival was established to commemorate the renewal of the sacred service, adding that it was called (the festival of) “Lights” (pho¯ta).4 John 10:22 refers to H. anukkah as the festival of the “dedication”.5 One question, however, is surprisingly unanswered in 1 Maccabees, or, for that matter, in any other ancient source: Why did the rededication of the Temple in Judah Maccabee’s time last eight days? The rabbis’ answer referred to the miracle of H. anukkah. They asked, “What is H. anukkah?” and told the story of the jug of oil that lasted eight days (b. Shabbat 21b), but did not fully explain why the oil was needed for eight days. However, Mss. Oxford and Parma of the Scholion to Megillat Ta’anit preserved older traditions. The miracle happened on the date that the altar was dedicated, and the preparation of the altar and of “iron spits” (the lampstand) took eight days. What is more significant is that in the Scholion the festival of H. anukkah corresponds to the eight days of the inauguration of the Temple in the times of Moses and Solomon.6 The answer should now be clear : Eight days was the time that Moses needed to inaugurate the Sanctuary, and therefore the dedication ceremony under Judah Maccabee took eight days. As we shall see, the relationship between H. anukkah and the days of millu’im is more pronounced in 2 Maccabees.

3 For the days of millu’im see Milgrom 1991:494 – 569. On the sin-offering as a purifying sacrifice see ibid., 253 – 264. A somewhat similar ceremony, purifying the Temple in eight days, is attributed to Hezekiah (2 Chron 29:17 – 36). 4 1 Macc 4:36 – 57; Ant. 12.325. 5 Davies 1974:293 – 294. 6 For H. anukkah in rabbinic literature, see Tabori 1995:268 – 290. For the traditions in the Scholion see Noam 2003:266 – 276.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

38

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

2. H . anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees The earliest references to the nature and duration of the festival in 2 Maccabees present a perplexing problem: for some reason it is referred to as “the festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot).” In the first letter at the beginning of 2 Maccabees (1:9), the writers inform the Jews of Egypt, “And now (we have written to you) so that you shall celebrate the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles (age¯te tas he¯meras te¯s ske¯nope¯gias) of the Month of Kislev.” The second letter (2 Macc 1:18) reads, “As we are about to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of Kislev the purification of the Temple (ton katharismon tou hierou), we thought it necessary to inform you so that you too shall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles and fire (age¯te te¯s ske¯nope¯gias kai tou puros) that Nehemiah (celebrated) when, after constructing the Temple and the altar, he offered up sacrifices.”7 The first letter, sent to the Jews of Egypt by the people of Jerusalem, is usually dated to 124 BCE (Daniel Schwartz dated it to 143/2 BCE).8 The second letter is not dated (I will follow the view that, if it is authentic, it was written in 163 BCE), but the opening lines state that the people of Jerusalem and Judah (Maccabee) sent it to the Jews of Egypt. The letters are the oldest sources on the festival of H. anukkah; if the second letter is authentic, they both reflect the views of the Maccabees themselves. Surprisingly, the festival is referred to twice in these letters, with no further explanation, as “the festival of Tabernacles.” The antiquity of the letters indicates that at that time the festival did not have its own name and that apparently Sukkot was the festival most closely resembling it. In the main text of 2 Maccabees (10:6 – 8), perhaps written later, there is a long explanation of the link between H. anukkah and Sukkot, though this is by no means clear :

7 The expression “as the Days of Tabernacles” age¯te ho¯s ske¯nope¯gias (2 Macc 1:18) is difficult. It is not clear whether ske¯nope¯gias is to be understood as accusative or genitive. Some commentators have explained it as “make/celebrate the Days of Tabernacles” (VanderKam 1989:31 – 32; Kahana 1960:2.334; Nodet 1986:334); others have translated it in the sense of “celebrate (it) after the manner of the Days of Tabernacles” or “as the Days of Tabernacles” (Goldstein 1980: 154, 171 – 172; Schwartz 2008:130). Abel 1949:292 – 293 translated in accordance with the first alternative, but remarked that ho¯s ske¯nope¯gias might be a translation of “like the days of the Festival of Tabernacles.” Goldstein 1980:153 and VanderKam 1989:32 noted that in all three occurrences of ske¯nope¯gia (Tabernacles) the text omits the prefix hepote¯ (“festival”), which always occurs in the Septuagint. Clearly, the association of H . anukkah and Sukkot is stronger if the first alternative is correct—for then the festival is actually called Sukkot! However, even assuming the second, according to which 2 Macc 1:9, 18 call for the 25th of Kislev to be celebrated like, that is, after the manner of, Sukkot, it is still unclear how one festival can be celebrated “like” another. 8 2 Macc 1:9; Schwartz 2008:11 – 15, 37, 139, 519 – 529. On the authenticity and content of the first letter see Bickerman 1980a; Goldstein 1980:24; Schwartz 2008:132 – 133, 135 – 143.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H . anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees

39

Joyfully they held an eight-day celebration, after the pattern of Tabernacles (he¯meras okto¯ ske¯no¯mato¯n), remembering how a short time before they spent the festival of Tabernacles like wild beasts, in the mountains and in the caves. Therefore, holding wreathed wands and branches bearing ripe fruit, and palm fronds, they offered songs of praise to Him Who had victoriously brought about the purification of His Place. By vote of the commonwealth they decreed a rule for the entire nation of the Jews to observe these days annually.

The new festival (the “eight days”) is nameless. The relationship between it and Sukkot is anything but clear, and more than one explanation is given. Was H. anukkah intended to commemorate the festival of Tabernacles celebrated in the past, when the Jews were fugitives? Was it celebrated with three of the “Four Species” of Sukkot as an imitation of Sukkot? If so, why was Sukkot selected and not another festival? Was the reason simply that Sukkot was the last festival celebrated before the date of the new festival? After all, the “loathsome structure” had been standing in the Temple for three years, during which time many other festivals and rituals had not been celebrated! The text of 2 Macc10:6 – 8 is probably later than the two letters cited above,9 and should not be considered fully reliable without further examination. Even if the text is taken at face value, it is still puzzling why both letters call H. anukkah “the festival of Tabernacles” (or “the Days of Tabernacles and the Days of the Fire”), although they undoubtedly relate to a festival in Kislev. Moreover, the first letter was clearly written when the festival had already been celebrated for some years, and yet the same strange designation is used. An understanding of the complex relationship between H. anukkah and Sukkot is essential for the reconstruction of the origin or evolution of the festival, and will also help to explain the motivation behind its establishment by the Maccabees. I will first review the various attempts to resolve these difficulties, pointing out the problems others have raised, and subsequently present my own explanation. (1) Geiger and Leszynsky argued that since it is not logical that the two festivals of H. anukkah and Sukkot could be confused, the text must be corrupt.10 However, such a corruption could hardly have occurred in three different documents. (2) Krauss, Hochfeld, and Zeitlin suggested that the Maccabees and the rebels could not celebrate the festival of Sukkot in Jerusalem at the proper time since Antiochus’ decrees were in force and the “loathsome structure” was 9 Even Goldstein, who considered the second letter a forgery (see below), agreed that 2 Macc 10:6 – 7 was based on the same source as 1 Macc 4:56, but added the Sukkot customs (Goldstein 1980:380 – 381). That the passage is later is even more obvious if the second letter is dated around 163 BCE. 10 Geiger 1928:227 – 228, suggested that the translator misinterpreted the word h. ag, “festival” (= H. anukkah), as referring to Sukkot, in keeping with the rabbinic usage of the word as denoting Sukkot (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:2; m. Sukkah 3:13). See also Leszynsky 1911. For a rejection of this view see also Doran 1981:4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

40

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

standing in the Temple. They celebrated it more than two months later, after the Temple had been purified.11 However, this is unreasonable since a festival can be celebrated only at its appointed time. The only precedent in Jewish history for such a celebration at the “wrong” time was King Hezekiah’s Passover, which was postponed for one month because of the priests’ impurity and certain technical difficulties (1 Chron 30:2 – 3). Under such circumstances, however, the Torah itself permits the celebration of a “Second Passover” (Num 9:9 – 14). Even if the celebration was purely symbolic, the question still remains, why Sukkot was celebrated, rather than Passover or the Day of Atonement, whose sacrifices had also not been offered in the Temple for three years. (3) Goldstein conjectured that Judah had extended the Jewish year with two intercalary months (which had not been declared till then, owing to the loss of Jewish control over the Temple). Thus, the month of Kislev of the year, before intercalation, was actually Tishrei of the intercalary year.12 However, there is no basis for this conjecture: H. anukkah was celebrated not on the 15th of the month (the date of Sukkot) but on the 25th; and the first letter explicitly states that the festival was celebrated in the month of Kislev, not Tishrei. (4) Doran, Nodet, and VanderKam cite the passage in 2 Macc 10:6 according to which the eight days were intended to commemorate the rebels’ own plight at the time of the festival of Sukkot, when they were living in caves in the mountains. Consequently, these scholars have maintained that the celebrants identified with the festival as symbolic of the Israelites’ wandering in the desert, when they dwelled in tabernacles.13 While there are certain similarities between the rebels and the Israelites in the Sinai wilderness, there are also differences in terms of cultic as well as spiritual experiences. The Israelites were escorting the sacred Tabernacle, their camp was holy, they ate manna and quails, and God Himself made them live in tabernacles (Lev 23:43). On the other hand, the rebels were living in fear like wild beasts, and ate grass in order to maintain ritual purity (2 Macc 5:27). I suggest that the reference to the rebels’ wandering was meant to stress the very achievement of the return to the Temple, not to explain the meaning of the festival. (5) The most common explanation is that H. anukkah was celebrated after the fashion of or under the influence of Sukkot. Abel, Wacholder and others have pointed out several common features: We read in 2 Macc 10:7 of “wreathed wands and branches bearing ripe fruit, and palm fronds”; the festival is a time of rejoicing and recitation of the Hallel (the ritual reciting of Ps 113 – 118 in the synagogue prayer); both are associated with fire (recalling 11 Krauss 1895:29; Hochfeld 1902:277; Zeitlin 1938 – 39:23 – 24 (but Zeitlin believed that this was nothing but propaganda designed to persuade the Egyptian Jews to celebrate H . anukkah). 12 Goldstein 1976:273 – 280. Goldstein’s suggestion is related to his theory of the events that led up to the dedication of the Temple. Cf. also Nodet 1986:333 – 335. VanderKam, 1989:34 rejected this view. 13 See Doran 1981:5 – 6 n. 9; Nodet 1986:336; VanderKam 1989:31 – 34.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H . anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees

41

the celebration of the “water-drawing” celebrated in the Temple during the festival of Tabernacles); and of course the two festivals supposedly lasted eight days.14 The possibility that the description is authentic, and that in 164 BCE the festival was indeed celebrated with a combination of motifs derived from the Sukkot festival, cannot be entirely discounted. Perhaps it was believed that the most appropriate way to celebrate the victory would be to “borrow” customs from the festival most explicitly associated with rejoicing (cf. Deut 16:13, 15); perhaps these customs were appropriated in order to pray for rain, as done on Sukkot. However, most of the elements mentioned are not specifically associated with Sukkot. First, the festival of Sukkot is actually not eight but seven days (Lev 23:34 – 42; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron 7:9; the eighth day constitutes a separate festival). Fire and light are expressions of joy in any context, as are palm fronds, which were also waved to celebrate the occupation of the Acra fortress on the 23rd of H. eshvan.15 Hence the only explicit link with Sukkot is the reference to the wreathed wands (of myrtle?) and the “branches bearing ripe fruit.” How significant are these references? Assuming that the main part of 2 Maccabees postdated the letters, the author/redactor may well have added these elements in order to explain to its readers why the festival was called “the festival of Tabernacles” in early sources, such as the letters. Since the letters do not explain the association with Sukkot, but treat it as self-evident, it is possible that the explanation in 2 Maccabees is not authentic. Nevertheless, even if the first festival of H. anukkah was celebrated with myrtle wreaths and “branches of ripe fruit” like Sukkot, it is doubtful whether this was so significant as to leave such a strong imprint on the new festival that it would still be called—during Simeon’s rule—”the festival of Tabernacles” (no-one would argue that the people actually built tabernacles or booths!). I believe there is a better explanation for the name of the festival, which (if the passage in 2 Macc 10:7 – 8 is indeed authentic) will also explain why some customs of Sukkot were practiced on H. anukkah. (6) Liber argued that 2 Maccabees compares H. anukkah to Sukkot because both festivals involved inauguration ceremonies in the Temple. The new 14 Abel 1946; Wacholder 1978:105. For the recitation of Hallel on H . anukkah and assumptions as to the association of this practice with Sukkot see Noam 2003:273 – 274. Some have associated the fire motif of H. anukkah with the rejoicing of the water-drawing (cf. Wacholder 1978:112 n. 55). For a survey of the similarities between the two festivals see Rankin 1930:91 – 102, 175 – 176. Rankin, however, did not believe that H. anukkah was established according to the pattern of Sukkot. 15 For light as a manifestation of joy see e. g., Esther 8:16. On the capture of the Acra see 1 Macc 13:51. Compare Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (on “Palm Sunday”) accompanied by people with branches (Mark 11:8; Matt 21:8 – 9; John 12:13, where palm branches are mentioned). As to the recitation of Hallel, it is not unique to Sukkot, and it is not known when the custom of reciting it on H. anukkah began (Noam 2003:273).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

42

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

festival established by Judah Maccabee was made to resemble the closest festival, which was indeed Sukkot.16 While Liber did not define or describe the ceremonies in detail, the sources he cited leave no room for doubt: these were the ceremonies of the days of millu’im, the dedication or inauguration of the Sanctuary and the Temple. Rubinstein and Nodet have offered similar explanations, without clarifying the relationship between H. anukkah, the days of millu’im, and Sukkot.17 Liber’s proposal was largely ignored, perhaps because only recently have scholars become aware of the fact that the millu’im ceremony was not confined to Moses’ inauguration of the Tabernacle (Exod 29; Lev 8 – 9) but was significant in Second Temple halakhah. The Temple Scroll found at Qumran prescribes the celebration of the days of millu’im as a yearly event, and the Sadducees probably followed the same view.18 The millu’im ceremony of inauguration of the Temple therefore had special importance in the Hasmonean period. I would like to further develop Liber’s proposal and show that the days of millu’im were indeed the reason for associating H. anukkah with Sukkot. There is a historical connection between the days of millu’im and the festival of Sukkot. Admittedly, the eight days of millu’im that inaugurated the Sanctuary in the wilderness took place in the beginning of the month of Nisan (Exod 40:1). According to 2 Chron 29:17 – 36, Hezekiah also performed an inauguration and purification ceremony on the first eight days of Nisan.19 Nevertheless, several similar ceremonies celebrating the dedication or

16 Liber 1912. Liber was influenced by Krauss’ association of H. anukkah with the inauguration of the Sanctuary in the desert (Krauss 1895:29), as well as by Leszynsky 1911. He relied on 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron 7:8 – 10; and Ezra 3:1 – 6, which imply that the Temple was inaugurated on Sukkot or around that time (see below). 17 Rubinstein 1995:58 – 63 attributed the similarity of H. anukkah and Sukkot to the central role of the Temple in both festivals, rightly arguing that the comparison was intended to legitimize the new festival, through reliance on the historical precedents during the time of Solomon and Nehemiah. However, he did not note the association with millu’im. Nodet 1986:332 – 335, like Liber, though without citing him, mentioned the connection between H. anukkah on 25 Kislev and the inaugurations of Solomon’s Temple and the Second Temple. Nodet also mentioned the reference to the inauguration of the Temple on 24 Kislev in Haggai 2:18 (Meyers and Meyers, 1987:63 – 64, conjectured that Haggai was referring to a symbolic act in the Temple). For the calendrical importance of the end of the month of Kislev, as the date of the winter solstice and the beginning of winter or the new year, see Morgenstern 1947. Other scholars have pointed out a connection between H. anukkah and the inauguration of previous temples in antiquity. VanderKam 1989:33 – 34 suggested that the author of 2 Maccabees was particularly influenced by the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple, which took place on Sukkot. Cf. also Goldstein 1976:279 – 280. 18 Temple Scroll 14:9 – 17:4; Yadin 1977 – 1983:1.75 – 79, 2.44 – 54; Regev 2005:139 – 147. 19 Sifre Num 68 (Horovitz ed., 63); Temple Scroll 15:3 – 17:5; Yadin 1977 – 1983:1.78. Cf. Ant. 3.201, 206. Hezekiah’s ceremony in 2 Chron is not mentioned in 2 Kings and thus may reflect the view of the later author.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H . anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees

43

inauguration of the Temple were held on or around Sukkot,20 that is, in the month of Tishrei: (1) Solomon celebrated the inauguration of the Temple “at the Feast, in the month of Ethanim, that is, the seventh month . . . sacrificing sheep and oxen in such abundance that they could not be numbered or counted.” Solomon celebrated for “seven days and again seven days, fourteen days in all” (1 Kings 8:65); the seven days of millu’im may have been celebrated immediately after the seven days of Sukkot (or perhaps partly overlapping them).21 (2) The exiles returning from Babylon under Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jehozadak built the new altar in the seventh month and immediately celebrated the festival of Sukkot. While there is no specific mention of the consecration of the altar or the ordination of the priests, this may have been the purpose of the festival of Sukkot.22 (3) A link between Sukkot and the ordination of the priests is implied by the unique combination of narrative and law in the Book of Jubilees. In Jubilees, probably reflecting the middle of the second century BCE, the millu’im sacrifices are referred to in connection with the date of the festival of Sukkot. As Schiffman has shown, the description of Jacob’s celebration of Sukkot in Jubilees presents two lists of sacrifices (Jub 32:4 – 7). In the first, the number of sacrifices prescribed for the festival is several times greater than that of Num 29 (for example, instead of two rams, Jubilees prescribes twenty-eight rams). Schiffman has suggested that these sacrifices should actually be associated with the millu’im. If so, it transpires that Jubilees also preserves the association of the days of millu’im with the festival of Sukkot.23 This may in fact be proven 20 The importance of Sukkot in P’s festival calendar is implied by the considerable number of animals offered as sacrifices (e. g., 70 bulls); the fact that it is the last festival in the year ; and the large number of verses describing these offerings. See Num 29:12 – 34; Nihan 2008:185 – 186, 210, 216 – 217. Note that the name Sukkot (“Tabernacles”) appears in Lev 23:34 and Deut 16:13, although in Exod 23:16b; 34:22 the celebration is called “the festival of ingathering” (’asif). It should be also noted that Sukkot is a commemoration of the Exodus (Lev 23:43). Cf. Weyde 2004:113 – 142. 21 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron 7:8 – 10 (which implies that the altar was inaugurated in seven days, prior to the seven days of Sukkot); Josephus, Ant. 8.123. On the importance of the seventh month, see Gray 1970:207 – 208. For the chronological relationship between Sukkot and the inauguration of the altar, as well as a description of related problems see Mulder 1998:457 – 458. For attempts to explain the importance of the festival in the Temple, cf. Rubinstein 1995:20 – 25. For the Deuteronomist’s treatment of Sukkot, see Weyde 2004:145 – 162. 22 Ezra 3:1 – 6; Blenkinsopp 1989:97 – 98. It is hardly conceivable that the altar was erected after so many years of devastation and exile without some special ritual ceremony to consecrate the stones and the priests. Rubinstein 1995:33 concluded from the verse, “followed by the regular burnt offering and the offerings for the new moons and for all the sacred fixed times of the Lord, and whatever freewill offerings were made to the Lord” (Ezra 3:5), that the Sukkot sacrifices inaugurated the altar. The Temple itself was dedicated years later, around Passover (Ezra 6:16 – 20). 23 Schiffman 1985:223. VanderKam 1989 suggested that the additional sacrifices were also Sukkot offerings, but admitted that some of those listed seem to contradict this interpretation. At any

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

44

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

on the basis of the narrative framework in which the sacrifices are listed. The sacrifices that Schiffman associated with the millu’im—those of the fifteenth (of Tishrei) offered at Bethel—are listed after Levi had been ordained as a priest on the fourteenth of the month. After Levi’s ordination to serve as a priest in the temple at Bethel, Jacob accordingly brings him the tithe, clothes him in the priestly vestments and ordains him—the term used in Jub. 32:2 – 3 is “filled his hands.” This is the precise biblical expression mill et yado (Exod 29:29, 33, 34; Lev 8:33), from the same root as the word millu’im. Clearly, the author of the Jubilees associates the sacrifices of Sukkot with the days of millu’im. Since the whole book is concerned with chronology and halakhah, this association, attributed to Jacob, must have been intentional. (4) Another ritual event that took place around the time of Sukkot was the conclusion of the “covenant” in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8 – 10). Although a new altar was not erected, and nor was there an ordination ceremony, the occasion deserves mention because the second letter in 2 Maccabees refers to this event in the context of the days of millu’im in the time of Moses and Solomon. The authors of that letter point out the similarity between H. anukkah and that ceremony : “… we thought it necessary to notify you, in order that you also may celebrate the festival of Tabernacles and the festival of the fire given when Nehemiah, who built the Temple and the altar, offered sacrifices” (2 Macc 1:18). In their view, Nehemiah actually built the Second Temple and conducted a ritual ceremony involving the consecration of the altar.24 The letter devotes considerable space to an account of the ceremony, in which sacrifices were offered and prayers recited (2 Macc 1:21 – 36). The book of Nehemiah, however, only mentions the ratification of a covenant, in which the people committed themselves to the Torah and the Temple, reforming the sacrificial rites in the Temple.25 Nehemiah’s covenant was sealed in a public ceremony held immediately after Sukkot.26 Here the authors of the letter themselves made the connection between their own festival and a Temple event that had occurred immediately after Sukkot—an event that they may have considered a kind of consecration or ordination ceremony. rate, the list of Sukkot sacrifices in Jubilees 16:22 is also inconsistent with the biblical requirements. See Schiffman 1985:230; VanderKam 1989:230 – 231. The Book of Jubilees seems to describe a millu’im ceremony concurrent with the festival of Sukkot, lasting only seven days. 24 Wacholder 1978:117 – 20, and Goldstein 1980:174 – 176, thought that the author was confused and actually meant the dedication of the Temple in the Restoration period (Ezra 3). Nevertheless, the continuation of the text in 2 Maccabees seems to refer at length to a prayer offered in Nehemiah’s time, based on the prayer recited at the covenant ceremony (Neh 9). Perhaps Nehemiah’s reforms seemed to the author more significant than the dedication of the altar of the Second Temple. 25 Neh 9:1 – 3, 10:1 – 11:2. Sukkot is celebrated in 8:14 – 18. For the date of 24th of the seventh month (namely, Tishrei), see Neh 9:1. 26 Neh 10:33 – 40. For a detailed account of the revolutionary changes in ritual due to the covenant, see, e. g., Kaufmann 1956:331 – 362. For the date of the ceremony see Kaufmann 1956:324 – 330; Rubinstein 1995:34 – 44.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H . anukkah as the “Festival of Tabernacles” in 2 Maccabees

45

We have, therefore, three cases of days of millu’im (or, more precisely, ceremonies in which a temple was dedicated or inaugurated and an altar consecrated) occurring on or around the festival of Sukkot, in addition to the ratification of Nehemiah’s covenant, which took place right after Sukkot and which the authors of the letter saw in a similar light. There is also further evidence that Sukkot carried a special cultic significance in the postexilic period; note especially Zech 14:16 – 17, with its vision of all the nations coming up to the Temple every year at that time.27 These cases add up to evidence that attests to a ritual, or perhaps even a calendrical tradition, neglected by later generations (see below). When 2 Maccabees and the letters at its beginning refer to the Maccabees’ consecration of the altar as the festival of Tabernacles, they are probably referring to this ancient tradition. The connection with Sukkot did not arise merely because it was a festival when ceremonies were held in the Temple.28 It seems that Sukkot was the preferred time for the inauguration of the Temple and for ordination ceremonies. When three different sources in 2 Maccabees call H. anukkah “the festival of Tabernacles,” they are actually referring to the eight days of ordination or the consecration of the altar. One reason for the overlap between the two festivals was probably that both contain seven days plus one additional day : the eighth day of the millu’im (Lev 9), and the eighth festival day (‘atseret) immediately following Sukkot (Lev 23:26b; Num 29:35). “Sukkot” may thus be added to the list of designations for the new festival in 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is sometimes called “the days of the dedication of the altar”; the “purification of the Temple”; the “festival of purification,” or “of the fire”; or the “festival of Tabernacles [in the month of Kislev].” All these designations are related to either the ceremony of the dedication of the Temple or the eight days of millu’im. The varied designations for the festival clearly reflect the fact that the Maccabees and their supporters had established a new festival, and at first were uncertain how to name it. I suggest that the name “festival of Tabernacles,” that is, Sukkot, was first given because Sukkot, by dint of its relation to the eight days of millu’im, was the closest festival or ceremony to the Maccabees’ dedication ceremony, in respect to both its nature and the time of year. The fact that the festival was referred to as “the festival of Tabernacles” in the context of the dedication of the altar indicates a reliance on precedents according to which the Temple was dedicated in the autumn, unlike Moses’ days of millu’im in the month of Nisan, in the spring. I propose that it was as if the Maccabees were saying: Just as Solomon inaugurated the First Temple, the returning exiles consecrated the altar, and Nehemiah concluded the covenant, 27 Weyde 2004:147 – 236. 28 As Rubinstein 1995:319 – 320 argued. The background of the millu’im ritual on or close to Sukkot should be understood in light of the continuity of ritual traditions and social control in general. Compare Bell 1992:118 – 125.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

46

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

Judah Maccabee and his supporters reinstated the Temple rites. And just as was done in those circumstances, this latest rededication was carried out around the time of Sukkot (instead of the other alternative, at the beginning of Nisan). Such self-justification was in order, since the Maccabees wished the new festival to be celebrated annually, both in Judaea and in the Diaspora. To that end, they had to convince other Jews that they had not departed from tradition and merely invented a new festival, but were relying, rather, on a firmly based ritual and liturgical tradition. Admittedly, none of the sources mention explicitly that the H. anukkah in 164 BCE was actually the festival of the days of millu’im. The reason, I believe, is that the days of millu’im had beceme a major bone of contention among the halakhic schools of the Second Temple period. According to the Temple Scroll and Qumranic halakhah, the festival was to be celebrated annually (just like H. anukkah), not on Sukkot, but (following Exod 40:2) in the first eight days of Nisan.29 The Pharisaic polemic against the cultic practices of the Sadducees/ Boethusians during these particular days implies that the Sadducees also held annual celebrations in Nisan.30 The Pharisees and rabbis did not accept the tradition of an annual celebration of the days of millu’im. They argued that the ceremony should be performed only when a new Temple is built.31 They therefore could not accept that H. anukkah was modeled on an annual millu’im festival. Despite remnants of allusions to a millu’im ceremony, the early rabbinic tradition suggested other explanations for the festival.32 Acknowledging that H. anukkah essentially commemorates the eight days of millu’im celebrated by the Maccabees would raise halakhic difficulties for the Pharisees, Sadducees and Qumranites. Thus, H. anukkah’s original intention was suppressed.

29 Temple Scroll 14:9 – 17:4; Yadin 1977 – 1983:1.75 – 79, 2.44 – 54; Schiffman 1994b. 30 Regev 2005:139 – 147. See b. Menah. ot 68b and the beginning of the Scholion to Megillat Ta’anit (cf. Noam 2003:165 – 173). Erder 1992 argued that the Scholion actually disputes the position of the Temple Scroll itself. However, the tradition referred to a rival party that ruled the Temple, and not a separatist sect. 31 Sifra, Mekhilta de-Millu’im 1:37 (Weiss ed., 43a-b); Sifre Num 68 (Horovitz ed., 63); y. Yoma 1:5 (38a); b. Sukkah 43a; b. Yoma 2a; Yadin 1977 – 1983:1.77 n. 4. See also Knohl and Naeh 1993. 32 The author of the Scholion to Megillat Ta’anit (Ms. Parma) does not consider the reference to the millu’im of Moses and Solomon a convincing explanation for the length of H. anukkah, since in his view these lasted only seven days: “For the dedication performed by Moses was only seven… And that dedication performed by Solomon is only seven” (Noam 2003:265). The parallel in Ms. Oxford is badly damaged, but it may have associated the length of the festival with Solomon’s millu’im ceremony (Noam 2003:266). As Noam 2003:271 commented: “The reason that the length of the festival was fixed as eight days was apparently obscure even in antiquity. Each of the traditions incorporates artificial ‘excuses’ for the number eight.” Interestingly, Hochfeld 1902 attributed the transformation of H. anukkah from a Temple festival to a festival of light to the Pharisees’ anti-Hasmonean ideology.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology

47

3. Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology in the Second Letter of 2 Maccabees Further evidence for this characterization and justification of H. anukkah is found in the second letter in 2 Maccabees (1:10 – 2:18). The letter presented the days of millu’im in the times of Moses and Solomon, as well as Nehemiah’s covenant, as precedents on which the Maccabeans relied in their call to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate the festival of H. anukkah. The second letter was sent, as stated in its opening sentence, by the people in Jerusalem and Judaea, the gerousia and Judah (Maccabee) to Aristobulus, “teacher of King Ptolemy who is of the line of the anointed priests,” and to the Jews in Egypt. This Aristobulus is identified as the author of an exposition of the Mosaic Law which has survived in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius and is known to have lived around the time of the letter.33 Scholars have been divided as to the authenticity of this letter. The main reason that led many scholars to view this second letter as a fabrication is the legendary description of Antiochus’s death in Persia after having robbed a sanctuary (1:13 – 16), which contradicts the story of the King’s death from a painful disease (2 Macc 9:6 – 9; cf. Polybius Hist. 31.9 – 11). Bickerman found philological evidence for rejecting its authenticity, commenting that the greeting formula in 1:10 resembles formulas in papyri dated no earlier than 60 BCE. Goldstein argued that the letter was written in Egypt in 103 BCE and considered it part of a polemic against the temple of Onias. He concluded that the letter was forged, and that the writer was trying to present it as having been written just before the dedication of the Temple. In his view, the news of Antiochus’s death could not have reached Jerusalem before Kislev 25, and the Maccabees surely did not have time to inform the Jews in Egypt of their intention to celebrate the festival before that date.34 Notwithstanding these facts, more and more scholars have recently maintained that the letter may nonetheless be (mostly) authentic. The description of Antiochus’s death may be simply erroneous (it is harder to explain why the supposed later forger of the letter did not use reliable historical evidence regarding the king’s death); the anachronism of the greeting formula may be incidental, since the greeting formulas are an

33 Eusebius himself identified Aristobulus with the aforementioned Jewish philosopher ; see Praep. Ev. VIII.9.38. See Gutman 1969:2.186 – 188 who also discussed Aristobulus’s dates. Since Aristobulus directly addresses King Ptolemy in the text (e. g., Praep. Ev., 13.11.1), he may have considered himself (or have been considered by others) a tutor to the king, as designated in the letter. 34 Bickerman 1980a:136 – 137; Goldstein 1980:157 – 167; Habicht 1976a:199 – 200. For a further survey of research, see Wacholder 1978: 90 – 91.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

48

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

unstable criterion for dating a document;35 It is more likely that the letter was sent before H. anukkah of 163 BCE, a year after the altar was purified.36 Those who believe that the letter is a forgery date it to the time when H. anukkah was already an established festival and Hasmonean independence had secured the Temple from foreign intervention. Under these circumstances, one would expect the author, wishing to legitimize Hasmonean rule and the centrality of the Temple, to emphasize the Maccabean victory, the priestly devotion to the Torah, and the history of the Temple. However, as we shall see, the author focused on the dedication (millu’im) rituals of the altar and the holy fire, rather awkwardly introducing a ritualistic and mythic discourse. As I will demonstrate, the author is not interested in praising the Maccabees for their achievements, but rather in a religious justification for the invention of H. anukkah. I believe this emphasis more suitably reflects the ritual excitement and euphoria of the time when Judah and the Maccabees purified the Temple. Authentic or fabricated, it is necessary to look for the relationship between the contents of the letter and the fact that H. anukkah was a new millu’im festival, as I will now proceed to do. Those who view the letter as inauthentic may regard the interpretation of the letter presented here as reflecting the perceptions of the later pro-Hasmonean author who fabricated it. Those who are more convinced that the letter is indeed authentic—written on the eve of H. anukkah 163 BCE, that is, shortly before the anniversary of the dedication of the altar—may view it as attesting to the Maccabean perception of the days of millu’im and the Temple myth; that is, as an early and official attempt to justify the invention of H. anukkah. The letter’s purpose was to argue for divine support for, or protection of, the Second Temple, and for its sacred continuity with the First Temple.37 However, the manner in which it proclaims the sanctity of the Temple has been dismissed as by modern scholars an obscure compilation of references to biblical sources and curious legends (also because it is fragmentary and corrupt). The fact that the authors chose to legitimize the Jerusalem Temple in

35 Doran 1981:6 – 7; Schwartz 2008:37, 144, 146, 376, 528 – 529, who suggested that the epistle had an authentic origin and that it was added to the book in Jerusalem not later than 143/142 BCE. 36 Wacholder 1978. This proposal resolves a good many of the difficulties pointed out by other scholars (such as the reference to the purification of the Temple in the past tense, 2 Macc 2:18). Goldstein argued that the letter could not have been sent a year later, because Judaea was under siege. This argument, however, derives from a hypothetical historical interpretation of Dan 12:11. According to 1 Macc 6:18 – 21 at that time Judah and his men were besieging the Acra fortress. Flusser 1996:56 – 58, suggested that the news of Antiochus’s death (cf. 2 Macc 1:13 – 16) might have arrived before the dedication of the Temple; he dated the letter to Kislev 164 BCE. In addition, Wacholder 1974:239 n. 66 argued that a forger would not have used the name of a relatively unknown person like Aristobulus. For further arguments in favor of authenticity see Bunge 1971:32 – 55; Fischer 1980:86 – 100. 37 E.g., Schwartz 2008:525 – 529.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology

49

this peculiar way, unparalleled in other Second Temple sources, requires further examination of the letter’s content. I would like to propose that the content of the letter discusses the relationship between H. anukkah (and ancient ceremonies connected to the dedication of an altar) and the hope for the renewal of “the holy fire” which symbolized the Divine Presence of God in the Temple. The theme of altar dedications is consistent with the designation of the festival as “the festival of Tabernacles” and is also closely related to the return of the holy fire. Both themes perpetuate the history of the consecration of the altar and demonstrate its divine sacredness.38 The letter therefore reveals a unique religious and ritual conception of H. anukkah, probably characteristic of the Maccabees and contributes greatly to our rather meager knowledge of the Maccabean religious ideology. The letter opens with an account of the circumstances of Antiochus Epiphanes’s death and goes on to call for the celebration of the festival of “the purification of the Temple,” that is, H. anukkah. Subsequently, there are several lengthy accounts of ceremonies performed and prayers offered in the Sanctuary in Moses’ time, in the Temple in Solomon’s and Nehemiah’s times. Also included are legends about the fire on the altar, as well as the tent, the Ark (of the Covenant), and the incense altar, which had been hidden when the First Temple was destroyed. The letter ends with the observation that the same things are reported in the records of Nehemiah, who collected various books about the kings and the prophets, and that Judah (Maccabee) collected these books, which had been lost because of the war. Finally, the call to celebrate the festival is repeated, with thanks to God and an expression of hope for the ingathering of the exiles. The structure of the letter naturally provokes the question: Why did the author(s) of the letter see fit to recount various ceremonies observed in the Temple, as well as the secret history of the Temple utensils at such great length (thirty-one out of forty-five verses!). Wouldn’t it have been more natural to report the Maccabees’ heroic deeds as an explanation for the festival? To answer these questions, let us take a closer look at the content of the letter’s component parts.

38 Contra Wacholder, 1978:130, who defined the theme of the letter as “indebtedness to God or his miraculous salvation”, or “ingathering of exiles.” Goldstein 1980:24 – 26, 160 – 161, 177, and others, believed the main thrust of the letter to be a polemic against supporters of the temple of Onias (cf. 2:17, where the authors announced that God had restored the priesthood to His people), claiming that the sacred service in the Temple was continuing despite the absence of the Oniads. However, if the letter was indeed written in or around 163 BCE, Onias’ temple was established only later. See Josephus, Ant. 13.387 (which states that Onias fled to Egypt after Alcimus had been appointed high priest, in 162 BCE); Gruen 1997. For the proponents and opponents of the anti-Oniad theory see Gruen 1997:64 nn. 85, 87. Gruen himself (ibid., 64 – 66) rejected it.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

50

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

First, the days of millu’im, though never mentioned by name, have a central part in the letter. After recounting the legend that Jeremiah concealed the altar fire, the text states that in the future, when the fire is again revealed, the glory of the Lord will be revealed as it was in the cloud to Moses and Solomon (2:8 – 13). It then goes on to state that Solomon brought sacrifices for the inauguration of the Temple and also “kept the eight days,” and that, following Moses’s and Solomon’s prayers, fire came down from heaven and consumed the flesh of the sacrifices. The reference is undoubtedly to the days of millu’im in Moses’s and Solomon’s times. On both occasions fire descended from heaven in the millu’im ceremonies as a sign of God’s acceptance of the sacrifices and acknowledgment of the sacred ceremony (Lev 9:24; 2 Chron 7:1). Another reference to the ceremony is made in the context of the Israelites’ wandering in the desert, in a verse attributing to Moses the obscure statement, “because the sin-offering was not eaten but consumed,” apparently referring to the sin-offering of the millu’im.39 Perhaps the original letter included a more comprehensive reference to the laws of the millu’im ceremonies. This preoccupation with millu’im supports the abovementioned interpretation concerning the reason for designating H. anukkah as “the festival of Tabernacles.” It is clear from the letter that the inspiration for instituting the new festival came from the tradition of Moses’s millu’im ceremonies and, in particular, the rites performed by Solomon and Nehemiah on or around Sukkot. Another important feature of the letter is the two legends concerning sacred objects which were hidden. The first concerns the concealment of the fire of the altar in a dry cistern at the time of the Babylonian exile, and subsequent developments in Nehemiah’s time (2 Macc 1:19 – 23). The priests hid the fire at the time, and later Nehemiah sent a descendant of these priests to retrieve it; however, the priest found nothing but water in the cistern. Nehemiah then ordered that water be brought, and thereupon a great fire blazed up on the

39 2 Macc 2:11. For the sin-offering of the millu’im see Lev 8:17; 9:10 – 11; Milgrom 1991:80 – 81, 525, 635 – 640. Cf. Exod 29:14; Lev 4:3 – 21. The above verse from 2 Macc is apparently a paraphrase of the commandment concerning the sin-offering; it may well be only part of a more complete account of the laws of millu’im, the original wording of the letter having been corrupted when it was added to the book, or in the process of copying. Cf. Goldstein 1980:184 – 186, who argued that the verse is a slightly corrupted version of the Greek translation of Lev 10:17. However, that verse, which concerns Aaron’s eating of the sin-offering after his sons’ death, is inconsistent with the context in the letter and in any case has no significance for later generations. To my mind, therefore, this is not a (corrupted) quotation from the Bible but a paraphrase of the relevant commandment concerning the millu’im; after all, the letter characteristically does not quote biblical verses but rewrites biblical events (such as Jeremiah’s letter, Goldstein 1980:181 – 188; cf. especially 2 Macc 11:2, for which there is no parallel). It is indeed interesting that the writer saw fit to dwell on the law of the sin-offering, probably because of his concern with the sacred service on the days of millu’im and the special sacrifices offered then. Perhaps he did so because the law of the sin-offering in the millu’im ceremony is unique and involves certain interpretive difficulties. Cf. Milgrom 1991:581 – 589, 636 – 8; Sifra, Mekhilta de-millu’im 1:14 (Weiss ed., 41c–d); Temple Scroll 16:10 – 14; Milgrom 1991:562 – 566.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology

51

altar. At this point the text interpolates Nehemiah’s prayer40 and then resumes the story of the holy fire, mentioned above. This sacred and hidden fire is related to the one revealed in the consecration ceremonies of Moses and Solomon. The fire is explicitly mentioned seven times in the letter (1:19, 20, 22, 33; 2:1, 10[twice]). The holy fire symbolized God’s indwelling in the holy place and approval of the proceedings, and seems to be the definite aim of the entire Temple cult. Significantly, the name of H. anukkah is “the holiday of Tabernacles and fire” (2:18), perhaps because the fire returned to burn at the altar. The motif of fire was preserved in the festival’s designation by Josephus as “the festival of Lights” (pho¯ta), since, as Josephus suggested, “the right to worship appeared to us at a time we hardly dared to hope it” (Ant. 12.325). The next episode of the letter describes Jeremiah instructing the exiles to hide the tent, the ark, and the incense altar in a cave. He then prophesied that the sacred objects would be rediscovered only under special circumstances, after which God’s glory would be revealed in a cloud (interpolated here is a fragmentary account of the days of millu’im in the times of Moses and Solomon, as already explained). Interestingly, this tradition is echoed in other works, in particular that of Eupolemus (on which see Chapter 2) and it was presumably well known in Judaea.41 Here the letter states that these things are reported in Nehemiah’s writings and that later Judah collected the books (the authors even offered to their correspondents to send the books for their perusal). What is the connection between all these details? While the letter has survived in a fragmentary and corrupt version, obscuring the connection between its component parts, its contents are by no means a random collection of biblical episodes and meaningless legends: one can discern in all of them a common thrust. The days of millu’im are the climax of the Temple 40 As explained by commentators, such as Goldstein 1980:177 – 178; Abel 1949:294. However, contrary to these verses, it has been argued that 2 Macc 1:24 – 30 describe the ceremony in Judah’s’ time. Kahana, 1960:180, in fact identified the “Jonathan” mentioned in v. 23 with Jonathan the Hasmonean. 41 Eupolemus, On the Kings of Judaea, wrote that the Ark of the Covenant and the tablets kept therein were removed by Jeremiah. See Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 39:5; Holladay 1983:134 – 135. Some authors have concluded that Eupolemus and the writer of the letter drew on a common source, while Wacholder 1974:238 – 242 suggested that Eupolemus himself wrote this passage, if not the entire letter. A similar legend is referred to at greater length in 2 Baruch 6:7 – 10, where Jeremiah promises that the vessels will be preserved till the End of Days. Kahana 1960:181 rightly associated this tradition with the fact that Jeremiah (52:17 – 23) does not report the Ark as having fallen into Babylonian hands. Cf. the legends about the hiding of the Ark in the Temple, m. Sheqalim 6:1 – 2, and further apocryphal and rabbinic sources cited by Wacholder 1974:239 – 240. As to the holy fire, Wacholder 1978:117 – 120, pointed out that the addressee of the letter, the Egyptian-Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, was particularly interested in fire, having devoted a large section of his work to the fire descending from heaven and its presence at Sinai as a portent of the theophany (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8, 10, 13 – 17).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

52

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

ritual, as implied by the biblical descriptions in Exod 29, Lev 8 – 9, 1 Kings 8, and 2 Chron 7, and by the text of the letter itself. That ceremony was intended to purify the altar and prepare the sanctification of the Temple and its vessels. The desired end of the ceremony was the revelation of the Divine Presence in the Sanctuary/Temple.42 The fire, the Tent of Meeting, the Ark of the Covenant and the incense altar from the First Temple—all these symbolized channels of communication between God and His people, in effect signaling the Divine Presence in the holy precinct. The Ark and the holy fire, which were absent in the Second Temple, symbolized an ideal ritual.43 The legends concerning their concealment and the hopes for their rediscovery may have expressed the authors’ eschatological longings and expectations that the Temple rites would ultimately achieve perfection, signaling God’s infinite love for His people.44 The letter adds the comment that the written tradition of the concealment of the utensils was preserved from Jeremiah’s time to Nehemiah’s, and thereafter by Judah Maccabee. Only one detail was missing to make Judah’s achievement perfect and complete: the rediscovery of the holy fire and the resultant appearance of the Divine Presence in the Temple.45 The letter therefore discusses the ritual sanctity of the Temple. It describes the dedication or inauguration of the Temple through the millu’im ceremony—this was indeed achieved in the Maccabees’ time: The Temple was purged, the altar rebuilt, and the eight-day-long rites performed. However, another, higher, phase of sanctity—the restoration of the original Temple vessels and the holy fire—had not yet been achieved, and perhaps was still expected. The letter might have presented Judah Maccabee as the bearer of these expectations, the rightful successor to Nehemiah. Why did the writers of the letter think it was fitting to develop these themes? According to the context expressed at the beginning and end of the letter, it is 42 See Ant. 3.202 – 203. 43 Compare the grief of those of the returnees to Zion who had seen both Temples (Ezra 3:12 – 13). The Talmud (b. Yoma 21b) lists five things in which “the First Temple differed from the Second: the Ark, the Ark-cover, the cherubim, the fire, the Divine Presence, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim ve-tummim.” This tradition, cited in the context of a discussion of the nature of the fire on the altar, is indicative of the central role of the holy fire, many generations after the time of the letter of 2 Maccabees. 44 The connection between these ritual elements and the relations between the nation and its God are expressed in the letter (2 Macc 2:7) through Jeremiah’s announcement to his companions that the hiding place would not be revealed “until God will gather in the people and be merciful.” The eschatological tone of the letter is implied at its conclusion, where the authors declare that “the God who saved His entire people and returned to all (of us) the inheritance, including the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity,” will gather in the exiled Jews (2 Macc 2:17 – 18). The millenarian character of the hope for the rediscovery of the Temple utensils is attested to in the Samaritan episode in Ant. 18.85 – 87. 45 It has been suggested that there is an allusion to this in the letter, which of course would greatly enhance the ritual significance of Judah’s actions and the festival of H . anukkah. Cf. Wacholder, 1978:111 – 112, and references.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Consecration Ceremonies, Ritual Legends, and Temple Ideology

53

clear that these traditions were cited in order to encourage the Jews of Egypt to observe, probably annually, the festival of “the Purification of the Temple” (2 Macc 1:18). But how would the disparate traditions noted in the letter function to persuade the Egyptian Jews to such a goal? What is the relationship between these ritual traditions and the Maccabean festival? H. anukkah continues the tradition of dedicating the Sanctuary/Temple in the days of millu’im, a tradition which is recounted in detail in the letter and is implied by designating the Maccabean commemoration as “the Days of Tabernacles/the festival of the Purification of the Temple in the Month of Kislev.” The authors (supposedly Judah and the gerousia) had to justify a revolutionary innovation: they had dedicated, or purified, the Temple on an unusual date. Moreover, they hoped that this Temple festival, in contrast to other millu’im ceremonies (Solomon, Nehemiah, etc.), would be observed annually, outside the Temple and even in the Diaspora. They therefore undertook to persuade the Diaspora Jews that the celebration of this new festival, marking their purification of the Temple on the anniversary of that event, was religiously legitimate.46 To that end, they strove to explain the importance of millu’im ceremonies and to prove that they were merely upholding a ritual tradition dating back to the times of Moses, Solomon, and Nehemiah, in the ongoing quest to achieve supreme sanctity. Their correspondents would thus understand, they hoped, the enormous significance of the religious achievement implied by the purification of the Temple in a millu’im ceremony, restoring the Temple to the glorious times of Nehemiah. The letter aimed to shape the festival as an expression of identification with this Temple ideology, which in turn bore the seeds of eschatological hope for the restoration of the holy fire, an event that would signify the ultimate return of the Divine Presence to the Temple. This approach seems more substantial than a call to recognize the success of the Maccabees’ “secular” military struggle. Their heroism and militarypolitical achievements were surely known in Egypt. It is evident from the opening and conclusion of the letter that the correspondents were expected to be aware of this aspect of the salvation achieved by the Judaean Jews.47 However, there is no other documented explanation for the source of religious legitimization for the Maccabean precedent. A festival symbolizing the purification of the Temple which future generations could celebrate was religiously legitimized. Here lies the novelty of the letter, which was highly relevant about the time the H. anukkah festival was first instituted. Had the letter been pseudonymously written years later, the religious enthusiasm related to the restoration of the Temple cult might have been virtually extinguished. There would have been no such need for the tone of pathos and 46 Compare the letters written by Mordechai and Esther urging the Jews of the Diaspora to celebrate the festival of Purim (Esther 9:20 – 32). 47 See Wacholder 1978:97, 100. When the letter was incorporated in 2 Maccabees, the heroism of Judah Maccabee and his men had in any case been described in detail in the text.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

54

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

self-justification, as the festival would have already gained acceptance. Judah’s letter seems all the more powerful for its failure to explicitly state its real aims. If 2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18 preserves the original letter, the authors were content to outline their religious ideology, indicating that they were upholding the tradition of millu’im ceremonies and the quest for the holy fire. They claimed that Judah and his men had taken a significant step toward reestablishing that supreme sanctity. In referring to the purification of the Temple at the letter’s end (2:36) they reminded their correspondents that they had restored the sacrificial rite for that very reason. Avoiding self-aggrandizement may also have been a sophisticated rhetorical device. The letter intensified the Egyptian Jews’ identification with those supreme ritual values, the sanctity of the Temple and the Divine Presence, so that the Maccabees and the Jews of Egypt could be shown to share a common concern. Similarly, the very designation “festival of Tabernacles” represented the desire to locate the Maccabean rededication of the Temple within the tradition of millu’im ceremonies around the festival of Sukkot, as Solomon, the returning exiles and Nehemiah had done. We may assume that the designation preceded this attempt to persuade the Jews of Egypt to celebrate the festival, though it surely helped to legitimize the radical innovation that the letter conveyed.

4. H. anukkah as a Political Festival The authors’ designation of H. anukkah as “the festival of Tabernacles” is an example of what Eric Hobsbawm has called “invented tradition.” Invented tradition is a set of repeated practices which seek to inculcate certain values and norms that are intended to establish continuity with the past. It is a response to a novel situation. It relates to an old situation, establishing or legitimizing institutions or authority, and enhancing social cohesion or membership in a group, and shaping beliefs or behavior.48 Baumgarten has pointed out that the Maccabees needed ways to reinforce the legitimacy of their rule. He argued that the Maccabees initiated two ritual and liturgical innovations, the annual payment of the half-shekel to the Temple (see Chapter 2) and the recitation of Shema in the Temple service. He added that these were essentially “invented traditions,” attributed to Moses in order to strengthen Torah observance.49 Baumgarten mentioned the festival of H. anukkah and the two letters at the beginning of 2 Maccabees in this context.50 48 Hobsbawm 1983:1 – 2, 9. 49 Baumgarten 1996. 50 Baumgarten 1996:201. Bickerman 1962:121 commented that in decreeing a commemorative festival Judah was following a Greek practice, but at the same time incorporating it into Judaism. Judah’s awareness of the Greek cultural heritage of his act can only be surmised.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. anukkah as a Political Festival

55

Indeed I have now shown how the second letter presented H. anukkah as the continuation of an ancient sacred ritual tradition. This attempted legitimization attests to the Maccabees’ own beliefs, which they considered widely accepted among Judaean Jews, and which served as a basis to justify their actions. While the second letter focuses on religious themes, it is also a political document. If the letter is authentic, it follows that the festival of H. anukkah provided a basis for the legitimacy of Judah and the gerousia as the leaders of the Jewish people. Indeed, a positive response to the Maccabees’ appeal to celebrate the “Purification of the Temple” as an annual festival51 was tantamount to accepting Maccabean leadership and agreeing that the Maccabean revolution was a historical turning point or even a soteriological event. Even if the letter is pseudonymously attributed to Judah Maccabee, its objective was no doubt to legitimize the Hasmoneans, while at the same time justifying the innovation inherent in the festival of H. anukkah. Surprisingly, the letter does not try to achieve this political legitimization in a direct, explicit manner. Judah himself is mentioned only once in the body of the text, as having collected books that document the quest for the holy fire and chronicle the actions of kings and prophets, as well as the writings of David (2:14). The heroic commander is portrayed more as a transmitter of religious traditions to the Jewish people, perhaps even ”canonizing” them.52 This portrayal needs explanation. None of Judah’s contemporaries doubted his military prowess when he ruled the Temple and initiated a new cultic tradition. However, he presumably felt the need to justify his position as a religious leader. Quite possibly, the authors of the letter recounted that Nehemiah wrote and kept books, and that Judah continued in that role, collecting the books, in order to demonstrate that Judah was Nehemiah’s rightful successor.53 A later pseudonymous author would not have been content with such subtle allusions, which were hardly adequate once the Hasmoneans had become a recognized dynasty. Such a writer would surely have taken the trouble to devise a more specific political legitimization.

51 As mentioned above, Wacholder 1978:107 suggested that H. anukkah was established as a commemorative festival following the rededication of the Temple in 164, and that the letter first presented this commemoration as an annual festival to be celebrated by all the Jews, probably less than a year after the purification of the Temple, as part of the preparations for the first anniversary of the dedication in 163 BCE. In his view, it was due to telescoping that Judah’s establishment of the festival as a permanent feature (1 Macc 4:48) was placed in the context of the events of 164 BCE. 52 Such collection and transmission involves interpretation and suggest Judah’s religious authority. Cf. Baumgarten 1997:114 – 136 (and particularly on this passage, ibid., 120 – 121). 53 Thus Nodet 1986:336 – 337, explained the preservation of the holy books as a sequel to the books written and kept by Nehemiah.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

56

H . anukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees

H. anukkah was a festival established by political leaders to celebrate and commemorate their own achievements. In this sense, it resembles Greek political festivals which marked political events.54 It is especially similar to the Ptolemaieia, whose aim was public recognition of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The Ptolemaieia was first celebrated by Ptolemy II, and celebrated every four years, glorifying the founder of the dynasty, and by implication, his heirs. It included athletic and music competitions as well as equestrian events. Members of many Greek cities participated in the festival.55 The political efficacy of H. anukkah to reinforce Hasmonean government derives from its ritual character and the political power of rites. The rituals of H. anukkah were practiced in the Temple and probably also in every Jewish household.56 Rituals, namely, standardized activities of a symbolic character, are important for any political system, since political ideologies are expressed through symbolism. Rituals shape a people’s definition of political reality, especially when they are participants. Rulers use rituals to support their legitimacy, to confirm political consensus. Rituals create a sense of belonging and make individual actions appear as taking part in the national-level organizational life, linking the periphery to the center. They create emotional attachment with a particular political image or reality, when norms and values become saturated with emotions.57 The ritualization of H. anukkah strengthened Hasmonean authority. Collective rituals are rigid impositions of rules of behavior for the entire group, which demonstrate that the authority of those in charge of the ritual performance is accepted. In this sense, a ritual symbolizes the acceptance of political authority.58 In this manner, the annual ritualization of the Maccabees’ achievement, which was also a kind of Hasmonean Independence Day, disseminated its ideology among the Jews, and represented their collective identity (see Chapter 7). H. anukkah was not merely a political festival which used cultic imagery and religious sensibilities. It constructed the Jewish social memory, and in this respect it recalls the Hellenistic ruler cult.59 H. anukkah organized the Jews’ knowledge of the past and present and defined their perception of Jewish

54 Bickerman 1962:120 – 121, 131. 55 Walbank 2002:81 – 83; Thompson 2000. 56 We have no details whatsoever regarding the manner it was celebrated in the Hasmonean period, but the fact that the letters preceding 2 Maccabees called upon the Jews in Egypt to celebrate it proves that there were specific acts of celebration outside the Temple, as also attested to in John 10:22. The lighting of lamps is not mentioned prior to rabbinic literature, but Josephus’ designation of it as the “festival of Lights” (Ant. 12.325) may refer to this ritual. 57 See Kertzer 1988:esp. 16, 17, 21 – 24, 40, following Turner, based on case studies from nonliterate societies. Note, however, that participation in rituals does not require uniformity of belief, but only social identification with a group (Kertzer 1988:67 – 69). 58 Bloch 1974. 59 For the ruler cult and social memory, see Ma 2002: 219 – 235.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. anukkah as a Political Festival

57

society.60 It was one of several festivals that the Maccabees instituted in order to commemorate their military victories for the coming generations. Additional festivals are the Day of Nicanor (13 in Adar ; 1 Macc 7:48 – 49; 2 Macc 15:36), and the day of the removal of the citadel in Jerusalem, the last remnant of gentile oppression (1 Macc 13:49 – 52). These three festivals stressed Hasmonean authority and ideology.61

60 For these aspects of ritual, see Lukes 1977:esp. 68. 61 See van Henten 2007:268. As for the procedure in which H. anukkah was instituted, it seems that first Judah and his brothers decided to establish a new festival (1 Macc 4:59), then followed a decision of the assembly (2 Macc 10:8), as was latter in the case of Nicanor Day (2 Macc 15:36).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Two The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

The Temple was central to Jewish religion and Jewish identity during the postexilic period. In his charter to the Jews of Judaea, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus III acknowledged their ancestral laws and guaranteed several privileges and benefactions related to the sacrificial cult and Temple administration.1 Yet, the Temple cult was transformed during the Hasmonean period in several respects. One major change—the use of the Temple cult to symbolize the Maccabean victory through the institution of the festival of H. anukkah—has already been discussed in the previous chapter. The present chapter examines rhetorical discourse and practical measures that stressed the dominance of the Temple and enhanced the linkage between the Temple and the Hasmoneans. I will demonstrate that the Hasmoneans saw the protection and maintenance of the Temple as the main purpose of their rule and used this to justify their leadership. They introduced several practical and conceptual innovations that linked the Temple to daily Jewish practice as well as to collective Jewish identity. These new measures were accepted with enthusiasm by many, especially in the Jewish Diaspora in Egypt, but also led to the rejection of the Temple by small circles that resisted the Hasmonean regime for their own reasons. The following discussion of the role of the Temple focuses on 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and the Letter of Aristeas, which share a tendency towards extreme repetition of narrative and religious motifs. This redundancy should be taken seriously, since it results from the authors’ intentions to make sure that their messages were absorbed.2 The contexts of these repetitions show that they reflect the central points of the Hasmonean ideology.

1 Ant. 12.137 – 146. For the authenticity and implications of Antiochus’s letters, see Bickerman 1980b; 1980c. Note that although priestly matters are addressed in Ben Sira (e. g., 35; 50; 51:12), the Temple and the sacrificial system are subordinate to wisdom and law (24:24:10; 35:2 – 41). The history of the Temple before the Hasmoneans will be surveyed in the concluding section of this chapter. 2 For redundancy as a mode of expression, see Layton 1981:129.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees

59

1. The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees 1 Maccabees presents the history of the Maccabees from the point of view of their supporters and successors. The manner in which Mattathias, Judah, Jonathan, and Simon act, and the ideas that the author attributes to them, represent history as perceived several decades after the narrated events, probably in the days of John Hyrcanus’s reign. The shaping of Maccabean history therefore represents Hasmonean ideology (see Introduction). The author places special stress on the theme of the Temple in his narrative.3 There is frequent mention of acts committed both against the Temple and in support of it. Commitment to the sanctity and purity of the Temple is attributed to the Maccabees time and time again. Detailed examination of the theme of the Temple in 1 Maccabees will enable us to uncover a substantial portion of the religious identity of the Hasmoneans, as well as their desire to be perceived by their fellow Jews as the defenders of the Temple, who were committed more than anyone else to God’s sacred dwelling at this holy place.

Fighting for the Sake of the Temple According to 1 Maccabees, the main cause of the wars against the Seleucids was directly linked to the Temple. The liberation of the Temple was the aim of the Maccabean revolt led by Mattathias and Judah. The initial purpose of the Maccabean revolt was to “rebuild the wreckage of our people, and… fight for our people and for the sanctuary (to¯n hagio¯n)” (1 Macc 3:43). In his speech at the ceremony in Mizpah before the battle at Ammaus, Judah urges his troops to fight against “the Gentiles who have gathered against us to destroy us and our sanctuary (ta hagia hemo¯n); for it is better for us to die in battle than to stand by and watch the outrages against our people and our sanctuary” (3:58 – 59). Time and again Judah’s supporters also express grief over the “trampled and profaned Temple” (3:45, 51). In an attempt to create a temporary and partial substitute to the theninaccessible and defiled Temple, Judah and his supporters performed an unusual cultic ceremony at Mizpah, north of Jerusalem (3:46 – 54). It included fasting, reading from a Torah scroll, a prayer for deliverance, and curiously, also rituals that regularly took place only in the Temple: They presented the priestly vestments (the use of which was generally restricted to the Temple), the first fruits, and the tithes, and assembled the Nazirites who had completed 3 Zsengellr 2005:189 listed 64 designations of the Temple in 1 Maccabees, including hagiasma, hagia, naos, oros, zio¯n, orus tou hierou, orus agios, ieron, and oikos. References to priests and the high priest are also common (Williams 1999:123 – 124). The theme of liberating the Temple affected the structure of 1 Maccabees (ibid., 103 – 107).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

60

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

the periods of their vows.4 The performance of these priestly rites and the display of the priestly vestments associated with the Temple were intended to urge Judah’s soldiers to take part in the battle of Ammaus. Judah’s men were acutely aware that they were substantially outnumbered by their Seleucid counterparts in the imminent encounter and that many of them would not survive the battle (the local Gentile merchants were waiting for the end of the battle in order to take as slaves those who would survive; cf. 3:39 – 41). According to the author of 1 Maccabees, the memory of the Temple, its rituals and symbols, motivated the Maccabees. The main motivation and religious ethos of the Maccabean military resistance was related to and derived from the Temple and the wish to reestablish the sacrificial cult. This is also reflected in a later event. When Judah returned from the long military campaign in Transjordan in which he rescued the local Jewish population, the soldiers and refugees went to the Temple and offered sacrifices (1 Macc 5:54).

Remembering the Enemies of the Temple The shaping of historical memory in 1 Maccabees detailed the dire situation at the Temple. The intentional desecration of the Temple and its transformation into a pagan cultic center were highlighted in order to emphasize threats against the Jewish cult and to credit the Maccabees with its liberation. The listing of crimes against the Temple continued also after the description of the restoration in the ritual of H. anukkah. The author put special stress on the awful violation of the Temple and its cult, perpetrated by Antiochus IV. Already on his first violent visit to Jerusalem in 169 BCE, the king had robbed the Temple. Here the author describes in detail how Antiochus entered the Temple (Gentiles were forbidden to do so lest they defile it),5 and took the golden altar of incense, the table for the showbread, the menorah, the libation jars, bowls, and curtains, as well as all the gold ornaments, gold and silver coins, and whatever he found in the Temple treasury (1:21 – 23). The ensuing lament of Israel is described in five verses, concluding with the statement that for the Jews this event was as if “the earth had quaked” (1:27). The robbery was significant to the author not only because it interfered with the cultic order (although the Jewish cult persisted steadily for the next two years), but also because it was very insulting. In other words, the author regarded this as a symbolic act which had demonstrated that the Seleucids demeaned the Jewish religion.6 4 1 Macc 3:49. For bringing tithes to the Temple, see Regev 2005:160 – 170. For the Nazirite rite of shaving their hair at the Temple, see m. Nazir 6:6 – 7, 9 – 10; m. Middot 2:5. For the ceremony before the battle, see Bar Kochva 1989:494 – 499. 5 E,g., War 5.194. 6 Antiochus IV later attempted to rob the Temple of Nanaia/Artemis in Persia. See 2 Macc 1:14; 1 Macc 6:2; Schwartz 2008:148. In fact, robbing Temples was not uncommon in the Hellenistic

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees

61

The memory of the defiled Temple is a key subject in 1 Maccabees. The Acra (the fortress near the Temple Mount)7 and its occupants, mainly Seleucid soldiers, became “an ambush against the Temple . . . They shed innocent blood around the sanctuary and defiled the Temple . . .” The Temple was abandoned like a desert, the festivals were turned into mourning, Sabbaths became a cause of mockery (1:36 – 39). When Antiochus IV published his infamous decrees, he also ordered the Jews to sacrifice to idols, and “to put a stop to burnt offerings and meal offering and libation in the Temple . . . to defile the Temple and holy things” (1:45 – 46). Then, on the 15th of Kislev 167 BCE, the king erected the “abomination of desolation upon the altar” and on the 25th the Seleucids offered “sacrifices on the illicit altar which was upon the Temple altar.”8 The decrees of Antiochus IV actually prohibited the observance of Jewish laws, practices and rituals, including Sabbath, circumcision, and studying the Torah. At times the Seleucids also forced Jews to sacrifice to idols (1 Macc 1:42 – 63; 2:17 – 23). The significance of the desecration of the Temple is made clear by Mattathias’s mourning over the holy city, the people, and the fall of “the sanctuary into the hand of foreigners.” Mattathias’s grief centered on the Temple: “Behold, our sanctuary, our beauty, our glory has been laid waste, and the Gentiles have profaned it.”9 The consequences of the Seleucid takeover and defilement of the sacrificial cult are highlighted in 1 Maccabees. As already discussed in the previous chapter, when Judah and his soldiers entered the Temple, before they purified it and announced the festival of H. annukah, they found it desecrated. Twenty verses are devoted to the description of the defiled Temple and its physical and ritual reconstruction (4:38 – 57). Curiously, the rebuilding of the altar and the restoration of the Temple are indicated as the reason for the Gentiles’ rage and their acts against the Jews, for example, in Idumaea and Acrabattene (in southern Samaria); acts that led to a renewal of Judah’s military campaigns (5:1). The Temple therefore remained a major source of conflict with the Gentiles even after the rededication of the Temple in 164 BCE. Nicanor, the Seleucid general who confronted Judah, ordered the Temple priests to hand over Judah and threatened to burn the Temple. The priests world. The Seleucids had a specific penalty for this offence, which was applied to Menelaus (2 Macc 13:6 – 8; cf. 4:39). See Schwartz 2008:239 – 240. See also Crassus’s robbery of the Jerusalem Temple in 54 BCE (Ant. 14.105; Stern 1995:229). Interestingly, when Antiochus was dying and confessed his sins before his death, he mentioned only the robbery of the Jerusalem Temple (1 Macc 6:12), and not its defilement by pagan cults. 7 1 Macc 1:33 – 34. For the geographical location of the Acra and its history during the Maccabean period, see Bar-Kochva 1989:445 – 465; Rappaport 2004:108 – 110 and references. 8 1 Macc 1:54, 59. For chronological considerations, see Rappaport 2004:117, 120 – 121. 9 1 Macc 2:7 – 12. Cf. Isa 64:10. Here the Temple is not “God’s house” (e. g., 1 Kgs 7:12; Jer 51:51; Ps 42:5) but “our house” (ta hagia hemo¯n cf. already Isa 64:10); it is the main institution of the Jewish people and the key symbol of the Jewish religion.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

62

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

reacted by praying for God’s deliverance in front of the altar and Temple shrine (7:35 – 36). When Judah waged war against Nicanor in Adasa and prayed to God, he mentioned that Nicanor had blasphemed against the sanctuary (7:42). Another enemy of the Temple was Alcimus. In 159 BCE this high priest, nominated by Demetrius I after the execution of Menelaus, tore down the wall of the inner court of the Temple (to teichos te¯s aule¯s to¯n hagio¯n), which was regarded as “the work of the prophets.” The term “inner court” seems to parallel the expression used by the rabbis, and probably refers to the wall between the priestly and lay domains of the Temple courts. It is therefore possible that Alcimus intended to grant greater lay accessibility to the altar and its surroundings; according to 1 Maccabees this led to the desecration of the inner precincts of the Temple. During the renovations, Alcimus suffered a stroke and died.10 Protecting and Maintaining the Temple The sensitivity to these actual and symbolic threats to the Temple is closely related to the Hasmonean rationale for continuing military action—i. e., the protection of the Temple and its cult. Even in the days of Jonathan and Simon, after the Temple was liberated, the traditional Jewish cult restored, and the decrees against the Jewish laws and religious practices abolished, the author continues to stress that the purpose of the military campaigns and political acts was the protection of the Temple. Jonathan, the first Maccabean high priest, probably modified the Temple rites in certain ways, following years of Hellenistic control.11 He also tried to capture the Acra, which posed a substantial hindrance to those visiting the Temple (1 Macc 11:20; the Acra is mentioned as a threat to the Temple in 12:36; 14:36). Simon succeeded Jonathan when his brother was captured by Trypho, and he led his soldiers in battle against the Seleucids. Simon tried to inspire his people, declaring “You know what I and my family have done for the sake of our laws and our sanctuary” (13:3). Simon finally captured the Acra, expelled the Seleucid soldiers, and purified it from their abominations. The conquest was accompanied by a victory parade that included praise, palm branches, music and songs. Simon decreed the annual observance of the day, with

10 1 Macc 9:54 – 56. For the inner court in rabbinic literature, see m. Middot 2:6; Goldstein 1976:391 – 392. Josephus, War 5.226 mentions a division separating the naos and the altar from the laity. Perhaps Jannaeus reconstructed the very same wall that Alcimus had removed, after he was stoned by citrons (Ant. 13.373). Schmidt 2001:105 – 106, 112 argued that the wall separated Jews and Gentiles, and regarded its removal as an act of hellenization (cf. m. Middot 2:3). 11 It seems that Jonathan followed the Pharisaic halakhah, as may be inferred from the opposition of the Qumran authors in 4QMMT to the pharisaic laws of the Temple cult, as well as from John Hyrcanus’s commitment to the Pharisees. See Regev 2005:247 – 251.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees

63

rejoicing.12 Later Simon continued to fortify the Temple Mount (13:52). The hymn that glorifies Simon’s rule mentions that he also beautified the Temple and added holy vessels (14:15). In the introduction to Simon’s appointment by the great assembly as chief and high priest “until a true prophet shall arise,” the nomination is justified on the basis of the fact that “Simon … and his brothers exposed themselves to danger and resisted their nation’s foes in order that their sanctuary might survive, and the Torah” (14:29). It is also recalled that during the reign of Jonathan the enemies attempted to “violate the sanctuary” (probably referring to Trypho’s military campaign), but Simon fought for his nation and provided his troops with arms and paid their salaries using his own money (14:31). His previous capture of the Acra is also highlighted, stressing that the Gentiles in the Acra “defiled the Temple’s vicinity and gravely impaired its purity” (14:36). The assembly granted Simon responsibility for the care for the Temple (14:42 – 43). The aforementioned passages in 1 Maccabees, especially those related to Simon’s nomination, along with Judah’s H. anukkah letter (2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18), discussed in the previous chapter, show that this Temple ideology was the basis of Hasmonean authority. The Hasmoneans and their followers argued that thanks to their efforts, the sacred service in the Temple had been restored, following Antiochus IV’s establishment of the “abomination of desolation”: The Temple was once again the emblem of Judaism, the center and symbol of observance of the Torah. This ideology evolved in consequence of—and in parallel to—Maccabean military and diplomatic achievements. This claim may seem elementary and self-evident to the modern reader, and its repetition superfluous: any restoration of Jewish religion and political independence naturally involves the Temple—but why mention the Temple time and again? A partial answer lies in the manner in which 2 Maccabees describes the attitude of the Jewish Hellenizers towards the Temple cult. The author tried to convince the readers that the Jewish Hellenizers preferred to minimize the role of the Temple in their eagerness to curry favor with the Seleucids: “the priests were no longer enthusiastic about the altar service. Rather, in their disdain for the Temple, and in their lack of concern for sacrifices, they hurried to participate in the lawless distributions in the palaestra which followed upon the call of the discus; considering the ancestral values to be worthless, they considered the Greek honors to be the best” (2 Macc 4:14 – 15). While this might not have been an accurate description,13 it 12 1 Macc 13:49 – 52. Josephus added that Simon completely demolished the Acra hill, making the Temple the highest point (Ant. 13.215 – 217; Bar-Kochva 1989:537 – 538 concluded that this note was erroneous, and was based on Nicolaus). For the remembrance day, see Megillat Ta’anit for 23 Iyyar, the day on which “the men of the Acra left Jerusalem” (Noam 2003:187 – 190). Sievers 1990:114 – 115 noted that the act parallels the purification of the Temple by Judah. 13 While Jason’s embassy to the games in Tyre was supposed to donate money to sacrifices to Hercules, the members of embassy decided to donate it for the construction of triremes, namely

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

64

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

probably reflects how history was reconstructed by the Hasmoneans and their advocates. For the author of 1 Maccabees, and for the Hasmoneans themselves, the Temple was not merely an institution. The practical and symbolic devotion to the Temple served as an identity marker that reflected commitment to the laws of the Torah and to traditional Jewish values. It stood apart from Hellenistic/Gentile ways. In their own minds, this distinguished the Maccabees from the Jewish Hellenizers (although the latter’s leaders were also priests). The Temple as the Hasmonean Political Center 1 Maccabees also attests to the Hasmoneans’ use of the Temple as a political center. By associating themselves with the Temple, enhancing their control over it and tying their leadership and power to it, they aimed to increase their legitimacy as rulers. In his letter to the Spartans, Jonathan’s messengers assured the Spartans that they remembered them constantly “in connection with the sacrifices that we offer as well as in our prayers, as it is right and proper thus to make mention of brothers” (1 Macc 12:11). Although the formulaic nature of this statement accords with Hellenistic conventions,14 it offers credible testimony to the focal place of the Temple cult in the minds of Jonathan’s delegates. The Temple cult was used here to enforce a diplomatic treaty—namely, for political interest. The Hasmoneans felt entitled to make such an assertion, associating the Temple with their political maneuvers. The Temple later became the center of Simon’s political power.15 The great assembly (sunago¯ge¯s megale¯s), which reaffirmed Simon’s religious and political leadership positions, was probably convened at the “great court” in the Temple.16 This was not merely a matter of convenience. It was meant to link Simon’s authority, including the high priesthood, to the Temple. It is also noteworthy that the nomination was made by “the people” as well as “the priests.” The priests are mentioned separately four times in this document (1 Macc 14:28, 41, 44, 47), demonstrating that the priestly aristocracy and the Temple authorities supported Simon.17 The account of the great assembly’s decision concludes by stating that notice of the official appointment should be

14 15 16

17

war ships (2 Macc 4:19 – 20). See also Menelaus’s request to cancel the Seleucid decrees against observing the Jewish laws (2 Macc 11:29). For mention of kin communities in prayers and sacrificial rites, see Goldstein 1976:454. When Jonathan was captured by Trypho, Simon convened the people. Josephus adds that he gathered them at the Temple Mount (Ant. 13.197 – 198). 1 Macc 14:28. The Greek term en asaramel is obscure. Abel 1949:256 and Schalit 1969:781 – 787 maintained that this is a corruption of a phrase referring to the Temple Court or the “Great Court.” Goldstein 1976:501 – 502 emended it following the Syriac translation to “prince (sar) of Israel,” referring to Simon’s title. Sievers 1990:120 – 127.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Ideology of the Temple in 1 Maccabees

65

“drawn up on bronze tablets and set up in the precinct of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place; and that copies of the tablets [should] be placed in the treasury so as to be available to Simon and his sons.”18 The monumental publication of the document in the Temple and the deposit of the copies in the Temple imply that Simon’s authority derived, at least symbolically, from the Temple. This was a special act to legitimate Simon’s power. Simon, like his brother Jonathan, combined in his person religious authority as high priest with secular authority as a civil ruler and army commander. Simon took the further step of legally establishing this dual role for himself and for his hereditary successors. The authority of the Hasmonean dynasty was therefore inscribed on the Temple’s tablets. The author of 1 Maccabees also emphasized Antiochus VII’s recognition of Simon’s Temple. Among the privileges that the Seleucid king offered Simon as a reward for his support, Antiochus declared “Jerusalem and the Temple will be free (of taxes) . . . When we shall have established our rule over our kingdom, we shall confer great honor upon your nation and your Temple, so that the whole land will know of your distinction” (1 Macc 15:7, 9). For Antiochus VII, the Temple represented Simon’s rule. Honoring the Temple reflected the acknowledgment of the Hasmonean regime.19

Torah and Temple “Torah and Temple” is a familiar formula in ancient Judaism.20 In 1 Maccabees it appears three times, referring to the two most prominent religious concepts to which Simon was highly committed. Simon spoke of what “I and my brothers and my family have done for the sake of our laws and our sanctuary” (13:3). The author praised Simon since “he sought to fulfill the Torah . . . He glorified the Temple” (14:14 – 15). The great assembly that nominated Simon declared that “Simon and his brothers exposed themselves to danger and resisted the nation’s foes in order that their sanctuary might survive, and the Torah” (14:29). In all these three cases the Temple is the main Jewish identity marker, together with the Law/Torah. Although the centrality of Temple and Torah in 18 1 Macc 14:48 – 49. In the ancient Near East and Greek and Hellenistic Temples in particular, such inscriptions mentioned benefactions and honored benefactors. See Stevenson 2001:77 – 80 and references. While Simon is also portrayed in 1 Macc 14 as a Temple benefactor (van Henten 2001; 2007; Rappaport 2004:312 – 314), the aim of the inscription is to link his rule to the Temple in a manner that is exceptional in the Hellenistic world. 19 Note that according to Strabo’s (partly fictional) story, Sidetes himself soon besieged Jerusalem, but being a pious king, he respected the Jewish sacrificial cult and festivals. See Ant. 13.241 – 244; Bar-Kochva 1996a; 2010:399 – 439. 20 E.g., m. ‘Avot 1:2. Later rabbinic traditions mention the crowns of Torah and priesthood. See Regev 2005:389 n. 14. Cf. also Acts 6:13 – 14.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

66

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

ancient Judaism is obvious, the fact that the Temple shares equal status with the Torah attests to its prominence. The juxtaposition of the Temple to the Torah in its entirety, as if these were two separate entities of equal value, demonstrates the centrality of the Temple. It also shows that the author found it necessary to present Simon as a religious leader, the savior and protector of the Jewish religion and its institutions. It is further likely that for the author of 1 Maccabees the Temple was related to the Torah; hence, when the Maccabees are portrayed as the defenders of the Temple, they also carry the banner of the Torah. Why was the Temple mentioned here distinct from the Torah even though it is an integral part of the Scriptural laws? Perhaps because the Temple cult is related to so many laws, or because it is the most public and famous aspect of Jewish religious life. The concept of Temple and Torah will become the core of the Jewish “ideological system” from the Hasmoneans to 70 CE.21

2. Eupolemus, Solomon’s Temple, and the Maccabean Ideology Further evidence for the centrality of the Temple in Maccabean ideology comes from Eupolemus’s On the Kings of Judaea. This text was probably originally written in Greek, and contains rewritten biblical and legendary traditions. The text was preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius.22 The author should probably be identified with Judah Maccabeus’s emissary to Rome in 161 BCE, Eupolemus son of John, a priest of the Hakkoz division.23 Eupolomus’s chronological calculations from Adam until the fifth year of the reign of Demetrius (Demetrius I; namely, 158/7 BCE), provide a terminus post quem for the entire work, which fully corresponds to the identification with Judah’s delegate to Rome.24 21 S. Schwartz 2001:49 – 68. The “Torah and Temple” ideology may be identified with what Sanders (1992) called “Common Judaism.” 22 Stromata 1.21.130.3; 1.23.153.4; 1.21.141.4 – 5. Praeparatio Evangelica 9.26.1; 9.30.1 – 34.18; 34.20; 9.39.1 – 5. The title is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1.21.153, 3. Eusebius, and perhaps also Clement, copied it from Alexander Polyhistor’s (ca. mid-first-century BCE) work On the Jews. See Holladay 1983:93 and references. The following discussion is based on the critical edition, translation and commentary in Holladay 1983:108 – 156. The name Apellemos or Pallemas was found on an inscription in Mount Gerizim (Magen 2008:237). 23 1 Macc 8:17; Wacholder 1974:5 – 7; Holladay 1983:93, 96. Eupolemus’s father, John, negotiated with the Seleucids before the Hellenistic reform (2 Macc 4:11). There are hints that indicate Palestinian provenance: the use of the MT version of the Hebrew Bible and the mention of the Hebrew measuring unit cor. See Holladay 1983:99. Wacholder 1974:39 – 40, 239 – 41; 1978:122 ascribed Judah’s letter in 2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18 to Eupolemus. Both share several elements, such as the mention of the Temple vessels and the story of Jeremiah’s concealment of the Ark. Wacholder 1974:31 – 37 believed that the author of 1 Maccabees also made use of Eupolemus’s writings. Gutman 1969:2.77 – 78 and Habicht 1976a:177 – 178 also conjectured that Eupolemus wrote a book on Judah Maccabee that was used by Jason of Cyrene. 24 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21.141.4 – 5; Holladay 1983:154 – 155.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Eupolemus, Solomon’s Temple, and the Maccabean Ideology

67

The preserved fragments of Eupolemus mostly dwell on the Temple and its construction by Solomon. Eupolemus based his account on the descriptions in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles, with considerable additions and emendations.25 He attributed the plan of the Temple to the prophet Nathan,26 thus explaining how the Tent of Meeting was transformed into a Temple. Eupolemus stressed the magnificence of the Temple, quoting (imaginary) letters to and from Vaphres king of Egypt and Souron king of Tyre, extolling the Temple. According to Eupolemus’s account, Vaphres and Souron sent, following Solomon’s request, tens of thousands of builders for the construction of the Temple.27 Quite possibly, Eupolemus himself regarded these letters as authentic, and he surely relied on the biblical accounts of Solomon’s good relations with Tyre and Egypt. More than one quarter of the surviving fragments of Eupolemus’s work are devoted to a minutely detailed description of the construction of Solomon’s Temple, which he describes as being more magnificent than it actually was, stressing the link with the Sanctuary at Shiloh and the account of the Tabernacle and its furnishings in the Book of Exodus.28 While Eupolemus repeated several details already found in 1 Kings 6 – 7 and 2 Chronicles 3 – 4, his description of Solomon’s Temple is far more grand than that found in the biblical accounts. He gave the dimensions of the Temple as 60 square cubits rather than 60  20 cubits. His imagined Temple is wrought in gold, and bronze pillars stand at the entrance. The furnishings are golden. There are ten golden lampstands weighing ten talents each, bearing seventy golden lamps. A portico was built on the north side of the Temple supported by forty-eight bronze pillars.29 Why did Eupolemus feel the need to specify the diplomatic background pertaining to the construction of Solomon’s Temple, and the architectural details of the structure? Why was this juncture in the history of the Jews so attractive for a Maccabean ambassador in the 150s BCE? Wacholder maintained that the emphasis on the Temple was a reaction to its conversion to paganism under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.30 The answer is probably more complex. Eupolemus was a Maccabean foreign diplomat, and his work focused on specific epochs in Jewish history. His writing was probably meant to serve as a calling card, an introduction to the representatives whom he met in his diplomatic travels over the Aegean Sea to Rome. He intended to describe the Jews in a positive light, as having contributed to world civilization and deserving of universal recognition. He argued that Moses was the first ”wise 25 Holladay 1983:101 – 103. 26 Eusebius P.E. 9.30.6 with the correction of the reading by Wacholder 1974:142 – 144. According to 2 Chron. 28:11 – 19, David himself handed down the plan to Solomon. 27 Eusebius P.E. 9.31.1 – 34.3. See Wacholder 1974:155 – 170. 28 Wacholder 1974:173 – 201. 29 Eusebius P.E. 94.5 – 18. For comparison with the biblical passages and commentary, see Holladay 1983:148 – 152. 30 Wacholder 1974:140 – 141.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

68

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

man” and that he gave the alphabet first to the Jews, while the Phoenicians then received it from the Jews and transmitted it further to the Greeks. Moses was also the first to write down laws.31 Eupolemus claimed that the borders of David’s kingdom extended to the Euphrates River, encompassing Comagene and Galadene.32 Solomon’s kingdom is described with sevenfold geographical divisions, including Galilee, Samaria, Judaea, and Arabia, reflecting the Maccabean period.33 My interpretation of Eupolemus’s Temple discourse, which was quite unusual in Greco-Roman terms, is based on his identification as Judah’s delegate to Rome, as well as his own reference to King Demetrius, who reigned slightly after Judah’s death. On the basis of this dating and identification, I suggest that his writings, with their praise of Jewish religion and politics in biblical times, should be interpreted as serving, to a certain degree, the purpose of a Maccabean propagandist. It is possible that he aimed to glorify the Jews in a period of religious and political instability, when it was not clear who had the upper hand: the Maccabees, or the Seleucids; the conservative Jews or the Jewish Hellenizers. For Eupolemus, the Temple during its most glorious days was the central element of his own Jewish heritage and identity. The detailed description implies that he regarded the Temple as the most important focus of identity for the Jewish people. Eupolemus probably wrote after H. annukah 164 BCE but before the military and political achievements of Jonathan and Simon. His depiction of Solomon’s Temple did not reflect the Hasmonean Temple, but rather the Maccabean hopes for its restoration. In Eupolemus’s On the Kings of Judaea, the Temple was not merely a cultic institution and a religious symbol. It represented political independence and universal recognition. It may have symbolized Maccabean hopes for future sovereignty and success, as written at the conclusion of Judah’s H. anukkah letter : the kingship, the priesthood, and the holiness of the Temple are all related to the purified and holy Temple and to eschatological hopes for Jewish restoration.34 Eupolemus’s book therefore resembles the Hasmonean ideology of 1 Maccabees, even though his writing preceded it. I suggest interpreting Eupolemus’s text as independent testimony to the religious and “national” worldview of the Maccabean court, perhaps written during the intermediate 31 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.23.153.4; Eusebius, P.E. 9.25.4 – 26.1. For similar claims by Hellenistic Jewish writers and their relationship to Hellenistic apologetics, see Holladay 1983:136 – 138. 32 Eusebius, P.E. 9.30.3. 33 Eusebius, P.E. 9.33.1. See Wacholder 1974:131 – 139; Holladay 1982:103 – 104 who suggested that Eupolemus attempted to justify Maccabean territorial expansion. See, however, the cautionary approach of Gruen 1998:140 – 141, who noted that this supposed legitimization of Maccabean expansion is too obscure. On Eupolemus’s nationalistic tendencies, see Hengel 1974:1.94. On the Temple as a national symbol, see Mendels 1992:143 – 146. 34 2 Macc 2:17 – 18; cf. the discussion in Chapter 1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Temple and Hasmonean Political Power according to Josephus

69

days when Judah had been killed and Jonathan had not yet earned substantial recognition among Seleucids and Jews alike. If this is correct, the centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean ideology began not as a political move toward the legitimization of Hasmonean power but out of genuine religious sensibility and sense of identity. As in Judah’s epistle in 2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18, the Temple in Eupolemus is both an institution and a concept that marks the identity and hopes of the Maccabees. The Hasmoneans were smart enough to dwell on this symbol in the coming years in order to stress their achievements and aims.

3. The Temple and Hasmonean Political Power according to Josephus Although Josephus did not aim to describe the religious aspects of the Hasmonean kingdom, he mentioned the Temple several times in the course of his account of the Hasmonean period. These references enable us to examine the political role of the Temple for the Hasmonean rulers. My intention here is not to uncover the daily reality of the Temple cult in this period,35 but to treat the manner in which, according to Josephus, the Hasmoneans used it to gain control and to demonstrate authority. Although the evidence is relatively scant, it points to interesting results that cohere with our earlier conclusions on the Hasmoneans’ use of the Temple as reflected in 1 Maccabees. One intriguing case is Hyrcanus’s Temple oracle regarding the victory over the Seleucids and the conquest of the city of Samaria. Josephus recorded a story that he characterized as “extraordinary,” maintaining that the “Deity communicated” directly with Hyrcanus. On the very same day on which his sons fought with Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, “Hyrcanus, who was alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest,36 heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And coming out of the Temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually happened” (Ant. 13.282 – 283). This tradition is also mentioned in later rabbinic parallels: “Joh. anan, the high priest, heard a bath kol issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing (in Aramaic): ‘the young men who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious’.”37 35 The Hasmoneans sacrificed at the Temple, especially before battles: Ant. 13.230 (Hyrcanus); 13.304 (Antigonus son of Hyrcanus); 13.372 (Jannaeus); 14.25 – 28 (Hyrcanus II). 36 There is no reason to presume with Marcus (LCL edition ad loc., n. f) that this happened on the Day of Atonement. The burning of incense was performed on a daily basis (m. Tamid 5:4; 6:1) and the divine voice came out of the Holy of Holies, which Hyrcanus did not enter. For a similar story with a quite similar purpose about Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, see Luke 1:8 – 22. 37 Y. Sotah 9:14, 24b; b. Sotah 33a; Song of Song Rabbah 8:9 (Vilna ed., 40b). The purpose of the rabbinic discussion is not to praise Hyrcanus, but to discuss the later history of prophecy or to prove that the angels understand Aramaic, and hence that one may pray in Aramaic.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

70

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

The conquest of Samaria and the defeat of Antiochus IX were crucial for Hyrcanus’s defense of Jewish settlements in the region and territorial expansion north to the Judaean hills.38 The divine voice that he heard was significant since it served as a heavenly confirmation of Hyrcanus’s rule and military policy. The Hasmoneans therefore had a vested interest in spreading the story of the oracle.39 It is surprising that Josephus and the rabbis remembered this many centuries later. The vivid memory indicates that the story was very famous at the time and probably had strong political impact. The use of the Temple as the locus of the heavenly voice aimed to give authenticity to the claim about Hyrcanus’s prophetic capabilities and to associate Hyrcanus with God as closely as possible, implying that he reigned and fought under God’s will, and perhaps even guidance. Hyrcanus demolished the Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim (Ant. 13.255 – 256). According to the archaeological evidence, in 111 – 110 BCE the entire city was burnt and a garrison was built to prevent the rebuilding of the temple.40 The reason for this violent act is implied in Josephus’s description of the Samaritan temple: it was built by the Cuthaean nation (Khoutaie¯n genos), which lived near the temple (probably in Shechem, which was also occupied by Hyrcanus), and built “after the model of the sanctuary in Jerusalem.” The archaeological excavations at Mount Gerizim reveal architecture and other material remains that parallel those of the Jerusalem Temple: the structure of the court in the sacred precinct using inner and outer walls, several gates, several chambers for cultic uses (such as burning the remains of the sacrifices), fortifications, and citadel for protecting the Temple.41 The Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim competed with the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Both claimed continuity with the Tabernacle erected by Moses, as prescribed in the Book of Exodus. Each discredited the other since the biblical Priestly Code mandated only one cultic center, and the Deuteronomistic school permitted only a single Temple. Josephus’s writings include reports of several Jewish condemnations of the Samaritan temple as well as controversies between Jews and Samaritans about which of the two temples 38 For the historical background of the occupation of Samaria in 108/107 BCE, see Ant. 13.275 – 281; Bar-Kochva 2002. 39 For other references to Hyrcanus’s divine revelation or prophecy, see Ant. 13.322, 299 and the discussion in Chapter 4. 40 For the archaeological remains of the Samaritan temple, including cultic inscriptions that mention the names of God, priests and Levites, and types of sacrifices, see Magen 2008. For evidence of the burning, see, e. g., ibid., 126 – 128. The numismatic evidence dating the destruction is comprised of the latest Seleucid coins, from 111 – 110 BCE (overall, 4411 coins were found from the Seleucid period). Cf. Barag 1992 – 1993:6 – 7. Seventy-six coins of Hyrcanus and 519 of Janneaus were found at the site, probably related to the Hasmonean garrison. See Magen 2008:170 – 171, 178. According to Magen 2008:167 – 169, the temple was established in the midfifth century BCE. 41 See Magen 2008:141 – 164, who also collected the historical and epigraphic evidence on the Samaritan temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Temple and Hasmonean Political Power according to Josephus

71

was the authentic and legitimate one.42 For the Seleucids, however, both were considered to represent Yahwism; Antiochus IV directed his decrees not only against the Jerusalem Temple, but also against the Samaritan one.43 The temple in Mount Gerizim was the center of the Samaritan ethos, and attempted to compete with the Jewish religious center. It was regarded by Jews, however, as but a pale imitation of the Jerusalem Temple. By burning the Gerizim temple and preventing its reconstruction, Hyrcanus aimed to achieve two goals: (1) He sought to establish the Jerusalem sanctuary as the sole monotheistic Temple in his kingdom, thus increasing its importance. (2) Since worship in a competing holy place was the main (and possibly the sole) difference between Samaritans and Jews, it seems that Hyrcanus also attempted to impose integration into Judaism upon the Samaritans.44 The latter was the Hasmoneans’ least successful enterprise; the Samaritans pursue their belief in the holiness of Mount Gerizim to the present day, even though their temple was never rebuilt.45 Nonetheless, Hyrcanus’s demolition of the Samaritan temple gained Jewish support,46 and may possibly have increased his popularity. A possible indication of the political significance of the Jerusalem Temple is found in Josephus’s description of an incident during the short reign of Judah Aristobulus (104 – 103 BCE). When Aristobulus’s brother, Antigonus, returned from a successful military campaign during the festival of Tabernacles, he went up to the Temple with his heavily-armed soldiers to celebrate the festival. His ill brother, Judah Aristobulus, suspected that he was planning to take over the throne (Ant. 13.304 – 306, 311) and ordered him killed. The significance of the ostentatious military presence was unmistakable. Antigonus used the Temple to publicize his victory and to display his troops to the many visitors at the Temple during the festival. For Antigonus, the Temple was the preferred location for gaining political power. The Temple served the Hasmoneans as a fortress of refuge on three occasions during the years 64 – 37 BCE. In the second phase of the civil war 42 Ant. 11.302 – 347; 12.7 – 10, 257 – 264; 13.74 – 79. 43 2 Macc 5:22 – 23; 6:2; Schwartz 2008:264. 44 See Schmidt 2001:124 – 131. Schwartz 1993b proposed that the Temple was ruled by hellenized Samaritans and that Hyrcanus had some support from the conservative Samaritans. 45 One may even suppose that Hyrcanus’s act saved the Samaritans from assimilating with the Jews, since it increased their animosity towards their neighbors and elevated the symbolic meaning of Mount Gerizim as a holy place. The situation may be compared to the Jewish revival that was sparked by the decrees of Antiochus IV. Interestingly, according to rabbinic law, Cutheans were barred from contributing the half-shekel to the Temple as well as other obligatory sacrifices, as if they were Gentiles. See m. Shekalim 1:3, which refers to Ezra 4:3. This seems to be the Jewish reaction to the continuity of the Samaritan worship on Mount Gerizim after its destruction. 46 4Q371 – 372, the so-called Prayer of Joseph, contains a polemic against the belief in the sanctity of Mount Gerizim. See Eshel 1991. Megillat Ta’anit on 21 Kislev celebrates the destruction of the Samaritan Temple as “the day of Mount Gerizim” (Noam 2003:262 – 265).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

72

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Hyrcanus II and the Nabataeans besieged Aristobulus II and the priests who supported him, who had located their stronghold in the Temple (Ant. 14.20 – 28). A year later, when Pompey took over Judaea, Aristobulus II’s Sadducean supporters (this time without Aristobulus) used the Temple as their fortress against the Romans and Hyrcanus’s people. Pompey besieged it for three months until the Temple Mount fell to his hands on a Sabbath.47 In 37 BCE Antigonus’s supporters were centered in the Temple, during the siege mounted by Herod and the Roman commander Sossius. Antigonus’s supporters made “many invocations about the Temple” that God would deliver them from danger (Ant. 14.466, 470), probably drawing on the Temple as the symbol of sovereignty and independence against the Romans and Herod. In all three of the above cases, the use of the Temple as a fortress also had religious and political aspects. Whoever controls the Temple and its cult is closest to the divine blessings and also controls the political center ; essentially, he is the actual ruler of the Jews.48 In the days of Hyrcanus II, when the young Herod was accused of violently killing “bandits” in the Galilee, the mothers of those who had been executed kept begging “the king” (namely, Hyrcanus II) and the people “every day in the Temple” to bring Herod to trial (Ant. 14.168). The fact that they lodged a political claim at the Temple shows that this was the appropriate place from which to attempt to influence Hyrcanus II’s policy-making. I suggest that this is further evidence that the Temple was regarded by the people as the center of Hasmonean rule. The most outrageous and far-reaching opposition to the Hasmoneans, the Pharisaic rebellion against Jannaeus in 88 BCE, erupted at the Temple. During the festival of Tabernacles, when Jannaeus stood at the altar to sacrifice, “the people” pelted him with citrons (held by every Jew during that festival).49 In response, Jannaeus killed six thousand of his opponents and the resistance escalated into a civil war. This humiliating and extraordinary act of assailing the high priest and king with citrons in the midst of the festival’s sacrificial offering, I suggest, was a reaction to Jannaeus’s dependence on the Temple as the basis of his authority. By throwing their citrons at him (there were probably many hundreds of citrons!) the Pharisees abolished his honor and authority, and the ritual performance became a disgraceful event for Jannaeus.

47 Ant. 14.58 – 71. For an analysis of this incident with special attention to the Sadducees and abstention from fighting on Sabbath, see Regev 1997b. 48 During his siege of the Temple Mount, Herod accused Antigonus of setting fire to some porticoes around the Temple, in order to draw upon him the hatred of the Jews (Ant. 14.476). Here Herod reacted to Antigonus’s use of the Temple as a political and religious symbol, and attempted to discredit it. 49 Ant. 13.372. On the religious background of the conflict between Jannaeus and the Pharisees, see Regev 2005:261 – 274 and the discussion in Chapter 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage

73

Jannaeus also reacted to this humiliation in the precincts of the Temple. He “placed a wooden barrier about the altar and the Temple as far as the coping (of the court) which the priests alone were permitted to enter, and by this means blocked the people’s way to him” (Ant. 13.273). In other words, Jannaeus excluded the masses from the Temple’s inner court to prevent further uprisings and to restore his dignity as high priest. That way he could no longer be approached at the Temple. The new fence was not a cultic device but a sort of symbolic status marker, demarcating the boundary between the high priestking and his recalcitrant subjects, at the price of distancing himself from his people. A recollection of this fence may have been preserved in rabbinic literature.50 We have seen several cases in which the Hasmoneans used the Temple as a source of power, either religious or political, and anyone who wished to approach them directed his or her acts towards the Temple. None of these uses was intrinsic to their office as high priests. Certainly, the fact that they were both civic rulers and high priests made it much easier and more natural for them to draw on the Temple as a source of authority. But the fact that independent rulers who led successful military campaigns centered their power in the Temple also increased the status of the Temple and the sacrificial cult. As we shall see shortly, the Temple evolved along with the Hasmoneans.

4. Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage Two innovative religious and legal practices elevated the importance of the Jerusalem Temple to an international Jewish center, which subsequently, from Herod’s reign to 70 CE, became the most significant religious center in the Roman East, and probably in the entire Roman world. It is customary to see the increasing role of the Temple in Judaea and especially in the Diaspora as the result of Herod’s policy. However, there is sufficient historical evidence to attribute this trend to the Hasmoneans, dating the half-shekel tribute and the practice of mass pilgrimage to the Hasmonean period. This corresponds to the central role of the Temple—both as an actual institution and as a religious symbol—in Hasmonean ideology.

The Half-Shekel Tribute: International Institutionalization of the Temple Cult During the late Second Temple period there was a common practice among adult Jewish males of donating to the Temple treasury an annual contribution 50 Megillat Ta’anit for 23d Marheshvan celebrates the day when “the soreg was torn down from the courtyard” (Noam 2003:239 – 242). See Liebner 2002.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

74

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

of a half-shekel (equal to two Attic drachmae or Roman denarius).51 The halfshekel tribute is documented in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Matthew, rabbinic law, and Roman authors.52 According to the rabbis all adult males, excluding priests, were expected to pay the half-shekel (women, infants and slaves could donate voluntarily); people sent the money to the Temple from the provinces; and Temple visitors deposited the money in designated baskets in the Temple treasury in a special ritual (m. Sheqalim 1:1 – 2:2; 3:1 – 4). The money was used for daily sacrifices and additional festival sacrifices, their libations, all the communal sacrifices, the showbread, and other sanctuary needs (m. Sheqalim 4:1 – 4). Payment of the half-shekel was made only in Tyrian currency, the tetradrachma, and not in Hasmonean, Herodian, or Roman coins (m. Bekhorot 8:7); the Tyrian coins had the highest percentage of silver and were therefore the most reliable financial resource.53 Jews used the Tyrian coins for sacred purposes despite the images of the god Melqart and an eagle on the coins (and the inscription declaring Tyre a holy city of asylum). Jewish sensitivity to pagan symbols and iconography notwithstanding,54 even the rabbis declared that “the coinage concerning which the Torah speaks at every point, this is the coinage of Tyre; Tyrian coinage—this is the coinage of Jerusalem.”55 In fact, Tyrian coins were extremely prevalent in Judaea and are found in several coin hoards.56 The half-shekel tribute has a long history. When Moses made a census he called for a one-time contribution of a half-shekel as an offering to the Lord, donated by each male aged twenty and above, for the erection of the Tabernacle. The donation served as an atoning ransom for their lives (Exod 30:13 – 15; 38:26). Nehemiah ordered an annual one-third-shekel contribution for the service of the house of God, for the purpose of financing the sacrificial cult (Neh 10:32 [Heb. v. 33]). However, Moses’ original ruling was not designed to support the tabernacle with a steady income, and Nehemiah’s order did not last. The Temple cult was financed by individual donations; in the Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid periods, foreign kings made special contributions.57 There is evidence of donations of offerings and sacrifices by Jews and

51 For the (double) shekel as equal to four drachmas, see b. Baba Bathra 90b; b. Berakhot 5a. 52 Philo, Special Laws 1.77 – 78; 18.312; Matt 17:24 – 27; Tacitus Hist. 5.5.1 (Stern 1980:19, 26); Cassius Dio 67:2, 7 (Stern 1980:373, 377). There are also many general references to donations to the Temple that were probably identical with Temple tax. For further references, see Tellbe 2005:21 – 22. 53 Meshorer 1997:70. The rabbis mentioned tables of money-changers in the provinces (m. Sheqalim 1:3). 54 Levine 2005a. 55 T. Ketubot 12:3 (ed. Zuckermandel, 275). 56 Meshorer 1997:69 – 73. 57 Liver 1963:182 – 188. See 2 Kings 15:5 – 17; Ant 12.138 – 144 (Antiochus III); 2 Macc 3:3 (Seleuchus IV); 1 Macc 10:40 (Demetrius II).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage

75

Samaritans (to Mount Gerizim) continuing into the Seleucid and early Hasmonean period.58 The earliest direct source that explicitly mentions the annual half-shekel tribute is Philo of Alexandria.59 There is no explicit evidence that the Hasmoneans were involved in the establishment of the tribute. Nonetheless, many scholars date the origin of the practice to the Hasmonean period. One reason for such early dating is the fact that the payment was in Tyrian shekels, and Tyre began minting its own coins in 127 BCE, when it was released from Seleucid rule.60 It is reasonable to assume that the Temple tax was prescribed close to this date, namely, under the reign of Hyrcanus. Several texts mention large sums of money donated to the Temple by Diaspora Jews. Although none of these sources refer to the half-shekel tax explicitly, it is likely that the money included, first and foremost, half-shekel tributes.61 The sources suggest that the half-shekel tribute was already observed by Diaspora Jews in the Hasmonean period. Aristeas 42, which, as we shall see below, may be dated to the reign of Hyrcanus, stresses the donations of 100 talents of silver “for sacrifices and other [requirements].” According to Strabo, in 88 BCE “Mithridates sent to Cos and took the money which Queen Cleopatra had deposited there, and 800 talents of the Jews.” Josephus adds that “there is no public money among us except that which is God’s, and it is therefore evident that this money was transferred to Cos by the Jews of Asia because of their fear of Mithridates. For it is not likely that those in Judaea, who possessed a fortified city and the Temple, would have sent money to Cos, nor is it probable that the Jews living in Alexandria would have done this either, since they had no fear of Mithridates.”62 Stern rightly argued that the sum is too large to represent only the annual collection for the Temple (it is equal to 2.4 million half-shekels!), and probably also included the private fortunes of the Asian Jews. Stern also noted that the Temple treasure consisted of 2000 talents robbed by Crassus in 54 BCE.63 The Temple tax is probably referred to in 59 BCE in Cicero’s defense of Flaccus (who ruled the province of Asia) against the charge that he confiscated money, including Jewish funds: “When every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our 58 Two inscriptions found near the synagogue of Delos dated to 250 – 175 BCE and 150 – 50 BCE referred to “the Israelites of Delos who offer their first fruits in the sanctuary of Gerizim” (Schmidt 2001:119 and references). See also the dispute between Jews and Samaritans who were taken by Ptolemy to Egypt, about where to send sacrifices (Ant. 12.7 – 10). 59 Leg. 156 – 157, 216, 291, 313 – 316. 60 Bickrman 1980b:76 – 78; Meshorer 1997:69; Baumgarten 1996:197 – 202. 61 Bickerman 1980b: 77 – 78 concluded that Strabo and Cicero (discussed below) referred to the tax, and was followed by Baumgarten 1996 and others (see below). Liver 1963:189 – 190 argued that the Temple-tax began no earlier than the days of Salome Alexandra or the later Hasmonean period. 62 Ant. 14.110 – 118; Stern 1976:272 – 273. 63 Stern 1976:275, following Reinach. For the money robbed by Crassus, see Ant. 14.105 – 109.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

76

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

provinces, Flaccus forbade by an edict its exportation from Asia.” Cicero also mentioned that the Senate prohibited the export of gold.64 Further evidence is attested in Josephus: following the request of Hyrcanus II, the proconsul of Syria notified the magistrates, council, and people of Ephesus of his permission to the Jews “to make offerings for their sacrifices.”65 Another possible indication for dating the Temple tax to the Hasmonean period comes from Qumran. The law in 4Q159 Ordinancesa prescribes a halfshekel payment once in a lifetime. The overt purpose of this payment was to serve as a ransom, that is, to atone for any sins that the donor might have committed; it had nothing to do with the financing of sacrifices. The text stressed that this was not an annual tax: “only on[ce] will he give it in all his days.”66 The polemical tone suggests that the authors were familiar with the annual half-shekel tax and argued that it should be rejected. The manuscript of 4Q159 is dated on paleographical grounds to the early Herodian period,67 but this is probably not the autograph and the original document may be dated a few decades earlier to the late Hasmonean period. Thus, evidence leads us to date the half-shekel tribute to the Hasmonean period, perhaps even to the reign of John Hyrcanus. The annual half-shekel tax was adopted—or perhaps even initiated—by the Pharisees (the Sadducees, however, rejected it). The Scholion to Megilat Ta’anit regarded it as a pharisaic innovation and connected its establishment to the Pharisees’ takeover of the Temple cult. While the Sadducees/ Boethusians argued that the daily sacrifices should be financed by individuals (perhaps the priests on duty) the Pharisees insisted that all the Jewish people should sponsor them. The Pharisees championed the idea of lay participation in the cult, whereas the Sadducees believed that such inclusiveness contradicted the traditional priestly hierarchy that conveyed the boundaries of the sacred.68 The half-shekel tribute accorded the masses with a symbolic foothold in the Temple, and gave every Jew the sense that he was taking an active part in the sacrificial cult even when he was far away. It seems, however, that despite the opposition of the Sadducees and Qumranites, not only Pharisees, but many other Jews, especially from the Diaspora, were committed to giving this tribute

64 Cicero Pro Flacco 28:67; Stern 1976:196 – 197, esp. 193. Gruen 2002:244 regarded the passage as related to the half-shekel and concluded that the tributes were sent from all Roman provinces and collected by the Jewish communities in each city in Asia Minor. 65 Ant. 14.227. Pucci Ben-Ze’ev 1998:139 – 148 dated this document to 43 BCE. Cf. also Ant. 14.214. 66 Allegro 1968:6 – 9; Liver 1963:190 – 198. The citation is from frag. 1, 7. A similar law, without the polemics, is found in Temple Scroll 39:8. The Qumranic law actually follows Exod 30:11 – 16. 67 Webster 2002:374, 412 (following Strugnell). 68 Ms. Oxford, from the beginning of the Scholion, in Noam 2003:57 – 59, 165 – 173. See also the parallel in b. Menah. ot. 65a. Despite their late dates and obvious bias, these sources seem to reflect the Sadducees’ views. Note the half-shekel payment as a polemical act, probably against the Sadducees, in m. Shekalim 3:3. For the attitudes of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Qumranites, see Regev 2005:132 – 139.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage

77

every year, as both Philo and Josephus indicate.69 This practice was maintained even when the high priests in charge of the Temple were Sadducees.70 Although the religious or halakhic approach behind the half-shekel tribute is Pharisaic, it would be nave to assume that the Pharisees were able, on their own initiative, to carry out such radical changes in the Temple fiscal system, as well as in the relationship between both Judaean and Diaspora Jews and the Temple. This could be implemented only through the active involvement of those who ruled the Temple and controlled the official relationship with the Diaspora. While this is not directly stated anywhere, only the Hasmonean high priests and rulers could have persuaded many thousands of Jews to donate to the Temple, as they had already tried to convince the Egyptian Jews to celebrate H. anukkah. Circumstantial evidence therefore leads me to view the half-shekel as a Hasmonean enterprise. In his discussion of the “invented traditions” of the Maccabees, Baumgarten pointed to the role of the half-shekel Temple tax in Hasmonean ideology. To reiterate: according to Hobsbawm, “invented tradition” is a response to a novel situation that takes the form of reference to an old situation, in order to establish or legitimize institutions or authority, enhance social cohesion or membership in a group, beliefs or behavior. Baumgarten regarded the Temple tax as such an invented tradition, which “served to bolster loyalty to the Temple in Jerusalem and its Maccabean priesthood.” What made it “invented tradition,” namely, its continuity with the past, is the seeming continuation with the half-shekel donation in the time of Moses.71 The Hasmonean halfshekel tax was probably shaped as a continuation of Moses’ half-shekel tribute. For Philo and the rabbis, Exod 30:12 in which the tribute is regarded “as ransom for their lives to the Lord,” also applied to the current Temple tax. Such an interpretation was reasonable, since the daily burnt sacrifices were regarded as atoning for the entire Jewish people.72 The half-shekel tribute is especially important for assessing the attitude of the Diaspora Jews towards the Hasmoneans, and their relations to Jerusalem and the Temple as the center of Judaism. It demonstrated their commitment to the Jewish community and devotion to Jerusalem. According to Gruen, it was a 69 See, e. g., Ant. 18.312 and the references cited above. Ant. 14.110 records donations by Godfearers, possibly referring to half-shekels. Mandel 1984 argued that the tax was paid mainly by the Pharisees. However, the fact that the Romans transformed it into the Fiscus Iudaicus, paid by every Jew in the Roman Empire (see below), shows that it was widely accepted and had become a Jewish identity marker. The enormous sums of money plundered by Mithridates and Crassus, amounting to millions of half-shekels (one talent equals 3,000 shekels), indicate that many thousands of Jews donated to the Temple. 70 See Regev 2005:352 n. 9, 373 – 374 n. 51, where several explanations for this anomaly are suggested. Indeed, this is one of the instances in which “money changes everything.” 71 Baumgarten 1996:197 – 202. Cf. Hobsbawm 1983. 72 Philo, Special Laws 1.76 – 78; t. Shekalim 1:6 (ed. Lieberman, 201 – 202), y. Shekalim 1:1 45d; b. Megillah 29b. See Baumgarten 1996:201. For the atoning function of the daily sacrifices, see t. Shekalim 1:6.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

78

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

“bonding device,” an “annual act of obeisance [that] reminded and displayed affection and allegiance,” and a “ritualistic contribution [that] emblematized the unbroken attachment of the Diaspora to the center.” The Romans recognized the symbolic power of the Temple tax when they later transformed it into a subsidy for the Empire’s deity, the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus, as a signifier of a new loyalty.73 The Temple tax became an identity marker for the Diaspora Jews, representing solidarity with other Jews and support of the sacrificial cult.74 One cannot overestimate the Hasmoneans’ creativity in inventing the Temple tribute and in succeeding to convince Jews all around the world (as the evidence from Strabo and Cicero shows) to donate so much money to the treasury of which the Hasmonean high priests were in charge. This was both a religious and political achievement. The half-shekel was certainly connected to the Hasmoneans’ general Temple ideology. In fact, the tax was its most fruitful result. Pilgrimage was the other.

The Emergence of Pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple According to Scripture, every adult Israelite male is to appear before God three times in a year (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). Rabbinic law orders that “All are subject to the command to appear [before the Lord] excepting a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a child, one of doubtful sex, one of double sex, women, slaves that have not been freed, a man that is lame or blind or sick or aged, and one that cannot go up [to Jerusalem] on his feet” (m. H. agigah 1:1). The manner in which Jews observed this commitment was highly inconsistent. Some went up to the Temple several times in a year, or at least once a year (Luke 2:23, 41), some several times in a lifetime,75 some once in a lifetime,76 and many probably did not practice pilgrimage at all. The pilgrimage to Jerusalem was made on the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. At each feast, tens of thousands of pilgrims from Judaea, Galilee and the Diaspora went up to the Temple and offered sacrifices. The pilgrims

73 Gruen 2002:243 – 246 (here 246). For the Fiscus Iudaicus, see: War 7.218; Cassius Dio 66.7.2; Stern 1980:372, 275, 377. The Temple tax was condemned by Tacitus Hist. 5.5.1 (Stern 1980:19, 26). 74 Tellbe 2005:esp. 23. 75 Whereas in Mark 11:15 Jesus goes on pilgrimage only once, in John he visits the Temple on several occasions (including H. anukkah and Passover), and was expected there every Passover. See John 2:13; 7:10; 10:23; 11:56. John’s Jesus may perhaps reflect an average Galilean Jew. 76 Philo (Providence 64) mentions that he was “on my way to our ancestral Temple to offer up prayers and sacrifices.” For the historical value of this statement, see Colson’s comment in the LCL edition (VII, 618).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage

79

needed to provide themselves with a substantial amount of money to defray the expenses of the journey and the prescribed sacrifices.77 It is customary to regard the mass pilgrimage, especially by Diaspora Jews, as a phenomenon that emerged at the time of Herod, not least due to Herod’s political and economic interests, which encouraged international pilgrimage to his renovated Temple. As Martin Goodman argued: “No reference to international pilgrimage can be found in any source referring to the period before Herod . . . this silence may not be accidental.”78 Goodman further denied the existence of Diaspora pilgrimage during the Hasmonean period: “the pilgrimage feast before Herod’s time involved essentially only local Jews from the Land of Israel; the vastly expanded Temple court which Herod was to build would eventually be filled to overflowing, but no source suggests a problem with lack of space in the Temple before then.”79 It is my contention that there are several hints, based on historical evidence and circumstantial implications, that large-scale pilgrimage, by Diaspora as well Judaean Jews, had already begun during the Hasmonean period. In fact, Levine already sensed that the emergence of pilgrimage might be dated to the Hasmonean period, on the basis of several references in Josephus to very large crowds at the Temple during the festivals; it is likely that these were made up of pilgrims.80 The most explicit evidence for pilgrimage crowds dates to the last days of Antigonus. When Antigonus attempted to capture Jerusalem from Herod and his brother Phasael, he used the presence of many thousands of Jews at the Temple, who had come there for the festival of Pentecost, to take control over the city. According to Josephus (whose account was undoubtedly based on Nicolaus of Damascus), Antigonus and his troops were “waiting for the arrival of the multitude from the country who were coming for the celebration of Pentecost … And when this day came, there were many tens of thousands of armed and unarmed men gathered round the Temple.” The newcomers were able to hold the Temple and the city, apart from the palace.81 Thus, the pilgrimage of the masses to the Temple on the festivals was a well-known fact by 37 BCE.

77 Safrai 1976:898 – 904. Cf. b. H. agigah 6a – 6b. 78 Goodman 1999:71, referring to Safrai 1965:55. 79 Goodman 1999:71. There is a lack of evidence for mass pilgrimages in the monarchic period and in the times of Nehemiah. See Safrai 1965:11. However, evidence for individual pilgrimages, namely, bringing tithes and first fruits, is found in Neh 10:36; Tobit 1:6 – 8; Judith 11:13. 80 Levine 2002:137, 164. 81 Ant. 14.337 – 338. See also War 1.253. I owe this observation to my student, Esther CohenShadmi. See already Levine 2002:137, 164. The imprint of Nicolaus is apparent in the use of the term “enemies” (of Herod) in referring to Antigonus’s supporters, and in the introduction of the Pentecost using the words “as it is called, which is a festival” (Josephus himself had already introduced the Pentecost earlier, in Ant. 2.252).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

80

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

Further indications of the presence of a multitude of Jews at the Temple in Jannaeus’s days may suggest that the pilgrimage had already been taking place for some time. As already mentioned, Josephus says that “the nation” (to ethnos) rebelled against Jannaeus “at the celebration of the festival,” namely, Tabernacles. Josephus adds that in response Jannaeus killed some six thousand of these people, which suggests the minimum number of pilgrims present at that time.82 Such a resistance at the Temple could have happened only if pilgrimage was already taking place as a well-established institution. Another indication of the gathering of many Jews in Jerusalem during the festivals is associated with the relationship between Hyrcanus II and Herod, the tetrarch of the Galilee. When the young Herod reached Jerusalem with his (Gentile) troops during the festival, Hyrcanus II “sent orders forbidding him to intrude aliens upon the country folk (tous epixo¯rious) during their period of purification.”83 This indicates that many Jews outside Jerusalem visited the city during the festival. It is therefore probable that pilgrimage already existed in the days of Jannaeus, Hyrcanus II and Mattathias Antigonus. Admittedly, the available historical evidence can only prove that Judaean Jews visited the Temple, and there is no explicit indication that Diaspora Jews did the same. Nevertheless, I think that there are several implicit and circumstantial arguments to counter Goodman’s claim that international pilgrimage only began with Herod and following his policy. First of all, there is no indication that pilgrimage was limited to Judaea before the Herodian period.84 One might also object to the assumption that Galilean Jews felt committed to this religious practice while Jews in Syria, Egypt or Babylon did not. Second, as we have already seen, Diaspora Jews contributed a large amount of money to the Temple, including the half-shekel tax, which was perhaps instituted by John Hyrcanus. This attests to the strong commitment of the Jews in the Diaspora towards the Temple. Although a pilgrimage journey demands more effort than sending monetary donations, it is reasonable to suppose that certain Jews felt obligated to make that effort. Thus, assuming that the half-shekel tax was probably established in the 120s BCE (see above), this was an appropriate background to the development of international pilgrimage. If pilgrimage indeed emerged in the Hasmonean period, it was probably encouraged by those responsible for the Temple’s management—the Hasmonean high priests. 82 Ant. 13.372. In War 1.88 the opposition came from to Ioudaikon “on one of the festivals.” 83 War 1.229. In Ant. 14.285 Hyrcanus II ordered Herod not to enter the city using the excuse that “it was not proper to admit a crowd of foreigners when the people (tou ple¯thous) were in a state of purity.” Further evidence for the presence of multitudes at the Temple during the festival is implied in the entrance of Antigonus (Judah Aristobulus’s brother) to the Temple with his troops to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles (War 1.73; Ant. 13.304 – 306). His “ambitious display” (Ant. 13.305) would have been effective only if many Jews were present. 84 Compare the sources studied in Safrai 1965:42 – 87.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Temple Practices: the Half-Shekel Tribute and Pilgrimage

81

This recognition leads us to a further important circumstantial argument, related to the general ideological background for the establishment of international pilgrimage. Herod’s political and economic interest in the emergence of such pilgrimages, including the renovation of the Temple Mount and the appointment of high priests from Babylon and Egypt, could not have convinced masses of Diaspora Jews to come to Jerusalem on a regular basis. The foundations of international pilgrimage lie in their recognition that the Temple and its cult is the basis of Jewish identity and religious commitment. This is exactly what the Hasmoneans attempted to create when they established H. anukkah as an international Jewish Temple festival. The half-shekel tax was, I suggest, part of a larger conception in which the Hasmoneans put the Temple not only at the center of their political system, but also at the center of worldwide Judaism. The emergence of pilgrimage is intrinsically related to their Temple ideology and may be regarded as a successful outcome thereof. Later, Herod used the Temple to promote his rule and presented it as serving Jewish religious interests. But he merely built on existing religious consciousness.85 There are, in fact, more concrete indications that this was the case. The author of Aristeas (which may be dated to the days of John Hyrcanus, see below), claims to have led an embassy of Egyptian Jews on a mission to the high priest in Jerusalem, where they visited the Temple and were highly impressed by the sacrificial cult and the holy vessels. Although Aristeas’s narrative is probably a fiction, and it is not even clear whether or not the author actually went to Jerusalem, the story as such would have sparked the religious curiosity of its audience and encouraged them to go on pilgrimage by themselves and witness the Temple’s wonders. In fact, Aristeas (88) might have referred to an imagined pilgrimage when he mentioned that tens of thousands of lambs were slaughtered on the Passover, since this means that an incredible number of Jews attended the festival in Jerusalem.86 There is sufficient evidence to conclude that pilgrimage to Jerusalem had emerged already in the Hasmonean period, and that the Hasmoneans played a significant role in its development. This was an outstanding religious and political achievement, since international pilgrimage was not a common phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world.87 It had far-reaching implications for the shaping of Jewish collective consciousness, as later sources demonstrate. The mass pilgrimage of Jews from Judaea and the Diaspora to the Jerusalem Temple during the holidays resulted in a genuine religious experience. Jews felt unity and camaraderie fostered by being together with masses of seemingly 85 For Herod’s religious ideology regarding the Temple, see Ant. 15.382 – 387, 423; Regev 2010:212 – 218. 86 Note the discovery of Hasmonean coins in Dura Europos (Kasher 1980:221 n.2), which may indicate that Jews from northern Syria visited Jerusalem and returned with Hasmonean small change. 87 On pagan pilgrimage in the Roman Empire, see MacMullen 1981:28 – 29, 42, referring to Egypt and the cult of Asclepius in Asia Minor.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

82

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

different but essentially like-minded coreligionists.88 As Philo of Alexandria commented, the pilgrims “take the Temple for their port as a general haven and safe refuge from the bustle and great turmoil of life, and there they seek to find calm weather” (Special Laws 1.69). Josephus also mentioned “mutual affection,” and “membership of the same race and partnership in the Temple, through sight and speech they recall those ties to mind” (Ant. 4.203 – 204). Philo even regarded pilgrimage as a test to sacrificing in a religious spirit and piety. He commends the courage and commitment behind a pilgrim’s decision to leave everything and endure the trials and tribulations of a long journey (Special Laws 1.68). Diaspora pilgrimage created a sense of unity among Jews coming from distant countries and cities, many of whom did not even speak the same language. Mutual religious devotion and piety let them feel that they were of the same people. This religious enthusiasm, social bonding, and collective consciousness developed under the encouragement and direction of the Hasmonean rulers. Hasmonean patronage of pilgrimage would have greatly enhanced the political power of these rulers, assuming that most of the pilgrims acknowledged the legitimacy and supremacy of the Hasmonean high priest. It is likely that following their visit to the Temple (and some of the Diaspora Jews probably remained in the city for a longer period), Diaspora Jews would have respected the Hasmonean high priests quite similarly to the manner in which Eleazar the high priest was admired by Aristeas following the latter’s visit to the Temple (see below). International pilgrimage was a Hasmonean display of power.

5. Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas Hasmonean Authority in the Diaspora We have seen that Hasmonean Temple ideology was also directed towards Jews in the Diaspora. This is attested not only by the half-shekel tribute and pilgrimage from outside of Judaea, but also by the very establishment of H. anukkah as an international Jewish festival (attested to in the letters in 2 Macc 1:1 – 2:18). There is also substantive evidence concerning the Hasmoneans’ ties with the Diaspora Jews. Ananias, Onias’s son and a Ptolemaic general under Cleopatra III, supported Jannaeus’s reign and warned the queen not to act against the Hasmonean king, because “an injustice done to this man will make all us Jews your enemies.”89 Hyrcanus II sent letters to the Jews in the district of Onias 88 Levine 2002:251 – 252. 89 Ant.13.353 – 355. On Ananias, see also Ant.13.285 – 287 and the discussion in Chapter 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas

83

calling them to be friendly to Caesar’s forces, which led to their cooperation with Antipater (Ant. 14.131 – 132). When Hyrcanus II was later captivated by the Parthians, he was highly respected by the Jews of Parthia.90 Several Hellenistic documents cited by Josephus attest to the Hasmoneans’ intervention on behalf of the Jews in Asia Minor and the Aegean Sea to secure their privileges under Roman rule. John Hyrcanus sent delegates to Laodicea (and probably elsewhere) to request that Jews be permitted to observe their Sabbaths and perform their religious rites.91 Hyrcanus II appealed to the Roman governor Dollabela to exempt the Jews in Asia from military service and to permit them to maintain their native customs.92 Later he also appealed to Marcus Antonius, who was staying in Ephesus, to order the provincial governors to set free Jews who had been captured by Cassius and to allow them to return to their lands (Ant. 14.304 – 322). Most importantly, in several official documents Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius recognized Hyrcanus II as the leader of the entire Jewish people.93 Caesar sent to Sidon his declaration that “Hyrcanus son of Alexander and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews for all time in accordance with their national customs” (Ant. 14.194). Similarly, when Antonius declared his friendship with Hyrcanus II and “the Jewish nation,” he also ordered “the cities” to release Jewish captives and property and reaffirmed the privileges given to the Jews in Asia by Dollabela (Ant. 14.306, 313). In all these cases Hyrcnaus II’s office as high priest and ethnarch of the Jews was related to the status of Jews in the Roman Empire outside Judaea.94 Still, the Hasmonean acquisition of the high priesthood and civic rule over the Jews may be regarded as limited to Judaea, interpreting Ioudaioi and ethnos in a geographical or local sense.95 However, Caesar’s conventional acknowledgment of Hyrcanus’s office in his letter to the people of Sidon was 90 Ant. 15.14 – 17. See also the enthusiasm expressed towards the imposter who posed as Alexander, the son of Herod and Mariamme the Hasmonean, in Crete and elsewhere, only because of his supposed Hasmonean blood (Ant. 17.327 – 330, 335). 91 Ant. 14.241 – 243. Recently, Eilers 2003:194 – 198 dated it to John Hyrcanus. For the identification of the document as related to Hyrcanus II (and not John Hyrcanus), see Pucci Ben Ze’ev 1998:194. Compare John Hyrcanus’s successful attempt to convince the Senate to intervene in the conflict with Antiochus IX (Ant. 14.247 – 255; Stern 1991:88 – 93). 92 Ant. 14.223 – 227. According to Dollabela’s letter, Hyrcanus referred to the Jews in Asia as his “co-religionists” (politai). Cohen 1999:74 translated it “citizens.” For the term see also Ant. 12.46. 93 Ant. 14.190 – 201, 211 – 212, 306 – 313. See Pucci ben Ze’ev 1998:31 – 53, 101 – 106. 94 He is granted the title ethnarch in Ant. 14.191, 196, 200, 209, 211, 226, 306, 314, 317. According to Eilers 2003:191 – 192 Josephus added it to Hyrcanus I in Ant. 14.153, since he erroneously attributed to Hyrcanus II the document that actually mentioned John Hyrcanus. 95 Cohen 1998:69 – 106. Cf. Goodblatt 2006:140 – 166. See, however, the general reservations of Schwartz 2007 who interpreted Ioudaioi as Jews (and not Judaeans), namely, followers of the Jewish religion. Hyrcanus II’s office over “Jerusalem and their nation” (Ant. 14.199) and the reference to his high priesthood along with ethnei to¯n Ioudaio¯n (Ant. 14.212) is not restricted to Judaea.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

84

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

accompanied by an outstanding privilege: “if … any questions shall arise concerning the Jews’ manner of life … the decision shall rest with them,” namely, Hyrcanus and his sons (Ant. 14.195). Here the Hasmonean high priests were granted religious (halakhic) authority, perhaps over the Jews of the entire Roman Empire! All this shows that the Romans recognized the religious authority of the Hasmonean high priests over the Jews outside Judaea. This indicates that the Hasmoneans were highly appreciated in the Diaspora, and that they—and particularly Hyrcanus II (and probably also his predecessors John Hyrcanus and Jannaeus, who had stronger political status)—regarded themselves as responsible for Jewish religious life in the Diaspora. The Hasmoneans not only expected the Diaspora Jews to give Temple tributes and to travel to Jerusalem for pilgrimage, but they also made efforts to secure their religious interests and identity. Two apocryphal books provide evidence concerning the attitude of Diaspora Jews in Cyrenaica and Alexandria towards the Hasmoneans in the second half of the second century BCE. 2 Maccabees is a direct reaction to Judah Maccabee’s victories and restoration of the Temple. Aristeas introduces the high priest and the Temple as the sources of authority and credibility for the Septuagint. Both attest to the reception of Hasmonean Temple ideology by Diaspora (Hellenistic) Jews.

2 Maccabees and Judah Maccabee’s Defense of the Temple The focal place of the Temple in the narrative of 2 Maccabees was observed by Robert Doran. He concluded that the epitome and the two letters all stress that the Temple is holy and that God defends it. The main concern of the entire narrative is the attacks on the Temple and its defense: Heliodorus’s failed attack; Antiochus’s desecration and his defeat; the restoration of the Temple; and Nicanor’s attack, along with Judah’s victory over him. After recounting the restoration of the Temple, 2 Maccabees expresses concern with the repulse of further attacks upon it.96 In so doing, the author aimed to glorify the defense of the Temple.97 Actually, the book’s main concern is to establish two feasts, H. anukkah and Nicanor’s day, celebrating the restoration and defense of the Temple.98 96 Doran 1981:63. 97 Doran 1981:12, 75, 110, followed by Zsengellr 2005. Goldstein 1980:13 – 17 recognized this but the nonpolemical references to Mount Gerizim led him to conclude that the author believed that the latter temple, as well as Onias’s temple in Leontopolis, were also legitimate. 98 2 Macc 10:8 and 15:38 repeat the same language. See Doran 1981:75, 105 – 106 following Bunge and Momigliano. The victory over Nicanor is celebrated in Megillat Ta’anit on 13th Adar (Noam 2003:298 – 302).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas

85

Although Doran entitled his book Temple Propaganda, and summarized the theme of 2 Maccabees as “the defense of the Temple and its surrounding,”99 he engaged mainly in demonstrating the narrative unity of 2 Maccabees and in the literary characterization of the book. He did not pay special attention to the author’s treatment of the Temple, nor did he deal with the purpose of the author in focusing upon it. Daniel Schwartz has recently introduced a very different understanding of the place of the Temple in the author’s worldview. He stressed that 2 Maccabees is a Diaspora book, and argued that it represents little interest in the Temple per se and in the sacrificial cult, since a Diaspora Jew can only rarely participate in it. Schwartz observes that the author has less interest than 1 Maccabees in the Temple vessels, and when sacrifices are mentioned, they are related to prayer. Here the Maccabees are fighting not only for the sake of the Temple, but also for “the Law, city, fatherland, and constitution” (2 Macc 13:11, 14). The pagan desecration of the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim is mentioned without polemic against the Samaritans (5:22 – 23; 6:2). Significantly, in 2 Macc 5:19 “the people” are more important than the Temple, because the Temple exists only in one land, while the Jews are all over. God is in heaven, hence equally accessible to all. Prayers appear about thirty times in the book while sacrifices are mentioned only twice, and votive offerings by Gentile kings appear four times; hence, prayer is the main way of worship.100 The passages that view the Temple as the main institution of Judaism were not, according to Schwartz, written by Jason of Cyrene. The fact that the Heliodorus story (ch. 3) plays up the importance of the Temple and God’s protection of it, as well as the efficacy of sacrifice101 is explained by arguing that this chapter was written by another author. The passage referring to H. anukkah (2 Macc 10:1 – 8), which concentrates on the centrality of the Temple and other cultic details, giving precedence to the Temple over the city, is regarded by Schwartz as a later insertion added by Jerusalemites who also added the epistles concerning H. anukkah at the beginning of the book.102 For Schwartz, the subject of the book is the history of the city of Jerusalem in 175 – 161 BCE, beginning with the peaceful situation in the Holy City in 2 Macc 3:1, and up to the final reference to “the city taken over by the Hebrews”

99 Doran 1981:114. 100 Schwartz 2008:46 – 47. 101 2 Macc 3:32. See Doran 1981:47 – 50, who pointed to the Hellenistic character of the claim that God protects his own Temple. Note that the historical background of the Heliodorus story is confirmed by a recently published royal inscription found in Marisa which was unknown to Schwartz (Gera 2009a:148 – 150). 102 Schwartz 2008:5 – 6, 8 – 9, 46. However, Gera 2009b showed the integral nature of the Heliodorus story to the narrative.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

86

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

in 15:37. Indeed, there are also many references to “the city” throughout the book.103 There is, however, an abundance of passages in which the author mentions the Temple,104 the Seleucids’ threats against it, the Jewish piety towards it, and the manner in which it was protected by God and the Maccabees. Schwartz dismissed this evidence due to his grand theory that Hellenistic Judaism or Diaspora Judaism was indifferent towards the Temple because of their geographical distance from it; even more important was the effect of the Hellenistic worldview (e. g., the privileging of the soul over the body), which led to a universalizing and spiritualizing Jewish religion.105 The shortcomings of this theory cannot be discussed here.106 As we shall see, the extensive treatment of the Temple in 2 Maccabees does not leave any doubt that this was the authors’ major concern. I shall later also relate this fact to the manner in which the author viewed Hasmonean rule. It is appropriate to begin our survey with the subject of the book as presented by the author : “Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers, and the purification of the greatest Temple and the rededication of the altar” (2 Macc 2:19). The Temple is glorified and praised twice as “the greatest and holy Temple” (14:13, 31). The author declared at the very beginning that the Temple “was spoken of throughout the entire civilized world” (2:22) and later added that the sacrificial laws were being observed optimally, due to the “piety and hatred of evil” of the high priest Onias (3:2). In the course of the incident of Heliodorus’s plundering of the Temple treasury, Onias the high priest referred to the Temple’s “sanctity, augustness, and immunity” which is “honored throughout the entire world” (3:12). Later he pointed out that Antiochus dared to enter into “the most sacred Temple in the entire world” (5:15). The author found it necessary to show that foreign kings respected the Temple as well, as they donated gifts and supplies (3:2 – 3). This is especially striking in his account of the desecration of the Temple. Menelaus seized “the votive offerings which had been given by other kings for the aggrandizement honor and respect of the Place” (5:15). Antiochus repented after his defeat and made a vow that “he would deck out the Holy Temple—which he had previously pillaged—with the most beautiful votive offerings, and that he would restore many times over the sacred vessels and supply from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices” (9:16). 103 Schwartz 2008:3, 6 – 7, 50 – 51. For the priority of the city over the Temple see 2 Macc 4:48; Schwartz 2008:245, 375. 104 Zsengellr 2005:184 listed 40 designations of the Temple in 2 Macc including hieron, naos, oikos, and topos. 105 On the supposed indifference of the Egyptian Diaspora towards the Temple, see Schwartz 1997. For Schwartz’s views on Hellenism and its effect on ancient Judaism, using Paul as the main example, see Schwartz 2010:91 – 97. 106 Suffice it to recall the extensive role of Temple symbolism in the writings of Philo and Paul, and the fact that they both practiced pilgrimage.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas

87

As in 1 Maccabees, the Temple has many enemies, including the Seleucid kings and generals, as well as the hellenized priests. 2 Maccabees has a very detailed description of Antiochus’s decrees and his abomination of the Temple, including his naming it after Zeus Olympios, and introducing licentiousness, whores, and forbidden offerings on the altar.107 In their call to revolt against the Seleucids, Judah and his supporters called for “pity upon the Sanctuary which had been profaned by impious men.”108 Lysias also attempted “to make the Temple a source of money like the sacred enclosures of the other peoples and to make the high priesthood into something sold a year at a time” (11:3). Another enemy of the Temple was Nicanor, the Seleucid general. In his attempt to capture Judah, Nicanor “came to the greatest and holy Temple, and ordered the priests, who were busy bringing the appropriate sacrifices, to hand the man over … he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary and swore … I will level this sacred enclosure of God to the ground, and I will destroy the altar, and I will erect here a magnificent temple to Dionysus!” In response, the priests prayed to God, mentioning the necessity of the Temple for the dwelling of God’s presence, and begging that He would “preserve forever undefiled this house which only recently has been purified” (14:31 – 36). Nicanor’s defeat and brutal death are described in great detail in 2 Macc 15:20 – 39; the book concludes with Judah’s heroic victory and a thanksgiving prayer to God “who preserved His own Place (ton heautou topon) undefiled” (15:34). Menelaus is blamed for robbing the Temple (5:16, see above); when the author describes Menelaus’s execution by the Seleucids, he mentions again that Menelaus “committed many sins against the altar.”109 2 Maccabees is first and foremost the story of the deliverance of the Temple from all these dangerous attempts to desecrate and exploit it. The most detailed example is the tale of Heliodorus (3:4 – 40), which represents Temple piety and devotion to the sacredness of the money deposited at the Temple treasury. The vision of the flogging of Heliodorus by a heavenly horseman shows the divine protection of the Temple. Heliodorus, grateful that he survived the attack, brought a sacrifice and made vows to the Lord (3:35). In a theological digression, the author is at pains to explain why God did not protect His Temple against Antiochus IV, as he did when Heliodorus attempted to rob its treasury (5:17 – 20). It is stressed that the Temple is not safe from the people’s sins but intrinsically related to the people. Hence, God did not desert the Temple, but temporarily punished His people for their sins.

107 2 Macc 6:1 – 5. For Antiochus’s preliminary desecration of the Temple by entering into the sacred precinct, and robbing the holy vessels and 800 talents, see 2 Macc 5:15 – 16, 21. 108 2 Macc 8:2. Note that in the letter that cancelled the decrees, Antiochus V ordered to “restore their Temple to them” (2 Macc 11:25). 109 2 Macc 13:8. See also the burring of the Temple’s(?) gates by Jason or other hellenized Jews in 1:8 (cf. 8:33).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

88

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

The dire situation of the Temple therefore demanded explanation, and necessitated the promise of the return of divine mercy upon the Temple.110 In this context of the glorification of the Temple, the dangers posed against it by the Seleucids and Jewish Hellenizers, and its reclamation, the Maccabees fit into the narrative. The Maccabees fought for the Temple and succeeded in saving it. The author made clear that the aim of Judah Maccabee and his supporters was to fight for the sake of the Temple. Before Judah’s first battle against Nicanor, he urged his soldiers to fight without fear, “keeping before their eyes the outrage … against the Holy Place” (2 Macc 8:17). Before the final battle against Nicanor, the Maccabees were motivated by “the danger facing the city, the holy things and the Temple … greatest and first was their fear for the Sanctuary which had been made holy” (15:17 – 18). After killing Nicanor in the final battle, Judah summons the people and the priests before the altar, presenting Nicanor’s head and hand (which he had ordered to be cut off), since Nicanor had boasted “against the holy house of the All-Ruler” (15:30 – 32). Significantly, in all three instances the author regarded the Maccabees as the protectors of the Temple—not the laws, and hardly the city. There are further indications for this close relationship between the Maccabees, their military struggle and the Temple cult. They conducted a prayer at the Temple altar before battle (2 Macc 10:26). Judah encouraged his soldiers before the final battle by telling them of his dream in which Onias the high priest was revealed to him while he was praying for the sake of the Jews. Judah was handed a holy golden sword by the prophet Jeremiah. The dream symbolized that Judah acted under divine approval and agency. The role of Onias III in the dream implied that Judah was fighting for the sake of the Temple cult.111 All this leaves no doubt that the Temple was extremely essential for the ethos of 2 Maccabees. The central place of the Temple in the author’s mind has important implications for his characterization of the Maccabees. The more glorious and vital the Temple in the author’s mind, and the more dangerous the threats that the Seleucids mount against it, the more courageous were Judah’s accomplishments in restoring the cult and protecting the Temple against Nicanor. These military achievements also resulted in two novel annual festivals, H. anukkah and Nicanor’s Day. Whether or not the description of H. anukkah (2 Macc 10:1 – 8) is a later insertion according to redaction criticism, and whether or not the lack of descriptions of the sacrificial cult per 110 Doran 1981:53 – 54. In contrast, Schwartz 2008:46 built on the verse “But God did not choose the people on account of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people” (5:19), to argue that “the people are more important than the Temple.” In any event, the holiness of the city of Jerusalem, which Schwartz (2008:3, 6) realized as standing at the heart of the book, derives from the sanctity of Temple that stands in its midst (e. g., MMT B 29 – 30). 111 2 Macc 15:12 – 15; Gera 2009b:55 – 56. For the idea of defeating the Gentiles by means of the holy sword, see 1 En 90:19; 1QM 15:3; 19:11 (also implied in 11:11 – 12). For the motif of a prebattle dream and holy war, see Doran 1981:72 – 75.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas

89

se is indicative in the context of the narrative, one cannot deny that the book’s narrative presented Judah as the defender of the Temple. The admiration of the Temple and of Judah Maccabee is all the more significant since it comes from Jason of Cyrene, a Diaspora Jew. The excellent Greek syntax and Greek rhetoric indicate that the author was indeed a Greekspeaking Jew.112 2 Maccabees demonstrates that Diaspora Jews supported the Maccabean revolt and (since the book was in the days of Simon or John Hyrcanus, see Introduction) the Hasmonean rulers. Significantly, Jason treats the relationship between the Maccabees and the Temple quite like the author of 1 Maccabees did. This proves that the linkage between the Maccabean leadership (and the Hasmonean rule which succeeded it) and the safety and credibility of the Temple was also adopted in the Diaspora. This is exactly what Judah’s successors aimed to achieve by making H. anukkah an international Jewish festival: to identify the Hasmoneans with the Temple, and to make the reconstruction of the sacrificial cult, as sponsored by the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans, a core concept of Jewish identity. This also explains why the half-shekel was accepted in the Diaspora and why Jews went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Aristeas’s Admiration of the Hasmonean Temple Aristeas’s letter to Philocrates (the so-called Pseudo-Aristeas) purports to tell the story of the translation of the Torah into Greek in Alexandria in the days of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 – 247 BCE). The author aimed to demonstrate that the Alexandrian Greek translation was authoritative and of the highest quality (in terms of both the original Hebrew scroll and its accurate translation sent from Jerusalem), and that the canonization of the Greek Torah had been acknowledged by Ptolemy.113 In the course of his narrative the author portrayed Judaism in the most positive light.114 Aristeas’s elaborations on the Jerusalem Temple and the high priesthood play a focal role in his narrative and message. And since recent scholarship dates this text to the early Hasmonean period, it contributes to uncovering the attitude of Jews in Alexandria towards the Hasmoneans and their Temple. The date of Aristeas has been the subject of many discussions. A few scholars had dated it not much later than the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the late third century BCE, arguing that the author presupposed a close 112 Hengel 1974:1.95 – 98; Doran 1981:24 – 46. Nevertheless Doran saw no reason to suppose that the epitome was written outside Jerusalem (ibid., 112 – 113). The genre of the book is heavily influenced by Hellenistic historiography. See Geiger 1984. For the message of the author to Diaspora Jews, see Collins 2000:80 – 83. Note that the epitomist was not familiar with the land of Judaea and made several geographical errors. See Bar-Kochva 1989:185 and references. 113 Honigman 2003:53 – 60, 128. 114 Tcherikover 1958; Collins 2000:102; Honigman 2003:32 – 33.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

90

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

relationship between Egypt and Judaea, which suits the Ptolemaic period.115 Most, however, concluded that it was written in the middle or late second century BCE.116 On the basis of the correspondence of the blessing formulation to those found in papyri and of the author’s familiarity with the practices in the Ptolemaic royal court, Bickerman dated Aristeas to 140 – 125 BCE.117 Furthermore, Aristeas portrayed Judaea as independent under the rule of the high priest, who negotiated with Ptolemy as an equal, a situation that echoes Hasmonean rule. Gaza’s port is mentioned (par. 115), which means that the text was written before its destruction/occupation by Jannaeus.118 The fortress at the Temple which is described in detail (par. 100 – 104), provides, according to Bar-Kochva, the most decisive reflection of the date of composition. In Aristeas’s account, the fortress was inhabited by independent Jewish military forces and not by the Ptolemies. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the Ptolemies allowed Jewish troops to be situated in the citadel under their rule, given their hostility towards the Seleucids and the danger of Jewish uprising. The citadel was strongly secured, and Aristeas’s delegation was disarmed before entering it; they were permitted to see the sacrifices from that vantage point. The purpose of the citadel, according to Aristeas, was to secure the Temple. It cannot be identified with the Seleucid Acra (which was probably located south of, and below the Temple Mount, and controlled the city, not the Temple), but rather with the Hasmonean baris.119 Aristeas presents the high priest as a sovereign ruler and supreme military commander (81, 122), corresponding with the Hasmonean rulers. The necessity of guarding the Temple against foreign enemies also corresponds to the Seleucid threat. As for the exact dating, the baris was built by Hyrcanus (Ant. 18.91), most probably after the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE. It is not mentioned among Hyrcanus’s achievements in 1 Macc 16:23 (where the text only mentions the rebuilding of the city wall). Bar-Kochva therefore plausibly dated Aristeas to the heyday of Hyrcanus, ca. 125 – 113 BCE.120 115 Rappaport 1970 and references. 116 Hadas 1951:9 – 54 dated the book to 130 BCE. Murray 1967:339 – 340 dated it to end of the second century BCE. See further references in Stern 1983:225, 351, 352; Collins 2000:98 – 101; Honigman 2003:128 – 130. 117 Bickerman 1976a:esp. 116 – 128, 133. 118 Stern 1983:225; Bar-Kochva 1996b:273 n. 7, 284 – 285. 119 Bar-Kochva 1996b:276 – 277. For the Acra, see Bar-Kochva 1989:445 – 465. The Hasmonean baris was located where Herod later built the Antonia. See Ant. 15.403, 409; 18.91; War 5.238 – 247. See also Ant. 13.307. 120 Bar-Kochva1996b:277 – 278. As for the historical reliability of Aristeas 100 – 104, Bar-Kochva 1996b:274 – 275 stressed that the description is not idealized since it mentions the role of the citadel in preventing internal revolt, namely the danger of uprising against the high priest. The location of the citadel “on the highest place” contradicts a previous (utopian) assertion in which the Temple was high above the city (83 – 84). He also added that there are no Hellenistic parallels for a temple citadel which could have inspired such an imagined description. This is especially relevant due to scholarly views assuming the general lack of a historical coordinate for the narrative’s idealizing description, which builds on biblical sources (Tcherikover

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Diaspora Acquiescence: 2 Maccabees and Aristeas

91

Another indication of Hyrcanus’s day, according to Bar-Kochva, is that Aristeas describes the land of Judaea as including an “area around Samaria” and “the neighborhood of Idumaea” (107). Recent numismatic evidence shows that Hyrcanus conquered Idumaea and most of Samaria in 112/111 BCE. Aristeas may therefore be dated several years earlier.121 On the basis of these various indications, it seems that one can safely conclude that Aristeas reflects the early Hasmonean period, most likely Judaea under Hyrcanus. Turning to the role of the Hasmoneans and their Temple in Aristeas, the most important figure is Eleazar, “the High Priest of the Jews.” The authority of the high priest lies at the center of the text: Eleazar is praised for his integrity, reputation and honor (3), and is acknowledged many times as the supreme authority in matters pertaining to the Torah and its translation.122 The author details Aristeas’s embassy and meeting with Eleazar, and recounts the expedition to Eleazar and its outcomes. Eleazar’s authority and involvement in the Greek translation of the Torah emphasizes the sanctity and authority of the translation (1 – 8). Eleazar’s character is the key element in the authenticity and quality of the translation, because he provided the original Hebrew scroll as well as the translators. The translation proper was preceded by epistolary exchange between King Ptolemy and Eleazar.123 Aristeas includes a detailed description of the Temple and the priestly cult.124 It describes how Ptolemy sent the expedition to the Temple bearing expensive gifts to the High Priest (including cups, goblets, libation vessels) and donations for offering sacrifices and other Temple requirements (33, 42, 320). Special attention is given to the golden table. According to Aristeas, the king wanted to build a table of huge dimensions but after he learned the size of the table in the Temple in Jerusalem, he ordered his table to be constructed in this exact same size. The jeweled decorations of the table are described in great detail.125 The other expensive vessels are also discussed at length (63 – 82). The purpose of these gifts was to demonstrate the king’s concern for the Temple (80) and to show respect for the high priest who headed it (81) as an acknowledgement of the centrality of the Temple in Jerusalem. Aristeas dedicates significant space to an extremely detailed description of the Temple and its fortress (paras. 83 – 106), showing admiration of the

121

122 123 124 125

1958:77 – 79; Collins 2000:101 – 102). However, Hadas 1951:6, 136 – 137, argued that the author’s knowledge of Jerusalem is based on a personal experience of pilgrimage. Bar-Kochva 1996b:279 – 284. Bickerman 1976a:128 – 132 dated this assertion to 145 – 100 BCE. See also Stern 1983:225. For the date of Hyrcanus’s occupations, see Barag 1992 – 1993. The parts of Samaria that were included in Judaea may denote southern Samaria, including Lydda (cf. 1 Macc 10:30, 38; 11:34). Aristeas, 3, 11, 32 – 33, 38, 46, 121, 123, 126, 128, 170, 320. See Hacham 2005:1 – 4. Aristeas 34 – 51; Honigman 2003:41 – 53. For a commentary on Aristeas’s praise for the Temple, see Hayward 1996:30 – 37. Aristeas 52 – 72. For the parallels to the biblical description of the Tabernacle, see Hadas 1951:121; Hacham 2005:11 – 12.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

92

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

Temple, its beauty and sacredness. The Temple is constructed “on the top of the hill” (83). Attention is given to the perfectly proportioned sizes of the walls and the altar (84 – 87, 90); the manner in which the veil is moved by the wind (86); the priestly vestments (87); and the water supply to the Temple Mount (88 – 91). The priestly service is described as powerful, intense, and aesthetic—terms taken from Hellenistic culture. The priests engage in the sacrifice with vigor, exertion, reverence, and silence. The sight of the sacrificial cult raises astonishment, wonder, and marvel in the beholder.126 The author’s attitude towards the sacrifices reappears in the later discussion of kosher sacrificial animals, when he adds that the “man who offers the sacrifice makes an offering of every facet of his being” (170). Eleazaer’s appearance is fascinating: he wears glorious vestments with precious stones and golden bells upon them, and the breastplate is described in great detail (96 – 99). Aristeas ascribes a kingly dignity to this high priest.127 Aristeas probably directed his book to a Diaspora Jewish audience.128 His purpose was not to praise the Hasmonean high priest and the Temple that he headed. His aim was to promote the authority of the Septuagint, to defend the Jewish Law against the background of Hellenistic culture, and to contribute to better understanding between the Diaspora Jews and the Gentiles among whom he lived. Nonetheless, we have seen that he included several details that reflect Hasmonean rule and power, such as the Jerusalem baris and territorial boundaries, and that he overly stressed the authority of the high priest and the Temple as a means to transmit these messages. All this may reflect a very favorable attitude towards the Hasmoneans as the religious leaders of the Diaspora Jews. One may even conjecture that the success of Hasmonean rule— and the Hasmonean Temple ideology in particular—made Aristeas feel that reconstructing Jewish identity in the Diaspora using the Temple and the position of the high priest would be authoritative for his audience. In other words, the focus on the high priest Eleazar when John Hycanus leads the Judaeans and the Temple might have led the reader to associate Eleazar with Hyrcanus. I am not claiming that the admiration of the high priest and the Temple in Aristeas were particularly and consciously inspired by the Hasmonean high priests and their use of the Temple cult to legitimize their rule. Rather, I have tried to show that Aristeas’s view of the religious symbolism of the Temple and the high priest’s authority as the major themes of Judaism in Alexandria was probably the result of the Hasmoneans’ conveying of these ideas to the Diaspora. Aristeas’s discourse fully corresponds to the Hasmoneans’ self126 Aristeas 89, 93, 96, 99; Hayward 1996:36. Eleazar also brought sacrifices in 172. 127 Hayward 1996:36. 128 Tcherikover 1958; Honigman 2003:esp. 27 – 29; Hacham 2005. One of the arguments is his linguistic allusions to the LXX.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple: Qumran and Psalms of Solomon 93

image as the Temple protagonists who protect and direct it in dignity and piety, as attested in 1 Maccabees, the H. anukkah letters that accompanied 2 Maccabees, and the Hasmonean actions documented in Josephus. If Aristeas was not aware that his composition echoed Hasmonean propaganda, the Hasmoneans’ achievement was even greater. They would thus have succeeded in naturalizing their ideology, shaping it as a status quo without any taint of having politicized the Temple cult, and portraying themselves as if they were the natural successors to the Oniad High priests.

6. Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple: Qumran and the Psalms of Solomon Not all Jews favored Hasmonean rule and Temple ideology. At least two movements raised harsh accusations against them: the Qumran yah. ad and the authors of Psalms of Solomon. Both laid serious charges against the acts of the Hasmonean high priests. Both boldly argued that the Temple was corrupt with wickedness and hence defiled, and could no longer atone for Israel’s sins. Both groups raised moral accusations against the Hasmoneans that were linked to their acts as high priests, thereby denying the legitimacy of the Hasmonean Temple. Here, I believe, we can see the shadow of the Hasmonean Temple ideology : if the Hasmoneans are corrupt and impious, the Temple must also be impure and dysfunctional. The Qumran yah. ad and Psalms of Solomon associated the Temple with the Hasmoneans, but in a negative sense.

The Qumranic Pesharim The separation of the Qumran movement from Jewish society and its rejection of the Temple is usually explained by means of the halakhic disputes concerning the sacrificial cult and the calendar, as well as the personal and political rivalry between the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness.129 The pesharim found in Cave 4 at Qumran describe a very hostile and tense relationship between the yah. ad sect, with its leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, and the Wicked Priest, the Hasmonean high priest. The Wicked Priest persecuted the Teacher and his adherents and tried to kill him: “the Wicked Pr[iest] who sp[ied on the Teac]her of Righteousn[ess and tried] to put him to death [because of the precep]ts and the law which he had sent to him.”130 129 E.g., Schiffman 1999. 130 4QpPsa 1 – 10 iv 7 – 9 (following Qimron’s reading); Qimron and Strugnell 1994:119 – 21. Qimron identified “the precep]ts and the law” with the halakhic letter Miqs. at Ma’ase ha-Torah

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

94

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

When the Qurmranic writers introduced their approach towards the Hasmonean Temple explicitly in pesher Habbakuk, they stressed not halakhic concerns, but rather the moral impurity of the Wicked Priest and the implication of this impurity for the defilement and desecration of the Temple. This impurity is the ritual consequence of sin, and it does not result from bodily defilement or violation of cultic laws. It is caused by immoral behavior :131 “. . . its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest . . . when he ruled over Israel he became arrogant, abandoned God, and betrayed the laws for the sake of wealth. He stole and amassed the wealth of men of violence who had rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of people to add to himself guilt (and) sin. And abominated ways he practiced with every sort of unclean impurity.”132 In the authors’ construction of reality, the Hasmonean high priest was both a wicked ruler and an immoral priest. He sinned by stealing and collaborating with evil people and also defiled the Temple through the impurity of his sins and abominable deeds. Although there is no indication that the impurity of the Wicked Priest stems from cultic or ritual unscrupulousness, his defilement was viewed as having potentially grave consequences for the Temple cult for which he was responsible. This is emphasized in an additional passage in pesher Habbakuk: “… its interpretation: the “town” is Jerusalem, where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled God’s Sanctuary. And “violence (h. amas) (done to) the Land” (refers to) the cities of Judah, where he stole the wealth of the poor ones.”133 Here, the abominable acts of the Wicked Priest— violence against the towns of Judaea and stealing the property of the poor— caused the pollution of the Temple. The pollution of the Temple was caused by the corrupt behavior of a cruel ruler who had no mercy for his subjects, rather than by ritual or bodily impurity. Other texts from Qumran, particularly the Damascus Document and the Community Rule (1QS), set moral impurity as the most significant boundary between the Qumran sects, the Temple, and the outside world. This concept shaped their self-identity and their attitude towards Jewish society.134 They

131 132 133 134

(4QMMT). Another persecution occurred on the day that was observed by the Teacher as the Day of Atonement (according to the sect’s 364–day calendar ; 1QpHab 11:4 – 8). For the references to the yah. ad in the pesharim, see 1QpHab 12:4; 1Q14pMic frags. 8 – 10, 6 – 9. Klawans 2001; Regev 2003:249 – 252; 2007:101 – 104. 1QpHab 8:8 – 13. 1QpHab 12:7 – 10. For the moral dimension of impurity in this passage, see Klawans 2001:69 – 72. CD 6:11 – 17// 4Q266 3 ii rejects the Temple due to the acceptance of contributions from immorally polluted wealth to finance the cult. For social boundaries of moral defilement, see 1QS 6:19 – 20, 22; Cf. 1QS 9:22/4QSd 2 iii 6. For broader discussion, see Regev 2003:256 – 260; 2007:112 – 115. Compare also the survey of Klawans 2001: 69 – 92.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple: Qumran and Psalms of Solomon 95

developed cultic substitutes for the Temple, such as atoning through moral conduct and prayer.135 At what stage in Hasmonean history did the Qumranites reject the Temple? The answer depends on the identity of the Wicked Priest. Every possible Hasmonean from Judah Maccabee to Hyrcanus II has been proposed by scholars as the Wicked Priest. The most plausible candidate, however, is Jonathan.136 The Wicked Priest was “delivered into the hands of his enemies to disgrace him … to destroy him with bitterness of soul.” He was “delivered into the hands of ruthless Gentiles so that they could carry out [vengeance] upon him.”137 This is consistent with the account of Jonathan’s captivity and murder by Tryphon the Seleucid.138 Furthermore, at first “he was called on by the true name at the beginning of his public life, but when he ruled over Israel he became arrogant, abandoned God, and betrayed the laws.”139 This shift in nature also corresponds to the shift in Jonathan’s roles, first as a rebel against the Seleucids and hellenized Jews, and then nominated to the high priesthood by the Seleucid king, Alexander Balas (1 Macc 9:23 – 12:35). All this shows that the Qumran sect, the yah. ad, regarded the Temple as defiled due to the sinful acts of Jonathan in the early days of the Hasmonean state. These acts were not related to the sacrificial cult but to matters pertaining to wealth, taking money and land from the people and the poor (perhaps referring to taxation), that is, the political sphere. Curiously, the authors of the pesharim correlated the implications of Jonathan’s civil acts with his religious office. They could not distinguish the Hasmoneans’ political acts from their religious leadership. They thought of the Temple as Jonathan’s political center, quite like the author of 1 Maccabees and the Hasmoneans themselves! In order to resist the authority of the Hasmoneans they rejected their Temple and created religious alternatives. This shows that Jonathan was successful in identifying his rule with the Temple. Even his enemies were compelled to accept this association. It would be misleading, however, to embrace the Qumranic perspective as an objective testimony to the “moral crisis” and “disappointment in the leadership” observed by many citizens of the Hasmonean state.140 The Qumranic perception of Jonathan’s corruption, or the disappointment of the Teacher of Righteousness and the yah. ad from the high priest who, in their eyes, had become wicked, were not natural or reasonable consequences of 135 Schiffman 1999; Regev 2003; 267 – 275; 2007:119 – 129. 136 See the scholarship cited in Regev 2007:104 – 106. For the identification with Jonathan (also reviewing other possibilities), see Eshel 2008:40 – 46 (cf. the reservations of Schiffman 1996). Van der Woude 1996 (with bibliography) even proposed that there are six different Wicked Priests alluded to in 1QpHab, from Judas Maccabeus to Alexander Jannaeus. 137 4QpPsa iv 9 – 10; 1QpHab 9:9 – 12. 138 1 Macc 12:48 – 13:23. 139 1QpHab 8:8 – 13. 140 As concluded by Eshel 2008:190.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

96

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

Hasmonean policy. Rather, the Qumranic reaction resulted from a radical ideology (including imminent messianic expectations) and a process of sectarian identity formation and social separation in a period of rapid social and political change, as attested in MMT.141 While there were certainly ugly aspects to the Hasmonean rise to power, the Qumranic opposition cannot attest to the moral failures of Jonathan.

Psalms of Solomon Psalms of Solomon contains the prayers of a Jewish dissident movement that rejected the legitimacy of Hasmonean rule and resented their non-Davidic kingship (Ps Sol 17:5 – 7; see Chapter 4). Several passages relate to the period of the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II as well as to Pompey’s conquest of Judaea and subsequent death (63 – 48 BCE).142 Two of the psalms contain criticism against the leaders of Jerusalem, which is related to the Temple. Although the identity of those against whom these accusations are addressed is not specified, the historical context points to the associates and supporters of Aristobulus II and especially Hyrcanus II. Although the Hasmoneans were not personally blamed, they were probably viewed as responsible for the Temple’s desecration. Referring to the sins of the leaders of Jerusalem, the author claimed that “they stole from the sanctuary of God . . . they walked on the place of sacrifice of the Lord (coming) from all kinds of uncleanness; and (coming) with menstrual blood (on them), they defiled the sacrifices as if they were common meat. There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the Gentiles” (Ps Sol 8:11 – 13; see also 8:22). The linkage between these Jerusalem leaders and the Temple cult connects these condemnations to Aristobulus II and his supporters, who were Sadducees, since they ruled the Temple until its fall to Pompey in the Roman siege of 63 BCE.143 The defilement of the sanctuary was seen by Atkinson as indicating a deliberate violation of Jewish halakhah and the institution of “incorrect purification rituals.”144 I think, however, that the tone is more polemical than factual, and that the pollution resulted not from neglecting ritual scrupulous141 Compare Regev 2007:95 – 132 and the survey of early modern sectarian movements, ibid., 50 – 57. 142 Atkinson 2004:5 – 6 and references. Cf. Ps. Sol. 2:1 – 2, 26 – 27; 8:18 – 22; 17:7 – 9. 143 Cf. Ant. 14.29 – 33, 48 – 71; Regev 1997b:286 – 289. Another group, which opened the gates of Jerusalem and let Pompey enter the city, is mentioned in Ps. Sol. 8:16 – 22 and should be identified with Hyrcanus II and his Pharisaic supporters (cf. Ant.14.58 – 59). For the historical background, see Atkinson 2004:63 – 64, 82 – 83. For the association of Aristobulus II with the Sadducees and Hyrcanus II with the Pharisees, see Regev 1997b; 2005:286 – 290. 144 Atkinson 2004:59, 65 – 68, 212. He related the reference to menstrual impurity to the halakhic debate in CD 5:6 – 7 (on which see Regev 2005:181 – 190)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple: Qumran and Psalms of Solomon 97

ness, but from immoral acts. The reference to “menstrual blood” (probably translating the Hebrew niddah) may have been originally used in a metaphorical sense, common in the Dead Sea Scrolls.145 In the eyes of the author, the sins of the Jerusalem leaders who supported Aristobulus II probably related to the moral sphere, but it is impossible to ascertain what stood behind these accusations, especially since the author also opposed the rival party of Hyrcanus II and his pharisaic supporters. In another passage the author blamed “the sons of Jerusalem,” stating that their sins led to the defilement of the Temple by “Gentile foreigners” who arrogantly trampled it, most likely referring to Pompey. These sons of Jerusalem “profaned the offerings of God with lawless hands” (2:2 – 5). Atkinson related these accusations to Aristobulus II and his Sadducean supporters. Once again, his identification was based on the fact that it was Aristobulus II who ruled Jerusalem before its conquest by Pompey.146 Here, too, the accusations are all too general and it seems possible that they refer to moral impurity and not to concrete misdeeds related to sacrificial laws.147 In general, the author rejected the religious credibility of the Hasmonean Temple, which was desecrated by the moral impurity of the ministering priests. Atkinson concluded that the author and his community refrained from taking part in the sacrificial cult. The author and his community seemed to set forth an alternative mode of worship: The righteous repent by prayers and fasts.148 The author’s distrust of the Temple authorities and the ruling classes in general seems to be the main reason for his accusation that they had defiled the Temple and the cult. The responsibility of Aristobulus II for this atmosphere cannot be dismissed, but the polemic is addressed not against the leader himself but against the entire party or ruling class. It is likely that the civil war between the two Hasmonean brothers led the author to his position, and not a specific cultic act. Perhaps the political setting of the civil war was regarded by the author as affecting the Temple cult, just like the political acts of the Wicked Priest in Pesher Habbakuk, which led, in the view of the yah. ad, to his pollution of the Temple. Psalms of Solomon should probably be understood as a pious reflection on the political decay of the later Hasmoneans, who immersed themselves in a 145 Niddah is a general metaphorical term for impurity, usually moral impurity. See Abegg, Bowley and Cook 2003:2.506 – 507. For moral impurity in Qumran, see above. 146 Atkinson 2004:67 – 68, 83 – 84. 147 Other accusations appear in Ps Sol 1:4 – 7, which refers to the sins and lawless actions of those who were extremely wealthy and powerful, who exalted themselves to the stars and behaved arrogantly. The author added that “they completely profaned the sanctuary of the Lord” (1:8). This psalm bears general characteristics of an introduction to the entire book (Atkinson 2004:204 – 206), and therefore the exact character and target of this polemic cannot be reconstructed. 148 Atkinson 2004:211 – 222. See also. Ps. Sol. 3:7 – 8. Atkinson also pointed out that the author does not mention atonement through sacrifices. Atkinson’s interpretation of the entire book is heavily influenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Atkinson 2004:7 – 11, 215 – 218 and passim.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

98

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

civil war quite like that of the Seleucids a few decades earlier. The accusations are very general and attest to a loss of faith in the civil ruling classes that supported both rival brothers. The consequence was also a loss of faith in the Temple. Once again opposition to the legitimacy of the Hasmoneans as rulers led to a rejection of the Temple which was associated with them. We should bear in mind, however, that this was not the end of Hasmonean rule, but only one of its darkest moments. We have already seen that Hyrcanus II was acknowledged by Julius Caesar as the world leader of the Jewish people. The Hasmonean ideology continued until Herod.

7. Conclusions: When Politics Meets Religion In this chapter I have shown that 1 Maccabees presents the Hasmonean claim that the Maccabees saved the Temple and continued to protect it. The implication is that they should in consequence rule both the people and the Temple. 2 Maccabees related the very same argument to Judah Maccabee, attesting to the reception of Hasmonean Temple ideology in the Hellenistic Diaspora. The admiration of the Temple and the high priest in the Letter of Aristeas indicates that Alexandrian Jews felt the same. Several acts of the Hasmoneans mentioned by Josephus demonstrate that they centered their ruling power at the Temple. New Temple practices were established: The Hasmoneans established the half-shekel tax as a worldwide Temple tribute also paid by Diaspora Jews; they promoted pilgrimage to Jerusalem from Judaea and probably also from the Diaspora. They made the Temple not only the center of their kingdom but also the symbolic and actual religious center of the Jewish people throughout the world. The prominence of the Temple in Jewish religion contributed further to their legitimacy and authority as both high priests and civil rulers or kings. The yah. ad and the group behind Psalms of Solomon opposed the Hasmoneans and also rejected the credibility of the cult, and in doing so, they admitted the identification of the Temple with the political institution.149 Turning to an overall appreciation of these results, it should be stressed that the Hasmonean ideology was consistent and long-lived. It probably emerged in 164 BCE when Judah made H. anukkah a worldwide Jewish festival, and, as the evidence concerning the half-shekel tribute and pilgrimage attests, this ideology continued to be promulgated by Hyrcanus II. This was probably the most valuable contribution of the Hasmoneans to the formation of ancient Jewish identity, since this loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple unified Diaspora 149 Bohak 1999:10 – 16 noted that the centrality of the Temple as the sole cultic place of the Jews contributed to its being rejected by those Jews who defined themselves against the Temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: When Politics Meets Religion

99

Jews.150 Thanks to the Hasmonean policy, the Temple enhanced Jewish collective identity (see Chapter 7). The overwhelming willingness of Jews all around the world to send the annual half-shekel tax to the Temple authorities in the first century CE is demonstrated by the enforcement of the Roman Fiscus Judaicus. When Vespasian ordered every Jew to pay this Roman tax, he identified the Jewish genos with commitment to the Jerusalem Temple, thus assuming that all the Jews subscribed to the Jerusalem Temple.151 This commitment began in the Hasmonean period, and was directed by the Hasmonean high priests. Two reasons led the Hasmoneans to make their Temple ideology the main source of the legitimacy and authority of their rule, repeated again and again in various ways. First, this ideology enabled them to relate their civil power to the high priesthood, and therefore legitimized their cultic as well as civil authority. Second, their claim was accepted with understanding, perhaps even enthusiasm. Put simply, it worked. But why was their claim to be the champions of the Temple so persuasive? The answer lies in the uniqueness of the Jerusalem Temple in the ancient world. For the Jews, as both Philo and Josephus declared, there was only “one Temple to one God.”152 This means that the singularity of the Jerusalem Temple was equated to nothing less than the monotheistic idea! The claim was actually false (recall the Oniad temple in Leontopolis, built by a Zadokite priest). Nonetheless, the Jerusalem Temple had a unique potential for religious prominence, which all other temples lacked. Jews all around the world revered this single Temple, and unlike all the Gentiles, did not divide their allegiance between competing cultural or religious centers.153 Monotheism and the so-called Deuteronomistic worldview legitimized only one cultic place, the one in Jerusalem. Although accepted in the postexilic period by all biblical writings, the effect of these ideas on the Temple was limited at first. Before the emergence of the Hasmoneans the Temple lacked an effective power, a sponsorship by a strong ruler. The Hasmoneans politicized the Temple to gain legitimacy. But in a sense they continued an ancient Jewish trend and followed contemporaneous Hellenistic models. A brief survey of the intersection of religious/cultic and political spheres and the extent of the public impact of the cult throughout the ages will show that the Hasmonean politicization of the Temple had precedents in both ancient Judaism and Hellenistic culture. The Jerusalem Temple was the central religious institution in the Deuteronomistic history. The author of 1 – 2 Kings regarded it as the only 150 Baumgarten 2004:21 – 23. 151 War 7.218; Suetonius, Dom. 12. 2 (Stern 1980:128 – 131). 152 Against Apion 2.193; Ant. 4.200. Philo, Special Laws 1.67 – 68. This principle was also acknowledged by Antiochus III (Ant. 13.54). 153 See Bohak 1999:4 – 5 on the Jewish “single-temple policy.” Note the Roman motivation to destroy “the Temple to which the Jews everywhere flock together” (War 6.239).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

100

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

legitimate one. It was not merely the locus of sacrificial cult but also a house of prayer. Yet, the impact of the Temple on the Judaean monarchy derived from the (political and religious) authority of the Davidic dynasty.154 The high priests lacked the authority they had in the postexilic period, and the Temple was not independent of the monarchy.155 Moreover, in the Deuteronomistic history the religious credibility of the Temple was still conceptually premature. The Deuteronomist’s main concern was the abolishing of rival cults and the sole commitment to a central sanctuary.156 During the Restoration Period under Persian rule, the Davidic monarchy no longer existed and the Temple became an independent institution. Postexilic writings viewed it as the center of the divine presence, mediating between God and Israel. Ezekiel 40 – 48, Haggai and Zechariah 1 – 8 present visionary and concrete hopes for the Temple’s reestablishment. Its elevation is demonstrated in Chronicles, which reflects the later Persian period. Whereas the Deuteronomistic author of 1 – 2 Kings focused on the political significance of the Temple, Chronicles dealt with the Temple’s construction, its service and ministers, rituals and festivals, stressing ritualistic and organizational aspects.157 Still, the Chronicler’s motivation was not purely religious, but “nationalistic.” He stressed the relationship of David and his successors with the Temple, arguing that the monarchy had established it and was responsible for the cult. By this the Chronicler attempted to demonstrate the validity of the Davidic dynasty for postexilic Judaism, highlighting the religious aspects of the monarchy, and portraying the Temple as a Davidic heritage.158 The Temple was therefore regarded as a remnant and symbol of the Davidic or monarchic heritage. The initiative of building the Second Temple came from Cyrus. The high priests of the Persian period lacked self-governance and the Temple was supervised by the local governors.159 The book of Ezra highlighted the Achaemenid authorization to build the Temple in order to provide legitimization. But the adherents of the Temple in Ezra-Nehemiah (mid-fifth century BCE) were a remnant community, not the entire Judaean Jews.160 The authority of the Jerusalem Temple was still limited. In the late fifth century BCE the Egyptian Jews in Elephantine (h. ayla yehudaya “the Judaean 154 For the Temple as a religious center promoted by the Davidic Kings, see Knoppers 1995. Cf. 2 Kings 8; 19:14 – 19. 155 Rooke 2000:49, 52. The king was the main religious leader, as the religious characterization of the king demonstrates, in e. g., Ps 2:7; 72; 110:1, 4. 156 Lowery 1991, who also concluded that the centralization of the cult was used by the monarchy to legitimize its social dominance. 157 Japhet 1989:222 – 247, esp. 225. 158 Riley 1993. 159 Fried 2004. 160 This community of Diaspora immigrants was an elite community. See, e. g., Ezra 2:1; 6:21; 8:35.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: When Politics Meets Religion

101

troop”) appealed for assistance for the reconstruction of their temple, which they termed the “altar house.” They turned to Joh. anan the Jerusalem high priest, and when he failed to respond, they wrote to Delaiah and Shelemiah, sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria.161 Appealing to the Jerusalem high priest was perhaps their preference, but they also regarded (those later known as) the Samaritans as authoritative enough. Hence, in the Persian period the Jerusalem Temple did not win the centrality it had later in the Hasmonean period. It was the Temple of the Judaean Jews, and there is no evidence that things had changed before the Maccabees. Our survey shows that the Temple gained its initial legitimacy from the Davidic and Persian kings. Without political sponsorship its impact declined. Hasmonean politicization of the cult was necessary in order to increase its effect on the Jews. The Temple’s independent and central position in the Jewish religious system developed gradually. Perhaps the most crucial act that contributed to its significance in ancient Judaism was its desecration by Antiochus IV, when the physical takeover and cultic abomination were regarded as an ultimate threat against Jewish religion. The Hasmoneans used the Temple as a symbol for their own purposes, but they also elevated its significance and extended its relevance to Jewish life in Judaea and the Diaspora. In Greco-Roman culture temples were emblems of collective identity, closely related to the civic organization of the polis, as in their use for civil gatherings.162 In the Hellenistic world there was an overlap between the spheres of religion and politics. The city authorities, rulers and political officials made religious decisions.163 Hellenistic kings intervened in the cults to strengthen their rule. In Ptolemaic Egypt, the priests were involved in the coronation of the kings (as attested to in the Rosetta Stone), and mediated the covenant between the king and his people.164 A recently discovered inscription from Marisa records the concern of Seleucus IV “to ensure that the sanctuaries founded in the other satrapies receive the traditional honors with the care befitting them.” The king ordered Heliodoros to execute strict bureaucratic control over the sanctuaries and their more efficient fiscal exploitation,

161 Cowley 30 – 31; Porten 1968:289 – 296. For “altar house” see Cowley 32:3. The significance of this turn to Sanaballat’s sons lies in the hatred with which Nehemiah dealt with Sanaballat and his associates (Neh 3:33 – 4:2; 13:28). 162 Burkert 1988:39 – 44. 163 Julius Caesar, for example became “high priest” (pontifex maximus) in 63 BCE by public election, a position that advanced his political career. 164 Thompson 1990. For temple inscriptions that glorify the Ptolemaic kings, see van Henten 2001:125 – 126.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

102

The Centrality of the Temple in Hasmonean Ideology

appointing Olympiodoros in charge of the administration of the temples in Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯.165 The most striking connection between temples and royal ideologies is found in the Hellenistic royal cults.166 Most of the ruler cults were initiated by the poleis in gratitude to the king. The citizens recognized the king’s superhuman qualities, especially his power to save the city, in order to make sense of royal power. New civic festivals (such as the Antiocheia and Laodikeia for Antiochus III in Teos) were established, statues of the king were adorned, and the place of the celebration was consecrated to him in homage.167 The Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings also initiated royal cults by themselves. At first they established cults only posthumously for their predecessors and other deceased family members. They celebrated the dynasty’s anniversary in cultic events, and the Seleucids also celebrated Alexander’s anniversary. Antiochus III introduced his own state cults. Festivals were celebrated on the ruler’s birthday and sacrifices were offered every month, and on the anniversary of the accession to the throne or of a victory. These ruler cults were exploited by the Hellenistic kings to underscore the charismatic nature of their rule.168 Obviously, in the Hellenistic world religion and politics could hardly be differentiated. The Hasmonean kingdom was not an exception. Although the Hasmoneans did not use the Temple as their own ruler-cult, H. anukkah resembles the festivals that celebrated the royal dynasty’s anniversary. Hellenistic royal cults may have encouraged the Hasmoneans to relate their rule to the Temple. Their use of the Temple to sustain their rule was probably understood by their supporters as natural and even inevitable. However, unlike the Hellenistic kings, the Hasmonean rulers were priests and high priests. Religious practice and sacrificial cult were their original occupations. As I will show in the next chapter, they regarded themselves primarily as religious leaders. In their own view, I suggest, they were not political or military figures who had invaded the cultic realm, but priests and religious leaders that had been pushed by the hand of God to rule the Jewish people and protect the Temple and the Torah.

165 Cotton and Wörrle 2007. According to Gera 2009a:136 – 138, Olympiodoros was nominated the high priest of Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯. For royal supervision in temple administration in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Thompson 1990:108 – 109. On royal cultic benefactions, see Chapter 4. 166 Bikerman 1938:236 – 257; Praux 1978:238 – 271. 167 Ma 2002: 219 – 224; Chaniotis 2003:436. The evidence concerning the ruler cults is based on inscriptions with joint dedications to both a god and a king, with the expectation that they would take care of the person issuing the dedication. In these inscriptions the king received honors like those bestowed upon the gods (ibid., 433). 168 Praux 1978:262; Ma 2002:202 – 210; Chaniotis 2003:436 – 439.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Three Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

This chapter examines how 1 Maccabees and other sources reflect the emergence and development of Hasmonean rule and the way in which the Hamoneans legitimized the fact that their family governed the Judaean Jews. It also discusses the portrayal of the relationship between the Hasmoneans and the people in 1 Maccabees. The Hasmoneans’ rise to power resulted from the success of the Maccabees. The basis of the authority of the Hasmonean rulers lay in the events that preceded independence, i. e., from the beginning of the Maccabean revolt to Jonathan’s nomination as high priest. The Maccabees’ achievements were first and foremost military : defeating the Seleucids in several battles and the recapture and rededication of the Temple, and returning Jerusalem and the Temple to the control of the conservative, pro-Maccabean Jews. Notably, they also succeeded in the religious sphere, by restoring the Jewish monotheistic cult at the Temple and causing the cancelation of Antiochus’s decrees against the performance of the laws of the Torah, such as circumcision and Sabbath observance (see Introduction). Therefore, the thousands of Jews who participated in the Maccabean battles, as well as many others who supported the Maccabees materially or morally, probably viewed the Maccabees as the defenders of the Torah and the Temple. Since the Maccabees led a struggle for a religious cause, they were also viewed as religious leaders. In what follows I shall try to trace the political and religious processes through which the Hasmoneans acquired influence and leadership in two overlapping realms: religious and political. Most of the discussion is based on 1 Maccabees, which reflects the way the Hasmoneans wanted the people to perceive them during the reign of John Hyrcanus. One therefore must distinguish between ideology and history, and not regard Hasmonean ideology as a direct reflection of historical reality (see Introduction). What is at stake in this document is mainly the Hasmoneans’ own description of their rise to power ; even though this source is biased in their favor, it undoubtedly explains their sources of power. Yet, the fact that an equivalent narrative about Judah is found in 2 Maccabees proves the acceptance of Hasmonean authority outside Judaea, in the Hellenistic Diaspora, and increases the possibility that the Hasmonean ideology drew its contours from historical circumstances, or at the very least from a consensus wider than that of the Hasmoneans’ immediate Judaean supporters (see also Chapter 2).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

104

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

My main argument in this chapter is that Hasmonean power was built gradually from Mattathias to John Hyrcanus, along three dimensions— military, religious and political. Each of these dimensions supported the other two, constructing a new type of leadership and government.

1. High Priesthood and Authority in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods The Hasmonean rulers were also high priests. They became high priests long before Aristobulus I (or Alexander Jannaeus) made himself a king. Jonathan’s nomination as high priest by Alexander Balas in 152 BCE initiated the independent Hasmonean state. But what role did the high priesthood play in Hasmonean political ideology? This should be apprehended in light of the role of the high priest, especially his civil and political authority. I shall thus consider first the types of leadership and authority that were associated with the office of the high priest in pre-Hasmonean times. The religious functions of ordinary priests during the Second Temple period were twofold: serving at the Temple cult and teaching the Torah.1 The high priests therefore enjoyed the esteem of standing at the head of these two systems.2 A few examples may illustrate this perception of the high priest’s holiness. Ben Sira 50:5 – 21 portrayed the appearance of the high priest Simon son of Onias as “glorious” when he headed the daily sacrificial and incense cult and the priestly blessings in the Temple. In Aristeas 69 – 99 the high priest’s performance of the ritual is depicted as “glorious” and “hallowed.” Onias III is presented as pious, and as “the city’s benefactor, the caretaker of the members of his people, and a zealot for the laws” (2 Macc 3:1; 4:2). Onias offered an atoning sacrifice for the sake of Heliodorus, who was struck down at the Temple by an angel. The angel told Heliodorus that the Lord had granted him his life only for the sake of the high priest (2 Macc 3:32 – 33). Several documents found at Qumran (some of them are written in Aramaic and are regarded as presectarian) even stress the angelic character of the eschatological high priest, who provides expiation for all Israel.3 What kind of secular authority was embodied in the office of the high priest, and what was the relationship between high priesthood and kingship in terms 1 For the priests as teachers of Scripture and law, see Mal 2:7; Jub. 31:16 – 17; 45:16; T. Levi 13:2 – 3; 4 Macc 5:4, 35; Josephus, War 2.417; Josephus, Life 1, 9. For the priests as the religious leaders of the Jews, see 4 Macc 7:6; Josephus, Against Apion 2.185 – 187. See also Mason 1988. 2 Cf. Stuart 1968. 3 4Q543 Visions of Amrama ar frag. 3, 1; 4Q541 Aaron A 9 i (otherwise known as 4QTestament of Levia(?) or 4QApocryphe de Lvib ? ar); Fletcher-Louis 2002:187 – 192. See also 1QSb 4:24 – 26; T. Levi 2 – 5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

High Priesthood and Authority in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods

105

of authority and governmental power? To address these questions, it is necessary to reexamine the history of high priesthood before the Hasmoneans. Until recently, most scholars regarded the high priest in the Persian and Hellenistic period as an autonomous secular ruler over the Jews under foreign empires.4 If this was indeed the case, the political power of Jonathan, Simon and John Hyrcanus somewhat resembled that of previous high priests and was not exceptional, although they were less subordinated to foreign rulers. Several ancient sources lead to this conclusion. The most explicit evidence comes from Hecataeus of Abdera who wrote in the late fourth century BCE that the “authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man high priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God’s commandments. It is he … who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained …“5 Although Hecataeus also claims that the Jews never had a king and that Moses founded Jerusalem, Goodblatt and Mendels regarded his evidence relatively reliable, suggesting that it was based on Jewish informants.6 Josephus also claims that “the high priests were at the head of affairs until the descendants of the Hasmonean family came to rule as kings” (Ant. 11.111). In addition, Ben Sira 50:1 – 4 attributes the building of fortifications in Jerusalem and the Temple to Simon the high priest, giving the impression he had secular authority. In Judith (4:6 – 8; cf. 15:8) the high priest Joakim gives military orders to the Jews in northern Israel. There are also coins dated to the fourth century BCE that bear the name of Yoh. anan the priest, which may attest to the authority of the high priest to mint coins.7 Recently, doubts have been raised as to whether the high priests enjoyed such powers before the Hellenistic reform. According to Bickerman, Rooke, Fried, Brutti and Cataldo, the civil administration of the province in the Persian period was carried out by the governor (usually a Persian appointee) and not by the high priest. The high priest’s authority was confined to matters concerning the Temple and the cult.8 For example, the Persian official Bagoses

4 Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1979:227; Goodblatt 1994:6 – 29; D. R. Schwartz 2001:14 – 16; VanderKam 2004:120 – 122. 5 Cited by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 40.3.4 – 6; Stern 1976:26 – 32. 6 Goodblatt 1994:11 – 12; Mendels 1998:esp. 344 – 346. Rooke 2000:247 – 250 denies this account credibility, due to the above-mentioned erroneous details. 7 For the Yehud coin type with the inscription YWH. NN HKWHN (“Yoh. anan the priest,” which parallels coins of Yeh. izqiyah the governor), indicating his political power, see Barag 1986 – 7; Goodblatt 1994:9; Schwartz 1994:159. According to Rooke 2000:231 – 233, the attribution of this coin (as well the YDH coin which does not refer to a priest, but cf. the high priest Joiada in Neh 12:10 – 11) to a high priest, is merely a possibility. 8 Bickerman 1988:142 – 144; Rooke 2000:125 – 237; Fried 2004; Brutti 2006:251, 310; Cataldo 2009:78 – 117. Cataldo indicated that the reference in the Elephantine papyri to Bagohi the governor, as well as other epigraphic evidence such as the Yehud coins attest to the power or

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

106

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

imposed a heavy tax upon each sacrificial lamb offered in the Temple for seven years, since Joannes, to whom he had promised the high priesthood, was killed by his brother Joshua in the Temple. Here the governor had greater authority than the high priest and even interfered in cultic matters.9 As for the Ptolemaic period, speculations have been raised regarding the high priest’s civil and governmental authority, such that the question must be left open.10 In the Tobiad romance depicted by Josephus, the high priest was involved in the payment of taxes to the Ptolemies. According to Rooke’s interpretation, the high priest intervened since a Temple tax was at stake, and not because he had a general fiscal responsibility for the province and its people.11 Most important, the high priest is absent from the letter of Antiochus III concerning the privileges granted to the Judaean Jews, where the king affirms the Jewish politea and gives donations to the Temple. Antiochus does mention the gerousia (twice), and also the priests and scribes. Clearly, the gerousia, rather than the high priest, was considered the leading civil authority.12 It seems that during the Persian, Ptolemaic, and early Seleucid periods the high priests did not hold civil governmental authority, at least not consistently. It is possible that specific high priests enjoyed a more prominent status due to specific political circumstances and perhaps even to their individual actions. But the historical evidence does not support the general claim of Hecataeus of Abdera and Josephus. The latter may have been misled by the civil authority of the hellenized high priests following 175 BCE. 1 and 2 Maccabees detail many cases in which Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus directed political and military undertakings that were not at all related to the Temple cult. Jason initiated the establishment of the gymnasium and ephebeion and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis; Menelaus had three thousand armed supporters in Jerusalem that fought against his opponents; in 168 BCE the troops of both high priests clashed in Jerusalem. Alcimus aroused Demetrius I to seize Judah. All three aimed to rule the Judaean Jews, and not merely to stand at the head of the Temple cult.13 The changes in their political roles and civil authority derived from Seleucid support, including several violent military interventions. It is therefore possible that with Jason’s takeover of the high priesthood and initiation of the

9 10 11 12

13

prominence of the governor of Judah following Nehemiah. Note that in Ezra and Nehemiah the high priest’s authority is hardly mentioned. Ant. 11.297 – 301; Rooke 2000:220 – 225. Brutti 2006:esp. 251 – 252, 310 – 312 and references. Ant. 12.158 – 85; Rooke 2000:258 – 259. Ant. 12.138 – 44; cf. Bickerman 1988:126 – 127. Tcherikover 1959:79 – 81, 87 and Goodblatt 1994:17 – 21 regarded the high priest as a member of the gerouisa. Nonetheless, the question remains as to why he is not mentioned as the head of the Jews, even in relation to matters related to the Temple. 2 Macc 4:9, 39 – 42; 5:1 – 8; 14:4 – 13, 26 – 27. Cf. Rooke 2000:274; Brutti 2006:216 – 247.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Mattathias the Zealot

107

Hellenistic reform, the office of the high priesthood was transformed. Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus were not only the leaders of the Temple, but headed a party within the Jewish society that was in conflict with the more conservative Jews. In fact, Hasmonean documents distinguish between the high priest’s religious authority and the civic-political authority of the Hasmonean ruler. Such a separation appears several times in 1 Maccabees in relation to Simon. In his discussion of John Hyrcanus, Josephus also differentiates between “the rule of the nation” (arche¯s tou ethnous), and “the office of high priest.”14 The Pharisaic demand to “give up the high priesthood and be content with governing the people (archein tou laou)”15 also implies that the civic rule was not necessarily an integral part of the office of the high priest. The Hasmonean high priests enjoyed religious supremacy, especially in relation to the conduct of the cult. The political and governmental character of their position, however, was not inherent in the office, but resulted from their standing within the Jewish people and their diplomatic and military activities. Their political power was gained gradually. We shall now turn to uncover this development from Mattathias to John Hyrcanus.

2. Mattathias the Zealot Mattathias, a priest from Jerusalem who settled in Mode’in, was, according to 1 Maccabees the figure who sparked the Maccabean Revolt. He left behind a dual heritage of religious zealotry and military resistance to Antiochus IV’s decrees against Judaism, and hence laid the foundations of Maccabean ideology. Mattathias refused to sacrifice a pagan cultic offering and appealed to “the covenant of our fathers” and to “the Torah and the commandments” (1 Macc 2:20 – 22). When another Jew stepped forward in his stead, he killed him as well as the royal official, and tore down the altar. He called out, “All who are zealous for the sake of the Torah, who uphold the covenant march out after me” (2:27) and ran away with his sons to “the mountains.”16 1 Macc 2:26, 54 draws an explicit parallel between Mattathias’s act and Phineas’s zealous killing of Zimri, who offered to idols, in Numbers 25. Since Phineas and his descendants received the high priesthood because of their zealous act, the fact that the Hasmoneans were seen to have followed in their footsteps may have

14 1 Macc 13:42; 14:41, 47; Ant. 13.299. 15 Ant. 13.291. Cf. b. Qiddushin 66 and the discussion in Chapter 4. 16 1 Macc 2:15 – 28. Josephus Ant. 12.270 adds that he was assisted by his five sons who also killed a few soldiers. Sievers 1990:30 regarded Josephus’s addition as reasonable.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

108

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

implied that they were worthy of leadership, and perhaps even, eventually, the high priesthood.17 Another quite unusual aspect of Mattathias’s religious zeal and violent struggle against the persecution of the Jewish way of life was his reaction to the Seleucid prohibition of circumcision and to their execution of the mothers who circumcised their babies (1 Macc 1:60 – 61). Mattathias and his followers circumcised by force all the uncircumcised boys they found within Israel’s borders.18 Mattathias was also involved in prescribing a military resistance. He and “his friends” destroyed the pagan altars, which had probably been erected by the Seleucids, started the fighting with the Seleucids and made the decision to wage war even during the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:40 – 47). Mattathias’s religious heritage is stressed in his farewell speech, in which zeal for the Torah is the major idea (1 Macc 2:50). Mattathias ordered his sons to gather around them all those who observed the Torah, and to reestablish the performance of the commandments (1 Macc 2:67 – 68). Undoubtedly, Torah observance formed the basis of the opposition to the Seleucids. For the author of 1 Maccabees, Mattathias and his followers “saved the Torah from the hand of the Gentiles and from the kings” (1 Macc 2:48). This would be the foundational ethos of the entire dynasty.

3. Judah the Savior Judah was first and foremost a warrior and military commander.19 Undoubtedly, his successes in the battlefield increased his authority and popularity and led to the emergence of the Hasmonean dynasty. Judah is portrayed not merely as a successful military commander, but as a savior (so¯te¯r), a designation used by Hellenistic kings. According to the poem in his honor, he defeated the wicked like a roaring lion and “deliverance/freedom (so¯te¯ria) prospered in his hands.”20 Interestingly, the Hasmoneans were later regarded as saviors of Israel by the rabbis (b. Megillah 11a). 17 Num 25:13; Ben Sira 45:23 – 25; 1 Macc 2:54; Sievers 1990:31. 18 1 Macc 2:46. Weitzman 1999:43 – 35, 51 and Sievers 1990:35 argued that although this description may be reliable, it nonetheless was meant to explain the policy of John Hyrcanus’s mass conversion of the Idumaeans (e. g., Ant. 13.257 – 258; see Chapter 7). A similar policy was later enacted by Jannaeus, who destroyed Pella “because the inhabitants refused to change to the native customs of the Jews” (Ant. 13.397). 19 For the relevant military details, see Bar-Kochva 1989. 20 1 Macc 3:3 – 6. The preying lion symbolizes God’s protection of Jerusalem (Isa 31:4) and his roaring represents God’s wrath (Isa 5:29; Joel 4:16; Hosea 11:10). So¯te¯ria is also attributed to the Maccabees after the victory at Ammaus (1 Macc 4:25). For these Greek terms in Hellenistic kingship ideology, see Chapter 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Judah the Savior

109

But Judah is also portrayed as a religious leader. First of all, he fought the Lord’s battles as a warrior for the sake of the law (1 Macc 3:3 – 9). At the end of 2 Maccabees, he told his soldiers of a dream in which he was handed a holy golden sword by the prophet Jeremiah, a symbol that Judah acted under divine approval and agency.21 Judah’s religious piety is emphasized in instances of military distress, when he prayed to the Lord. Right before the final attack on the Seleucid camp at Ammaus, Judah called upon his soldiers to cry to the Lord (1 Macc 4:10). After the great victory, the Maccabees praised the Lord (1 Macc 4:24). Judah prayed for victory before the siege on Beth Zur, as well as prior to the final battle against Nicanor.22 Later on, it was he who selected suitable priests to cleanse the Temple (1 Macc 4:42). As we have already seen in Chapter 1, he ordered the celebration of a yearly holiday to commemorate the rededication (H. anukkah) (1 Macc 4:59). Judah also made efforts to separate his people from sin. According to 2 Maccabees 12:42 – 45, when it was discovered that certain soldiers who had been killed possessed illicit pagan idols, Judah collected 2000 drachmas from his troops in order that a sin offering (h. attat) might be sacrificed at the Temple for a remission of their sin and their future resurrection.23 Judah and his first followers also separated themselves from the impurity of Gentiles, eating what grew wild.24 Following the occupation of Jerusalem and the Temple, Judah took control of the civil government in the city, and had a certain amount of control in Judaea as well. He fortified the Temple and Beth Zur ; he was called by Jews in the Transjordan and Galilee to save them from the Gentiles, and brought the refugees from the area to settle in Judaea.25 He besieged the Acra, the Seleucid fortress near the Temple Mount; later on, when the Seleucids supported Alcimus, the high priest, Judah harassed them and finally won his battles against Nicanor.26 In consequence of these victories, he initiated a treaty with Rome, which meant that the Romans regarded him as the civil representative of the Jews in Judaea.27 Still, even after his conquest of the Temple, Judah faced

21 2 Macc 15:12 – 15. For the idea of defeating the Gentiles by the holy sword, see 1 En 90:19; 1QM 15:3; 19:11 (also implied in 11:11 – 12). For Egyptian parallels see the references in Schwartz 2008:502 – 503. For other Greek parallels, see Gera 2009b:55 – 56. 22 1 Macc 4:30 – 31; 2 Macc 15:12 – 24, respectively. In both cases past deliverance in biblical times (David vs. Goliath, Jonathan vs. the Philistines, and Hezekiah vs. Sennacherib), are mentioned. Judah also prayed before or during the battles in 2 Macc 12:37 and 13:10 – 12. Cf. also the sermon attributed to Judah in 2 Macc 15:7 – 17. 23 Schwartz 2008:441 – 444. 24 2 Macc 5:27; Alcimus, on the other hand, “willingly defiled himself in the time of strife” (2 Macc 14:3). See Schwartz 2008:268. 25 1 Macc 4:60 – 61: 5:10, 16, 45, 53. 26 1 Macc 6:20; 7:8 – 40. In order to maintain control over Jerusalem, Nicanor was required to pretend that he was not interested in conflict with Judah (1 Macc 7:27 – 30). According to 2 Macc 14:23 – 41, there was a truce between the two, until the king ordered Nicanor to capture Judah. 27 1 Macc 8:1 – 32 (note the long exposition that the author dedicates to this act); Stern 1986.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

110

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

opposition from the Jewish supporters of the Hellenistic reform.28 There were also pious Jews like the Hasideans who were ready to cooperate with Alcimus the high priest, since they were seeking peace and believed Alcimus would not harm them (1 Macc 7:13 – 17; cf. 2 Macc 14:6). Strangely enough, although 1 and 2 Maccabees never mention this, Josephus argues several times that Judah functioned as a high priest. When Alcimus the high priest died, says Josephus, “the people” gave the high priesthood to Judah (Ant. 12.414); Judah signed the treaty with the Romans as high priest (Ant. 12.419); and after the account of his death, Josephus mentioned that “he held the high priesthood for three years” (Ant. 12.434). In Josephus’s list of high priests (Ant. 20.237), however, Judah is not included, and many scholars therefore considered Josephus’s previous assertion erroneous.29 VanderKam accepted Josephus’s assertion (Ant. 12.414) that Judah was indeed nominated high priest by the people, when Menelaus the hellenized high priest died. He suggested that this was an unofficial though effective act since Judah functioned as a rival high priest to Alcimus. Although Judah lacked Seleucid confirmation he nevertheless acted in the capacity of high priest.30 In any event, Josephus’s assertion is indicative of how Judah was remembered long after his death. For Josephus, and probably for many others as well, he was the first Hasmonean high priest, a religious leader who restored the Temple cult and the adherence to the laws after the Hellenistic reform.31 His military victories were only an instrument to restore the religious status quo. Still, his power was limited and somewhat informally constituted. When Judah died in the battle against Bacchides in Elasa, his party was designated as “Judah’s friends” (1 Macc 9:26, 28). It seems that despite past achievements, the Maccabees’ supporters were centered around the person of the Maccabean leader, lacking fixed political organization. 28 Refugees from Jerusalem (probably Menelaus’s supporters) fought on the Idumeans’ side (2 Macc 10:25; cf. 4:42). There was a spy in Judah’s camp (2 Macc 13:21). For Alcimus’s supporters, see 1 Macc 6:21 – 27. 29 In Ant. 13.46, Josephus repeats that Judah served as a high priest for three years; he adds that Jonathan was nominated as high priest (in 152 BCE) four years after the death of Judah, and that during the interim period there was no high priest. However, Josephus’s chronology is certainly wrong, since Judah was killed in the battle of Elasa in 160 BCE (1 Macc 9:3, 18 – 23). See Marcus note b ad loc. in the LCL edition. Josephus’s chronology is flawed also by comparison with his assertions about Jonathan’s rule (Ant. 12.212; 20.238). For the intersacerdotium before Jonathan was nominated high priest, see below. 30 VanderKam 1990:220 – 221; 2004:241 – 244; Schwartz 2008:475 and references. In 2 Macc 14:26 Alcimus complained to the king that Nicanor, who had been ordered to install Alcimus as high priest, had made peace with Judah and had instead made Judah Alcimus’s successor. See Schwartz 2008:551 – 552. In 2 Macc 14:31, 33, Nicanor assumed that Judah had hidden in the Temple, and therefore threatened the sanctuary even though Alcimus was serving as the official high priest. 31 Wise 2005 argued that Judah was included in the list of the high priests in 4Q245Pseudo-Danielc Ar.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Jonathan the Judge

111

4. Jonathan the Judge Jonathan did not take a senior position under Judah, but when his brother died, “all Judah’s friends” asked him to be his successor, to be their “commander and chief” (archonta kai he¯goumenon) and fight against the Seleucids.32 The challenge facing Jonathan was immense. The Seleucids persecuted the Maccabees, while the Jewish Hellenizers (or non-Maccabean Jews) still held official positions, and many of the Maccabees’ supporters gave up fighting (1 Macc 9:23 – 27). Jonathan therefore had to cope with both the Seleucid forces and local Jewish opposition,33 and to escape from Bacchides, the Seleucid general. Bacchides’ attempts to capture Jonathan failed. After Jonathan’s troops succeeded in defeating the general’s siege (1 Macc 9:32 – 69), the two leaders reached a truce (1 Macc 9:70 – 72). As a result Jonathan “judged” the people in Michmash (a few kilometers northeast of Jerusalem) in 158 – 152 BCE.34 Unlike Judah, Jonathan did not acquire extensive military and civil powers (although it is mentioned that he began to “wipe out the wicked from Israel” 1 Macc 9:73). Nonetheless, he held a prominent religious role. The civil religious war between the Maccabees and hellenized Jewish reformers was still going on. We have no further knowledge concerning the identity of those who ruled Jerusalem and the Temple, since Josephus says that during 159 – 152 BCE there was no high priest at all.35 Jonathan was nominated high priest by Alexander Balas, who fought against Demetrius I and competed with him for Jonathan’s support. Jonathan “put on the sacred vestments . . . at the feast of Tabernacles” (1 Macc 10:21). The nomination was actually a political one, similar to the appointments of Menelaus and Alcimus. It was spurred by Jonathan’s military capabilities and 32 1 Macc 9:28 – 31. One may infer from Vanderkam’s conclusion that Simon was designated high priest by “the people” (1990:esp. 215) that the same also applied to Jonathan. This nomination, of course, lacked official Seleucid recognition. 33 For the Jews in the Acra and Beth Zur, see 1 Macc 10:14, 61; 11:21, 25. They are characterized by their “lawlessness (anomoi), abandoning the Law and the commandments,” but it is difficult to ascertain whether this is merely polemic and hatred masking the actual controversies between the two sides (see Introduction). 34 1 Macc 9:73. As noted by Sievers 1990:80, the language intentionally echoes the Book of Judges (compare, for example, 1 Macc 9:28 – 31 and Judg 4:4; 10:2, 18). Like some of the Judges, Jonathan was considered a leader of all Israel, despite the fact that his activity was limited to particular region. The assertion that during this period “the sword ceased from Israel” (1 Macc 9:73), also resembles the accomplishments of the Judges (Judg 3:10, 30; 5:31). 35 Ant. 20.237 (1 Maccabees does not mention any high priest serving during that period either). This seven-year span is known as the intersacerdotium. Scholars have speculated on possible ad hoc attempts to fill this vacancy, since even if the Seleucids did not officially nominate a high priest, it is inconceivable that no one would have served in this office (viz., to conduct the Day of Atonement ritual) during such a long period. VanderKam 2004:245 – 250 surveyed several theories, which he rejected. Cf. Brutti 2006:99 – 107.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

112

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

was accompanied by a nomination to the status of “king’s friend” (philos), complete with a purple robe and a golden crown, given in the hope that Jonathan would support Alexander’s cause (1 Macc 10:15 – 20). From this point onwards, the author of 1 Maccabees stresses the political power of the Hasmoneans and the benefits they obtained from the Seleucid kings, neglecting the directly religious aspects of Hasmonean leadership.36 However, Jonathan was first and foremost an (unofficial?) religious leader, who “judged” the people. Interestingly, Josephus seems to have felt that Jonathan’s attainment of formal religious and political leadership needed further religious justification: he stresses that Jonathan was actually nominated high priest by the Jews, and was among “the descendants of the sons of the Asmonaios” who “had been entrusted (pisteuthentes) with the leadership of the nation” (Ant. 20.238). After his nomination, Jonathan became a prominent Seleucid military and political officer and was extremely active in these spheres.37 Although his official standing was secured by his Seleucid allies, Jonathan shared certain aspects of his authority with others, probably public leaders. The letter to the Spartans mentions “the high priest Jonathan and the Council of Elders of the nation and the priests and the rest of the people of the Jews” (1 Macc 12:6). He consulted “the elders of the people” in the matter of building fortresses and strengthening the walls of Jerusalem (1 Macc 12:35 – 37). Jonathan also took with him “a chosen retinue of elders of Israel and priests” for important negotiations with Demetrius II when he switched from Alexander’s to Demetrius’s side.38 He thus aimed to base his rule on a wider consensus.

36 For the date of Jonathan’s nomination to the high priesthood as 152 BCE, see VanderKam 2004:256 – 259. Sievers 1990:84 – 86, 102 commented that the office of the high priest is hardly stressed in 1 Maccabees and that the cultic or religious implications of the office are not mentioned. He therefore conjectured that the nomination was regarded as controversial by the Jews. However, according to VanderKam 1990, Jonathan was unofficially nominated high priest by “the people” (just like Simon after him). Significantly, 1 Macc 10:32 and 14:30 (as well as 11:27, 57; 12:3, 6) mention Jonathan’s high priestly status. 37 Stern 1995:23 – 62. Cf. his position in Alexander’s court in 1 Macc 10:58 – 65, 89. 38 1 Macc 11:23. Note that Codex Sinaiticus replaces the priests with Ioudaio¯n. Rappaport 2004:272 concluded that the elders mentioned in this and the former cases were the official gerousia. Bacchides took the sons of the leading men of Judaea as hostages (1 Macc 9:53). Sievers 1990:101 presumed that he feared that their fathers might support the Hasmonean cause; hence, this action attests to the support given by the leaders of the rural settlements to Jonathan. Earlier, when Demetrius I had offered him several benefits, Jonathan had entered Jerusalem and read Demetrius’s letter to the public (1 Macc 10:7). Jonathan was joined by “the people” in rejecting Demetrius’s second offer (1 Macc 10:46).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Simon the Elected High Priest

113

5. Simon the Elected High Priest The author of 1 Maccabees stressed that Simon’s rise to power was achieved due to a wide consensus, and that his all-embracing authority was later approved by all the Jews. When Jonathan was captured by Tryphon, “the people” (laos), namely, Jonathan’s supporters, faced a crisis. Simon then declared himself the leader who would continue his brothers’ military struggle against the Gentiles, noting that his brothers and his “father’s house” had done much “for the laws and the sanctuary . . . and the wars . . . and that all my brothers gave up their lives for no other cause then for Israel, and only I am left”; he promised to “take revenge for my nation, for the sanctuary” (1 Macc 13:3 – 4, 6). Simon’s leadership and authority were therefore based on family origin, including the familial religious and military ethos, albeit he already had his own military accomplishments as Judah’s right hand and a Seleucid strate¯gos. “The people” asked Simon to be their chief (he¯goumenos) and fight their wars in the place of his brothers (1 Macc 13:8 – 9). These “people” were probably the Maccabean soldiers who had just lost their chief, Jonathan. Hence, it is possible that the Maccabean army conferred the high priesthood upon Simon as part of the general transfer of Jonathan’s authority, and this may originally have been meant as a provisional and temporary appointment.39 Although there were historical precedents for the case of a high priest succeeded by his brother (Ant. 11.306; 12:43 – 44), this transfer of authority was based mainly on military considerations.40 The author of 1 Maccabees mentioned Simon’s authority as a high priest in twelve different instances. This seems to be one of the main messages of the entire book.41 Simon’s high priesthood is first mentioned in Demetrius II’s letter (1 Macc 13:36), but it is possible that in this letter, the king merely ratified Simon’s previous nomination by the people; in 1 Macc 14:35 we are told that “the people” nominated him “a chief and a high priest,” and that the king only approved this nomination later.42 Demetrius endorsed the

39 VanderKam 1990:215 – 217, referred to the Jonathan’s troops in 1 Macc 12:44; 13:2, and to the request by Judah’s military companions who, after Judah’s death, asked Jonathan to be their “commander and chief” (he¯goumenon) (1 Macc 9:30). For laos as soldiers, see 1 Macc 3:55; 5:43; 5:61; 6:19 – 20; 7:6, already used in the Septuagint (e. g., Josh 6:3 – 5). 40 VanderKam 1990:219 believed that the author omitted the nomination to high priesthood by “the people” to avoid the impression that there was anything illegal about Simon’s assumption of the high priesthood. Rather, he used the Seleucid affirmation of the nomination as an act of legitimization. 41 The title is stressed in 1 Macc 13:8, 35, 42; 14:6, 16, 20, 23. Simon’s position is also referred to further in 15:1 – 2, 17, 21, 24; 16:2. 42 1 Macc 14:38; VanderKam 1990:215 – 216. Sievers 1990:111 concluded that the people were not merely Maccabean warriors.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

114

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

Maccabean fortifications and released Simon and the Judaeans from taxes.43 This Seleucid approval of Simon’s rule is marked by the author as indicating that “the yoke of the Gentiles was lifted from Israel” (13:41). Interestingly, we do not find such an assertion previously, when Jonathan was nominated high priest. Now Simon was officially termed in Jewish documents “high priest, commander and chief of the Jews” (1 Macc 13:42). Simon was mainly a military commander, and his achievements before and after this nomination included erecting fortifications and conquering Gezer and the Acra near the Temple (1 Macc 13: 33, 43 – 53). An explicit and formal Jewish nomination of Simon as “a chief and a high priest” on behalf of the Jewish people appears only in the ceremonial decree in 1 Macc 14:27 – 49, following his successful dealings with the Seleucids and the conquest of the Acra. The decree which assigns Simon his office in 1 Macc 14:27 – 49 is the climax of the entire book. It is presented as an official, documented decision, taken by the assembly of the Jews, that reaffirms Simon as chief and high priest “in perpetuity, until a true prophet shall arise,” and also grants him the authority of supreme military commander and responsibility for the Temple (1 Macc 14:41 – 42, 47). It aims to show that the Jewish nation has chosen Simon to be both religious leader and civil governor.44 Granting the panegyric character of 1 Maccabees and the fact that Simon was already acknowledged by Jonathan’s supporters as well as Demetrius II, one may question whether the assembly of the leading Jews actually initiated this nomination.45 The need to reconfirm the nomination by the assembly three years after Simon had already served as chief and high priest, attests to the need for public legitimization.46 The decree stresses that the nomination is on behalf of the people (laos, ethnos, Ioudaioi), the priests, the “elders of the land” and “the chiefs of the nation.”47

43 1 Macc 13:38 – 39; cf. 13:33. Sievers 1990:109 – 110 doubted the credibility of Demetrius II’s release of Judaea. 44 Schalit 1972:256 – 259. 45 It seems that this is not a copy of the official document, but a citation of a public announcement, by a herald, of the proclamation to “the leaders of the nation” The public assembly authorized the leaders’ decree giving additional and final affirmation. See Abel 1949:254 – 255; Sievers 1990:121 – 123. 46 The decree recalls Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory, which states that sovereignty is achieved by institution when people mutually covenant with one another to obey a common authority, renouncing or transferring their own rights and authorizing the sovereign ruler. Sievers 1990:124 inferred that Simon had internal opposition, especially among the priests (note the frequent references to the Temple and the priests in the decree: 1 Macc 14:28, 41, 44, 45). VanderKam 1990 suggested that Simon’s takeover of these offices was one of the reasons the Qumran sectarians opposed the “wicked priest.” 47 1 Macc 14:28. The people are further mentioned in vv. 35 and 46 (“all the people”), and in v. 41 the priests and “all the Jews” are also mentioned. The de¯mos was already mentioned in 14:25 as the body that had initiated the confirmation of Simon’s status. Ethnos in Hellenistic law refers to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Simon the Elected High Priest

115

The decree is characterized by a stress on legitimizing the authority granted to Simon, focusing on the reasons that had led the people to make him their chief and high priest (1 Macc 14:29 – 40): (1) Family history : Simon is the son of Mattathias of the clan of Joiarib; he and his brothers (especially Jonathan the high priest) risked their lives in fighting against the nation’s foes for the survival of the Torah and the Temple; (2) Simon’s military success: he fought for his nation and spent his own money for salaries for his soldiers; fortified Beth Zur, Joppa and Gezer, as well as many other sites; settled Jews in Gezer ; and above all, expelled the Gentiles from the Jerusalem Acra; (3) International recognition: Demetrius II approved his high priesthood and ranked him one of his “friends,” conferring great distinction upon him; and the Romans treated his ambassadors with honor ; (4) Personal character : he brought upon his nation fidelity and glory, as he sought in every way to exalt his people. This need to legitimize Simon’s office(s) may have derived from the fact that his initial nomination was by the Maccabean soldiers and approved by Demetrius II, but lacked the public support of the larger circles.48 Simon’s authority did not fall short of that of a Hellenistic king. He was the supreme civil governor and the army commander ; his descendants were supposed to succeed him and, unlike the Seleucid kings, he was also the high priest, namely, a religious leader.49 The decree stresses that his leadership is beyond any dispute: “all persons obey him and all contracts be drawn in his name, and he shall wear robes and gold ornaments. No one of the people or the priests shall have the power to annul any of these provisions or to oppose any of his future commands or to convoke a meeting without his permission or to wear purple robes or use a gold brooch,” and any one who does so will be punished by death (1 Macc 14:43 – 46). Simon’s authority is also stressed by mentioning his different offices twice (1 Macc 14: 41 – 42 and 47). The purpose of this emphasis is not only to confront opposition. It aims at the institutionalization of Hasmonean rule. The decree marks the end of Hasmonean charisma and spontaneous calls for a leader to save the rebels from the Seleucids. It strives at political stability, granting almost any conceivable authority to a single person, in the belief that he is the best candidate for the supreme offices. Indeed, the titles he¯goumenos and ethnarche¯s (1 Macc 14:41, 47) may have designated the Hebrew nasi,50

the nation, the community as a political body. See Bikerman 1938:164. For the designation “the Jews” in relation to h. eber ha-yehudim on the Hasmonean coins, see Chapter 5. 48 VanderKam 1990:218. The act was only a formal one since “who could oppose a high priest who had an army behind him?” (VanderKam 1990:221). 49 The Ptolemaic kings combined various kinds of leadership roles: military, political, economic, and priestly (since they were considered the supreme priests of Egypt). In the Ptolemaic kingdom, the king was the personification of the state. See van Henten 2007:268. 50 Goodblatt 1984:117 and references.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

116

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

which actually means a king. Nasi is used in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and the Qumran scrolls to lower the king’s stature in the presence of the Lord.51 The decree grants the offices to Simon “in perpetuity (eis ton aio¯na) until a trustworthy prophet should arise” (1 Macc 14:41). This unusual phrase is usually interpreted as referring to the hereditary character of his position.52 Some commentators believed that the phrase does not refer to his descendants at all, but merely denotes Simon’s own lifetime. Nonetheless, it is very likely that the nomination pertained also to his descendants, since Simon and his sons obtained a copy of the decree (14:49), and 1 Maccabees had already presented the decree as an expression of gratitude to “Simon and his sons” for all their accomplishments (14:25). The hope for a true prophet had already been used by the Maccabees to solve another dilemma—the disposition of the polluted stones of the altar (1 Macc 4:46)—and seems to reflect authentic religious sensibilities.53 The dynastic appointment of Simon and his sons was therefore an attempt to grant the Hasmoneans absolute authority without abolishing eschatological (Davidic) expectations or claiming absolute divine sanction (since the arrangement was ultimately subject to approval by the “true prophet”).54 In fact, the author of 1 Maccabees treated the Hasmoneans as a dynasty from the very beginning of his history, when he referred to Mattathias and “his sons.” The notion of hereditary rule was already implied in the transfer of authority from Mattathias to Judah, and later to Jonathan and Simon.55 The assembly’s decree only legalized and legitimized what had already become an accepted practice. The decree resembles documents pertaining to the rule of Hellenistic kings, and this demonstrates that Simon enjoyed an almost royal authority. The detailed list of Simon’s glorious deeds in 1 Macc 14:32 – 40 matches the pattern of benefactions common in Hellenistic honorary decrees, benefactions which serve as the reasons for supporting and honoring a ruler. Priestly decrees from Ptolemaic Egypt (in 238 – 184 BCE), including the Rosetta Stone, focused on the king’s deeds and related his military role to his protection and restoration of the Egyptian temples.56 But unlike Hellenistic kings, Simon was not merely 51 Rof 1988:169 – 173; 1 Kings 11:34; Ezek 45:22; 46:1; and passim; Deut 17:14 – 15 LXX; 1QSb 5:20; 1QM 3:12; CD 5:12; 7:20. 52 E.g., Goldstein 1976:507 – 508; Rappaport 2004:323. 53 Goldstein 1987 discussed the Maccabean conceptions of God’s plan and the relationship between ancient prophecies and present troubles and accomplishments. Cf. the hopes for restoration in Judah’s letter (2 Macc 2:18); Goldstein 1987:84. 54 See Rappaport 2004:322 – 324, who also discussed the state of prophecy in that period. Rappaport suggested that the reference to a true prophet was meant to garner the support of the Pharisees. 55 Mattathias and “his sons”: 1 Macc 2:14, 16, 20, 28 (cf. 2:17, 49); Simon and his brothers: 13:3; 14:26; 16:2; Simon and his sons: 14:25, 49; 16:13, 16 (cf. 13:53). 56 van Henten 2001; van Henten 2007:esp. 266 – 267. For other Hellenistic nonroyal parallels, see Rappaport 2004:312 – 314; Gruen 1998:35.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

John Hyrcanus the Prophet

117

acknowledged, following his military occupations, but was elected due to his deeds and character. Simon’s election as a civil and military leader as well as high priest recalls the Hellenistic Jewish account of the appointment of Aaron and his sons, on the basis of their merits, piety, holiness, persuasiveness, and prudence.57 Simon is also glorified like a king in the ode preceding the decree, which praises him for both his accomplishments and his character (1 Macc 14:4 – 9). In his days the land became peaceful and fruitful, the territory became enlarged and was safe. Simon sought the good of his people, supported the poor, and glorified the Temple. In turn, the people welcomed his rule and there were none to oppose him, “and Israel rejoiced exceedingly.” This ideal picture of pastoral prosperity and religious restoration almost bears messianic overtones.58 Any discussion of the Hasmoneans’ taking of the royal crown must note that Simon’s portrayal in 1 Maccabees, probably written before the emergence of Hasmonean kingship (see Introduction), is very close to that of a king. His success is glorified and his authority is emphasized. In 1 Maccabees 14 the coming of an official royal title seems as a natural step in the same direction.

6. John Hyrcanus the Prophet While his father Simon ruled, John Hyrcanus was the supreme army commander. He settled in Gezer (1 Macc 13:53; 16:1 – 3) and won a battle against Kendebaios near Azutos (16:5 – 10). Hyrcanus succeeded his father when Simon and his two other sons were assassinated by Ptolemy the son of Abubos in an attempt to take over the Hasmonean state (16:11 – 19). 1 Maccabees ends with a short reference to Hyrcanus’s “wars and valorous deeds” (16:23). Josephus completes the picture by referring to extensive occupations of Idumaea, Samaria, and the Transjordan (Ant. 13.254 – 257). Hyrcanus’s fame stemmed not only from his conquests but also from his religious reputation. Josephus remarks that “he was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges: the rule of the nation, the office of high priest, and the gift of prophecy ; for the Deity was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future . . . he foretold of his two sons that they would not remain masters of the state.”59 The significance of these three gifts is

57 Aristeas 98; Philo, Life of Moses 2.142; Josephus, Against Apion 2.196; van Henten 2007:266 – 267 and n. 4. 58 Benson 1996:197; Rooke 2000:298 – 299. Cf. the praise of Solomon’s monarchy in Ps 72. 59 Ant. 13.299 – 300; cf. War 1.69. Josephus mentions another oracle in relation to the problem of Hyrcanus’s successor and his love for his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus: “Once when God appeared to him in his sleep, he asked Him which of his sons was destined to be his successor. And when God showed him the features of Alexander, he was grieved that this one should be the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

118

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

tremendous. At least some Jews expected three different eschatological messianic leaders—king, high priest, and prophet (e. g., 1QS 9:11)—and here John Hyrcanus embodied all three offices! Josephus pointed to another specific case when the Deity communicated with Hyrcanus: “they say that on the very day on which his sons fought with [Antiochus] Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the Temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually happened” (Ant. 13.282). Rabbinic literature preserves a direct parallel: “Joh. anan the high priest heard a bath qol [a divine voice, an omen] issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing, ‘The young men who went to war against Antioch have been victorious.”‘60 Here the gift of prophecy was attributed to Hyrcanus, not by Hasmonean circles, but in an old tradition that was known to both Josephus and to the Babylonian rabbis, several hundreds years later. It attests to the public notion that Hyrcanus was a distinguished religious leader, and also symbolizes the perception that his high priesthood and civil government was acknowledged by God. One may speculate as to whether his prophecy was seen as a fulfillment of the expectation of the future true prophet in 1 Macc 14:41, and thus legitimizes the Hasmonean rule for eternity! Rabbinic literature attributed to Joh. anan the high priest several halakhic decrees related to the Temple cult as well a certain reform in the collection of tithes directly from the owners of the crop. The later rabbis regarded Hyrcanus not only as a high priest who ruled the Temple but also as a sage who made innovations in Jewish law; hence, they accepted him as a religious authority.61

7. The Hasmoneans as Religious Leaders The examination of the evolution of Hasmonean authority from Mattathias to John Hyrcanus has shown that this authority developed gradually. Especially heir of all his possessions, and so he let him brought up in the Galilee from his birth” (Ant. 13.322). This oracle actually aims to show that Jannaeus was elected by God. 60 B. Sotah 33a. See also y. Sotah 9:14, 24b; Song of Song Rabbah 8:9 (Vilna ed., 40b). The rabbis did not aim to praise Joh. anan but used this story as an example of a bath qol in Aramaic, to prove that the angels did in fact understand this language. For the use of bath qol in the Jewish and Hellenistic world, see Lieberman 1950:194 – 199. For similar accounts of prophets and revelations involving divine voices, see Urbach 2002. 61 M. Ma’aser Sheni 5:15; m. Sotah 9:10; y. Ma’aser Sheni 5:9 56d; y. Sota 9:11 24a; Alon 1977:96 – 102. Cf. Regev 2005:160 – 170. On these decrees as directed against Hellenistic and pagan influences, see Lieberman 1950:139 – 143. In b. Yoma 9a, the rabbis considered Hyrcanus exceptionally righteous (but there are also critical assessments elsewhere). Hyrcanus was also the only high priest to prepare two red heifers (among the total of ten red heifers prepared throughout the history of the Temple) in m. Parah 3:5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Hasmoneans as Religious Leaders

119

striking is the Hasmoneans’ characterization as religious leaders. Religious zeal for the law, the Temple and the war against the Gentiles, which were also manifested by military acts, had a central role in the formation of the Maccabees as the people’s leaders. According to 1 Maccabees, the Hasmoneans were not merely successful warriors who were authorized by the Seleucids, but leaders with unique personal characteristics and religious sensibilities, and above all, commitment to the Torah. The religious, or rather halakhic, aspect of Hasmonean authority is also reflected in rabbinic traditions concerning the Hasmonean judicial court (beit din) that ruled against contacts with Gentiles.62 Jonathan and Simon were specifically elected by their supporters to lead the Jewish cause. 1 Maccabees (and to certain degree 2 Maccabees as well) relates military and political power to zeal for God, expressed by Mattathias’s call to action, Judah’s prayers, and Hyrcanus’s prophecies. This is demonstrated in an exceptional passage in 1 Macc 5:56 – 62, which denounces military officers who tried to imitate Judah, Jonathan, and Simon by attacking Jamnia, but were defeated in battle. The author claims that the reason for their failure was that “they did not belong to the family of those men through whom deliverance (so¯te¯ria) was given to Israel” (5:62). Here the Maccebees are regarded as divinely elected. In sociological terms, Mattathias, Judah, Simon, and John Hyrcanus were perceived as charismatic; that is (according to Weber) they were regarded by those who responded to them as manifesting some divine power. The social function of charisma, according to Shills, embodies or symbolizes the essence of an ordered cosmos by awakening the disposition of awe and reverence. Charisma appears where leading figures and ideas come together with leading institutions and have a vital effect on the members of a society. It mediates social institutions and maintains social order.63 Thus, the special religious piety and sacred ideas ascribed to the Hasmoneans functioned to reinforce the supremacy of their ethos and the social necessity or imperative to accept it. The Maccabee’s charisma may be compared to the inherent sacredness of sovereign power common in ancient states. Political authority requires a cultural framework to define itself and advance its claims, and does this through myths. Ancient rulers commonly used symbolic or mythological representations to reinforce their power and to justify the centralization of authority in their own persons.64 However, while such measures usually aimed at expanding the social distance between rulers and ruled, in order to enhance respect, 1 Maccabees stresses that Jonathan and Simon were chosen by the 62 B. Sanhedrin 82a; b. Avodah Zarah 36b. Schalit 1972:260 – 262 associated this court with h. eber ha-yehudim and the Sanhedrin. 63 Shills 1965. 64 Geertz 1977:esp. 169. Claessen 1978:555 – 561 discussed the relationship between a sovereign and his subjects, wherein they ascribe to him a sacral, supernatural, or mythical character, viz., as supreme judge.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

120

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

people, during a period of military and political distress. It seems that the Hasmoneans tried to balance the claim of special personal and familial merits with a populist ethos of being favored by the people to begin with.

8. Priestly Descent and the Zadokite Problem The Hasmoneans were priests, and from Jonathan to John Hyrcanus the most distinguished title they bore was that of the high priesthood. In their official documents and their correspondence with the Seleucids, Sparta, and Rome, Jonathan and Simon are designated high priests, and this was undoubtedly their official title.65 On their coins, the Hasmonean rulers use the high priestly title more frequently then the royal one. Many scholars believed that their eligibility for the high priesthood was disputed, and that several groups and circles regarded their taking of this office as illegitimate on the basis of one major hindrance: unlike all the high priests from Zadok (in the days of Solomon) to Jason (the Hellenistic reformer), they lacked Zadokite descent.66 The main reason for this impression is that the Hasmoneans never claimed descent from Zadok. In order to examine the image and legitimacy of the Hasmoneans as high priests I shall now turn to address two questions: (1) was their priestly descent inferior? and (2) who criticized or opposed their assumption of the high priesthood? 1 Maccabees attempts to legitimize the Hasmonean assumption of the high priesthood in several ways. The office is mentioned 32 times, but the former or rival high priests, Menelaus and Alcimus are never mentioned as such.67 1 Maccabees portrays Mattathias’s leadership after the model of Phineas, Aaron’s grandson and the son of Elazar, who was the ancestor of the Zadokites (1 Chr 24:3). Both Phineas and Mattathias killed an idolater in public. Mattathias’s portrayal as the one who “turned wrath away from Israel” (1 Macc 3:8) also echoes God’s positive response to Phineas’s violent act: “He turned back My wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on My behalf” (Num 25:11); that is, he had been given God’s Covenant of Peace (berit shalom).68 Mattathias also refers to Phinehas as “our ancestor.”69 Interestingly, in Jubilees and the Testament of Levi, Levi’s violent revenge upon 65 1 Macc 12:2, 6; 13:36; 14:20, 23; 15:2, 17, 21. 66 E.g., Klausner 1968:3.110, 139; Tcherikover 1959:260, 492 – 493; Goldstein 1976:71, 75; Liver 1967 – 1969:25 – 27; Rooke 2000:255 – 256, 280 – 282; D. R. Schwartz 2001:13. 67 Rooke 2000:291 – 282; Brutti 2006:77. Menelaus is not mentioned at all; on Alcimus, see 1 Macc 7:5, 9, 21. 68 See also Ps 106:28 – 31; Ben Sira 50:24. 69 1 Macc 2:54. Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:75 believe that this may be mere propaganda and not accurate genealogical evidence of descent.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Priestly Descent and the Zadokite Problem

121

the people of Shechem following Dina’s rape earned him the high priesthood.70 Does the author of 1 Maccabees imply that Mattathias and his sons were worthy of the high priesthood because of their zeal for the Torah? Mattathias was of the priestly clan of Joiarib, and from the family of Asamo¯naiou/Asamo¯naios.71 His priestly lineage seems to have been a distinguished one. According to Josephus, the Hasmoneans’ priestly descent was a noble one: the Hasmonean line was “a splendid and renowned house of both their lineage (genous) and their priestly office” (Ant. 14.490). The terms line or lineage probably refer to their priestly descent. In Ant. 14.78, he also refers to them as “high priests by birth” (genos archiereusin), which seems appropriate only to Zadokites. Joiarib is the first of twenty-four priestly clans mentioned in 1 Chr 24:7. Here the clan of Joiarib is presented as descended from Elazar (Aaron’s son), from whom Zadok and the Zadokites also originated.72 Furthermore, there seems to exist a genealogical relationship between the priestly clans of Jedaiah (the high priestly clan, hence a Zadokite one) and Joiarib.73 In Neh 11:10 – 11 and 1 Chr 9:10 – 11 Joiarib follows Jedaiah. Neh 11:10 refers to “Jedaiah son of Joiarib.” These may have been genealogical lists asserting that Joiarib was a descendant of Zadok. Thus, the priestly clan of Joiarib was already prominent in early Second Temple times. If it was actually part of the clan of Jedaiah, that of the high priests, its heredity was traceable to Zadok!74 It is widely argued that both the Pharisees and the Qumran sectarians criticized the Hasmonean high priesthood as illegitimate since they were not Zadokites.75 However, this is merely a scholarly assumption, since no such charge is documented or even implied.76 The only documented opposition of the Pharisees to the Hasmoneans as high priests was indeed related to their priestly descent, but not to the Zadokite question. They wanted Hyrcanus to give up the high priesthood “because we have heard . . . that your mother was a captive,” namely, was likely to have been raped; hence her son, Hyrcanus, was

70 According to Jub. 30:18: “Levi and his sons will be blessed forever because he was zealous for righteousness and judgment and vengeance against all who rose up against Israel.” In T. Levi 5 – 8, God orders Levi to avenge, and consequently the angels nominate him a priest. Cf. Gen 34. 71 1 Macc 2:1 – 2; Ant. 12.265 – 266. 72 Zadok is the son of Elazar in 1 Chr 5:35; 24:3. Dequeker 1986:esp. 103 claimed that 1 Chr 24:7 aims to show that the clan of Joiarib, namely, the Hasmoneans, are of Zadokite descent, and that therefore this verse is a later Hasmonean insertion. According to Japhet 1993:429 – 30, the fact that Joiarib opens the list of priestly clan does not represent his rank or precedence, hence the list is not of post-Hasmonean date. Josephus (Life 2), however, argues that his descent from the first of the twenty-four priestly courses does represent distinction. 73 On Jedaiah as the high priestly clan, see Ezra 2:36//Neh 7:39. On the relationship between the two clans, see Neh 12:6, 19. 74 Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:77 – 80. Cf. Japhet 1993:430. 75 E.g., Klausner 1968:110, 139; Cross 1969: Stegemann 1971:211 – 227. 76 See Liver 1967 – 69:27 – 29.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

122

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

disqualified as a priest and could not served as a high priest.77 The Sadducees, who were probably called after the House of Zadok and were supposed to challenge non-Zadokite high priests, never opposed the Hasmoneans.78 The Community Rule found in Qumran refers to the “Sons of Zadok, the Priests” as prominent members of the yah. ad sect.79 The pesharim of the yah. ad also condemn the “Wicked Priest,” probably Jonathan, for his immoral behavior and persecutions of the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers.80 Some even speculated that the Teacher was a Zadokite.81 Nowhere in the scrolls, however, is there any reference to either the Hasmoneans’ genealogy or the Teacher’s.82 The references to the Sons of Zadok, the priests as a group, rather than to individual priests, do not seem to promote the nomination of a certain individual Zadokite as high priest.83 In fact, the use of the title “Zadok” by the Qumran sects and the Sadducees may have been symbolic rather than genealogical. The assumption that these groups used this genealogic title to imply that their priestly descent was more prominent than that of the Hasmoneans, and therefore that they were entitled to the high priesthood instead, remains speculative.84 Actually, the entire scholarly notion of “the house of Zadok” or “Zadokites” as a group or party of descendants of Zadok is an exaggeration. We find only one reference to high priests descended from Zadok, the priest of David’s days 77 Ant. 13.291 – 292. The Pharisees relied on the law in Lev 21:14 – 15, according to which a priest is prohibited from marrying a woman “who has been defiled,” but must rather marry a virgin. Cf. m. Ketubot 2:9. Note that this charge is not relevant to Jonathan and Simon, hence was not related in general terms to Hasmonean descent. See Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:84 – 85. 78 Baumgarten 1979:237 – 238; Rooke 2000:311. For the name “Sadducees” as deriving from the priestly house of Zadok, see the references in Regev 2005:12 n. 2. 79 1QS 5:2 – 3, 9 – 10; 1QSa 1:24; 2:3; 1QSb 3:22; Liver 1967 – 1969. 80 1QpHab 8:8 – 13. See Chapter 2 above. Nonetheless, the authors of the pesher admit that in the beginning, they acknowledged his leadership, and perhaps even his high priesthood (he “was called after the name of truth when he initially became prominent”). See Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:81 (I have used their translation). 81 Dequeker 1986:95; Stegemann 1971:211 – 227; Murphy O’Connor 1974:229 – 233; D. R. Schwartz 2001:18. 82 CD 3:12b – 4:12a identifies the whole sect, the entire community, with the house of Zadok: “the chosen of Israel who stand at the end of days” (4:2 – 4); hence, the passage does not make a genealogical claim. See Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:83 and references. Note that Ezek 43:19; 44:15 – 16 regards the Sons of Zadok as the only legitimate priests, not because of their descent, but because they were loyal to the Lord in the past. Baumgarten 1979:233 – 236 and Werman 2000 have argued that in Qumran the Sons of Zadok are generally equated with the priests. 83 Licht 1965:114 – 115. Licht nonetheless suggested that in the Maccabean or early Hasmonean period there was a hope for the restoration of the Zadokite high priesthood that developed into a movement centered around Zadokite priests, and later culminated as the Qumran sect. This is questioned by the fact that the Sons of Zadok are not mentioned in several shorter copies of the Community Rule, which seem to be the earliest ones. See Bockmuehl 1998. For the lack of special authority imputed to the Sons of Zadok and the possibility of their appearance in later phase of the development of 1QS traditions, see Davies 1987:51 – 72. 84 Schofield and Vanderkam 2005:81 – 87. For this assumption, see also D. R. Schwartz 2001:18 – 19.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Priestly Descent and the Zadokite Problem

123

(1 Chr 5:27 – 41), and only one mention of a high priestly dynasty related to Zadok.85 The Zadokites are mentioned as a collective entity only as priests, not as high priests.86 It is possible that all of the high priests until Menelaus were related to the same dynasty (cf. Ant. 20.234 – 235), but Josephus refers to the “dynasty of the high priests” only in a general manner (Ant. 13.78), without mentioning the Zadokites. The ancient sources therefore lack a sense of the Zadokites as the dynastic high priests. Instead of speculating on how the Zadokites would have reacted to the Hasmonean high priesthood, we should focus on the reaction of the high priestly family that lost its office during the Hellenistic reform—the Oniad priests who migrated to Egypt. Did its members try to reclaim the office after the fall of the Hellenistic party? Onias IV, the son of the high priest Onias III, who lost the sacred office to his brother Jason, the Hellenistic reformer, established a temple in Leontopolis, Egypt. Ostensibly, this was a temple that competed with the central one in Jerusalem, since it was run by the legitimate high priestly family, while the Hasmoneans held the Jerusalem high priesthood by force. Josephus indeed presented the Oniad temple critically.87 Surprisingly, however, there are no signs of conflict or tension between the Oniads and the Hasmoneans. In 2 Macc 15:12 – 14, Onias III (“the former high priest”) was revealed to Judah in a dream and presented him to the prophet Jeremiah, who handed Judah a golden sword. Here Onias acknowledged and encouraged Judah’s leadership.88 The author assumed that the two families could cooperate, and perhaps even implied that the Oniads acknowledged Hasmonean leadership.89 Decades later, Cleopatra III, the Ptolemaic queen, nominated Onias’s sons, Ananias and Chelkias, as her generals and entrusted her army to them (Ant. 13.285 – 287, also citing Strabo). Cleopatra defeated her son Ptolemy Lathyrus, who had endangered Jannaeus’s rule and besieged the city of Ptolemais, and Jannaeus met her with presents and honors. Some of her advisers and friends suggested that she take advantage of the situation and invade and occupy Judaea. But Ananias, the Oniad general, said that the queen would commit an injustice if she deprived an ally of his possessions, “especially one who is our kinsman,” because “an injustice done to this man

85 The only reference to “the house of Zadok” (2 Chr 30:10) relates to the time of Hezekiah. 86 Ezek 43:19; 44:15 – 16; Ben Sira 51:12. For the uncertainties concerning the Zadokites, see Bartlett 1968:esp. 16 – 17; Hunt 2006. 87 War 1.33; 7.421 – 36; Ant. 13.67 – 73; 20.235 – 236. 88 Gera 2009b:56 – 57. The message of Judah’s dream may be paralleled to that of Seleucus I, in which Alexander gave him a clear sign of his future kingship (Diodorus xix 90.4). Gera 2009b showed that the episode of 2 Macc 15:12 – 14 is related to the major role of Onias III in 2 Maccabees. Apparently, the author did not see a tension in admiring both Judah and Onias. 89 Schwartz 1997 and Gruen 1997 argue that the Oniad temple did not really compete with the one in Jerusalem. Schwartz 1997:16 – 22 suggested that the symbolic cooperation between Judah and Onias was possible since 2 Maccabees was written before the building of the Oniad temple and the nomination of Jonathan as a high priest.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

124

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

will make all of us Jews your enemies.” Cleopatra was persuaded not to harm Jannaeus and made an alliance with him instead.90 Whether or not this is an accurate story or a remnant of Hasmonean propaganda about the support of leading Diaspora Jews who held key roles in neighboring kingdoms, we cannot tell. Nonetheless, the story clearly assumes that if the Oniads had had the chance to use the Ptolemaic army to conquer the Hasmoneans and restore their own high priesthood, they would have resisted it. Instead they strove for peace and cooperation between the Ptolemies and the Hasmoneans. One may therefore wonder : if the Oniads themselves did not oppose the Hasmonean high priesthood, even in one of its darkest hours, who did? One can safely conclude that there are no signs of Zadokite opposition to the Hasmoneans, and it is possible that the Hasmoneans were considered part of the Zadokite dynasty in any event.

9. Becoming Monarchs: Hellenistic Honors and the Accumulation of Wealth The Hasmonean brothers are usually imagined as warriors fighting for the freedom of their people. Their most important accomplishments were victories on the battlefield, along with the occupation of land, cities, and fortresses. But the author of 1 Maccabees did not neglect their financial and political success. Their victories won them booty from their foes (Seleucid or local), as well as gifts and honors from the Hellenistic kings with whom they cooperated. 1 Maccabees stresses time and again the economic growth that accompanied the military victories of Judah and his brothers.91 For example, following his victory at the battle of Ammaus, Judah returned to take spoil from the camp, including large sums of gold and silver coins, and cloth dyed marine blue and purple (4:23). When Judah and his soldiers defeated and killed Nicanor they also took spoils and booty (7:47). The author describes in great detail Jonathan’s political role in the court of the Seleucid kings and the military successes of Jonathan and Simon, citing

90 Ant. 13.353 – 355; Gruen 1997:66. (Gruen 1997:59 – 60 n. 61 raised doubts as to whether Ananias and Chelkias were indeed the sons of Onias the high priest; cf. the mention of Onias the general in Against Apion 2.49 – 50). Gruen (1997:69 – 70) also suggested that Onias IV never claimed the title high priest. Interestingly, the Oniads let the troops sent by Antipater pass through their land in order to assist Julius Caesar in Egypt only when Antipater showed the Oniads letters from Hyrcanus II “the high priest” (Ant. 14.131). 91 For booty won by Judah from Gentiles, see 1 Macc 5:3, 35, 51, 68. For Jonathan, see 9:40; 10:84, 87; 11:61; 12:31. For Simon, see 5:22.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Becoming Monarchs: Hellenistic Honors and the Accumulation of Wealth 125

letters from Seleucid officials as well as treaties with Sparta.92 He cites a long letter of Demetrius I to Jonathan in which the king granted him many rights, benefactions, and tributes (10:22 – 46); although none of these favors were actually carried out because Jonathan declined the king’s gestures and preferred to ally himself with Balas. The letter was merely used here to extol Jonathan’s position within the Seleucid kingdom. The glamour of Hellenistic officialdom is manifested in the rich gifts Jonathan received from the Seleucids. When Balas appointed him high priest and friend of the King, he also sent him a purple robe and a golden crown, the uniform of a royal friend and a Hellenistic priest. The author of 1 Maccabees paid special attention to the manner in which Alexander Balas dressed Jonathan in purple, sat Jonathan beside him, and proclaimed that no one would be allowed to lodge complaints against him.93 Later Balas sent him a golden brooch such as was customarily given to persons with the title “Kinsman of the King” (10:89). When Tryphon and the young Antiochus wanted Jonathan’s alliance, the king (who nominated Jonathan once again friend of the king) sent him golden goblets and a table service; he gave him permission to drink from golden goblets, and to wear purple, and to use a golden brooch.94 Even during the days of independence, when “the people” granted Simon his political authority and high priesthood, the assembly’s decree insisted that “he wear purple robes and gold ornaments.”95 1 Maccabees also mentions the magnificence and splendor of Simon’s court. When Athenobius, the king’s friend, was sent to Jerusalem by Antiochus VII, he was astonished by “Simon’s splendor, the gold and silver drinking vessels on his sideboard, and his numerous retinue.”96 Ptolemy son of Abubos, the commander of the Jericho plain and Simon’s son-in-law was a rich person (16:11 – 12), and it seems that such wealth was necessary in order to marry a Maccabean princess and attain a senior administrative position. Ptolemy made a banquet for Simon and his sons in the castle of Doc (above Jericho) in which they got drunk (when he also took advantage of them and assassinated them), and it is likely that such banquets were hosted regularly at the Hasmonean court (for the Hasmoneans’ banquets evidenced by the vessels found in their palaces, see Chapter 6). 92 1 Macc 9:70 – 71; 10:4 – 7, 18 – 21; 11:6 – 7, 25 – 37; 11:41 – 51, 59 – 74; 12:19 – 34, 40 – 48; 13:35 – 42; 14:16 – 23; 15:1 – 9. For the Romans’ letters, see 8:1 – 32; 12:1 – 18; 14:25 – 26; 15:15 – 24. On the treaty with Sparta, see Katzoff 1985; Gruen 1996. 93 1 Macc 10:20, 61 – 63. In comparison, the Jewish high priest wore blue robe and a gold “frontlet.” See Goldstein 1976:400 following Bikerman 1938:42. Rappaport 2004:251 suspected that the references to the robe and crown are a later insertion. 94 1 Macc 11:57 – 58. For the degree of “kinsman” as more senior than “friend” and the golden brooch as symbolizing this rank, see Bikerman 1938:42 – 44. 95 1 Macc 14:43. For Simon as a Hellenistic prince who wore purple and was entitled to mint coins (1 Macc 15:6), see Tcherikover 1959:250. 96 1 Macc 15:32. Compare, however, the extremely plain vessels in the Hasmonean palaces, discussed in Chapter 6.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

126

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

The early Hasmoneans not only received but also sent gifts and tributes to foreign rulers, spending money in order to create political alliances. Jonathan and Simon sent the Seleucids large amounts of money or lavish presents: When Jonathan was invited to meet Alexander Balas and Ptolemy VI in Ptolemais, Jonathan “set out in pomp” and gave the kings and their friends “silver and gold and many other gifts and won their favor” (1 Macc 10:59 – 60). When he came again to Ptolemais to meet Demetrius II, Jonathan brought him “silver and gold and raiment and many other gifts . . . and won a favorable reception” (11:24). Later on, Demetrius II acknowledged the golden crown and palm branch that Simon had sent him.97 Simon also sent the Romans, via his ambassador, a huge gold shield valued at one thousand minas.98 He spent money on his own people; supplied cities with food and equipped them for defense (1 Macc 14:10); spent large amount of his own money to arm and pay his soldiers (14:32); and provided the Temple with splendid vessels.99 He erected in Mode’in familial monumental tombs containing seven pyramids of hewn stone contrived in an elaborate setting, decorated with armor and ships, intended to be seen from the sea (13:27 – 30). All this attests to an inclination towards the Hellenistic world, which may seem improper for Jewish high priests.100 This tendency began long before John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, bearing Greek names and hiring Greek mercenaries, tended towards Hellenism. But the evidence of 1 Maccabees does not merely attest to Hellenistic trends. The gifts, tributes, and honors given and accepted, and the wealth of Jonathan and Simon, all reflect political power. These are the ways in which rulers and monarchs express their international recognition, success, prestige and authority. In mentioning such gifts, the author of 1 Maccabees wished to stress the ability of Jonathan and Simon to rule. Furthermore, the gifts and money given and received reflect, like any gift or financial transaction, an exchange. What is stressed here is the political and cultural exchange—namely, allegiance—with the Seleucids and the Romans.101 Jonathan, Simon, and their state, we are told, penetrated the Hellenistic civilization and became an integral part of the Seleucid political system. The author of 1 Maccabees demonstrates this by paying attention to the symbolic and ritual gestures beyond the political facts and official documents. 97 1 Macc 13:37. On the palm branch, see Bikerman 1938:111 – 112. Alcimus also gave Demetrius I a palm branch (2 Macc 14:4). Simon attempted to collaborate with Antiochus VII and sent him two thousand armed men, as well as silver and gold coins to support his siege on Trypon in Dor, but the king rejected his gesture (1 Macc 15:26). 98 1 Macc 14:24. The Romans mentioned it again in their letter to King Ptolemy in 1 Macc 15:18. 99 1 Macc 14:15. Interestingly, Aristobulus sent Pompey a golden vine worth five hundred talents (Ant.14.35 – 36). 100 Rooke 2000:289 noted that Jonathan and Simon act “more like sacral kings than ruling priests.” 101 On gifts and wealth as exchange and as representing allegiance, see Mauss 1969.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: Hasmonean “National” Monarchy

127

Why was the author of 1 Maccabees so interested in detailing the Seleucid honors granted to Jonathan and Simon, and the material manifestations of their ties with foreign rulers? We may assume that 1 Maccabees was written sometime during the reign of John Hyrcanus, when the emphasis on Seleucid recognition was less relevant; by this juncture, the Seleucid dynasty had declined, and Hyrcanus’s rule was not dependent on Hellenistic support. 1 Maccabees’ interest in Hellenistic honors probably reflects somewhat earlier days. Jonathan, Simon, and their supporters perceived the accumulation of wealth, the penetration of the Seleucid court, and the royal gestures as proofs of their political success and affirmations of their government. They needed to show that they were the Jewish equals of the well-established Hellenistic rulers. In a way, the Seleucids’ and Romans’ symbolic acknowledgements of Hasmonean rule demonstrated Jewish independence. The descriptions in 1 Maccabees therefore reflect the early Hasmonean ethos of Hellenistic politics. This was one step towards the emergence of Hasmonean kingship.

10. Conclusions: Hasmonean “National” Monarchy The portrait of the Hasmoneans in 1 Maccabees, admittedly mainly a selfportrait, is very favorable, on two grounds: they were found worthy to rule over the Jews; they ruled according to the will of their people and on behalf of them. 1 Maccabees views the Hasmonean family as those to whom it was granted to bring deliverance (so¯te¯ria) to Israel; that is, they were divinely sanctioned to lead Israel’s deliverance.102 1 Maccabees also stresses the Maccabees’ religious piety and devotion to the law and the Temple and their commitment to the wars against the Gentiles, as well as their military and diplomatic accomplishments.103 In these characteristics they were similar to the biblical judges (as well as to Hellenistic kings, who sometimes used the title soter, see Chapter 4). Josephus also characterizes the Hasmonean line as “a splendid (lampros) and renowned (diase¯mos) house (oikos) by both their lineage (genous) and their priestly office (hieratike¯s time¯s), as well as the things which its founders (goneis) achieved on behalf of the nation (tou ethnous)” (Ant. 14.490). The Hasmoneans were of a noble priestly descent, and at least at the beginning served the needs of their subjects. They may have been regarded as Zadokites, but even if they were not, their genealogy was considered as worthy of the high priesthood. 102 1 Macc 5:62. See also 2:48; 4:25. Judah’s charisma is also mentioned in 1 Macc 3:2 – 5. See van Henten 2007: 271 – 272. 103 See also Regev 2012a.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

128

Leading the People: Establishing Hasmonean Authority

The Hasmoneans served the communal interest of the Jews and acted on behalf of the Jewish people. The “people” supported them by choosing Jonathan and Simon as leaders. This concept of a ruler who is chosen by the people, rules on behalf of his people, and serves their needs is entirely different from the Hellenistic conception of kingship in which the king rules his land by military force, and takes care of his subjects when he wishes (see Chapter 4). The portrait of the Hasmoneans as representatives of the Jews corresponds, as we shall see in the next chapter, to the concept of national monarchy which certain scholars have ascribed to Macedonian kingship, in which the ruler serves goals and interests beyond those of his own court. This concept was different from that of personal monarchy, which was the common model in the Hellenistic world, and was “based on the occupation of land inhabited by foreign people”; this widespread model “had no roots in the nation” since “there existed no nation in the political sense.”104 1 Maccabees uses two very different ways to legitimize Hasmonean power. The first is to stress the religious qualities of the Maccabees and their religious priorities: Mattathias was zealous for the Torah and began military resistance to the Seleucids for the sake of the Law; Judah prayed to the Lord time and again; Jonathan acted as a biblical judge; Simon was the legitimate high priest; and John Hyrcanus was a true prophet. Other indications of the Hasmoneans’ religious leadership are their establishment of H. anukkah and their Temple ideology. The significance of the high priestly office is apparent on their coins (see Chapter 5). The second means of legitimization involves Hellenistic notions of power and pomp. The acknowledgments of the Seleucids as well as Rome and Sparta aim to show that Maccabean rule was successful. The decree in 1 Maccabees 14 granted Simon total power almost like a monarch. The decree therefore shows that Simon was not very far from kingship when his grandson took the crown officially. In terms of the balance between Judaism and Hellenism, 1 Maccabees tries to have it both ways: its Hasmonean rulers wear their authority in Hellenistic style, even while fighting against some of the Seleucids and representing the Jewish religious ethos. The fact that 1 Maccabees uses multiple means to legitimize Hasmonean rule may be interpreted in two different ways. Either Hasmonean popularity was low and needed extensive propaganda; or else the Hasmoneans and their supporters cared a lot about the acceptance of their rule by the masses and made great efforts to communicate with them. Chapters 5 and 6, which discuss the Hasmoneans’ own reflection of their political ideology and kingship as manifested in their coins and palaces, may enable us to examine this question more closely. But first we should turn to the transformation of the Hasmoneans from chiefs and high priests to kings.

104 Mooren 1983:222.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Four Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts 1. Introduction: Were the Hasmoneans Legitimate Kings? This chapter continues the discussion of the ways in which the Hasmoneans and their strongest advocates justified their rule. It deals with the Hasmonean concept of kingship both in comparison to Hellenistic models and in light of biblical and ancient Jewish traditions. It aims to uncover both opposition to and acceptance of Hasmonean royal status by the Jewish people. The scholarly treatment of these issues usually focuses on the question of whether Hasmonean kingship was favored or opposed by most Jews. Some have assumed that the prevailing Jewish view of the Hasmonean appropriation of the royal title was critical, in the belief that it would have been impossible for kings without Davidic descent to win public support. Non-Davidic kingship is sometimes characterized as having been influenced by the Hellenistic background. But some have also assumed that the Hasmoneans took the crown in order to legitimize their current position of power, and perhaps even to respond to criticisms pertaining to their lack of Zadokite descent and hence unworthiness for the high priesthood. According to this view, both as high priests and as kings, the Hasmoneans would have argued that descent does not matter, but rather accomplishments and personal merits. In this view the taking of the royal title also related to the political expansion of the Hasmonean state and the need to convey their authority over many non-Jews (especially the Greek cities), to whom the high priesthood meant nothing.1 Consequently, opposition to the Hasmonean monarchy developed out of loyalty to the Davidic dynasty and its exclusive right to wear the royal crown. Additional possible reasons for anger and ferment against the Hasmonean monarchy have also been raised in scholarship: their uniting of kingship and priesthood; their tyranny and disregard of folk institutions; their adoption of foreign ceremonials and Hellenistic customs. A more positive view, however, holds that the Hasmonean state was 1 For these assumptions, see e. g., Schwartz 2001:19 – 24 and references. Cf. Schwartz 1992:53 – 54. He believed that in thus taking kingship upon themselves the Hasmoneans paradoxically laid the foundation for the distinction between religion and state later imposed by Pompey, according to which Hyrcanus II ruled only the Jews, and not the Hellenistic cities. For the characterization of non-Davidic kingship as Hellenistic in its essence, see Rappaport 1991:498 – 499. For the Hasmoneans’ need to legitimize their rule through an ideology of kingship, see Rajak 1996.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

130

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

established and built up with the help of their Jewish subjects. The latter (including the Hasidim and the Pharisees) supported the Hasmoneans, since they did not want to “destroy national freedom.” The Hasmoneans were not accused of “seeking to replace the House of David and assume the crown of its messianic glory,” and their reign was regarded as legitimate since it had no pretense of being a messianic one.2 These opposing scholarly evaluations of the legitimacy of the Hasmonean monarchy in light of belief in the return of the Davidic dynasty can be also be broadened to encompass conflicting views regarding popular support for the Hasmoneans, as well as evaluation of whether their rule was closer to Jewish or Hellenistic tradition. Previous scholars did not base their conclusions on solid evidence; nor did they make their presuppositions explicit, or demonstrate that these assumptions were valid. It is therefore necessary to make a thorough reevaluation of the historical evidence and to be aware of the provenance and ideological aim of each text. The explicit evidence for the political and cultural characteristics of Hasmonean kings and their court members is extremely scarce. Intrafamilial conflicts were a constant worry for the Hasmonean rulers. For example, Judah Aristobulus lay ill in the fortress (the baris) near the Temple Mount, secured by his bodyguards, fearing that his brother Antigonus was planning to kill him and rule in his stead.3 Evidence for the presence of court supporters and hangers-on is mentioned in the context of Aristobulus II’s appearance before Pompey in Damascus in 63 BCE, in which he argued that he was worthy of the crown. Aristobulus brought as witnesses to the legitimacy of his title, “some young swaggerers, who offensively displayed their purple robes, long hair, metal ornaments, and other finery, which they wore as if they were marching in a festive procession” (Ant. 14.45). These were probably his court officers, the “veritable royal train” (kosmos e¯de¯ basileios, Ant. 13.427).4 Understanding Hasmonean kingship and government requires a thorough review of the cultural context of these institutions, that is, the patterns of political power and ideological legitimization in the Hellenistic world and in ancient Judaism. The Hasmoneans and their subjects lived in both realms and 2 Efron 1987:233 – 234. 3 Ant. 13.303 – 310. References to the baris provide further evidence of intrafamilial conflicts. In this baris, Salome Alexandra imprisoned Aristobulus II’s wife and family when he took over the kingdom; and Hyrcanus II escaped from it when he was defeated by his brother. See Ant. 13.426; 14.5. See also the references to internal struggles inside the Hasmonean court in the Introduction. 4 These “swaggerers” (sobaro¯terous, literally : “pompous, haughty ones”) were probably identical with Jannaeus’s and Aristobulus II’s military aristocrats (dunatois), whom I believe were Sadducees. Cf. War 1.114, 117; Ant. 13.411 – 417, 422 – 427; 4Q169pNah 3 – 4, 3:8 – 4:4; Regev 2005:280 – 286. Diogenes was a “friend of Alexander (Jannaeus) and a person of importance.” (War 1.113). Galestes was “one of the powerful men” who commanded the garrison in Agaba (Ant. 13.424). Nicomadus was Aristobulus II’s diplomatic delegate to Pompey (Ant. 14.37). Phitolaus and Malichus commanded the army of Aristobulus II and his son Alexander (Ant. 14.84, 93). Antipater was Hyrcanus II’s philos and right hand (Ant. 14.8, 37).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

131

were affected by both cultures (see Introduction). The question at stake is more complex than merely whether Hasmonean political practices and concepts were shaped in light of either Hellenistic or Jewish traditions. The Hasmoneans and at least some of their subjects were aware of both of these cultures, whether they embraced or rejected certain ideas and symbols. It is therefore necessary to examine how the Hasmoneans and other Jews treated different notions of government and kingship. This will enable us to see in what ways the Hasmoneans built their own political ideology from the available Jewish and Hellenistic political and religious notions, and to what extent their political ideology was supported or opposed by their subjects. The following discussion of Hellenistic royal ideology stresses the uniqueness of the position of the Hasmoneans as religious leaders (as shown in the previous chapter), in comparison to Hellenistic kings. This chapter also lays the groundwork for chapters 5 and 6, which discuss the political and royal ideology—including the symbolic representation of kingship—reflected in the Hasmonean coins and palaces.

2. Hellenistic Royal Ideology The Hasmoneans did not live in a vacuum, and they were, after all, Hellenistic rulers who ruled a Hellenistic state. During the reigns of Jonathan and Simon, the Hasmonean state was an integral part of the Seleucid kingdom, and these two maintained close and mostly friendly relationships with the Ptolemies, the Romans, and their Seleucid allies. An evaluation of the Hasmoneans’ ideology and practices as reflected through the textual and archaeological evidence must rely on knowledge of the Hellenistic setting, especially the political and cultural meanings of kingship and government. It is also important to notice a certain variability of political patterns within the Hellenistic and early Roman world. This background is essential for identifying the adoption or rejection of Hellenistic concepts by the Hasmoneans, and it also enriches our general understanding of political ideology and its implications, enabling us to identify different types of government, their aims and motivations.

The King’s Supreme Authority In the ancient Near East kingship was considered the very basis of civilization. Only savages could live without a king. Security, peace and justice could not prevail without a ruler who championed them. In Egypt the king was above the law, since he made the law. In Mesopotamia he was a mediator between the gods and humanity, called by the gods, knowledgeable of and committed to the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

132

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

divine laws.5 However, most of the Greek states scorned and rejected the concept of monarchy. Before Alexander, the Greeks associated the notion of a monarch with Asia and barbarianism. Naturally, the rise of Alexander and his empire transformed Greek views and practices in relation to kingship. Alexander’s own monarchy established a model of kingship which the Diadochoi and later Hellenistic kings consciously developed and shaped to build their own regimes into enduring political systems.6 The Ptolemaic kings were regarded as the earthly manifestations of the Egyptian gods. They were exalted into the company of the gods (either Greek or Egyptian), or recognized as descendants of the gods, and worshiped in ruler cults.7 The Seleucids and other Hellenistic kings at first circumscribed their relations with the divine realm to special piety towards the gods. Whereas previous Seleucid kings had established cults only posthumously for their predecessors, however, Antiochus III initiated the Seleucid royal state cults.8 In the Hellenistic world the king was the state. He was not accountable to any institution. He was savior, protector, and liberator.9 Seleucus I, for example, put in place a general law (koinos nomos) that whatever the king decided was always right.10 The royal power of Alexander and the Diadochoi was based, at least de facto, on their personal charisma and the rights of the military victor. Territorial occupations were “spear-won land” (dorikte¯tos cho¯ra): the victor held the land he had won.11 The king was therefore defined by his control over territory. Occupation of land was the proof of military victory and demonstrated royalty and commanded the loyalty of troops and subjects; it confirmed that the king was “worthy of the throne.”12 The absolutism of the King’s rule led to his portrayal as victorious, the protector of his people, their savior (so¯te¯r) and benefactor (euergete¯s). The Ptolemaic kings were also the guardians or restorers of peace and justice in the courts. Many in Egypt appealed to the king against the excesses of his own bureaucracy.13 In the ideology of Ptolemaic monarchy, the king was a unique

5 Frankfort 1978:3 – 12, 24 – 35, 231 – 248. 6 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:114 – 117. For example, Seleucus I sustained his authority by stressing his intimate relations with Alexander (ibid., 115 – 116). 7 Hölbl 2001:5, 77 – 85, 92 – 111; Koenen 1993. On the celebrations of the Ptolemaieia, see above, Chapter 1. 8 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:202 – 210. On the Seleucid ruler cult see Ma 2002:219 – 228. See also Chapter 2. 9 Hölbl 2001:91. 10 Appian, Syr. 61; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:130. 11 Billows 1990:244 and references; Hammond 1988:389. For the ideology of military victory, see Praux 1978:1.183 – 200. On the king’s personal role in battle, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:129. 12 Walbank 1984:66. 13 Walbank 1984:81 – 83. Cf. Samuel 1993; Aristeas 291 – 292.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

133

figure who looked after the land and its people and ruled by qualities of character rather than position.14 In the Hellenistic kingdoms, royal statues were dedicated for honorific purposes, such as gratefulness for the king’s virtue, courage in war, and defeat of the enemy ; for his care in prospering the state; for his munificence towards the de¯mos. Such statues might serve explicit cultic manifestations, portraying the king as so¯te¯r.15 In the Seleucid dynasty the queen also won public recognition and honorific statues. She was treated as sharing in the king’s decision-making and honor. The queen had independent channels of communication with the Greek cities, just like the governors and satrapies.16 Certain ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophers viewed kingship as part of the natural social order. The same pattern appears, after all, in ancient Greek mythology. However, Hellenistic ideas of kingship lacked any viable sanction against misgovernment. Plots and assassinations were the necessary consequence of bad rule (although, in practice, most royal murders were family affairs).17 The King’s Good Character and Benefactions The royal attributes essential to success were not only divine ancestry, great power, extensive territory, wealth, and victory, but also generosity and piety.18 The king’s personal character legitimated his rule.19 Kings were supposed to be just, and benefactors to their subjects.20 The kings regarded themselves as moral rulers and not arbitrary despots. They are exponents of traditional Greek (or Babylonian) ethics. They rule in the name of “doing good” (euergesia) and “saving” (so¯te¯ria).21 For example, Seleucus IV declares his wish for “the safety of our subjects, thinking it to be of the greatest good for the affairs in our realm when those living in our kingdom manage their lives without fear, and at the same time realizing that nothing can enjoy its fitting prosperity without the good will of the gods.”22 Certain philosophical treaties were based on the notion of the king as a most virtuous man, loving his subjects and benefiting them. But these lacked any positive sanctions against misgovernment, since they merely provided 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Samuel 1993:192. Smith 1988:15 – 31. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:25 – 26, 127 – 128. Murray 2007:23 – 25. Shipley 2000:61 – 64. Walbank 1984:80. Bringmann 1993:7. Praux 1978:1.211 – 212, 271 – 280; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:131 – 132. See his inscription in Cotton and Wörrle 2007. Cf. 2 Macc 11:23 – 26. For the king as a guarantor of peace, see Praux 1978:1.201.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

134

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

rational justifications for kingship.23 According to Aristeas, the greatest achievement of kingship is the exercise of justice, which is achieved due to the good character of the king. He is supposed to show kindness and philanthro¯pia towards his subjects, and, the Jewish speakers add, to imitate God.24 The king also interfered in the cities’ affairs. The law for the city was what the king ordered.25 In Alexander’s case, for example, Alexander himself legislated the city laws, but with respect to fundamental principles of justice. Royal recommendations were made into law by the decree of the people. Royal authority coordinated with the city law, although in a case of conflict the king’s will prevailed. The king was considered the embodiment of “living law,” and a lawful ruler. In theory, at least, he considered the welfare of his subjects and showed goodwill.26 The king was the benefactor and protector of his people, victorious in war ; he built walled cities and saved his people from their enemies. Benefactions served as rhetoric of power, a hierarchical communication of performance. They functioned as a system of government, under which maintaining good relations with the ruling power resulted in civic improvements for the local communities.27 The royal language of giving was matched by a civic language of receiving: the language of timai, honor, and the promulgation of honorific decrees directed to the kings. The appropriate response to benefactions was the dispatch of an embassy to the king with greetings. The city erected statues or performed the ruler’s cult, or prayed for the ruler’s good health and good fortune. The city aimed to bring itself to the king’s attention. Such public honors were also accompanied by requests and petitions.28 Naturally, the kings were eager to be honored by the Greek cites. Honor and glory were manifestations of their power over the people. Benefactor and beneficiary were linked together by moral ties and the subjects were supposed be grateful. Benefactions therefore created sentiments of goodwill and friendship.29 Kings attempted to display eusebeia towards local gods and respected the rites of their sanctuaries. The sanctuaries remained relatively protected as “international” institutions.30 Royal patronage of temples involved finance of local temples, including donations to temples; honoring the gods; tributes for local temples; intervention in local temple matters (when expedient on account of local political interests); and acceptance of local traditions, as 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Murray 2007:26 – 27. Aristeas 189, 191, 208, 212, 265, 267, 288, 291; Murray 1967:353, 258 – 360. Lund 1992:138 – 140, 158. O’Neil 2000. Ma 2002:148 – 150. Ma 2002:201 – 206; Lund 1992:169 – 174. Bringmann 1993:16 – 18. Lund 1992:134 – 138.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

135

occurred in Babylonia and Jerusalem.31 Seleucus IV was concerned “to ensure that the sanctuaries founded in the other satrapies receive the traditional honors with the care befitting them.” He wrote to Heliodoros his official, in order to ascertain the strict bureaucratic control over the sanctuaries and their more efficient fiscal exploitation, and he put Olympiodoros in charge of the administration of the temples in Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯.32 The cities, in return, awarded cultic honors to the kings.33 The king had a special relationship with the gods, and he was often regarded as a favorite of a certain god, who had acceded to the throne by divine will; his victories were proofs of divine favor.34

The Royal Court The king’s power was manifested to his subjects through the members of the court.35 The royal court was a network of power, divided into factions which opposed each other. It was comprised of the ruler’s family (queen, princes, and their relatives) who were members of his household, along with their domestic attendants. Other members of the court included government officials and elite members of society, as well as ambassadors and civil servants who were temporary visitors at the court. The connections between the court’s members were of different types: kinship, friendship or love, and political connections, as well as enmity. Rulers shared their power with the administering elite, whose members had many face-to-face encounters with the ruler. The court was the place and institution where the ruler and social elites sought to manage their mutual interaction.36 The most important bodies to acknowledge the king’s royal status were the king’s friends and the army who executed his policy.37 Hellenistic kings were dependent upon the council (sunedrion) of their companions (hetairoi) or friends.38 They consulted it regarding general and foreign policy, judicial decisions, and administrative policy.39 The philoi executed the king’s policy, commanded armies, administrated districts, guarded fortresses, undertook embassies, looked after financial affairs, conducted inquiries and trials, 31 Bringmann 1993; Sherwin-White 1991; Gruen 1999. For Jerusalem, see Ant. 11.336 – 337; 12.138 – 146 (the letter of Antiochus III). Gruen 1999:36 – 37 questioned the historical credibility of the latter. 32 Cotton and Wörrle 2007. 33 Lund 1992:169 – 174. 34 Lund 1992:158. Seleucus I associated his kingship with Apollo (Gruen 1999:29). 35 Herman 1997:200. 36 Mooren 1985:220, 222; Spawforth 2007: 3 – 4; Weber 2009:85. 37 The tripartite foundation of the monarchy was “King, Friends, and Army.” See Lund 1992:156. 38 Lund 1992: 56, 178 – 182. Cf. Aristotle Politics 3.9, 1287b. 39 Billows 1990:246.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

136

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

accompanied and advised the king; and some of them were simply personal friends.40 Members of Hellenistic court were mainly recruited from within the network of Greek cities, in many cases cities far away from the court. These members were connected through international networks of friendship and alliance before and after they reached the court. The court was a well-defined society with its own norms and rules of conduct and ceremonial practices that regulated access to the leader. It manifested a distinctive culture, way of life, and values.41 The king’s wealth was the material basis of his success as a ruler and thus was put on display through palaces, festival processions, and banquets. This was the reason Ptolemy II took the epithet Trypho¯n, signifying one who makes a show of splendor and magnificence, i. e., truphe¯.42 One of the rituals characteristic of the royal court was the symposium. In these banquets a display of wealth and power took place, through the richness of the furnishings and the lavishness of the entertainment. However, the royal feast did not only reflect the tendency towards pleasure and luxury. It symbolized the felicity and prosperity of a good ruler. In the symposium the king showed himself a true member of the “sympotic group,” and philosophers were keen to offer advice. Interestingly, symposia took different forms, some hierarchical in character and others egalitarian (archaeological evidence for egalitarian feasts in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho will be discussed in Chapter 6).43

Royal Lifestyles: Hellenistic Pomp and Roman Civilitas The lifestyle of the Hellenistic kings created a gulf between the king and his subjects, making the king remote from petitioners.44 According to Stobaeus, in order to attain honor the king needed to set himself apart from human failings and approximate the gods in the lavishness of his lifestyle. Onlookers should be left astonished by his impressive appearance and adornments. In fact, gold plates, gold cups, and golden clasps signified governance, and a purple robe was worn by royal officers. Certain Greek historians were critical of luxury or truphe¯ ; note, for example, Plutarch’s account of Demetrius Poliorcetes of 40 Bikerman 1938:40 – 50; Billows 1990:247 – 249. 41 Herman 1997:203, 208 – 210. Herman, like many others, such as Spawforth 2007, followed Elias 1983, who discussed the court of Louis XIV. Elias examined the social structure of the royal court and its complex networks of interdependence with the king in the transition from feudal to industrial society. 42 Hölbl 2001:92. For the king’s wealth, see Praux 1978:1.208 – 212. 43 Murray 1996 and references. A notable example of these symposia is found in Alexander’s banquets. For a detailed description of the Ptolemaic symposia, see Aristeas 180 – 294. 44 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:33 – 34. See, e. g., Plutarch, Demetr. 18; 41 – 42.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

137

Macedon, the son of Antigonus Monophthalmus. For Plutarch, justice was much more important than wealth or the display of power, hence he approved of simple behavior.45 Indeed, Plutarch approved of Cleomenes III of Sparta, claiming that his unpretentious way of life (he ate black broth with the rest) in no way set him apart from ordinary people. There was no purple and pomp, no crowd of attendants. People were charmed and won over.46 Similarly, Aristeas urges King Ptolemy to avoid pride, “to preserve equality, and remember that he rules as man over men.”47 It seems that in the Hellenistic world, the ritual distance between the king and his subjects was acceptable as long as he was approachable and affable for the presentation of petitions. It was best if the king was magnificent not only in externals but also in greatness of spirit (as well as euergete¯s, producing benefactions).48 The question of ceremonial luxury and royal behavior arose more vividly in first-century CE Rome, where the emperors shifted between civilitas and superbia. Although the emperors lived in luxury,49 they nonetheless exhibited a different approach towards royal lifestyle, which derived in turn from a particular attitude towards the relationship between the king and his subjects, the civilitas. Beginning with Augustus, the emperors refused the titles of dictatorship and guardianship offered to them. Actually, the senate limited the Emperor’s authority, and in certain senses he had a “republican” status. Augustus, for his part, claimed that he had returned the Republic into the hands of the senate. Actually, the declared or formal traditional authority of the senate and the Roman people was an illusion, while in reality the supremacy of the emperor was unquestionable.50 The royal lifestyle of civilitas meant that the emperor refused his own condescension.51 Civilitas was a social etiquette of imperial condescension. It meant that the emperor was acting as if he were still a citizen, as though he were not above the law.52 The emperor treated inferiors in a friendly manner, joined in the pleasures of the crowd at games, let people watch him sing or even

45 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:34. See Plutarch, Demetr. 42. 46 Plutarch, Cleomenes. 13. 47 Aristeas 263; cf. 191, 211. Ariston of Ceos, in his treatise On Pride, pointed to several kings, Alexander included, who avoided manifestations of pride. See Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:34 – 35. 48 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:35. 49 See, for example, Pliny’s description of Domitian’s palace (Panegyrichus 49), which had long corridors and an apsidal reception room that functioned as a mysterious adyton. 50 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:32, 36 – 37. Roman political ideology regarded Augustus as the savior of Rome from internal chaos, a ruler for the sake of the people who did not seek personal power. He had protected the state from tyranny and barbarian domination, following the collapse of the republic and the sins of the Roman people. See Wallace-Hadrill 1982b. 51 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:38 – 41. 52 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:42 – 43.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

138

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

bathe.53 Augustus’s palace on the Palatine was a modest residence, which contained only short colonnades and simple furniture, and featured no marble decoration or figured pavements, in accordance with the emperor’s expressed virtue of moderation or restraint (continentia).54 This virtue of moderation (moderatio) was espoused by several emperors and entailed, according to Cassius Dio, the refusal of honors and flattery, respect for the senate, accessibility and affability, the exchange of courtesies with the aristocracy, and the good-natured handling of the plebians in the theatre and at the games.55 Such a restriction of the use of power was regarded by Plato and Aristotle as vital to the preservation of monarchic authority, and historians such as Josephus and Cassius Dio characterized the ideal ruler as de¯motikos (“democratic,” “popular,” even “plebian”).56 However, imperial moderatio centered on mere gestures, not on real actions. Civilitas was actually a sham, a disguise, a charade. The ceremonial appearance remedied the deficiencies of the emperor’s image, side by side with the imperial cult and the conception of the emperor as more than mortal. Civilitas symbolized the relationship between ruler and ruled, and was also used to gain the support of the upper classes. Displaying the emperor as a citizen gave the impression that in Rome the old republican social order prevailed despite the transformation into an empire. The emperor’s moderation weighed his own dignity on the same scale as that of his subjects, bridging the gap between sovereign (who was honored as a god) and subject.57

Macedonian National Monarchy The distinction between the Macedonian national monarchy and the conventional Hellenistic personal monarchies (the Seleucids, Ptolemaics and Attalids) was articulated by Andr Aymard. According to Aymard, in the Macedonian monarchy, the king was primus inter pares, surrounded by his fellow-warriors, nobility or the king’s companions. The assembly of the menin-arms restricted the king’s authority, and the nomos limited royal power.58 53 Tacitus Annals 1.76; Suetonius Tit 8.2; Suet. Ner 10.2, cf. 1. On bathing see Suet. Tit. 8.2. 54 Suetonius, Augustus 72 – 73. Archaeological excavations of Augustus’s palace on the Palatine revealed relatively simple painted decorations. See Nielsen 1994:175 – 178. 55 E.g. Cassius Dio 53.12.1 (Augustus); 57.8 – 9.11 (Tiberius’s moderation in accepting honors, and his insistence on maintaining accessibility); 60.5.3 – 6.2, 12 (Claudius). 56 Josephus Ant. 3.212 (on Moses) and 8.215 (on Rehoboam); Cassius Dio 57.11.3. See WallaceHadrill 1982a: 41 – 44. 57 Wallace-Hadrill 1982a:42, 45 – 47. 58 Aymard 1967:73 – 122. Aymard’s definition of personal monarchy (ibid., 129) is: “aucun groupe de citoyens ou de sujets n’y intervient plus dans la dfinition de l’tat. A lui seul, le roi est l’tat, qui n’existe pas en dehors de sa personne et de ses biens personnels.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

139

Some scholars have accepted this model59 while others reject it, denying the supposed constitutional character of the Macedonian monarchy.60 In fact, the difference was mainly a matter of rhetoric rather than practice. Hellenistic rulers in the Orient were always designated in official documents simply as basileus, without any mention of the people over whom they held sway. They were designated as kings over land and not over people. However, in Macedonia, Aymard argued, Philip II and his predecessors did not use the royal title. Even Alexander at first called himself not basileus Alexandros, but Alexandros Philippou (son of Philip). Alexander’s successors were designated merely basileus or basileus Makedono¯n; Aymard concluded that this was the official name of the Macedonian king, namely, “king of the Macedonians.”61 The Macedonian people were sometimes named along with the kings in official documents; hence the state was not conceived of solely as the king.62 According to Aymard, the people formed an integral component of the Macedonian state. They had certain juridical rights; for example, they could receive and make payments in the name of the state. The nomos (i. e., commonly accepted political and perhaps also religious law, not necessarily written), somewhat limited the king’s power, since he had to rule not by force but in accordance with custom. There is also evidence that that the Macedonian army made inquiries into capital offences (in peacetime this was done by the people).63 But even Aymard’s critics agree that the authority of the Macedonian kings was based on their personal qualities and leadership more than on securely rooted and codified constitutional arrangements.64 The Macedonian king had semi-divine status and was regarded as the intermediary between the state and the gods (he also performed religious rituals); he naturally controlled his companions. Nonetheless, according to Hammond, he associated with his philoi as primus inter pares and maintained relatively open relations with the Macedonian people. Any soldier could speak freely to the king. Alexander even

59 Briant 1973; Hammond and Griffith 1979. Walbank 1984:64 – 65 accepts the concept although without the accompanying theory of a national constitution. 60 Errington 1974; 1978; Lock 1977; Lvy 1978. 61 Aymard 1967:esp. 100, 122. Errington 1974 argued that the attestations of basileus Makedono¯n marked extraordinary circumstances rather than an “official” or normal title. 62 Mooren 1983:216 – 230. Cf. the reservations of Errington 1974. 63 Aymard 1967:154 – 158; Mooren 1983:219 – 227. On ruling in accordance with custom see Arrian, Anabasis 4.11.6. On the army’s involvement in capital offences, see Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni 6.8.25. According to Arrian (Anabasis 5.27.2) the king did not rule as a dictator, but by persuasion and in accordance with the law. Such behavior resulted in the people’s loyalty. See Hammond 1989:177. Still, Philip Vexercised complete control in all military matters (Hammond 1989:391). Critics of Aymard doubted the reliability of Arrian and Curtius Rufus (Errington 1974; Lock 1977). 64 Lock 1977:esp. 98; Errington 1978.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

140

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

prided himself on eating the same plain food and sleeping under the same conditions as his soldiers on any campaign.65 According to Hammond, the assembly of the Macedones, which was convened by the king and may have been comprised of Macedonians only, had a central place in the Macedonian state. It decided the succession of the throne and voted on diplomatic treaties, receiving or disbursing payments. There were cases in which this assembly elected or deposed a king, and sentenced traitors. Some members of the assembly were soldiers, and the veterans (note that the Macedonian state was created by the armies) were chosen by the king. Each member was allowed to speak. In the case of a political debate, the king’s vote counted no more than that of any other Macedon—or perhaps he did not vote at all.66 “The community (koinon) of the Macedonians,” the assembly, emphasized the decision taken at a formal meeting of the Macedonians to honor their king. The “assembly of Macedonians” also appears as the issuing authority of certain coins.67 In conclusion, according to Aymard, Hammond and others, the king had to test his authority before he could exercise his power, at least on some occasions. Royal power could not be exercised without restraint. The Macedonian people could officially be mentioned alongside the king and could act as an authority in financial transactions. Unlike the Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Macedonian king was not identified with the state. He occupied a position in the state, outlined by certain regulations and rooted in tradition.68 This understanding of Macedonian national kingship will be useful for the following discussion, regardless of its historical validity, serving as a model for assessing the Hasmoneans’ relationship with the laity.

Implications for the Hasmoneans This survey of different themes related to Hellenistic kingship leads to a comparison of Hasmonean political ideology with its Hellenistic counterparts, drawing on the evidence discussed in the previous chapter (which is 65 Hammond 1989:22, 57, 65, 67 – 68, 177. For Alexander’s close relationship with the soldiers, see Polybius 5.27.6. For Alexander’s speech at Opis, see Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.9. The everyday style of the royal family was modest, and the women cooked and weaved (Hammond 1989:68). 66 Hammond 1989:22, 61 – 65, 74 – 76, 169, 174 – 176, 237 – 243, 253 – 254. Note that the Macedonians who served with Philip and Alexander were regarded as citizen soldiers (Hammond 1989:64). Errington 1990:220 – 221, 243 – 244 denied that the assembly of soldiers held a special authority apart from “abnormal periods of crisis,” and argued that the king and the aristocracy held all the political power. 67 Hammond 1989:382 – 384. 68 Mooren 1983:230 – 231. Mooren nonetheless doubted Aymard’s conclusions regarding a real Macedonian constitution. In any event, according to Curtius Rufus (4.7.31), the Macedonians lived with a greater sense of freedom than any others who were subjects of a monarchy. See Hammond 1989:177.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hellenistic Royal Ideology

141

admittedly limited mainly to 1 Maccabees). Unlike the Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Hasmoneans argued that they ruled according to the will, consent and interest of their subjects. They were elected by “the people.” In this regard, their ideology resembled the Macedonian and conception of a national monarchy, as interpreted by Aymard, Hammond and others, and not the common model of Hellenistic personal monarchy. For our purposes, it is insignificant whether or not the Macedonians actually held an ideology of “national monarchy.” It is also impossible in any case to argue that the Hasmoneans were familiar with past Macedonian constitutions. It is the very concept of “national monarchy” that sheds light on the Hasmonean political ideology and their claims of close relations with their subjects, as we have seen in the previous chapter. Although Hasmonean benefactions (1 Macc 14) may parallel the Hellenistic pattern, they concerned the Temple and the wars against the Gentiles, and were not related to a specific community or city. The Hasmoneans probably argued that they were committed to the Jewish religious and “national” ethos and did not regard these benefactions as special favors for the benefit of their subjects. All this will be demonstrated in the following chapters through the discussion of Hasmonean coins, palaces, and contributions to the construction of Jewish collective identity. While Hellenistic kings exhibited public piety and participated in the religious discourse of Hellenistic culture, the Hasmoneans held a distinctively religious office—the high priesthood. As we have seen in the previous chapter, they consistently portrayed themselves in terms of religious qualities and regarded themselves as religious leaders, attempting to justify their rule. Unlike the Hellenistic kings, the Hasmoneans’ rise to power was explained in religious rather than military (or political) terms, although the narrative of 1 Maccabees clearly shows that their power was acquired on the battlefield and through diplomacy! The Hasmoneans’ need to legitimize their political authority by means of their religious qualifications was much more extensive than that of Gentile Hellenistic rulers. Evidence for popular consent to the Hasmoneans’ royal status will be discussed further below. The concept of the Macedonian assembly as the institution that limited the king’s authority is relevant for to our discussion of h. eber ha-yehudim on the Hasmonean coins in Chapter 5. The question of whether the Hasmonean court and lifestyle resembled the common Hellenistic characteristics of pomp and truphe¯ (akin to the courts of the Seleucids and Ptolemies), or rather was restrained in order to achieve civil consensus (like the Macedonians and the early Roman emperors), will be fully treated in the discussion of their palaces in Chapter 6. We should nonetheless recall that, as we have already seen in Chapter 3, Seleucid honorary gestures and other status symbols served in 1 Maccabees to establish Hasmonean political authority. In their appreciation of these favors, the Hasmoneans followed Hellenistic political conventions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

142

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

3. The Idea of Kingship in the Hebrew Bible Second Temple Jewish tradition and culture was based on the Hebrew Bible, as Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees demonstrate. In the biblical tradition, kingship is the primary model of leadership and government. Biblical ideas of kingship certainly must have played a significant role in the Hasmonean discourse of leadership, power, and royalty, as well as in the reception of this discourse by the Jewish people. Assessing Hasmonean claims to power and kingship and their acceptance or rejection by the public requires clarification of the different views towards kingship in the Hebrew Bible. My main concern is whether kingship is regarded in a positive light, and what the implications of biblical views might have been for perceptions of the role of the ruler and the legitimacy of the royal title in the Hasmonean state.

A Rejection of the Idea of Kingship? It is commonly held that the book of Judges presents several stories in which kingship is rejected or portrayed negatively, in preference for “direct theocracy,” i. e., rule by God without intermediate agents. The religious idea that lies at the basis of the opposition to monarchy is that God is the one and only king. Gideon rejected the offer to reign over Israel and to establish a monarchic dynasty after he saved the northern tribes from the Midianites, declaring, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you” (Judg 8:23). In Yotam’s fable (Judg 9:5 – 17) the “trees” are unwilling to serve as kings, and the one who is anxious to reign is wicked.69 On a closer reading, however, “Gideon’s refusal is contrasted with the regal conduct that he adopted in execution of the Midianite kings and the royal status that the Midianites attributed to him.” He tried to humiliate them by asking his firstborn son to execute them, and took away their royal crescents.70 Gideon’s son, Abimelech, used his descent as a basic argument for his attempt to rule Shechem (Judg 9:2). Yotam’s fable is not anti-monarchic, but rather condemns Abimelech’s kingship as unworthy. The fruit trees do not express fundamental opposition to the institution of monarchy, but rather a narrow 69 Buber 1973:59 – 77; Amit 1999:98 – 99; Lorberbaum 2008:14 – 19. See also Hos 13:4 – 11. Eilat 1998:67 – 72 regarded 1 Sam 12:12 in the same vein. For God’s kingship, see also Ps 24:9; 68:22 – 25; Laato 1997:48 – 56. 70 Judg 8:18 – 21; Assis 2005:99 – 103 (here 103). Furthermore, Gideon’s violent treatment of the men of Succoth and Penuel (Judg 8:5 – 17) attests to his self-interest in honor and might, just like a monarch (Assis 2005:92 – 95). His dialogue with them (Judg 8:4 – 17) also stresses his personal achievements in the war against the Midianites (Assis 2005:90 – 92). According to Gerbrandt (1986:126 – 129), in its present context Judg 8:23 reflects the view that since Gideon saved his people, his rule is actually identical with God’s kingship.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Idea of Kingship in the Hebrew Bible

143

vision of self-interested focus on the production of their fruit; in their narrowmindedness, they request a barren tree to rule, eventually authorizing a king who harms them.71 In fact, the statement that “in those days there was no king in Israel; every one did what was right in his own eyes,” is repeated twice, in the stories of the statue of Micha and the concubine in Gibeah, implying that kingship is necessary for the social and moral order. The conclusion of the book of Judges is that the ideal of “the kingdom of God” had failed.72 Nevertheless, the tension around the concept of monarchy persists in the book of Samuel. The people’s request of Samuel to appoint for them a king “like other nations” is given a negative response in 1 Sam 8. The request itself is regarded as a rejection of God’s direct rule over Israel (1 Sam 8:7 – 8; 12:17). Samuel further warns the people that the king will limit their freedom: he will take their sons as soldiers and their daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers, and will charge them heavy taxes (1 Sam 8:11 – 17). In fact, these warnings were not a detached literary creation of the biblical author : they correspond to the Canaanite pattern of feudalistic kingship in which the king’s subjects were regarded and treated as his slaves.73 1 Sam 8 contains criticisms and warnings concerning the burdens that the monarch would lay upon the people, and also rejects the notion that the king, rather than God, will deliver Israel in war. Nonetheless, the rejection of kingship on religious grounds is balanced by the desire for a king to replace the corrupt judges, Samuel’s sons.74 If kingship is regarded so negatively, why does God order Samuel to heed the voice of the people and to grant them their request for a king in three different instances, in 1 Sam 8:7, 9, 22? In its current form within the Deuteronomistic history (the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 – 2 Samuel and 1 – 2 Kings), this negative characterization of the idea of kingship probably reflects not an overall rejection of the monarchy but rather a polemic against non-Davidic kings. Such kings tended to commit transgressions and not to obey the prophets’ orders (1 Sam 13:8 – 14; 15:9 – 35). The purpose of 1 Sam 8 may therefore be to condemn the precipitate action of the people in pressing their desire, when God himself was able to do all that was necessary in order to ensure the people’s salvation.75 On a more 71 Assis 2005:141 – 153. See also Gerbrandt 1986:129 – 134 and references; Amit 1999:104 – 111. 72 Judg 17:6; 21:25. The absence of a king is also emphasized in Judg 18:1; 19:1. Amit 1999:113 – 118, 375 – 376, ascribed this view to the Judahite editor of the book. 73 Mendelsohn 1956; cf. Eilat 1998:72 – 80. 74 1 Sam 8:1 – 3; Mayes 1978:11. 75 Clements 1974:esp. 406 – 407. See also Mayes 1978:12; Eilat 1998: 80. In the same vein, PseudoPhilo 56:1 – 3, portrays Samuel as saying that “it is not yet the time for us to have an everlasting kingdom.” See Blidstein 1982 – 1983:22 – 23. According to Clements, the preceding Deuteronomistic narrative of the victory won by Samuel over the Philistines illustrates exactly the direct salvation of the people through military victory without the leadership of a king. Passages that portray Saul as God’s elected messiah and mention his possession of God’s spirit (1 Sam 10:10 – 11:16; cf. 16:14) may derive from the prophetic tradition (Birch 1976:147 – 148). Scholars are divided on to what extent 1 Sam 7 – 15 was shaped by the Deuteronomistic school. Birch

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

144

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

general level, it seems that for the Deuteronomistic editor, the monarchy presented a theological problem for Israel right from the start, and he saw both the benefits and dangers of the monarchy.76

Limitations on Monarchic Authority The Law of the King in Deut 17:14 – 20 refers to a non-Davidic king, “one of your own community.” This provided the Hasmoneans with justification for their own non-Davidic kingship. The passage, however, reduced the king to the position of mere titular figurehead, more restricted than potent, more otiose than exercising real military, judicial, executive, and cultic functions.77 The laws concerning the administration of justice (Deut 16:18 – 20; 17:2 – 13), do not mention the king at all. The locus of supreme judicial authority is the Temple and its officials. Not a word is said about the monarch, the expected arbiter of judicial authority. Deuteronomy thus denies that justice has anything to do with monarchic authority. Hence, the Law of the King suppresses the king’s authority and responsibility for jurisprudence.78 The book of Deuteronomy denies the king any cultic role. The monarch’s only prescribed contact with religious officials is the command to write a copy of “this Torah” for himself, “from before the priests and the Levites.” Unlike the Deuteronomistic history, there is no provision made here for the monarch to participate actively in the cultus, still less to supervise it or to serve as royal patron of the Temple. Deuteronomy’s cultic laws envision no role whatsoever for him, nor in the laws for setting out to war. On the contrary, the priest and the officials address the troops before the commanders take charge.79 The monarch is not allowed to enlarge his authority at the expanse of others (judges, levitical priesthood, prophets). His reign is secured by honoring the directives and restrictions affecting his power.80 The Law of the King is therefore “a constitutional monarchy that radically curtailed precisely the normal hallmarks of power that characterized the monarch.” In this system, “no one branch of public office is superior to the other ; rather, each [monarch, priesthood, prophets] is equally subordinate to Deuteronomy’s Torah.”81 In

76 77 78 79 80 81

1976 argued for a pre-Deuteronomistic, prophetic edition of some of the passages; cf. Mayes 1978; Eilat 1998. Others concluded that the Deuteronomist actually affirms the idea of kingship, but warns that it cannot replace God’s rule. See Gerbrandt 1986:146 – 149 and references. Mayes 1978:12. Levinson 2001:522. The limitations to the king’s authority are stressed when he is equated with “his brothers” at the beginning and the end of the law (Deut 17:15, 20; Lorberbaum 2008:41). Levinson 2001:520 – 522. Levinson 2001:523, 528. Cultic laws: Deut 20:1 – 20; 21:10 – 14; 23:9 – 14; 24:5. Priests in war: Deut 20:1 – 9. Deut 17:20; Knoppers 1996: 335. Levinson 2001:531 – 532.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Idea of Kingship in the Hebrew Bible

145

fact, the Law of the King is an integral part of Deuteronomy’s utopian manifesto for a constitutional monarchy that sharply delimits the power of the king. The Deuteronomic Torah established itself as sole sovereign authority, and thus in effect usurped the traditional authority of the monarch.82 All this certainly contrasts with the king’s responsibility for justice in the ancient Near East and the Deuteronomistic history, as well as his portrayal as the adoptive son of God.83

The Davidic Ideology : Civil and Sacral Kingship, Son of God, and Messiah The most extensive and definitive presentation of the ideology of kingship is found in the Deuteronomistic history of the kings of the house of David. The Deuteronomist promoted a formative role for the monarchy. He expected kings to wield their authority in building the Temple, in sustaining the Temple cult, and in defending it and its cultic exclusivity.84 He explicitly condoned substantial royal powers and did not condemn David or Solomon for appointing and dismissing priests, offering sacrifices or leading the people in observing the feasts. There is no balance of powers among the different civil institutions.85 Indeed, in the narration of the cultic reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah in 2 Kings 18 – 20, 22 – 23, the Deuteronomist considered the king to be responsible for insuring Israel’s adherence to the covenant. In times of military crisis he is responsible for trusting in God.86 The Deuteronomist mandated a much more authoritative and central role for the monarchy than does the Law of the King in Deut 17:14 – 20. Whereas Deut 17 is concerned with the king’s accumulation of wealth, wives, and horses, the Deuteronomist did not criticize the kings for this. On the contrary, Solomon’s opulence, power, and international trade are regarded as signs of divine favor.87 All this indicates that the Deuteronomist did not view the 82 83 84 85

Lohfink 1993. Levinson 2001:512 – 518, and see below. Knoppers 1996. Knoppers 1996:336. Levinson 2001:525 – 526 showed that the king’s cultic role is stressed in the narrative of the first ever centralized celebration of the Passover (2 Kings. 18:21 – 25); here, Josiah is the royal patron of the cult who assiduously supervises the celebration of the Passover. The Deuteronomic Passover is redefined under royal command, as the monarch leads the cult. Moreover, both David and Solomon offered sacrifices (2 Sam 24: 22 – 25; 1 Kings 3:4, 15; 9:25), and David himself led the procession to bring the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 16:1 – 19). 86 Gerbrandt 1976:esp. 190, 194. 87 In Solomon’s dream at Gibeon, God pledges enormous wealth to him (1 Kings 3:13). The Deuteronomist stressed Solomon’s affluence (1 Kings 9:14, 28; 10:14, 16 – 20, 25) as a divine realization of the divine promises (1 Kings 10:23). The uncritical emphasis on the great number of horses held by Solomon aims to show the success of his administration. The number of Solomon’s wives was not a burning issue, but rather, their worship of alien deities (1 Kings 11:9, 11 – 13). David’s wives are also mentioned without criticism (1 Sam 25:43; 30:5; 2 Sam 3:3; 5:13; 12:8; 19:6). See Knoppers 1996:336 – 344.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

146

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

monarchy as an inherently dangerous institution.88 For the Deuteronomist, the Davidic form of kingship had a special role in Israel’s destiny, although he showed at many points that the kingship was neither a blameless nor a sacrosanct institution.89 Deuteronomistic history also provided a mechanism of civil legitimization for the king’s rule, maintaining a balance between divine designation and popular acclamation. The king is enthroned by the people or the elders.90 Royal covenants are made between the king and the people and mutual obligations are accepted by the ruler and his subjects.91 The Deuteronomistic narrative of the Davidic dynasty and especially the Psalms, also stressed the sacral aspect of Davidic kingship. The king’s character and the idea of Davidic kingship are idealized: the king is a supreme judge;92 the people’s delegate in front of God;93 bound to God by a divine covenant that promises kingship to his descendants if they keep God’s covenant and “stipulations”;94 and possessor of God’s spirit.95 Above all, the Davidic king is the son of God, who possesses divine characteristics.96 Since the king is a son of God, he is empowered to act as God’s earthly surrogate. This empowerment entails the promise of divine support, especially in warfare, although errant monarchs are still subjected to punishment.97 The anointing of the king bears both a secular sense of authorization by the people and a sacral or ritual sense of creating special relationship between God and the king.98 The divine promises to the Davidic king, however, are conditional (1 Kings 8; Ps 132).

88 Knoppers 1996:341. 89 Clements 1974:406. See, for example, the qualification in 2 Sam 7:14. 90 Mettinger 1976:108 – 130. See 1 Sam 11:17 – 24; 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3; 1 Kings 12:1, 12, 15, 20; 2 Kings 11:14, 18 – 20; 23:30. 91 Mettinger 1976:131 – 150. See 2 Sam 2:6; 5:3; 2 Kings 11:17; 2 Chr 23:3. Cross 1973:222 – 229, 260 noted that kingship in northern Israel was delimited by the prophets and the traditional law of the tribal league (e. g., 1 Kings 14:7 – 11; 2 Kings 9:1 – 10). 92 2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kings 10:9; Jer 22:5. 93 2 Sam 21:24; Ps 72. 94 Ps 132:11 – 12; 89:29 – 36; Cross 1973:232 – 237, 260, 264 – 265; Halpern 1981:31 – 50. According to Cross, in the Solomonic age, the Davidic conditional covenant was transformed and became an unconditional, eternal decree, expressed by the language of divine sonship, wherein the king was attributed a cosmic-universal role; this idea was also followed by the Deuteronomist. Some scholars doubt whether the king was actually thought to be immortal, as Ps 21, 61:6, and 72 imply. There is also no evidence that the king in ancient Judah was an object of cult veneration. See Collins and Collins 2008:23. 95 Mettinger 1976:238 – 46. Note Solomon’s charisma in 1 Kings 3:4 – 15 (his dream in Gibeon); David’s divine spirit in 1 Sam 16:13; and the spirit that will dwell upon the Messiah in Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1. 96 2 Sam 7:14 (note the implications of the need for filial obedience); Ps 2; 21; 110. See Mowinkel 1967; Mettinger 1976:61, 99 – 105, 254 – 293. 97 Collins and Collins 2008:22, 47. Cf. 2 Sam 7 and Ps 89. 98 Mettinger 1976:185 – 232. For anointing as a sacral rite, see 1 Sam 16:1 – 13; 1 Kings 1:39.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism

147

Implications for the Formation and Reception of Hasmonean Kingship Kingship was a necessary institution in the biblical tradition. People without a king were not only like sheep without a shepherd but also lacked communal pride and power, “like other nations.” The ancient Israelites hoped that monarchic government would resolve Israel’s ills. The same prerequisites and aspirations were probably shared by many Jews in the Hasmonean period. Deut 17:14 – 20 set the stage for non-Davidic kingship, providing the Hasmoneans with another tradition for legitimization of their royal status. However, in Deut 17, in contrast to the Hasmoneans, the king is devoid of power and authority and restricted by adherence to the Torah. In contrast to the king depicted in Deut 17:14 – 20, the Davidic monarch enjoyed absolute power, and if he was committed to God, he was considered the Lord’s closest protg. Like the Davidic kings, the Hasmoneans were powerful both in warfare and in the cult (and probably also in legislative matters). Does this mean that they broke with biblical tradition? This leads us to concepts of kingship in the Second Temple period.

4. The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism The Davidic Dynasty Tradition and Its Limitations In the Hebrew Bible there is an abundance of references to God’s promise that the Davidic dynasty is to reign forever. The prophetic traditions regarding the future of Davidic kingship are found in the books of 2 Sam, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Psalms.99 These passages provide a vision of Israelite kingship in the last days. Nonetheless, their affect on ancient Jewish political approaches towards monarchy and on monarchical government in the Second Temple period should not be taken for granted. There is a common scholarly presupposition that many Jews resisted the Hasmoneans as kings because they lacked Davidic descent. This notion of the popular rejection of non-Davidic kings should be examined in light of the hopes of some of their contemporaries for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. Did expectations for the renewal of the Davidic dynasty overshadow the Hasmonean kingship? The book of Chronicles, written during the Persian period, repeats the dynastic promise to David and Solomon and presents an idealized portrait of them. However, the dynastic promise is not everlasting or eternal, but rather conditional upon the kings’ obedience (and, in fact, the Chronicler actually 99 2 Sam 7:15; 23:5; 1 Kings 2:1 – 4; 8:25; 11:34 – 36; 2 Kings 8:19; Hos 3:4 – 5; Amos 9:11 – 12; Isa 10:33 – 11:10; 55:3 – 5; Jer 22:1 – 9; Ps 18:51; 89:4 – 5; 132:11 – 12.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

148

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

documents their apostasy). There is no explicit call for the resumption of the Davidic monarchy or a direct expression of hope for a Davidic messiah.100 The mention of the dynastic promise functions merely as a reminder of the past which served to legitimate the Temple cult. Ben Sira 49:4 continues the Deuteronomistic criticism of the Israelite and Judaean kings and implies that the entire institution of monarchy is fundamentally flawed. He praises the Davidic monarchy but also acknowledges its termination due to the kings’ rejection of the Torah, without mentioning an explicit hope for its renewal.101 His idealized priestly ruler in ch. 50 probably reflects acceptance of the critical report of the Deuteronomistic history on the monarchy in Israel. The fact that the focus on Simon the high priest is the climax of Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers in this chapter indicates that Simon the Just, the high priest, embodies some of the functions of the office of the king. Overall, Ben Sira is much more occupied with the person and role of the high priest than with the Davidic king.102 The hope for an ideal Davidic king who will save Israel is fully developed only in the late Hasmonean period, probably during the reign of Hyrcanus II, in Psalms of Solomon 17. In this prayer for the coming of a king, the son of David is portrayed as divinely appointed and anointed, taught by the Lord; the holy spirit is his source of power. He will purge and destroy unrighteous rulers from Jerusalem, both Gentile and Jewish. He will execute these violent acts by the word of his mouth. He will be not primarily a political and military ruler but rather a religious leader.103 The implications of the Psalms of Solomon for the status of Hasmonean rule will be discussed below. For the present purpose, it is extremely significant that the only tradition from the Hasmonean period that forecasts an eschatological role for the Davidic dynasty, in addition to those from Qumran, is from the late Hasmonean period. It emerged as a

100 Pomykala 1995: 69 – 111, esp. 110. Cf. 1 Chr 28:7; 2 Chr 6:16; 7:17 – 18. Japheth 1989: 466 – 467, 493 – 499, concluded that David is not idealized with messianic overtones, and that Chronicles is “clearly a non-eschatological work” (ibid., 499). 101 Ben Sira 47:11, 22; 49:4 – 5; Pomykala 1995:145 – 148. In contrast, Laato (1997:244 – 248) stresses the eternal character of the Davidic covenant. Nonetheless, in Ben Sira 49:11 – 12, Zerubbabel, a Davidic descendant, is defined as “a signet” (following Hag 2:23) but merely praised, together with Jeshua son of Jozedek, as a Temple builder. The reference to the house of David (as well as the house of Zadok), and the refrain “his mercy endures for ever” in 51:12, reflects a hope for a future renewal, but this chapter is suspected to be a latter addition (Pomykala 1995:149 – 150 and references). 102 Mack 1985:39 – 41, 60 – 61, 86; Pomykala 1995:142 – 144. Cf. Simon’s building of the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple in Ben Sira 50:1 – 4. 103 Ps. Sol. 17:21 – 43; Pomykala 1995:160 – 167, who also noted that “son of David” in vs. 21 is the only occurrence of the term in early Jewish literature (it is later to appear in Matthew). See also Atkinson 2004:139 – 144, 175 – 179. In a certain sense, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II lacked all the characteristics of this Davidic Messiah.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism

149

reaction to the decline of the Hasmoneans, and postdates the emergence of their kingship.104 Messianic expectations for the emergence of a Davidic king are found in several texts of the Qumran sects. In the pesher on Genesis the author waits “until the messiah of righteousness comes, the branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations, which he observed [. . .] the Law with the men of the Community (yah. ad)”105 The passage awaits the reestablishment of Davidic kingship that is to occur when Israel achieves dominion in the eschatological age. In 4Q174Florilegium, the promises to David and his house in 2 Sam 7:12 – 14 and Amos 9:11 are applied to “the branch of David who will arise with the Interpreter of the Law, who [will rise up] in Zi[on in] the [l]ast days.”106 These allusions reflect an eschatology unique to the Qumran sectarians, who already opposed the early Hasmonean rulers.107 It is difficult to ascertain the exact date of these writings, namely, whether they were written before or after the Hasmoneans became kings. In any event, they were probably inspired by the Qumranic rejection of the Hasmonean rule in the pesharim, where the Hasmonean high priest (probably Jonathan) is called the Wicked Priest.108 Significantly, however, the War Rule (1QM), which sets out a full-fledged plan for the eschatological war, and may have originated in the Maccabean or early Hasmonean period (perhaps even in pre-Qumranic circles), does not mention the Davidic king at all, and mentions hardly any royal figures.109 104 For the dating of Pss. Sol. 2 and 17 after Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, see Atkinson 2004:22 – 36, 135 – 139, 143. Earlier mention of Davidic messianism appears in 4Q504DibHama 4:6 – 8 where there is an allusion to the Davdic covenant; i. e., the promise to David that his kingship should endure kol ha-yamin. This prayer is dated to 150 BCE, on paleographic grounds (Baillet 1982:136). The term kol ha-yamin may mean either “forever,” or merely, “throughout his entire lifetime,” pertaining to the past. The context here is a prayer that mentions Israel’s relationship with God: a historical reminiscence, like God’s choosing of Zion. It therefore seems that the Davidic covenant is mentioned here as a description of God’s past grace towards Israel, and not as an eschatological expectation of a future messianic figure. See Pomykala 1995:177 – 180. 105 4Q252CommGen A 5:3 – 6. 106 4Q174Florilegium 1:10 – 13. See the studies cited in Pomykala 1995:207 – 209. 4Q161pPsIsa 8 – 10, 11 – 25 mentions “[the shoot] of David which will sprout in the final days,” following Isa 11. 107 On millennial and messianic expectations in the Qumran sects, see Regev 2007:58 – 72. 108 See the discussion of Pesher Habakkuk in Ch. 2. 109 The pre-Hasmonean background of the War Rule is attested in the accounts of the wars against the Gentiles and the wicked in the apocalypses of 1 Enoch. See Regev 2007:214 – 215. In the War Rule, “The Prince of the Congregation” appears only at 1QM 5:1, but this phrase occurs several times in 4Q285Sefer ha-Milh. amah. 4Q285 7, 4 mentions “the bu[d of David]” which is probably also to be identified with “the Prince of the Congregation.” See Pomykala 1995:207 – 209 and references. Norton 2003:17 – 27 argued that Sefer ha-Milh. amah builds on certain passages of 1QM. Schultz 2009:352 – 353, 383 n. 49 concluded that it is independent of the War Rule since 1QM is “a manual for priests,” whereas Sefer ha-Milh. amah addresses the prince; and, unlike the War Rule, Sefer ha-Milh. amah assumes that the messianic era will predate the war against the Kittim. See also Alexander 2003:29 – 30.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

150

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

The Davidic dynasty traditions are relatively scarce during the preHasmonean and Hasmonean period. No attestations of an eschatological hope for a Davidic king appear in Daniel, Jubilees (although both engage with eschatology), Philo, or Josephus. On the other hand, several claimants to royal power in the late Second Temple period, including Judah the son of Hezekiah the Galilean, Menachem the sicarius and Simon bar Giora, did not (as far as we know from Josephus) claim Davidic descent.110 Pomykala therefore concluded that “there existed in early Judaism no continuous, widespread, or dominant expectation for a Davidic messiah.”111 The belief in a future Davidic king was therefore too weak or theoretical to limit the Hasmonean bid for the royal diadem. The general opposition to the Hasmoneans and the disappointment stemming from their later decline itself sparked the eschatological Davidic hopes found at Qumran and in the Psalms of Solomon. We shall now turn to additional evidence regarding the attitude towards kingship in the Hasmonean period that shows that the concept of nonDavidic kingship was all but rejected.

The Temple Scroll’s “Law of the King” The Temple Scroll found in Cave 11 at Qumran contains a long passage usually called “the Law of the King,” in which the laws in Deut 17:14 – 20 are developed (Temple Scroll 56:12 – 59:21), without any hint of Davidic descent as an assumed prerequisite. The author believed that a monarchy is required as long as several limitations were placed on the king’s power : a royal guard, a council, further prohibitions against corruption, and commands regarding the organization of warfare. Scholars have interpreted these qualifications as a critical reaction to the Hasmonean kingship. The king is required to select twelve thousand men, one thousand of each tribe, for the palace guard. They must never leave him, lest he be captured by foreign enemies or fall into transgression. The members of the guard are to be honest, God-fearing men of the highest military prowess.112 The rule concerning the royal guard seems directed against the Hasmonean policy of 110 Pomykala 1995:258 – 263 and references. As we shall see below, Josephus preferred high priestly theocracy upon the monarchy. The Zealots, who rebelled against the Romans and strove towards an independent Jewish state argued that God alone rules Israel, without alluding to a future Davidic kingship. See Ant. 18.23. 111 Pomykala 1995:270. See also Benson 1996:77 – 102. According to Laato (1997:289) there were weak expectations of Davidic kingship before the Hasmonean period; “the messianic expectations that the eschatological king would come from the house of David was self-evident in Judaism and it was emphasized [viz. in Qumran and Psalms of Solomon] only after some had called it into question.” 112 Temple Scroll 57:5 – 11; Schiffman 2008a:495. The Seleucid royal guard of 10,000 men chosen from all over the empire (Bar-Kochva 1989:415 – 431) probably inspired the author.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism

151

employing foreign mercenaries; the author probably believed that the Hasmonean rulers absorbed too much of the foreign influence of their mercenaries.113 The king should always be accompanied by a council of twelve princes, twelve priests, and twelve Levites. This council must be available for consultation by the king at any time, especially regarding matters of justice and rulings of law, and the king must always consult the council before acting. The twelve princes represent the twelve tribes of Israel, and the appearance of priests, Levites, and Israelites is characteristic of Qumranic organization. This seems to be a realistic institution, similar to the Macedonian assembly, which does not pertain to the messianic era, in which the king is controlled by the religious authorities. Perhaps the author aimed to replace the political coalition of Pharisees and Sadducees in Hyrcanus’s days.114 Additional prohibitions against corruption and abuse of royal power in the Temple Scroll (57:19 – 21, following Deut 16:19), require the king to establish courts and to judge fairly and honestly, and include specific additions concerning bribery and the problem of coveting the possessions of one’s subjects. The laws of warfare order the new king to muster the people into military units, take a census and set commanders over these units. The king is also obliged to wage war for defensive purposes. In the case of a defensive war, the king is authorized to undertake war on his own initiative, but in the case of an offensive war he must consult the high priest and the Urim and Thummim.115 The “Law of the King” prescribes the restriction of the king’s authority by means of the supervision of other officials; he also lacks religious or cultic authority. These restrictions seem to address concrete political realities. Hence, the author’s view of Jewish politics is “positive, pragmatic, constructive, and less utopian,” with no sign of messianic expectations.116 This engagement with the small details of monarchical government and its constitution has led most scholars to date the “Law of the King” following the emergence of Hasmonean kingship, assuming that it expresses Qumranic criticism of their political and perhaps also military acts. The royal guard replaces the foreign mercenaries, philoi and hetairoi, and also prevents defeat. The denial of any religious authority to the king and his inferiority to the high priest (along with the requirement to consult the Urim and Thummim) may

113 Yadin 1977 – 1983:1.267 – 268; Schiffman 2008a:496. The aim of preventing the capture of the king was probably influenced by Jonathan’s capture by Trypho in Ptolemais (Akko) along with Jonathan’s three thousand men (1 Macc 12:39 – 13:24). 114 Temple Scroll 57:11 – 15; Schiffman 2008a:496 – 499. 115 Temple Scroll 57:1 – 5; 58:11 – 21 (following Num 27:21); Schiffman 2008b. 116 Hengel, Charlesworth, and Mendels 1986:32, 38. Interestingly, in his rewriting of Deut 20:14 – 20, Josephus also argues that the king should always consult the high priest and the elders (Ant. 4.223).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

152

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

attest to the aim of separating the kingship from the high priesthood, as the Pharisees also demanded (see below).117 Barzilay identified two compositional layers in the “Law of the King,” on the basis of duplications and misplaced additions. The original layer treated the king with great sympathy and placed him at the head of the governmental hierarchy in relation to both military and legal matters (perhaps reflecting the days of Jonathan and Simon). The redactional layer sought to subject the king to the Torah and the priesthood (which may reflect the days of John Hyrcanus). Barzilay concluded that neither the original author nor the redactor/editor were anti-monarchists, but that the latter aimed to restrict the power of the king, perhaps because of a certain disappointment in the Hasmoneans’ behavior.118 The bearing of the Temple Scroll on the question of popular attitudes towards Hasmonean kingship is significant. The author of the “Law of the King” believed that kingship was essential for a Jewish state, even without a Davidic king. Religious and institutional constraints notwithstanding, the king’s royal honor and dignity, the very essence of the crown, were looked on with favor even in Qumran (whether or not the “Law of the King” is of Qumranic provenance, it was studied by the sectarians as Scripture). Evidently, even the Hasmoneans’ opponents thought that kingship was necessary. Ideas similar to those of the Temple Scroll were expressed more than a century later by Philo, in his interpretation of Deut 17:14 – 20. Kingship, according to Philo, is prescribed by the Torah and subject to public selection and divine approval. The king should make just decisions without corruption, and always study and observe the laws. Interestingly, the king is called archon (usually translated nasi) rather than basileus (which is used by Philo for certain foreign kings).119 Philo portrayed Moses as the ideal model of kingphilosopher, who follows God, the ultimate king. Nonetheless, quite like the Hellenistic kings, the king is a savior (so¯te¯r) and benefactor (euergete¯s).120 117 Hengel, Charlesworth, and Mendels 1986:32 – 38 saw several connections to the Hasmoneans. In Temple Scroll 58:3, 6 – 7, 9 the author is occupied by defensive wars; the danger of foreign invasions was especially recurrent in Jannaeus’s days. Compare Jannaus’s defeat by the Nabataeans, when he fell into an ambush and “barely escaped with his life” (Ant. 13.375). The law concerning monogamy (Temple Scroll 57:15 – 19) is perhaps directed against the situation of Jannaeus and his concubines, as related in Ant. 13.380 (ibid., 33 – 34). Hengel, Charlesworth, and Mendels dated the Law of the King “at some point between 103/2 and 88 BCE.” Schiffman 2008a:504 dated it no earlier than the later days of John Hyrcanus. 118 Barzilay 2002 – 2003. For example, Temple Scroll 57:5 – 7 focuses on the military character of the guard and the king’s security, while 57:7 – 11 stresses the judicial and religious aspect of the guard. In 57:11 – 15 the king’s authority is constrained by his council, which obliges him to obey the Torah, but a later addition stressed the higher authority of the high priest in the decision to wage an offensive war. 119 Special Laws 4.151 – 169, esp. 157, 163 – 164, 169; Beneson 1996:157. 120 Life of Moses 1.148 – 62; Beneson 1996:304 – 305.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Quest for Kingship in Ancient Judaism

153

Once again, the evidence shows that the idea of non-Davidic kingship was treated favorably in Second Temple period.

Rabbinic Views on Kingship Although they evolved much later than the Hasmonean period, rabbinic attitudes towards monarchical government shed further light on ancient Jewish ideas of non-Davidic kingship, and may even reflect older traditions of the Pharisees. The rabbis held positive views concerning the institution of non-Davidic kingship. Most of the rabbis regarded the “Law of the King” in Deut 17:14 – 20 as an obligatory commandment, viewing monarchical government as essential for the maintenance of law and order.121 However, the rabbinic concept of kingship excludes major components of monarchy for the sake of rabbinic authority and civic law. Certain rabbis restricted the king’s wealth, power, and authority, as far as these pertained to his own personal pomp and pleasure, but they were interested in a king whose rule was valid and strong.122 The king’s authority is especially limited in case of war. A voluntary (offensive) war, which aims at gaining wealth and honor, demands the authorization of a court of seventy-one judges (“Sanhedrin”), but the king is authorized to independently declare a defensive war.123 In a bold contrast to the Davidic and Greco-Roman monarchies, the king and his rule are separated from the judicial system: “the king neither judges, nor is he subject to judgment; he neither testifies nor is testimony heard against him.” The rabbis suspected that he might use his power to affect the results of the trial.124 Most importantly, the king must abide by the Torah in all his activities, public and private alike.125 Despite these restrictions, the king’s honor and dignity were regarded as essential to the performance of his authority. People were to respect and even fear him,126 but kingship is seldom idealized or conceptualized as sacred.127 In 121 Sifrei Deut. 67, 156 – 157 (ed. Finkelstein, 132, 208 – 209); t. Sanhedrin 4:5 (ed. Zuckermandel, 421); b. Sanhedrin 20b; Blidstein 1982 – 1983:19 – 21; Lorberbaum 2008:50 – 66, 134. For the rabbis, the tension between human kingdoms and “the Kingdom of Heaven” (“direct theocracy” by God) was less decisive than one would expect from religious sages. Cf. Blidstein 1982 – 1983:17. 122 E.g., Sifrei Deut. 158 – 159 (ed. Finkelstein, 209 – 210); Lorberbaum 2008:75 – 83. 123 M. Sanhedrin 1:5; 2:4; Lorberbaum 2008:83 – 88. 124 M. Sanhedrin 2:2 and par. See also b. Sanhedrin 18b; Lorberbaum 2008:105 – 120 who also pointed to opposite views. Cf. the story about King Yannai (Jannaeus) in b. Sanhedrin 19a – 19b and the references in Lorberbaum 2008:108 n. 9. 125 M. Sanhedrin 2:4 and par ; Lorberbaum 2008:126 – 131. For the reading of “King Agrippa” in the Torah at the Temple, see m. Sotah 7:8. 126 M. Sanhedrin 2:5; Sifrei Deut. 157 (ed. Finkelstein, 209); b. Ketubot 17a; Lorberbaum 2008:137 – 145. 127 See the texts discussed in Lorberbaum 2008:169 – 174.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

154

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

a sense, the king is only another human being and a common Jew.128 As for rabbinic views on the Hasmonean kings, it seems that hostility to the Hasmoneans arose mainly in later periods and especially in Babylon. The later rabbis used stories about the Hasmonean kings as foundations for aggadic stories crafted to convey contemporary messages; their historical memory was rather weak.129 In sum, in ways similar to the Temple Scroll, the rabbis regarded kingship as necessary, but aimed to limit the king’s power and to bind him to religious or halakhic commitments. Within these frameworks, one should not expect opposition to the Hasmonean taking of the crown. However, the author of the Temple Scroll and the precursors to the rabbis would have attempted to restrict the power of the Hasmonean kings.

5. The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship Strabo of Amaseia says that Alexander Jannaeus was the first to declare himself king. Josephus says that the first self-declared king was Judas Aristobulus; he is probably correct since the latter ruled only one year before he died and was succeeded by his brother, Jannaeus. Josephus was better informed about Aristobulus’s reign.130 Scholars have usually regarded the transformation of Hasmonean rule from that of ethnarchs to that of kings as a fundamental one, and have portrayed it in dark colors. The taking of the royal diadem is seen as an act of Hellenization, a drawing apart from the people who chose the Hasmoneans as leaders and rulers, the acquisition of a title without the agreement of the Jewish people, and against the decree in 1 Maccabees 14, in which Simon was granted the title he¯goumenos or ethnarche¯s. Some believed that Hasmonean royal status contradicted the expectation of a Davidic king. The Hasmonean kings (and queen) were therefore seen as greedy usurpers.131 Other scholars, however, maintained that most of the Jews supported Hasmonean kingship.132

128 B. Sanhedrin 20b and par ; Lorberbaum 2008:146 – 161. 129 Efron 1987:143 – 218. According to Kalmin 1996:321 – 329 the Babylonian Talmud is much more hostile to the Hasmoneans than the Palestinian Talmud, due to contemporary political concerns. Certain Babylonian non-rabbinic Jews whom the Babylonian rabbis opposed claimed Hasmonean descent. 130 Strabo, Geographica 14.2.40; Josephus, War 1.70; Ant. 13.301; Stern 1976:296, 299 – 300, 307. Schalit 1972:353 n. 65 accepted Strabo’s view, since Aristobulus’s coins referred to him as a high priest, while Jannaeus was the first to strike royal coins. 131 See the introduction to this chapter. For various views regarding the Pharisees’ opposition to the constitutional innovation of kingship, see Wellhausen 1924:112 – 120; Aptowitzer 1927:15, 49; Klausner 1968:110, 139, 151. 132 Tcherikover 1959:256. For example, according to Alon 1977:4 – 5, 11 – 47, the rabbinic view that

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

155

These contradictory assumptions should be reevaluated in light of the various negative and positive testimonies concerning Hasmonean kingship. In order to reconstruct the political atmosphere in Jewish society in the face of this transformation, attention should be also paid to the historical and cultural context of Hasmonean rule and the idea of kingship in ancient Judaism as already introduced above.

The Pharisees’ Rift with Hyrcanus and Jannaeus Josephus described in detail how the good relations between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees turned into a conflict. While feasting together, the Pharisees declared that Hyrcanus was virtuous; but one of them, Eleazar, said: “If you wish to be righteous, give up the high priesthood and be content with governing the people (archein tou laou) . . . because we have heard from our elders that your mother was a captive in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes” (Ant. 13.289 – 292). To recall, a women who had experienced sexual intercourse is forbidden to marry a priest, and the offspring of such marriages is disqualified from the priesthood.133 Josephus nevertheless remarked that this was a false rumor, and that therefore Hyrcanus became furious. Following the advice of his Sadducean friend Jonathan, Hyrcanus discovered that the Pharisees had prescribed a lenient punishment for Eleazar (stripes and chains rather than execution). He therefore inferred that the Pharisees actually approved of Eleazar’s demand that he would retire from the high priesthood; consequently, he broke with the Pharisees and aligned himself with the Sadducees. He also abrogated Pharisaic regulations and even punished those who adhered to them. Josephus also adds that Hyrcanus’s reaction increased “the hatred of the masses for him and his sons,” implying that out of this incident came the Pharisees’ rebellion against Jannaeus (Ant. 13.288 – 298). Rabbinic tradition preserved a version of the same story in which the Pharisees clashed with “King Jannaeus.” Once during a feast with the sages, a certain Pharisee said to Jannaeus: “‘O King Yannai! let the royal crown suffice thee, and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.’ For it was rumored that his mother had been taken captive in Modi’in.” Following the advice of his Sadducean friend, the king reacted by persecuting the rabbis and their teachings, and all the rabbis were killed until Simon ben Shatah. restored their position (b. Qiddushin 66a). Scholars have disputed which of the two versions is more reliable, and whether the rift actually occurred in the days of Hyrcanus or his son “all Israel are fit for kingship” (Midrash Tanna’im on Deuteronomy, ed. Hofman, 104; t. Horayot 2:8 and par.) indicates that the Hasmoneans were also fit for kingship. 133 Lev 21:4; m. Ketubot 2:9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

156

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

Jannaeus.134 The arguments in favor of Josephus’s version are numerous. It was transmitted several hundred years earlier than the rabbinic story ; Josephus was a historian and his story sounds plausible, whereas the rabbis were not historians but scholars of the Jewish halakhah and aggadah and their version is cast in the form of an aggadic folktale; one would need to explain why Josephus placed the story in Hyrcanus’s reign (either deliberately or erroneously), whereas the rabbis had many traditions on Jannaeus’s conflicts with early rabbis such as Simon son of Shatah. , and some of them actually reflect the days of Herod; One rabbi (Abaye) did not differentiate at all between Hyrcanus (“Yoh. anan”) and Jannaeus;135 The rabbinic version conflates the rift with Hyrcanus with the civil war between Jannaeus and the Pharisees, a conflict which is depicted in detail by Josephus. Although Jannaeus fought many wars with the Seleucids, Nabataeans, and Ptolemy Lathyrus, it seems that the most dire was that against his own people, which went through two consecutive phases in 89 – 88 BCE. After his successful siege on Gaza, during “the festival” (of Tabernacles), his Jewish subjects revolted against him. When he approached the altar as high priest they stoned him with their citrons and said that “he was a descendant of captives and was unfit to hold office and to sacrifice.” In response, Jannaeus killed six thousand of those attending the festival and also blocked the people’s approach to the altar, placing a wooden barrier in the Temple court (War 1.88 – 89; Ant. 13.372 – 373). Later on, after Jannaeus had been defeated by the Nabataeans, he was again attacked by “the nation.” Although he “urged them to make an end of their hostility toward him,” his Jewish rivals cooperated with the Seleucid king Demetrius III Akairos. Jannaeus had twenty-thousand Jewish troops as well as foreign mercenaries on his side, but was defeated by Demetrius and ran away to the mountains. However, six thousand of his Jewish opponents switched sides and gathered to his side “out of pity,” leading to Demetrius’s withdrawal. The rest and most powerful kept on fighting but were eventually captured. During the war Jannaeus killed fifty thousand Jews; eight thousand fled and remained in exile until he died. By the end of the war he took revenge on his captors by killing the rebel Jews. Jannaeus crucified eight hundred of his 134 Hyrcanus: Tcherikover 1959:260 – 261; Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973:214; cf. Mason 1991: 223 – 224. Jannaus: Le Moyne 1972:57 – 59; Schalit 1972:273; Geller 1979; Main 1990. Main based her argument on Josephus’s introduction to the story, where he noted that when the Pharisees “speak against a king or a high priest they immediately gain credence” (Ant. 13.288), which suits Jannaeus, not Hyrcanus. However, it seems that this introductory note is rooted in Nicolaus, who aimed to discredit the Pharisees by a general comment which is not directly related to the incident (see Marcus’s note in LCL edition ad. loc; Schwartz 1983:158 – 159). Josephus also referred to the Hasmonean state as a kingdom (Mason 1991:223 – 224), hence it is not inconceivable to ascribe him such an inaccuracy. 135 Efron 1987:141 – 218 (on b. Qiddushin 66a, see ibid., 176 – 190). For Abaye’s assertion, see b. Berakhot 29a.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

157

enemies and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes, while he feasted with his concubines in a conspicuous place. Josephus stressed that during this civil war, Jannaeus was in danger of losing both his life and his throne. He had to give up territories in the Transjordan to the Nabataeans in order to prevent them from aiding his Jewish opponents, who “committed countless other insulting and abusive acts against him” (War 1.91 – 98; Ant. 13.376 – 383). Josephus does not identify the rebels’ party but merely refers to the opposing factions as “Jannaeus’s own people,” and “the nation,” or simply, “the Jews.”136 However, in his description of Salome Alexandra’s reconciliation with Jannaeus’s opponents, we learn that these opponents were none other than the Pharisees. The earlier rift between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees points toward the same conclusion.137 In addition, Pesher Nahum from Qumran alludes to “[Deme]trius king of Greece who wanted to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the seekers of smooth things” and “the lion of wrath” who struck “Ephraim” and revenged those “seekers of smooth things, who hanged living men[from the tree].” The Pesher certainly alludes here to the civil war against Jannaeus; “seekers of smooth things” and “Ephraim” are Qumranic designations for the Pharisees.138 Why did the Pharisees oppose Hyrcanus and rebel against Jannaeus?139 Schalit and Baumbach argued that Hyrcanus had deserted the Pharisees and joined the Sadducees because the latter did not limit his authority, military campaigns, and territorial expansions.140 The Pharisees later revolted against Jannaeus for the same reasons: they opposed the wars and occupations, the use of mercenaries, and especially the monarchic government. They felt that the king ignored his people’s interest and pursued his own fame, just like Hellenistic kings.141 Schalit regarded Jannaeus’s adoption of the Hellenistic conception of kingship as the root of their opposition. Schalit also maintained that Jannaeus’s internal policy included intensive taxation and centralized administration, resembling those of the Hellenistic kingdoms, and that he did not share with the people land and wealth won in military victories over the Greek cities; the land conquered from the Gentiles remained the personal property of the king (as was common to the Hellenistic kingdoms). Jannaeus led intensive and frequent military campaigns, used foreign mercenaries, and did not let the people or their leaders get involved in government of the state.

136 For to¯n oikeio¯n and to ethnos, see War 1.90; Ant. 13.372, 376. For “the Jews”, see War 1.88, 91, 92, 94; Ant. 13.378, 379, 380 382. The use of these general designations probably stems from Nicolaus. 137 See, e. g., Schalit 1972:290 – 297. On Alexandra and the Pharisees, see below. 138 4Q169pNah frags. 3 – 4, 2 – 8; Flusser 2007a. 139 For a more detailed discussion of the subject and references, see Regev 2005:254 – 286. 140 Schalit 1972:273 – 266; Baumbach 1989:182. See also Levine 1981:74 – 77. 141 Klausner 1968:139, 149; Tcherikover 1959:253, 257 – 259; Le Moyne 1972:385.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

158

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

All this contradicted, according to Schalit, the decree which had granted Simon’s right to rule, and yet had restricted his authority.142 Although the information on the internal affairs of the Hasmonean state and the public opinion of its political and administrative system is scant, Josephus’s description of the rift with Hyrcanus provides two major details that refute such antimonarchic interpretations. First, the Pharisees required that Hyrcanus give up the high priesthood, not the crown. They also used a halakhic argument, the rumor that they were disqualified for priesthood since their mother or grandmother had been raped before they were born. It was not the royal title that bothered them, but the high priesthood. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the Pharisees attacked Jannaeus at the altar, not as a king but as a high priest. The immediate reason may have been that he poured the water libation on the ground, instead of the altar, as the Pharisees demanded.143 Second, after their rift with Hyrcanus and civil war against Jannaeus, the Pharisees collaborated with Jannaeus’s widow, Salome Alexandra. Their reconciliation was derived from the fact that the Queen gave them political power and probably also reinstituted their halakhah, which Hyrcanus had earlier abrogated (War 1.110 – 112; Ant. 13.405 – 410). Alexandra kept on hiring mercenaries and attempted to win battles and to occupy additional territories.144 Apparently, the Pharisees did not oppose Alexandra’s royal diadem or her militaristic policy as long as she followed their own religious views. Her older son, Hyrcanus II, served as high priest and probably followed the Pharisees; he was supported by “the elders,” whereas in Pesher Nahum Aristobulus II is associated with the Sadducees.145 The Pharisaic opposition did not stem from their attitude towards kingship, or from the rejection of a non-Davidic king or non-Zadokite high priest.146 They supported Hyrcanus and Alexandra when they followed the Pharisaic 142 Schalit 1972:277 – 288; cf. Rappaport 1991:491 – 493. Schalit (ibid., 260 – 264) related this to assumptions regarding the meaning of h. eber ha-yehudim and its absence from Jannaeus’s royal coins (see Chapter 5, where these claims are refuted), as well as to the criticism of the later Hasmoneans in Diodorus (see below). However, Schalit did not point to any evidence that Simon’s rule was different from those of Hyrcanus and Jannaeus. Pastor 1997:77 – 82 saw no evidence for Schalit’s arguments that Jannaeus’s conquered territories became royal lands. As we shall see in Chapter 7, the Jewish populace benefited greatly from the Hasmonean occupations. 143 In t. Sukkah 3.16 (ed. Lieberman, 279) the rabbis refer to “a certain Boethusian” (namely, a Sadducee) who poured the water on his feet, whereupon the people stoned him with their citrons. This seems to echo the incident in Ant. 13.372. See Regev 2005:269. 144 Alexandra “struck terror into the local rulers around her and received hostages from them”; doubled her army of mercenaries (Ant. 13.409); and sent her son Aristobulus II to fight against the Ituraeans (Ant. 13.418; War 1.115 mentions an attack on the Ituraeans in Damascus); Aristobulus II drafted mercenaries in Lebanon and Trachonitis (Ant. 13.427). 145 Ant. 13.428. In 4Q169 frag. 4, 1 – 4, Aristobulus is designated as the King of Menasseh, whose supporters were defeated and exiled following Pompey’s conquest in 63 CE. Menasseh is the Qumranic designation for the Sadducees. See Regev 1997b:287 – 288; 2005:282 – 284, 287. 146 See also Alon 1977:5 – 7.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

159

halakhah, had disputes with Hyrcanus when he became closer to the Sadducees, and fought against Jannaeus who was a Sadducee. The main reason for their struggles with the Hasmoneans was religious or halakhic. Indeed, Josephus, the Qumran pesharim, the synoptic gospels, and rabbinic literature all portray the Pharisees as engaging in halakhic debates.147 Daniel Schwartz argued that the Pharisees opposed Hyrcanus and Jannaeus because they believed that it was not legitimate to join priesthood and monarchy.148 The differentiation between monarchy and high priesthood is embedded in biblical tradition: Deuteronomy excludes priests from “allotment and inheritance within Israel” (Deut 18:1, immediately following the law of the king), which Schwartz interprets as implying kingship as well.149 Schwartz interpreted the conflict between Jannaeus and the Pharisees as motivated by their opposition to this wearing of the two crowns joined in one person; he asserted that the rumor concerning improper priestly descent was only an excuse, since the Pharisees could not point to any biblical or traditional basis for this position. Schwartz pointed to evidence which implies a general opposition to the attainment of both kingship and high priesthood. For example, Simon is never called a king in 1 Maccabees, but rather ethnarch (1 Macc 14:47 and 15:1). The Romans are praised in 1 Maccabees 8:14 – 17 for never having a king. Some coins of Alexander Jannaeus, which bear the Hebrew legend “Jonathan the high priest,” were overstruck on top of Hebrew and Greek inscriptions labeling him “king”; it seems that he had to give up the royal title due to public opposition.150 Several hints in later rabbinic literature were also used by Schwartz to demonstrate that the early rabbis opposed the union of king and high priest. The most decisive text is the rabbinic ruling that “priests may be not anointed as kings.”151 He also reinterpreted rabbinic passages as condemning the Hasmonean kingdom.152 147 148 149 150

On the Pharisees and the Sadducees, their history and halakhic controversies, see Regev 2005. Schwartz 1992. See also Thoma 1989:208. D. R. Schwartz 2001:21. Cf. y. Sheklim 6:1 59d and par. Schwartz 1992:46. Meshorer 1982:77 – 78, 132 – 134 (see also Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973:604), first followed this explanation, but later expressed doubts since not all of Jannaeus’s coins were overstruck. Schwartz nonetheless suggested that the coins which were already in circulation could not be recalled and overstruck, and insisted that this was the only possible explanation for the overstriking. 151 Y. Shekalim 6:1, 49d; y. Sotah 8:3, 22c; y. Horayot 3:2, 47c. Schwartz 1992:50 – 51 asserted rightly that this rule pertains not merely to the act of anointing in itself, as the biblical prooftexts used by the rabbis indicates. See also Lorberbaum 2008:89 – 93. Schwartz (ibid., 49 – 50) regarded the law that “all Israel are fit for kingship” (Midrash Tannai’m on Deuteronomy ed. Hoffman, 104; t. Horayot 2:8 and par.) as an indication of the exclusion of priests from the anointing for kingship, since the priests are not lay Israelites. Goodblatt 2001:15 argued that the rabbis did include priests in statements such as “all Israel have a share in the world to come,” referring to the entire people of Israel, as in m. Sanhedrin 10:1. 152 E.g., “the wicked kingdom took over Israel 180 years before the Temple was destroyed” (b. Avodah Zarah 8b; b. Shabbat 15a; Seder Olam Rabbah ch. 30, ed. Ratner, 141 – 142), which is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

160

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

Goodblatt asserted that even if there is certain evidence for Pharisaic (or other) opposition to Hasmonean royal status (such as the overstrike on Jannaeus’s coins), there is no indication that such opposition derived from rejecting the union of king and high priest.153 He also challenged almost all of Schwartz’s other arguments, showing that they were based on conjecture. The conflict with the Pharisees emerged in the days of Hyrcanus, who was not a king but was “ruling over the people,” when the opposition to the union of kingship and high priesthood would still have been irrelevant. The Pharisees’ claim about Hyrcanus’s disqualification from serving as a priest may have disguised the argument that the Hasmoneans were not worthy of the high priesthood due to non-Zadokite descent or other factors, but it is unlikely to disguise opposition to the union of priesthood and kingship. If the Pharisees opposed this union they (or the later rabbis) could have raised the matter explicitly and pointed to the separation of function between king and priest (or Moses and Aaron) in the Bible.154 Furthermore, the rabbinic opposition to anointing priests for kingship can be dated to the third century CE at the earliest and cannot attest to the Hasmonean period.155 Goodblatt also showed that, although Philo seemed to oppose such a union at one point, he actually presented it positively or at least neutrally in other instances, such as his reference to King Agrippa I.156 In sum, there is no evidence that the Pharisees opposed Hasmonean kingship as such (in Chapter 7 we will see hints of their support for Hasmonean military policy). Their opposition was related to the Hasmonean high priesthood, and surfaced when Hyrcanus and Jannaeus became more closely allied to the Sadducees.

153

154

155 156

usually interpreted, following the context, as implying to Rome. Schwartz 1992:51 argued that the chronology points to the period when the Hasmoneans first took the royal title. Goodblatt 2001:17 argued that the Babylonian tradition may be corrupt in comparison to Seder Olam Rabbah 30. Goodblatt 2001. Hence the opposition to the Hasmonean kingship expressed in the assembly to Pompey or the Psalms of Salomon (discussed below) cannot attest to an opposition to this union of offices (ibid., 24 – 25). Goodblatt 2001:12 – 13. For the Talmudic version as unreliable and aggadic, see Efron 1987:143 – 218 and the studies in Goodblatt 2001:13 n. 21. Goodblatt also argues that the fact that the Pharisees repeated the disqualification rumor in the case of Jannaeus (Ant. 13.272 – 273) shows that this was not merely an excuse. Goodblatt 2001:15. Negatively : De Virtutibus 54 (cf. Schwartz 1992:45). Goodbaltt 2001:22 shows that Philo’s opposition is one possible explanation among three he brings for why Moses’ son did not succeed him as a political leader. Positively or neutrally : Legatio ad Caium 278; Questions on Genesis 2.105; De Vita Mosis 1.334; 2.3, 5, 31.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

161

The Opponents of Hasmonean Kingship One tradition which reveals Judaean public opposition to Hasmonean kingship is related to the violent struggle between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II in the wake of the Roman conquest of the East, in 63 BCE. When the rival brothers each sent embassies to convince Pompey to give them rule over Judaea, a third embassy also approached Pompey. According to Josephus these were the delegates of “the nation.” They were “against them both [Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II] and asked not to be ruled by a king, saying that it was the custom of their country to obey the priests of the God who was venerated by them, but that these two, who were descended from priests, were seeking to change their form of government in order that they might become a nation of slaves” (Ant. 14.41 – 45). A slightly different version of this account is found in Diodorus. Here the third embassy is said to be of the leading men (hoi de epiphanestatoi), more than two hundred in number, gathered to address the general [Pompey] and explain that their forefathers, having revolted from Demetrius, had sent an embassy to the senate, and received from it the leadership (prostasia) of the Jews, who were, moreover, to be free and autonomous, their ruler being called High Priest, not King. Now, however, these men were lording it over them, having overthrown the ancient laws and enslaved the citizens in defiance of all justice; for it was by means of a horde of mercenaries, and by outrages and countless impious murders, that they had established themselves as kings.157 Clearly, the two versions go back to a common tradition which is grounded in Hellenistic history ; the source was probably Strabo, who copied the original description from Theophanes of Mytilene.158 The nation’s delegates, or its leading men, argued that traditional Jewish government was led by a high priest, and that the Hasmoneans had transformed it illegally to a monarchy. They used this argument to disqualify the rule of both brothers as illegal and also mentioned their improper policies of the use of mercenaries and of violence. What they actually asked for was autonomy, led by a high priest under the Romans—but they imply that this high priest cannot be one of the two brothers. Alon, Shatzman, and Goodblatt accepted this story as authentic, and identified the noble delegates of the nation as Pharisees.159 In support of this view one may adduce the delegation to Augustus after the death of Herod, which asked that Judaea be annexed to the province of Syria rather than placed under the rule of a Herodian dynast.160 Goodblatt suggested that Hasmonean 157 158 159 160

Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 40.2; Stern 1976:185 – 187. Bar-Kochva 1977:180; Shatzman 1992:29. Alon 1977:29 – 30; Shatzman 1992:29; Goodblatt 1994:38. Ant. 17.300 – 314. The differences between the delegations were pointed out by Efron 1987:233.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

162

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

history was manipulated by the Judaean nobles in order to influence Pompey’s decision. Goodblatt thought that the request for a high priest instead of a king served neither Roman propaganda nor imperial interests, insisting that “the views attributed to the delegation to Pompey accurately reflect contemporary Judaean public opinion” and that “some Judaean circles would prefer “traditional” priestly monarchy to the (relatively) new Hasmonean royalism.”161 Efron and Bar-Kochva doubted Diodorus’s historical credibility and argued that Diodorus’s account reflects Roman propaganda, since it contains inaccurate details:162 The allusion to a Jewish revolt in the days of Demetrius (I) is misleading; the Senate did not grant the Jews their independence and did not interfere with their government; the monarchy is rooted in the Bible; and in any case, Hasmonean rule was first and foremost a reign of high priests, and did not deny the freedom of the people. Bar-Kochva concluded that these complaints were a forgery based on Greco-Roman views on Jewish government.163 Assuming that the versions of both Josephus and Strabo originated in the description of Theophanes of Mytilene, who was Pompey’s friend and freedman, one should recall that this historian wrote on Pompey’s conquests in the East in order to flatter him.164 Theophanes therefore had an interest in manipulating the Jewish negotiations with Pompey and in justifying his decision to abrogate Hasmonean kingship. Indeed, Shatzman pointed to another passage of Strabo, also possibly taken from Theophanes, that describes Pompey’s conquest and condemns the Hasmoneans as tyrants, in an attempt to praise Pompey.165 On the other hand, one may question whether a Hellenistic historian writing on behalf of the Romans would invent the claim that government by a high priest is the traditional Jewish form of government, whereas kingship is an illegal violation derived from personal interests. The Romans probably did not concern themselves with the native governmental traditions in their conquered territories. Interestingly, when Aristobulus II approached Pompey he also claimed that his royal status was legitimate since “his title was exactly the same as that of his father Alexander” (Ant. 14.45). Hence it seems that the issue of the crown was under discussion. The notion that the reign of a high priest is preferable to that of a king is also adopted by Josephus.166 161 162 163 164 165 166

Goodblatt 1994:37 n. 19, and 39 – 40. Shatzman 1992:29 – 30 also assumed a Jewish source. Efron 1987:230 – 233, 309; Bar-Kochva 1977:179 – 180. Such as that of Hecataeus of Abdera, quoted elsewhere by Diodorus (see Chapter 3). Bar-Kochva 1977:180; Shatzman 1992:29 – 31. On Theophanes, see also Stern 1976:186. Strabo, Geographica 16.2, 27, 40; Stern 1976:296 – 297, 301 – 302; Shatzman 1992:39. Josephus favors aristocracy over monarchy in Ant. 4.224. Cf. his depiction of Samuel’s approach towards kingship in Ant. 6.36. The rule of high priests is praised as a politeia of aristocracy (Ant. 20.251) or as a combination of aristocratic and oligarchic politeia (Ant. 11.111). In Against Apion 2.164 – 165, Josephus defines the Jewish politeia as a theocracy,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

163

Leading Jews who rejected both brothers due to the civil war between the two could have used the claim that the office about which they were fighting was entirely illegitimate. But the charge of illegitimacy may have been mainly an excuse to get rid of the two of them, or at least to prevent them both from becoming kings. Theophanes (and Diodorus) probably used this argument in a Greco-Roman guise for their own political reasons, in favor of Pompey’s policy. Nonetheless, if “the people” had really rejected the very idea of kingship, they would not have demanded that Jannaeus retire from the high priesthood and would not have supported the widowed Queen. It was the decline of the Hasmonean kingdom and the war between the two princes that made the idea of Hasmonean kingship look flawed and corrupt. The starkest criticism of Hasmonean kingship is found in Psalms of Solomon 17. The Hasmonean kings are rebuked: Sinners rose up against us, they set upon us and drove us out. Those to whom you did not (make the) promise, they took away (from us) by force; and they did not glorify your honorable name. With pomp they set up a monarchy because of their arrogance; they despoiled the throne of David with arrogant shouting; But you, O God, overthrew them, and uprooted their descendants from the earth, for there rose up against them a man alien to our race (vss. 5 – 7). The Hasmoneans, that is, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, are portrayed as usurpers of the Davidic dynasty. They are the root of the evils which have befallen Israel.167 In Psalms of Solomon 17, the Hasmonean kings are set in opposition to David and his descendants, who are shown to be the only ones who have the prerequisites to be kings of the Jews. The Davidic king is portrayed using the language of the biblical promises (especially as found in Isa 11 and Ps 2). It is said that he will purge and destroy unrighteous rulers from Jerusalem, both Gentile and Jewish. He will execute these violent acts by the word of his mouth. He is not merely a political and military ruler, but also, and primarily, a religious leader (17:22 – 25, 33 – 36, 43). The Davidic king will gather the Jews to the Land of Israel by their appointed tribes, will not tolerate unrighteousness, will rule over the entire universe, and will glorify the Lord (17:26 – 31). He will be divinely appointed and anointed. He will be taught by the Lord, empowered by the holy spirit. He will reign under the authority of the Lord, and be compassionate to all nations; he will be free from sin and wise in counsel, and will have pure words like those of the angels. He is portrayed as “a

that is, as “placing all of the sovereignty and authority in the hands of God.” The idea of “priestly monarchy” is reflected in the LXX to Exod 19.6 and elsewhere. See van der Kooij 2007:260 and references; Goodblatt 1994:37. 167 For the identification of these sinners as the later Hasmoneans, see Atkinson 2004:135 – 139. Note the reference to Pompey in vss. 8 – 14. Nothing is said about the Hasmoneans as high priests.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

164

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

semi-divine character,” a human figure who “possess superhuman qualities.”168 In short, “the Davidic king would be all the things the Hasmonean kings were not, and Israel would be all the things that the Maccabean kings could never make it.” The Psalms are “a frontal assault on the legitimacy of the Hasmonean kings by means of a powerful biblical tradition.”169 It would be mistaken to conclude, however, that this Davidic opposition to the Hasmoneans accompanied them throughout their reign. Clearly, the Psalms of Solomon refers to the period of the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, a struggle that also lasted after Pompey’s conquest and eventually ended with Herod’s defeat of Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II.170 Here we find the first positive expectation of a Davidic messianic figure in the Second Temple period, formed via the expression of opposition to the Hasmonean kings in Ps Sol 17:5 – 7. As we have already seen, for the period before the Hasmonean brothers fought against each other, notions of Davidic kingship and messianism are documented only at Qumran, probably because the Qumran sects opposed the Hasmoneans to begin with. According to Pomykala, the Davidic dynasty tradition did not generate disappointment with the Hasmoneans; rather, disappointment with the Hasmoneans generated the appropriation of the Davidic dynasty tradition—and this is how the tradition functions in Psalms of Solomon. The tradition also serves as a response to the political crisis of Pompey’s conquest.171 It is impossible to ascertain whether Diodorus of Sicily or Theophanes of Mytilene and the author of Psalms of Solomon represent popular views. But it is important to note that non-Davidic genealogy is not the only reason for condemning the Hasmonean kings. These texts bring accusations against the tyrannical and immoral behavior of the Hasmonean kings, accusations which sound similar to those brought against certain unsuccessful Hellenistic kings. The charge of non-Davidic descent is used to disqualify the kings because of prior opposition to their policies (e. g., their use of mercenaries), and their

168 Psalms of Salomon 17:32 – 43; Pomykala 1995:160 – 164. 169 Pomykala 1995:166. Another condemnation of the Hasmoneans is found in the Testament of Moses 6:1 (mentioned after referring to the desecration of the altar by those who were not truly priests, which implies Menelaus and the Jewish-Hellenistic reformers): “Then, kings will arise for them to assume government, and they will proclaim themselves priests of the Most High God. They will act most impiously against the Holy of Holies” (translation follows Tromp 1993:14). These kings are then followed by a king who is not from a priestly family, apparently Herod. The impiety against the Temple sounds like an accusation related to cultic halakhah (cf. Tromp ibid., 198 – 199), perhaps because some of the Hasmoneans were Sadducees; in any case there is no hint that their royal title is criticized. Cf. Tromp 1993:198 – 199. 170 Hyrcanus II also struggled against Aristobulus II’s sons Alexander and Antigonus in 63 – 37 BCE, as described throughout book 14 of Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. See Stern 1995:203 – 274. 171 Pomykala 1995:165 – 167.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

165

immoral behavior—matters which are not directly related to the issue of royal descent. Both the people’s delegation to Pompey and Psalms of Solomon belong to the period slightly prior to Pompey’s conquest. There are no signs of such opposition before this period. What seems to provoke their accusation is the civil war between the rival brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The internal decline and decadence of the Hasmonean dynasty and the failure of the two princes to take responsibility for the entire nation172 probably led some Jews to believe that the Hasmoneans were no longer worthy of the crown and only a Davidic king was acceptable. This argument was probably also used in order to delegitimize the rule of both princes. Despite the relative abundance of various texts from the Hasmonean period, these are the only two Hasmonean rulers who are regarded as illegitimate. Even in Qumran, where the sectarians opposed the Hasmoneans long before they became kings and expected an immediate realization of the messianic promises, there is no sign of a direct assault on the legitimacy of the Hasmonean crown.173

The Advocates of Hasmonean Kingship Whereas the opposition to the Hasmonean royal title is commonly acknowledged, the popular support of it is widely neglected in scholarship, perhaps because it is mostly implicit. This section discusses possible positive responses to Hasmonean kingship. Notwithstanding their priestly descent, the Hasmoneans were widely acknowledged as kings, and they were proud of this status. Josephus referred to the Hasmonean state as a kingdom.174 Later historians like Tacitus regarded the Hasmoneans as kings in origin, who also took over the high priesthood.175 Aristobulus II gave Pompey as a gift a golden vine worth five hundred talents, which was later presented in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome, and on which, according to Strabo, there was an inscription reading “from [Aristobulus the son of ?] Alexander the king of the Jews.”176 Hyrcanus II 172 The unrighteous acts of Hyrcanus’s supporters during the siege on Aristobulus, who was secured in the Temple Mount are depicted in Ant. 14.22 – 28; b. Sotah 49b; y. Berakhot 4:1, 7b. 173 See also Goodblatt 2001:21 – 22. 174 Ant. 14.78, 49; 16.187. Josephus also claimed that “the sons of Asamoneus served for the longest time as both high priests and kings” (Life 2). See also the reference to the “kings” before Jannaeus in Ant. 13.301. The baris fortress (built by John Hyrcanus, see War 1.75) was built by “the high priest and kings of the Hasmonean family” (Ant. 15.403). 175 Tacitus Histories 5.8, 3; Stern 1980:21, 28, 49. 176 Ant. 14.35 – 36. It is not clear whether Aristobulus was actually mentioned in the inscription and whether Strabo or Josephus himself saw it. See Marcus’s note in the LCL edition ad. loc, p. 467.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

166

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

was sometimes designated a king.177 Even the rabbis spoke favorably of “the kingdom of the House of the Hasmoneans.”178 When King Mattathias Antigonus negotiated with the Romans, he discredited Herod by arguing that “it was unlawful for the Romans to give the kingship to Herod the Idumaean; since they ought to offer the crown to “those who were of the (royal) family, as was their custom,” and that “there were at least many of his family who might lawfully receive the kingship, for they have committed no offence against the Romans, and were priests; and thus they would be unworthily treated if they were deprived of this rank” (Ant. 14.403 – 404). After Antigonus was captured by the Romans, Herod feared that if Antigonus were brought before the senate, he would “show that he was a descendant of kings while Herod was a commoner, and that his sons ought to reign by virtue of their lineage, even though he himself had committed offences against the Romans (Ant. 14.489). In Herod’s days, Alexandra persuaded her father, Hyrcanus II, to escape to the Nabataeans in order to undermine Herod’s rule and renew their “royal power” because of “their lineage and goodwill of the masses towards them” (Ant. 16.167). Thus, Jews and Gentiles alike usually portrayed the Hasmoneans as kings, and some even treated Hyrcanus as a king although he was only high priest and ethnarch. The later Hasmoneans, who ruled when their royal status became controversial, identified themselves as kings and were proud of this title. Despite the condemnation of the Hasmonean rival princes by the people’s delegation to Pompey and in Psalms of Solomon, Hyrcanus II, Aristobulus II, and his sons Alexander and Antigonus had many thousands of supporters who were willing to risk their life for the reign of each of them in opposition to his rival, be it his brother, uncle, nephew, and eventually Herod.179 An outstanding recognition of the royal status of the Hasmoneans and the divine support of their rule over the Jews is found in 4Q448, the prayer for the sake of King Jonathan, found at Qumran. It is a petition for King Jonathan’s welfare, as well as for that of the entire people of Israel in Judaea and in the Diaspora.180 King Jonathan is to be identified with Alexander Jannaeus.181 Columns B and C (which is incomplete) of the prayer read: 177 He is referred as a king by Samaias when the young Herod is put on trial (Ant. 14.172). Julius Caesar seems to acknowledge that the Jews refer to him as a king (War 1.203; Ant. 14.157). See Marcus’s note in the LCL edition 7.522, n. a. Cassius Dio 37.16.4, also called Hyrcanus a king (Stern 1980:349 – 350, 353). On Hyrcanus’s status as ethnarch, see Ant. 14.191, 194, 200, 209. 178 E,g. the H . anukkah tradition in the Scholion (Noam 2003:266 – 276). Cf. the reference to the Hasmoneans as saviors in b. Megillah 11a. 179 Hyrcanus’s supporters: “the people” (Ant. 14.20). Aristobulus’s supporters: “the priests” (20); “a large force” (33); “many of the Jews” (93); 12,000 were killed in Pompey’s siege on the Temple Mount (71). Alexander’s supporters: 10,500 (83); 8,000 (94); 30,000 (102). Antigonus’s supporters: Ant. 14.334, 478, 489 – 490; 15.8 – 10. See also Regev 2000b. 180 Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:214. 181 Alexander the king is called Iannaios in Ant. 13.320, and on his coins, basileo¯s alexandrou or y(eh)onatan ha-melekh. See also Eshel 2008:105 – 106.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

167

Keep guard (‘ur), O Holy One over King Jonathan, and over all the congregation of your people, Israel, who are in the four corners of heaven. Let them all be at peace and upon Your Kingdom may Your name be blessed . . .by Your love [of Israel? . . .] in the day and until evening [. . .] to approach to be b[ . . .] remember them for blessing [. . .] for Your name, which is called [. . .] kingdom to be blessed [. . .] for the day of war [. . .]182

The prayer refers to one of Jannaeus’s wars (“day of war”) when he was almost defeated by either Ptolemy Lathyrus (103 BCE) or Demetrius III (88 BCE).183 What is striking in this document is not just the concern for the rule of Jonathan and his kingdom, but the relationship expressed between the king, the Jewish people, and God. King Jonathan and “Israel” (also designated as the congregation of God’s people) are interrelated. “Israel” refers not only to the Judaean Jews, the immediate subjects of the king, but to the entire Jewish people “in the four corners of heaven.” It is possible that the king is regarded as king of all the Jews throughout the world, or at least serves as their representative.184 There is a parallelism between King Jonathan’s kingdom and God’s kingdom, and God is requested to bless Jonathan’s kingdom (“kingdom to be blessed”) in wartime. The well-being of the Hasmonean king is therefore equated with that of the entire Jewish people and with God’s rule throughout the world. The message is clear : since God loves Israel and cares for His people, he will save King Jonathan and his kingdom and bless him in his wars.185 One cannot think of a more pious and supportive characterization of an earthly kingship. The identity of the author of the prayer is debatable. Most scholars agree that such support for Jannaeus could hardly be expressed by the Qumran sectarians: “how [could] a prayer for the welfare of a Hasmonean king [have] reached the Qumran community, which left Jerusalem for the desert because it opposed the Hasmonean government and priesthood?”186 It should also be mentioned that none of the special characteristics of the “Qumranic” or “sectarian” documents (designations, theology, language) are found in this short text. As we have seen, it is customary to assume that Jannaeus was criticized for using the royal title; some have even argued that due to public opposition he abandoned the royal title and used only the high-priestly

182 Translation follows Eshel 2008:102 – 103 with slight amendments. For the commentary followed here, see Eshel 2008:103 – 115. 183 Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:217 – 218. Based on the first column of the scroll, which preserved the apocryphal Psalm 154, and which is ascribed to Hezekiah in the wake of Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem, Eshel suggested that the prayer pertained to Jannaeus’s war against Ptolemy Lathyrus (Eshel 2008:103 – 115). 184 Flusser 2007b stressed the reference to the Jewish Diaspora and resemblance to Judas’s letter in 2 Macc 2:16 – 18. 185 Flusser 2007b. 186 Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:217.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

168

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

designation on his coins. Hence, the use of the title king in the prayer may imply that it was composed by one of Jannaeus’s followers.187 While it is possible that such a supportive prayer for the welfare of Jannaeus and his kingdom was not composed by the Qumran sectarians, it still likely that they prayed for his welfare, and not that they merely (as the editors suggested) preserved this scroll because it also contained Psalm 154.188 Reading, and perhaps even acquiring, such a prayer when Jannaeus (or any other Hasmonean) ruled implied a firm support of Jannaeus. One who opposed Jonathan could have torn off the prayer and preserved only the psalm. Furthermore, the authors (and readers) of the pesharim had a special interest in Jannaeus. Two different pesharim discuss the war of the “lion of wrath” against “Ephraim” (the Pharisees), and seem to support his actions, since “Ephraim” is treated with hatred in the pesharim.189 Another pesher probably mentions Jannaeus’s war against Ptolemy Lathyrus.190 In fact, the Qumranic designation for Jannaeus as “the lion of wrath” may have been favorable.191 It is certainly possible that the Qumran sectarians prayed for the sake of Jannaeus’s kingdom or for his success in one or more of his wars, since they were concerned about the danger of Gentile occupation of Judaea. Thus, under certain circumstances the Hasmonean kings might have been accepted even among the Qumran sectarians; which means that they were actually much more popular than many scholars are ready to admit. An enthusiastic amity towards the early Hasmoneans seems to be attested as well in the concluding section of 4QMMT, the so-called “Halakhic Letter,” which was probably authored by the Qumran sectarians in their earliest formative phase. The authors treated the addressee with great honor. He was a 187 Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:218. Since Jannaeus was a Sadducee, Eshel 2008:114 believed that the prayer was composed by Sadducees. 188 Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:219; Eshel 2008:113 – 115. 189 4Q167pHosb 2, 1 – 3: “the lion of wrath . . . the last priest who will stretch out his hand to strike Ephraim.” See Eshel 2008:130 – 131. 4Q169pNah frgs. 3 – 4, 1, 5 – 8 refers to “the lion of wrath” who “hanged men up alive.” This hanging of the Pharisees corresponds to the penalty of hanging alive those convicted of treason in Temple Scroll 64:7 – 12, and is probably looked on favorably here. See Yadin 1971; Berrin 2004:184 – 192. Others have denied that the pesher fully corresponds to the Temple Scroll. See Eshel 2008:121 – 129 and references. On the Qumranic attitude towards the Pharisees, see Flusser 2007a. 190 4Q161pIsaa 2 – 6 23: “his climb from the plain of Akko to battle against Pale[estine].” See Amusin 1977:123 – 134; Eshel 2008:91 – 100. The Qumranic interest in the history of the Hasmonean state is attested in a calendric text, 4Q322 2, 4 – 6 in which Hyrcanus (II) and Shelomzion are mentioned, as well as in 4Q245PsDan ar. 191 Eshel 2008:130 – 131 showed that Jannaeus’s designation (kefir ha-h. aron) was derived from Hos 5:13 – 14 which includes the phrase “like a lion (kefir) to the house of Judah,” cited in 4Q167pHosb 2, 2. Hosea meant that in contrast to Ephraim, Judah will be healed by God, who is designated a lion. Judah is also the designation of the sect in the pesharim (e. g., 4Q169pNah frgs. 3 – 4, 2, 4). Hence, “the lion of wrath” is on the same side with Judah, and his strikes against Ephraim in 4Q167pHosb were considered constructive by the authors. Compare also Yadin 1971:3.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

169

certain ruler who held authority in the Temple, and was probably a high priest, that is, a Hasmonean. Qimron and Eshel identified him with the person who was later known in Qumran as “the Wicked Priest,” and who should be identified with Jonathan, the brother of Judah and Simon.192 The authors’ application is rich with superlatives: We have (indeed) written to you some of the precepts of the Torah, which we have thought are for your welfare and the welfare of your people. For we have s[ee]n (that) you have wisdom and acknowledge of the Torah. Consider all these things and ask Him that He strengthen your will and remove from you the plans of evil and the devices of Belial, so that you may rejoice at the end of time, finding that some of our practices are correct. And this will be counted as a virtuous deed of yours, since you will be doing what is righteous and good in His eyes, for your own welfare and for the welfare of Israel (C 26 – 32).193

The addressee is also advised to follow King David as a role model: “Think of David, who was a man of righteous deeds, [and] who [was] (therefore) delivered from many troubles and was forgiven” (C 25 – 26). The Qumranic authors also allude to other Israelite kings when they mention the blessing in the days of Solomon, and the curses in the days of Jeroboam son of Nebat (C 18 – 21). Strikingly, the authors regard the present period as the messianic age, declaring: “And this is the End of Days, when they will return in Isra[el forever . . .] and not turn back, but the wicked will act wickedly” (C 20 – 22). MMT presents an exceptionally favorable and even affectionate approach towards the addressee. If, as Qimron, Eshel and others believe, the addressee was Jonathan, and assuming that MMT was written when he had just been appointed high priest, this document demonstrates the high hopes attached to him, probably following the victory of the Maccabees and the full establishment of Judaean independence. The authors flattered the addressee in order to convince him to accept their laws pertaining to purity and sacrifices and to implement them in the Temple,194 but they also stress their appreciation and their hope that he would lead Israel to a new and successful era. They believed that he had the potential of a righteous king, although he was probably only a high priest. The implications are that in the earliest phase of the formation of the Qumran sect their members treated Jonathan (or another Hasmonean) as a potential king who should follow the model of David and other just kings, hoping that he would be the one who would rule Israel at the End of Days. The pesharim show that they were soon deeply disappointed, and that they 192 Schiffman 1994a:87; Qimron and Strugnell 1994:116 – 119; Schwartz 1996; Eshel 1996; Kister 1999: 323; Regev 2007:104 – 109, where other explanations are rejected. For the identity of the Wicked Priest, see Chapter 2. 193 Translations of MMT follow Qimron and Strugnell 1994. 194 Regev 2007:97 – 109.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

170

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

criticized the Hasmonean high priest as “the Wicked Priest.” Still, this special moment of religious enthusiasm and high hopes may attest to the expectations of Jews outside Hasmonean circles relating to Jonathan (or the early Hasmoneans in general). If MMT was indeed addressed to Jonathan, we have a further indication that, as the decree concerning Simon in 1 Maccabees 14 aims to demonstrate, the early Hasmoneans enjoyed an authority which did not fall short of that of kings. In light of the religious credibility assigned to the addressee by the authors of MMT, the future assumption of the royal diadem was not a radical step. Certain scholars have suggested that the Hasmoneans and their supporters believed that the eschatological hope for the restoration of the Davidic kingdom was irrelevant, and even felt that such expectations competed with the Hasmonean kingdom.195 In his speech, Mattathias refers to great leaders of Israel as role models, mentioning that “David, because he was merciful, inherited the throne of the kingdom forever” (1 Macc 2:57). However, this assertion implies that the Davidic kingship is to be reestablished at the End of Days; this statement has therefore been emended by some commentators as implying that the Davidic kingdom which was to last merely “for the ages.”196 I do not think that acknowledging the eschatological role of the Davidic kingdom would deny the legitimacy of Hasmonean rule. This verse actually proves that the author of 1 Maccabees accepted the traditional hope for the restoration of the house of David, but assigned it to the eschatological age.197 Some interpret the praise of Simon in 1 Macc 12:36 – 14:15 as an eschatological idealization dating from his reign.198 While there are utopian overtones which portray Simon’s reign as ideal, the restriction of the rule of his dynasty “in perpetuity, until a true prophet shall arise” (14:41), simply shows otherwise. Despite the praise for Simon, the author, and probably the Hasmoneans themselves, recognized that God’s plans for Israel might include an even brighter future.

195 Goldstein, 1976:240; Goldstein 1987:73 Pomykala 1995:152 – 153. 196 The translation of the Greek aio¯n as Hebrew le-´olam, “forever,” is followed by the RSV and Rappaport 2004:136. For the amendment to the notion of “for the ages” (aio¯nas, Heb. olamim), namely, as not everlasting, see Goldstein 1976:240 – 241; Pomykala 1995:154 – 155. This interpretation, however, seems invalid, since the same term is used in 1 Macc 2:54 in relation to Phineas’s priesthood, which was certainly given to him “forever.” 197 Collins 1987:104. Pomykala 1995:155 – 159 rejected this possibility since the context of 1 Macc 2:57 is not eschatological and since the traditional Davidic hope in the early Second Temple period cannot be taken for granted; expectations of a renewed Davidic rule were not current, and therefore not in need of rebuttal. He believes that here David functions merely a model for piety. 198 Pomykala 1995:155, 157; he also notes that 1 Macc 14:4 – 15 echoes the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings 4:25, later idealized in Mic 4:4 and Zech 3:10. For an earlier rejection of this possibility, see Collins 1987:104.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Pros and Cons of Hasmonean Kingship

171

Priestly Monarchy or Royal Priesthood? Judas Aristobulus, Alexander Jannaeus, Aristobulus II and Mattathias Antigonus were both high priests and kings. We have already seen that there is no evidence that the union of the high priesthood and the kingship was criticized by the Pharisees or any other circle, although one may assume that those who opposed the Hasmoneans also resented this union. This section deals with the relationship between the two offices in terms of political ideology and public image, as well as with the concept of the union of kingship and royal priesthood, or diarchy (literally, a double rule).199 I aim to show that the Hasmoneans were proud of this distinguished combination. According to Pompeius Trogus, a contemporary of Herod interested in the history of the Seleucids, “it was a custom among the Jews to have the same persons both for kings and priests; and, by their justice combined with religion, it is almost incredible how powerful they became.”200 This general assertion probably refers to the Hasmoneans. Pompeius Trogus’s attitude is favorable, implying that the Jewish rulers were both righteous and pious. It may reflect the understanding of Hasmonean political ideology in the broader Hellenistic world: the exceptional union of kingship and high priesthood, combining the supreme authority of political rule or law (“justice”) with cult (“religion”). This may explain Pompeius Trogus’s assessment that these rulers were successful. The high priesthood was extremely important to the Hasmoneans, and it is even possible that they regarded this office as a sort of a prerequisite to kingship; that is, that they were first and foremost high priests, and as a possible consequence, kings. When Josephus laments the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom to Pompey and the loss of Judaean independence, he says that “the royal power which had formerly been bestowed on those who were high priests by birth, became the privilege of commoners,” hinting at Herod and his successors (Ant. 14.78). Later, when Antigonus negotiated with the Romans to support another Hasmonean instead of Herod, he stressed that (unlike Herod), his other family members, “who might lawfully receive the kingship” were priests (Ant. 14.404). When Josephus summarizes the Hasmonean era he declares that it was “a splendid and renowned house because of both their lineage and their priestly office (hieratike¯s time¯s), as well as the things which its founders achieved on behalf of the nation” (Ant. 14.490). Here kingship is not mentioned at all, but rather the high 199 The idea predated the Hasmoneans, since a diarchy is attributed to Levi’s descendants in Aramaic Levi. See Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004:36 – 37, 94 – 95, 104 – 105, 139 – 141, 186 – 188, 215. For later evidence, see T. Levi 8:11 – 14. 200 Pompeius Trogus in Iustinus, Epitome 36.2, 16; Stern 1976:336, 338. Stern (ibid., 341) noted that although Pompeius referred to the generations after Moses, he had the Hasmoneans in mind.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

172

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

priesthood; the stress on Hasmonean lineage is related to the fact of their being priests. In all these references, priestly descent and the high priesthood are the most distinctive characteristics of the Hasmonean dynasty. Indeed, the fall of the Hasmoneans meant not only a decline of Jewish independence, but also the deterioration of the high priesthood. Non-Hasmonean circles regarded the office of the high priest as superior to the crown. The pre-Hasmonean Aramaic Levi Document, found in Qumran, specifically argues that “the kingdom of priesthood is greater than the kingdom.”201 Later on, Philo attributed to Agrippa I the claim that his “grandparents and ancestor kings . . . considered their kingship inferior to the priesthood, holding that the office of high priest is as superior in excellence to that of king as God surpasses men. For the office of the one is to worship God, of the other to have charge of men.”202 Josephus presented a Jewish ideology of priestly government in which the high priest was in charge of the Temple and the law, as well as trials and punishments.203 Goodblatt believed that the claims of both Philo and Josephus attest to the ideology of priestly monarchy which was used and developed by the Hasmoneans.204 Some have argued that the Hasmoneans boasted of their diarchy by comparing themselves to Melchizedek, who was the king of Shalem and “a priest of the Most High God” (Gen 14:18 – 20), later to became a model to the ideal king-priest (Ps 110:4). The Hasmoneans, or at least some of them, designated themselves high priests of the Most High God,” similarly to Melchizedek.205 Although this honorary title is already attributed to Levi in 201 1Q21T. Levi 1; Barthlemy and Milik 1955:88; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004:66. The same claim is perhaps implicit in the T. Reuben 6:5 – 11. See Goodblatt 1994:44 – 46. Royal terminology is applied to the high priest in the Genizah version of Aramaic Levi (Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004:35, 94), where Levi foresees that his son Kohath “would have the high priesthood . . . the beginning of kings.” According to Jub 31:14 – 15, the descendants of Levi will become “judges and rulers and leaders for all the seeds of the sons of Jacob. The word of the Lord they will speak righteously and all of his judgments they will execute righteously.” 202 Leg. 278. Note that the main concern of Agrippa’s letter, as cited or forged by Philo, is the centrality of the Temple and its sanctity to the Jews in light of Caligula’s decree to place his statue there (cf. ibid., 279, 280, 291, 296 – 298). See Rajak 1996:111. 203 Ant. 11.111; 20.251; Against Apion 2.184 – 187. See also Hecataeus of Abdera apud. Diodorus 40.3.3 – 5, discussed in Chapter 3; Goodblatt 1994: 33 – 44. 204 Goodblatt 1994:25 – 26. One exception should be nonetheless noted. Alexandra’s reign, when the two offices were separated, shows that the crown was more important than the high priesthood. See Rooke 2000:313. Admittedly, there may have been various reasons that led to reign of the Queen instead of one of her sons. Her political success (Ant. 13.409 – 410, 430, 433) may suggest that she ruled due to her special character and was highly appreciated by her subjects. 205 Augustus referred back to Hyrcanus II using this designation (Ant. 16.163). According to the Assumption of Moses 6:1 the Hasmoneans are to be kings who will be called “priests of the Most High God.” Rabbinic tradition mentions that “the mention (‘azkarot) was removed from the documents”; that is, the documents used to use date formulas containing divine names, such as “year such and such of Yohanan high priest of the Most High God.” See the Scholion to Megillat Ta’anit for 3 Tishre; Noam 2003:235 – 238. See also b. Rosh Hashanah 18b. The doublet in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions

173

pre-Hasmonean texts,206 Goodblatt and Schwartz concluded that it was used by the later Hasmoneans in order to legitimize their holding of both offices, like Melchizedek, perhaps attempting to explain why high priests ruled as though they were Davidic kings.207 Goodblatt also pointed to a further divergence from diarchic rule; that is, the view that the high priest and king should be different persons. The doctrine of two messiahs, a king and a high priest, is found at Qumran as well as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.208 However, Goodblatt did not regard these passages as opposing the Hasmonean union of the two offices. Rather, he suggested that this trend had emerged already in the Persian period in order to justify the de facto power of the high priest, i. e., priestly rule, without ignoring the ample biblical material espousing Davidic kingship.209 Indeed, it seems that this notion preceded the emergence of Hasmonean kingship.210 During the days of Jannaeus, for example, these views were probably used by Hasmonean opponents.

6. Conclusions Unlike Hellenistic kings, the non-Davidic king in Deut 17 had limited authority and was subordinated to the Torah. The ideal Davidic king was both a political and religious leader. The Hasmoneans, as we have seen in the previous chapter, regarded themselves as religious leaders and their authority was unlimited. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Hasmonean kingship was rejected by Jews before the war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The concept of non-Davidic kingship prevailed in the Second Temple period; for example, in the Temple Scroll’s “Law of the King.” Expectations for a Davidic messiah are scarcely documented before the decline of the Hasmoneans. There are indications of support for Hasmonean kingship even in Qumran. It is reasonable to conclude that different Jewish circles

206 207 208 209 210

Simon’s designation as the great high priest (archiereo¯s megalou) in 1 Macc 13:42 may also point to the same phenomenon. Jub. 32:1 and the Genizah version of Aramaic Levi 4:7 and 5:8; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004:66, 70. Goodblatt 1994:54 – 55, 75; Schwartz 2001:19. CD 12:23 – 13:1; 20:1; 1QS 9:11; 1QSb 2:12 – 22; T. Shim 7:1 – 2. See also the stress on the superiority of the priest in T. Jud 21:1 – 6 and Jub. 31:13. See Goodblatt 1994:61 – 76. Cf. Zechariah 4:1 – 5, 10 – 14; Benson 1996:108 – 122. 1QS 9:11 and other Qumranic texts mention “the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” 1QS is dated, based on paleography, to ca. 100 BCE, but this manuscript was not the autograph. Other versions of the Community Rule from Cave 4 show that there were previous shorter versions. See Metso 1997:14, 143 – 155. The relationship between kingship and high priesthood in the Aramaic Levi Document predated the Hasmonean period. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004:19 – 20 dated the text to the early second century BCE.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

174

Hasmonean Kingship in Hellenistic and Jewish Contexts

regarded non-Davidic kingship as necessary and legitimate, and that there was no contradiction between the Hasmonean monarchy and eschatological hope for a Davidic kingdom. It seems that the success of the Hasmoneans as political and military rulers, along with their self-presentation as religious leaders, led many to accept their new royal status. The actual character of the Hasmoneans as kings, the ideas they promoted, their relationships with their subjects, and the shape of their courts will be explored in the following chapters on Hasmonean coins and palaces.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Five Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse 1. Introduction: Background and Method Hasmonean coinage, stretching from the reign of John Hyrcanus to that of Mattathias Antigonus, consists of roughly seventeen types. Although these coins have been the subject of extensive research, most studies have focused exclusively on issues of identification and chronology, while more ambitious ones have attempted to deduce the political connotations implicit in the Jannaeus coin variants. In this chapter, however, I will undertake a comprehensive examination of the Hasmonean coins, with the aim of showing how the coins reflected the unique Hasmonean political discourse and how they expressed the dynasty’s cultural and religious identity.

Chronology According to the current consensus on the chronology of Hasmonean coinage, John Hyrcanus was the first to mint his own coins, in the role of high priest.1 High-priestly coins were also minted by Judah Aristobulus.2 Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus’s son, was the first to use both his royal and high-priestly titles. Some Hasmonean coins display the name yantan instead of the conventional Yonatan or Yehonatan (note the omission of the Hebrew letter vav), and there are speculations as to whether these were in truth struck by 1 Rappaport 1976; Barag and Qedar 1980; Kindler 1991:14 – 16; Meshorer 1997:31, 35. 2 Meshorer 1982: 47, 84 attributed the coins of “Yehudah the high priest” to Aristobulus II, since there are some 200 different die varieties among them, all of which it would have been extremely difficult to produce during the single year of Judah Aristobulus I’s reign. Aristobulus II, by contrast, ruled for three years, and was also a king. Meshorer’s dating is also based on his earlier identification of “Yehoh. anan” coins with Hyrcanus II (at first he argued that Jannaeus was the first to strike coins, Meshorer 1982:49). Unlike Judah Aristobulus, the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II (as well as of Hyrcanus II) is unknown. Meshorer presumed that his first name was also “Yehudah” (Judah), based on the speculation that the Roman coin BACCHIVS IVDAEUS (“Jewish Bacchus”) refers to Aristobulus II. Later, he admitted that the letters of most of the Yehudah coins are similar to those of Hyrcanus I, and left the question open. See Meshorer 1997:32 – 33. Meshorer (1997:33 – 34) still contends, however, that some of the Yehudah coins may be attributed to Aristobulus II. According to Hendin 2009 – 2010:36 – 37, the paleo-Hebrew script of some of the Yehudah coins is similar to those of John Hyrcanus, while the script of other types is similar to those of Jannaeus; hence, they were most likely struck during the period between the reign of those rulers, that is, by Aristobulus I.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

176

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

Jannaeus’s son, Hyrcanus II.3 It is more likely, however, that these coins merely used shortened versions of Jannaeus’s name, a view supported by both recent archaeological and numismatic evidence.4 While it has thus far proved impossible to identify coins from the reigns of Salome Alexandra and her two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, we do know that Mattathias Antigonus minted the last of the Hasmonean coins. For a summary of the different types of coins, along with their legends and symbols, see the Table.

List of Hasmonean Coin Types* Ruler

Inscription

h. eber ha-yehudim

(1) John Hyrcanus

Yehoh. anan the high priest

wreath + sometimes with: head of (the)

Symbols

double cornucopias (with a pomegranate) (2)

Yehoh. anan the high priest

Palm branch + sometimes with: head of the

plate 1

plate 2 plate 3

3 Kindler 1991:16 – 18. See also Meshorer 1997:31 – 32, who conjectured that Hyrcanus II’s Hebrew name was similar to his grandfather’s. He also assumed, following Reifenberg 1965:15 – 16, that those of the yantan coins that were struck over the yehonatan ones were minted by Hycanus II. Reifenberg argued that all yehonatan coins can be attributed to Hyrcanus II, and Meshorer 1997:32 left the question open. Note that Krupp 2007 – 8:58 – 59 concluded that all the examined Yehoh. anan coins contain the same amount of copper, and are therefore likely to have been struck by the same ruler (Hyrcanus I, not Hyrcanus II). 4 Shachar 2004:8 – 9, 25, 27 argued that yantan coins were struck by Jannaeus, since they were found in his hoards and assemblages, but that they were not among either Jannaeus’s later coins (according to their context) or those of Antigonus. Hence, dating them to the post-Jannaeus period interrupts the reasonable sequence in which Jannaeus’s coins were minted. Shachar also showed that type 7—the most common—continued to be struck after Jannaeus’s death. Hendin and Shachar 2008:90 – 94 discussed a yehonatan coin with anchor/flower that was first overstruck by cornucopias and a yantan inscription, then again by anchor/star with a yehonatan inscription. This indicates that the yantan type was contemporaneous with yehonatan, and cannot be dated to a later king. Hendin and Shachar therefore concluded that yantan was an alternative spelling for yehonatan (see also Hendin 2009 – 2010:37 – 38). Based on an examination of the metal in the coins, Krupp 2007 – 8:60 – 61 attributed Yehudah coins to Aristobulus II, and argued that the yantan coins were minted by Hyrcanus II. However, the plain data provided in Krupp’s figures does not substantiate this latter conclusion, since the metallurgical structure of the yantan coins is diverse.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Introduction: Background and Method

177

(continued) Ruler

Inscription

h. eber ha-yehudim

Symbols Lily

(3) (rare type)

Yehoh. anan the high priest

head of the h. eber

plate 3

double cornucopias Helmet

Judah Aris- Yehudah the tobulus high priest

+

Wreath double cornucopias with a pomegranate

(1)

basileo¯s alexanAlexan- drou der Jannaeus

(2)

Anchor

plate 4

Jehonathan the king

Lily

plate 6

Jehonathan the king

Palm branch Lily

(3)

basileo¯s alexandrou

Anchor

Jehonathan the king

Star and diadem

(4)

basileo¯s alexandrou LKE

Anchor

(5)

Alexander the king (Aramaic) year 25

Star

Lid coins

basileo¯s alexandrou

anchor

king Alexander (Aramaic)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

plate 5

178

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

(continued) Ruler

Inscription

h. eber ha-yehudim

Symbols

(6)

Yehonathan/ Yanthan (the) high priest

+

wreath

double cornucopias with a pomegranate (7)

Yanthan (the) high priest overstruck on Jehonathan the king

+

double cornucopias overstruck on anchor

Symbol overstruck on basileo¯s alexandrou (1) Mattathias Antigonus

Mattathias the high priest

+

basileo¯s antigonou (2)

(3)

wreath overstruck on lily

double cornucopias

laurel wreath + –/+

Single cornucopia

plate 10

basileo¯s antigonou

wreath

plate 11

Mattathias the priest

laurel wreath

Mattathias the (high) priest

double cornucopias with a pomegranate or ear of wheat (4)

plate 7

Mattathias

laurel wreath

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Introduction: Background and Method

179

(continued) Ruler

Inscription

h. eber ha-yehudim

Symbols double cornucopias with a pomegranate or ear of wheat

(5)

Mattathias high priest basileo¯s antigonou

+

Showbread table Temple Menorah

* The table is based on the typological classification in Meshorer 1982:118 – 159; 1997:184 – 191, but follows the chronological framework discussed above. All are bronze coins unless noted otherwise.

Coinage, Politics and Identity Ancient coins were used, first and foremost, as money : Kings minted coins to finance their armies and various bureaucracies, and other related expenditures; hence, the incidence and volume of minting were linked closely with the number of military campaigns waged.5 But coins also had political significance. In the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, they served as vehicles for publicizing a ruler’s authority and presenting a particular (i. e., idealized) selfimage. They were also a popular and accessible means of communication with the masses. Hellenistic coins publicized a ruler’s achievements, or else omens, legends, or prophecies that concerned him, in an effort to enhance his personal prestige and ensure the public’s loyalty to his successors (see, for instance, the coins of Seleucus I). Dionysiac symbols likewise celebrated the completion of the famed conquests by the King, while the anchor engraved upon them symbolized the safety and success of his rule.6 The iconography engraved on Seleucid coins reflects cultic ideology, and therefore formed an integral part of the religious and political culture in which the coins were minted. For instance, while the early Seleucids used Apollo as 5 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993:63. I will not discuss the economic and monetary aspects of the Hasmonean coinage, since these have already been dealt by Meshorer 1982 and 1997. One important matter that requires mentioning, however, is that the Hasmoneans (as well as Herod) minted only bronze coins: they refrained from minting silver coins, which were usually used for propaganda purposes (cf. Rappaport 1976:173 – 176). It is interesting to note that even the Nabataeans minted silver coins (Meshorer 1975:17 – 18). Rappaport thus concluded that the main goal of the “technically inferior” Hasmonean coinage was to produce “small change.” 6 Hadley 1974.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

180

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

their main symbol, Antiochus IV and his successors turned to Zeus and other oriental deities, such as Atargatis. In thus combining Hellenistic and native imagery, these coins attest to efforts to curry favor among the native Syrian population, and perhaps even to gain the protection afforded by the Syrian Gods.7 Studies on the coins of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire demonstrate that, above all, coins were the most deliberate symbol of public and political identity.8 Even images of various gods may arguably be said to have represented political affiliations.9 In general, the personifications of the emperor and those virtues that characterized his rule predominated over other iconographic types and modes of representation on imperial coins.10 As such, these coins not only paid tribute to the emperors, but also acted as vehicles of persuasion and identity formation, alluding to narratives and collective memories around which a group of people might base its sense of self as a political collective.11 Unfortunately, it is difficult for us today to interpret the “official,” intended message of these coins, the manner in which they reflected collective identity, and their exact symbolism; indeed, one may wonder whether the “internal discourse” they sought to promote was correctly understood by outsiders in their own day.12

Decoding the Coins: Structure and Context as Methodological Keys This chapter explores the manner in which the Hasmoneans portrayed the nature and character of their rule, their relationship to their Jewish (and possibly also non-Jewish) subjects, and to Jewish people throughout the world. The investigation addresses the intentions of the rulers, since it is impossible to ascertain to what extent these messages were grasped and adopted by the 7 Wright 2005. 8 Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005. Jones 1974:63 argued that Roman coin types did not relay the emperor’s messages to the masses, but were rather like modern postage stamps, reflecting the mentality of certain officials (i. e., they were not tasked with revealing government policy). Crawford 1983 argued that the variations in coin types were noticeable only to the educated classes. This view is generally rejected by recent scholars, however. Note also Jesus’s saying, “Give to Caesar what is of Caesar” (Mark 12:14 – 17) referring to the image and title on a Roman denarius. 9 Luce 1968. 10 NoreÇa 2001. 11 Wallace-Hadrill 1986. Levick 1999 argued that the primary audience for both the pictorial and verbal contents of Roman imperial coins was the issuing authority, i. e., the emperor himself, who was meant to be cultivated, and flattered. The coins themselves, according to this thinking, were issued as an expression of fealty on the part of his subjects (i. e., the minting authority). Wallace-Hadrill maintained, however, that even if the types of coins to be minted were decided upon by the officials, this decision still reflects how these officials sought to portray the emperor. See also Meadows and Williams 2001. 12 Butcher 2005.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Introduction: Background and Method

181

people who used the coins. The discussion will not be confined to the extent of Hellenistic influences, e. g., on the symbols upon the coins. Rather, my aim will be to show how Hasmonean coinage relayed the various ways in which the dynasty wished its subjects to view them and their rule.13 Undoubtedly, the Hasmoneans sought to portray their reign as both legitimate and successful. In this regard, it is helpful to distinguish between the two different subjects of classic political propaganda or ideology : (1) the political identity of the rulers, their public image, and their personality and achievements; and (2) the religious or cultural identity of their subjects. The method used here for decoding the meaning of the messages on the coins is informed by the theory of structuralism—that is to say, individual elements are considered in terms of their relationships within the system in which they function.14 The coins may therefore be said to convey political information through the medium of culture, both Hellenistic and Jewish. Deciphering this information, however, requires the precise analysis of the coins’ details and of the connections (e. g., iconographic, symbolic) between them. Attention will therefore be paid both to their inscriptions (the title of the ruler, the language used, etc.) and to the symbols engraved upon them. Each element of the coins will be evaluated separately, and only afterwards juxtaposed to the others. In similar fashion, each side of the various coins will be interpreted separately ; later, the messages of obverse and reverse sides will be integrated into a whole. To correctly interpret the Hasmonean coins’ messages, we will first need an understanding of their particular context; so, too, is it helpful to evaluate them in light of the messages that appear on the coins of the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, the Hellenistic cities, the Roman provinces, the Nabataeans, and the Ituraeans. In undertaking such an evaluation, however, we must not only look for evidence of influence (e. g., to what extent the Hasmoneans imitated Hellenistic coinage), but also try to appreciate those features of the Hasmonean coins that are unique.15 Even more so, it is critical to keep in mind the multiplicity of messages conveyed by coins in the Greco-Roman world, in order not to restrict inadvertently our interpretation of the Hasmoneans’ political ideologies. There is yet an additional difficulty in attempting to interpret the symbols on the Hasmonean coins. Numismatics usually discerns the meaning of 13 The historical potential of the coins has at times been acknowledged, but has never been the subject of systematic treatment. For example, Rajak 1990:270 noted that the coins’ symbolism was a genuine reflection of the dynasty’s self-image, since it was intended to demonstrate respect for the feelings of the Hasmoneans’s subjects. Unfortunately, she did not elaborate on this point. 14 For the basic application of structural anthropology to the study of art and symbolism, see LviStrauss 1963. For a pathbreaking application of Lvi-Strauss’s structural anthropology to the study of material culture, see Tilley 1989; 1991. 15 On the crucial importance differences and distinctions play in drawing comparisons, see the references in Regev 2007:23 – 24.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

182

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

images and objects engraved on Hellenistic coins following conventions based on Greek mythology and iconography, and, to lesser degree, on knowledge of the pagan cults that existed in a given dynasty or city.16 For example, we know that Greek artistic symbolism is grounded in personification, or the figurative representation of abstract ideas and qualities; so, too, does it employ analogy, metaphor, and allegory, particularly in the case of gods and their different attributes.17 The symbolism on Greco-Roman coins is therefore mostly iconic, and its semantic world is closely related to Greek paganism.18 The Hasmonean coins, however, completely reject Greek paganism; moreover, they are completely lacking in images of both humans and animals, probably due to the Jewish prohibition on graven images. The figures on these coins are objects or plants, which in turn may represent still more abstract messages. Without the relevant god, whose presence helps to “decipher” the meaning of a given object, the Hasmonean anchor, lily, palm branch, star, or even helmet become more difficult to understand. In deciphering the Hasmonean symbols, then, Greek iconography and mythology are of limited use. Indeed, although most of the Hasmonean symbols derive from contemporary Hellenistic ones, the semiotic field in which these Jewish symbols existed was quite different from that of the Greek ones.19 Another difficulty in interpreting the symbols on the Hasmonean coins is that contemporary Jewish sources (e. g., 1 Maccabees and Josephus) do not provide sufficient background concerning Jewish artistic symbolism. Overall, then, the interpretative process will inevitably prove more difficult and open to speculation.

2. Hasmonean Authority : High Priests or Kings? A coin always bears the name of either the sovereign who minted it, or the political body through which sovereignty was made manifest. In Hellenistic kingdoms, the sovereign was the king; in the Greek cities, it was the polis. Likewise, in attempting to understand the Hasmonean dynasty, we should 16 Compare, for example, the mythological subjects represented on Athenian coins (Shear 1933:276 – 278). For the symbolism on classical Athenian coins, e. g., the amphora and the wheel (related to Apollo) see Shear 1933:235 – 237. Undoubtedly, iconography is the key to interpreting ancient cultural symbolism. For example, Creighton (1995) discussed a variety of images appearing on coins minted in pre-Roman England, pointing in particular to the horse as a symbol of power, as well to traces of trance imagery. 17 MacDonald 1922:esp. 9 – 11. 18 Even a plain object such as a basket or a torch had pagan connotations, for example with mystery cults and the cults of the underworld; note the coins of Philadelphia from the second century CE (Meshorer 1985:96). 19 A symbol is a semiotic mechanism that functions according to the symbolic mode, and is relevant only to the cultural environment in which it appears (compare Eco 1984:161).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hasmonean Authority : High Priests or Kings?

183

look first to the titles of the various Hasmonean rulers who minted coins. As we will see, the evidence points to a unique political discourse. On his coins, John Hyrcanus used the designation “Yehoh. anan the high priest” (see plate 1). This title should give us pause: in Hyrcanus’s immediate political environment, after all, the rulers who minted coins were generally kings. Indeed, the only other high priests who minted coins were the Ituraeans, but even they referred to themselves as both “high priest and tetrarch,” thus combining political and religious authority.20 Not only did Hyrcanus thus resist the use of the royal title (unlike, for instance, his son Judah Aristobulus, the first Hasmonean king Ant. 13.301), but he also did not use any of the civil titles, such as he¯goumenos and ethnarche¯s, attributed to his father Simon (1 Macc 14:41, 47). Finally, Judah Aristobulus, too, did not use his royal title, but rather chose to describe himself solely as “high priest.” It is surely striking that both Hyrcanus and Judah Aristobulus refrained from referencing their political authority on their coins, preferring instead to stress their religious role as high priests. They regarded the office of high priesthood as more important than that of he¯goumenos/ethnarche¯s or king. Consequently, their coins diverged significantly from the Hellenistic numismatic conventions for demonstrating political authority. Even Alexander Jannaeus, the first Hasmonean to use the royal title on some of his coins,21 continued to use the high-priestly title on other coins, as well (he did not use both titles simultaneously).22 We might say that he sought to differentiate between his two types of authority. The only Hasmonean ruler who did use both his royal and high-priestly titles on the two sides of the same coin was Mattathias Antigonus, the younger son of Aristobulus II (as attested in three different types of coins), in a manner similar to his Ituraean contemporaries.23 In a sense, these late references to the high priesthood on Mattathias’s coins attest to the changed character of the high priesthood. The office now represented the ruler’s authority. Still, the fact is that the Hasmonean rulers sought to present themselves first and foremost as religious, rather than civic, leaders. This corresponds to the emphasis on religious leadership displayed by Mattathias, Judah, Jonathan, Simon, and John Hyrcanus in 1 Maccabees and subsequent traditions (see Chapter 3). Finally, it should be noted that even 20 Kindler 1987 – 1989; Myers 2010:103 – 114. 21 See also Jannaeus’s royal bullei (Meshorer 1997:56 – 57). In 4Q448 he is called Jonathan the king (see Chapter 4). 22 A single, exceptional coin type that scholars attribute to Janneaus contains the Hebrew inscription ha-melekh kohen, “the king priest,” (or “priest the king”). This seems, however, to be a corruption, or, at the very least reflects the private enterprise of the minter. See Meshorer 1997:41. 23 Antigonus enjoyed a close relationship with the Ituraeans. Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, the Ituraean ruler, became the protg of Aristobulus II’s family when the latter was poisoned by Pompey’s partisans; he married Aristobulus II’s widow (Ant. 14.126). Ptolemy also supported Antigonus in his battle with Hyrcanus II over control of Judaea (Ant. 14.297). Ptolemy’s son, Lysanias, was also Antigonus’s ally (Ant. 14.330).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

184

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

those Hasmonean rulers who adopted Hellenistic names or featured Hellenistic symbols on their coins did not represent themselves as he¯goumenos/ ethnarche¯s or kings. Clearly, then, the role of the Hasmonean sovereign was understood very differently from that of the Hellenistic kings, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Nabataeans. This is not to suggest that the Hasmoneans neglected their roles as civil rulers or kings; their well-documented wars and conquests prove otherwise. Rather, it is important to note that in the realm of ideology, self-image and political representation often matter more than reality. In contrast, both Jannaeus and Antigonus did use their royal title on their coins: basileo¯s alexandrou or y(eh)onathan ha-melekh and basileo¯s antigonou, respectively (plates 4, 5, 11).24 The early Hellenistic kings through Antiochus IV used similarly plain designations, such as basileo¯s antiochou.25 However, the later Seleucids—who were the Hasmoneans’ contemporaries— adopted further royal cultic attributes, all of which served to publicize their merits and accomplishments.26 The Hasmonean avoidance of such honorary titles arguably attests to their determined rejection of the sort of selfglorification so common among their peers. The Hasmoneans kings also avoided those honorary designations common among the neighboring Nabataean kings. This comparison is of special relevance, since the Nabataeans were similar to the Hasmoneans in important respects: Both were Semites who spoke and wrote in Aramaic, and both fought against the Seleucids. The Nabataeans’ coins usually included, in addition to the conventional royal title, the designation “king of the Nabataeans,” as well as the year of the king’s rule (by comparison, the latter is mentioned only on one of Jannaeus’s coins).27 The Nabataean kings therefore stressed their royal status more than did Jannaeus or Antigonus. In addition, some of the Nabataean coins contain the phrase “lover of his people” (rah. em ‘amo).28 Undoubtedly, characterizing the Nabataean people as both ruled by and 24 Linguistic and numismatic considerations led Talshir 1991 to conclude that in the Hebrew inscriptions, the king’s name preceded the royal title, whereas in the Greek and Aramaic ones the title preceded his name. 25 See, for example, Head 1963:757 – 772; Wright 2005:70, 72 – 73. 26 For example: eupatoros (Antiochus V), sote¯ros (Demetrius I) theopatoros euergetou (Alexandder Balas), theou nikatoros (Demetrius II), epiphanous nike¯phorou (Alexander Zabinas), epiphanous (Antiochus VIII), philopatoros (Antiochus XI), epiphanous dionusou (Antiochus VI), euergetou (Antiochus VII), eusebous philopatoros (Antiochus X), philome¯toros euergetou, and philopatoros so¯te¯rou (Demetrius III). See Houghton 1983:8 – 10, 15 – 25. For cultic epithets, see Mørkholm 1991:30 – 31. Although similar epithets were customary among the Ptolemies, they rarely appear on their coins such as Ptolemy VII euergetes (Poole 1963:94 – 95, 98). Compare, for example, the absence of the title on the coins of Ptolemy X soter. 27 For example, “Obodas the king, king of the Nabataeans, Y[ear] 1,” “Malichus the king, king of the Nabataeans (year 27),” and “H . uldu, queen of the Nabataeans, Year 1.” See Meshorer 1975:19, 26. On the coins of Jannaeus “year 25,” see Nave 1968. 28 For example, “[Aretas king of the Nabataeans] the lover of his people.” See Meshorer 1975:43; Barkay 2007 – 2008.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Hasmonean Authority : High Priests or Kings?

185

beloved of their king was aimed at increasing the king’s status and prestige. Significantly, these strategies were not employed by the Hasmoneans. Once again, in comparison to their contemporaries, the Hasmoneans stand out in their rejection of self-glorification. The language of most of the inscriptions on the Hasmonean coins was Hebrew, with Greek reserved for the epigraphs denoting the kingship of Jannaeus and Antigonus. (Aramaic was confined to Jannaeus’s malka alexandrus type, engraved on the reverse of the coin with alexandrou basileo¯s on its obverse). Clearly, then, Hebrew was a central symbol of Jewish corporate identity, and a cornerstone of the Jewish “national” consciousness; moreover, the Hasmoneans used the language to evoke the Jews’ distinctiveness from their neighbors.29 In most cases, the Hebrew script employed was not the conventional one (i. e., that used from the Persian period onwards), but rather paleo-Hebrew, common in the monarchic period but only rarely seen in the Second Temple period (viz., in a few biblical Dead Sea scrolls).30 This archaic script not only called to mind antiquity, but also—and perhaps more importantly—authenticity. It probably had a symbolic dimension, in that it bespoke the continuation of the biblical heritage; perhaps it also lent to Hasmonean coinage an aura of the sacred.31 Interestingly, while the Hasmonean royal titles are inscribed in different languages—paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—the high-priestly title was always written in paleoHebrew. The name of the high priest was, therefore, directed solely at a Jewish audience. This fact may serve as yet further indication of the intended “nationalistic” and perhaps even quasi-sacred qualities of both the paleoHebrew script and the high-priestly title. The fact that Jannaeus used paleoHebrew for his royal title perhaps aimed to represent the “nationalistic” and “authentic” aspects of his kingship as well. However, Jannaeus’s royal title was also inscribed in both Aramaic and Greek (and Antigonus’s in Greek), probably with the intention of publicizing his civil authority among his nonJewish subjects.32 Unlike Antigonus, however, Jannaeus refrained from mentioning his kingship and high priesthood on the same coin, although he did strike seven types of coins. This fact sheds light on the question of the union between the two offices (see Chapter 4). The simultaneous use of both titles may well have been regarded as crass, a vulgar display of power. But another, more nuanced possibility is that the two titles were fundamentally distinct from each other, and it was considered simply inappropriate to mix the civil and religious 29 Schwartz 1995:esp. 26. On the importance of Hebrew as the sacred language of revelation and Scripture, see Jub 12:25 – 27. 30 Meshorer 1997:49 Meshorer also argued that most Jews were unable to read paleo-Hebrew archaic script. On its use and development in wider circles, see: m. Yadayim 4:5. 31 In several Dead Sea scrolls, such as 1Q161pHab (10:7; 11:10) and 11Q5Psa (passim), the Tetragrammaton (the most sacred of God’s names) is written in paleo-Hebrew script. 32 Cf. Kindler 1993:115.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

186

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

spheres. Given that the mention of the high priesthood did not represent political power, but rather religious identity (see the following discussion of heber ha-yehudim, a designation which accompanied the high-priestly title), combining the religious title with a reference to conventional political power may have been viewed as either confusing or offensive.33 Antigonus’s use of both titles, one on the obverse and the other on the reverse side of the same coin (in three different types), is consistent with his claims to the Romans: Unlike Herod, he and his family members were both priests and members of a royal dynasty (Ant. 14.403 – 404; see Chapter 4). It would seem, then, that his mention of both offices on the very same coin resulted from Antigonus’s desire to employ powerful, even unconventional political propaganda in his battle against Herod (and the Romans). As we shall see, he also used exceptional Jewish Temple and cultic symbols, namely, the menorah and the table of showbread.

3. H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity The inscription h. eber ha-yehudim, which referred to the minting authority, appears on the coins of all the Hasmonean rulers (see plates 1 and 8). It is found on all the coins of Yehoh. anan and Yehudah (as high priests), on all of Jannaeus’s coins as high priest, and on two types of Antigonus’s high-priestly coins. A small number of the coins minted by John Hyrcanus also described the high priest as the “head of the h. eber” (rosh h. eber ha-yehudim).34 As we will see, h. eber ha-yehudim is a key to understanding the Hasmonean government and its political ideology. The meaning of the term h. eber ha-yehudim has been discussed by numerous scholars. Two possibilities have been raised, both of which are based on the meaning of the Hebrew word h. eber. The first is that the h. eber was a governmental council, similar to the Greek boule¯, which ruled alongside the 33 The separation of the titles contradicts the (sparse) evidence for the view that the Hasmoneans regarded themselves similarly to Melchizedek the king-priest (see Chapter 4). However, the coins themselves are far more compelling pieces of evidence than are the claims made by historians, ancient or modern. Moreover, contradictions are to be found in every ideology that attempts to address complex realities. 34 Hill 1965a:188, 194 – 195. The title rosh (head of) appears on all the rare cornucopia/helmet coin types, as well as on a few of the wreath/cornucopia and palm branch/lily types. See Meshorer 1982:150 – 155. Meshorer 1997:36 assumed that these are Hyrcanus’s later coins; otherwise, why would he omit the title rosh? Kanael 1952:192 – 193; 1963:46, who identified Yehoh. anan with Hyrcanus II, suggested that this special title derived from the latter’s appointment as ethnarch by Julius Caesar. There are also three coins with the inscription h. eber ha-yehudim but without the name of any particular Hasmonean ruler (Jeselsohn 1980).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

187

Hasmoneans.35 This political and judicial council, which supposedly had authority even over the high priest, has been identified by certain scholars with the Jewish Sanhedrin.36 The other possibility is that the term referred to the Jewish people as a whole—that is, to the political and religious body through which the general concept of “national” sovereignty was made manifest. According to this interpretation, h. eber does not refer to a governing body per se, but is rather a declaration about distinctively “Jewish” sovereignty, and, I would also add, about the close relationship between the Hasmoneans and their Jewish subjects.37 According to Rappaport, the h. eber designated the Jewish people as a whole, or at least its political delegates, the “assembly.” He argued that this was identical to the assembly of people (consisting of priests and lay Jews, chiefs and elders) that had nominated Simon in 1 Macc 14:28, 46. Namely, the h. eber was the political body that ruled along with the Hasmoneans and served as their source of authority. It represented the entire Jewish people (at least, that portion of it that lived in Judaea).38 These two possibilities should be examined from four different perspectives: (1) the meaning of the word h. eber in Hebrew lexicography ; (2) The relationship of h. eber ha-yehudim to other legends that appear on Hasmonean coins: when does it appear and when is it absent?; (3) The political ideology of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans, which, one may assume, corresponds to the meaning of the legends engraved on their coins; and (4) comparisons to other Hellenistic coins. This last area will prove to be the most complex, yet undoubtedly the most crucial, to probe. For although one cannot prove definitively which (if any) legends influenced the Hasmoneans, comparisons with Hellenistic coins demonstrate the different possibilities and their

35 Geiger 1928:121 – 122; Kindler 1958:13; Kanael 1963:44; Sperber 1965; Klausner 1968:96 – 97. Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973:211 n. 25 interpreted the term as congregation, gerousia, or Sanhedrin, i. e., “the national assembly,” although the editors noted that originally, Schürer thought it denoted the entire Jewish community. 36 Kadman 1958:98; Safrai 1974:389. According to Schalit 1972:260 – 263, 285 it represents “the Commonwealth of the Jews.” He traced the term back to the governing body behind Simon’s assembly (1 Macc 14:27 – 49), arguing that Simon, the ethnarch, ruled “jointly and parallel with” the h. eber, and that he was not authorized to declare war without its consent. Schalit (ibid., 269) believed that this body consisted of noble and wealthy subjects, and referred to it as the Sanhedrin. 37 Nestle 1895; Reifenberg 1965:13; Rappaport 1974. Compare Kindler 1991:14. Meshorer 1982:47 – 48 and Goodblatt 1994:101 – 103 refrained from drawing conclusions on the matter. A third possibility was suggested by Brin 1980a; 1980b. He argued that it is an integral part of the ruler’s title, as in Hellenistic and Nabataean coins, meaning “friend (h. aber) of the Jews.” This can be refuted by (1) the absence of similar titles on other coins; (2) the variant title rosh (head of) h. eber ha-yehudim (which Brin 1980a:13 interpreted as a separate title representing the title ethnarch, which Julius Caesar had granted Hyrcanus II); and (3) the extremely rare type “h. eber ha-yehudim” with no mention of another title (Jeselsohn 1980). 38 Rappaport 1974:59 – 60, 64, 66 – 67.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

188

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

meanings; in addition, they further elucidate the significance of h. eber hayehudim. The following discussion intends not only to determine which of the two aforementioned possibilities is more probable, but also to point to its political and ideological implications.39

The Hebrew Word h. eber In the Hebrew Bible, the word h. eber designates a certain group or association of people, such as a h. eber of priests (Hos 6:9). Interestingly, its meaning is derogatory (Ps 58:6; Prov 21:9; 25:24). More telling are its appearances in the Damascus Document. CD 14:16 and 4QDa 10 i 10 mention kol avodat ha-h. eber or beit ha-h. eber in relation to a tax paid by members for charity purposes; the phrases may be translated: “Everything is the task of the association”; and, “the house of the association.”40 If the text indeed refers to a h. eber (association) and not h. aber (“member”),41 it would seem that heber refers to a commercial (or, in the present case, sectarian) union. CD 12:8 prohibits the killing of a Gentile for the sake of monetary gain or the taking of a Gentile’s money, unless it is done be’as. at h. ibur Israel, “on the advice of the company of Israel.” Such an act would require the consensus of a specific Jewish congregation.42 Notably, the more ancient—and probably more accurate—manuscript, 4QDb 9 iii 3 mentions be’as. at h. eber Israel. Here, the decision depends upon the “advice” of the h. eber of Israel, which is almost identical with the h. eber of the Jews on the Hasmonean coins. Interestingly, sectarian law refers here not to the sect (‘edah), but to “Israel,” or the entire Jewish people (and not merely an institution within the sect).43 It should also be noted that the meaning of the Qumranic term be’as. at (‘es. ah) is misleading: While it is usually translated as “council,” it does not refer to the community’s delegates. The “council (‘as.at) of the yah. ad,” a frequent term in the Community Rule (1QS), refers not to a particular group of leaders, but rather 39 See also Regev 2012c. 40 Translation follows Garcia-Matrinez and Tigchelaar 1997:575. Rabin’s 1958:70 – 71 translated it as “corporation,” and identified it with h. eber ‘ir (the “h. eber of the town,” see below). 41 See Abegg, Browley and Cook 2003:250, who also interpreted CD 13:15 in the same manner. 42 Translation follows Garcia-Martinez and Tigchelaar 1997:571. Rabin 1958:60 – 61 translated it as “the counsel of the corporation of Israel,” (also referring to h. eber ha-yehudim) and Goodblatt 1994:102 as “by the advice of the Israelite council.” So, too, did Schiffman 1983:383 – 385 understand h. ibur Israel to be a type of leading council, based on passages from the Temple Scroll and rabbinic literature. 43 For the term “Israel” as referring to the entire nation (and not just those members of the sect), see Abegg, Browley and Cook 2003:323 – 330 (e. g., CD 8:16). The Hebrew term used for the sect as a group (as well as for rival ones) in CD and elsewhere is ‘edah. See, for example, CD 10:4 – 5; 13:11, 13; 1QS 5:20; 1QpPsa 1 – 2 ii 5, 9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

189

to the actual members, who were also known as the rabbim.44 Be’as. at h. eber Israel (4QDb 9 iii 3), therefore, does not refer to a leading council of limited leaders, but to an assembly, and possibly to the entire Jewish congregation.45 H. eber ha-yehudim may be compared to h. eber ‘ir (“of the town”), that institution or those individuals in charge of local affairs, such as charity, mention of which is made in rabbinic literature.46 While its exact character, structure, and function remain obscure,47 it should nonetheless be noted that the h. eber is not identified with the local court (beit din) or other administrative bodies.48 Most likely, it represented the “commercial community,” even if, for administrative reasons, it included only the community’s representatives. The economic function of the h. eber ‘ir is also congruent with the local assembly’s role in approving monetary transactions,49 and it seems that there was a close relationship between the two bodies. The h. eber therefore represented the authority of the entire community. In conclusion, although mentions of the word h. eber are scarce, the available evidence tends to point to a type of economic or general association which represents the entire congregation. The evidence for its definition as a council of delegates, such as a boule¯ or synedrion, is weaker.

“H. eber ha-yehudim” and the High Priesthood As noted above, the meaning of the inscriptions and symbols on the coins should be read contextually, with an eye toward examining the structural relationship between them. In the present case, it is important not to isolate the meaning of the h. eber ha-yehudim, but to interpret it in relation to the authority to which it is attached. Significantly, h. eber ha-yehudim always appears on the coins of the high priests Yehoh. anan, Yehudah, Jonathan, and Mattathias, and is never used simultaneously with the royal title.50 44 Regev 2007:181 – 184; Hempel 2006; 2007. 45 Note, however, that in the case of a war against the Gentiles, the rabbis required the king to obtain the sanction of the “great court” (m. Sanhedrin 1:8). According to Goodblatt 1994:102, this strengthens the case for understanding the passage as referring to some kind of national council. 46 Lieberman, 1939 – 1944:442; Sperber 1965:85 – 86. Cf. t. Pe’ah 4:16; t. Shevi’it 7:9; m. Berakhot 4:7; t. Baba Bathra 6:13. 47 Safrai 1995:74 – 76. 48 For the relationship between the h. eber ‘ir and the beit din, see Safrai 1995:81, 135. For a list of community leaders, see ibid., 243 – 262. 49 Safrai 1995:263 – 264. 50 Rappaport 1974:64, who took notice of this fact, believed that it showed the king’s inability to abide the independent sovereignty of the people; hence, the absence of h. eber on royal coins demonstrates that the term refers to the Jewish people as a whole, rather than to a council of delegates. Rappaport further maintained that Jannaeus (who Rappaport supposed to be the first Hasmonean king) annulled the h. eber when he became king. It seems that Rappaport presumed

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

190

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

The absence of the mention of the h. eber from the royal coins, then, should not be attributed to a change in Jannaeus’s approach to the people or their delegates. After all, Jannaeus mentioned h. eber on his high-priestly coins.51 It is impossible to determine whether these coins were contemporaneous with those royal coins that omit mention of the h. eber,52 but certainly the abundance of coins that mention both titles suggests that they were minted simultaneously. Moreover, Antigonus used his high-priestly title together with h. eber ha-yehudim on the obverse, and his royal title without it (in Greek) on the reverse.53 Hence, we can surmise that the h. eber indeed existed in his day, although he was a king. There is no evidence to suggest that Jannaeus acted differently in this regard: h. eber ha-yehudim appeared along with the name of the high priest, whether or not the high priest was also a king. Crucially, however, h. eber ha-yehudim was never related to the crown. This raises the question: If the h. eber was a governmental title, why did it not appear on the Hasmonean royal coins during the period in which it actually existed? The answer may lie in the unusual prominence of the high-priestly title, to which the notice concerning the h. eber was attached on Hasmonean coins. As we have already seen, although the Hasmonean high priests also held civil positions, the mention of the high priesthood on the Hasmonean coins is extraordinary in the context of Hellenistic coinage. 1 Macc 14:41, 47 differentiates twice between Simon’s religious title as high priest and his civil, governmental offices as he¯goumenos and ethnarche¯s. Hyrcanus never used these titles on his coins (he could, for example, have called himself a nasi, the Hebrew word for “prince,” whose Hellenistic counterpart was ethnarche¯s and he¯goumenos).54 For some reason, it was important to Jannaeus and Antigonus to stress their high-priestly offices, although they were also kings. The religious (and “national”) aspect of the high priesthood is further apparent in light of the fact that this title always appears in Hebrew (i. e., in paleo-Hebrew script), while the royal titles were also inscribed in Greek and Aramaic. Thus, in the high-priestly coins, the Hasmoneans appeared first and foremost as religious leaders.

51 52 53 54

that a council of elders or aristocrats such as the gerousia may not necessarily have undermined the king’s authority ; as such, the h. eber (gerousia) could have persisted, even during periods of royal government. This argument is not conclusive, however. According to certain scholars, in Macedonia, the “assembly of Macedones” ruled alongside the king, and even elected kings (see Chapter 4); furthermore, it appears as the issuing authority for certain coins minted in 187 BCE. See Hammond 1989:383 – 384. This conclusion was disputed by Erringtom 1974; 1978. Moreover, the Law of the King in the Temple Scroll 57:11 – 15 orders the king to establish a council of 36 members for the express purpose of restraining the king’s authority. See the 188 die types (in comparison to the 46 die types of his royal coins) in Meshorer 1997:187 – 191. For theories regarding the history of Jannaeus’s coins and their alleged political background, see below. Cf. the reconstructed sequence in Shachar 2004. See Goodblatt 1994:100 – 101. On nasi as a political designation, see Rof 1988; Regev 2012a:23.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

191

Since the high-priestly title had a religious meaning, I believe that the attached h. eber also had a religious connotation. In contrast, a political council of delegates, which is a purely civil body, does not have a clear religious sense, since its role is not related directly to the high priest, but to the civil ruler. The consistently referenced relationship between the high priesthood and the h. eber supports the possibility that the latter denoted the entire Jewish people, which in turn was understood to have both a religious and/or “national” character, and not a governmental or political one.

“The People” in the Hasmonean Political Ethos Rappaport sought a correspondence between the term h. eber ha-yehudim and Hasmonean notions of government and politics as expressed in 1 Maccabees. Since the term h. eber crops up so frequently in the coins, and since the inscriptions on the coins encapsulate the rulers’ political ideologies and/or propaganda, one would expect to hear echoes of both in early Hasmonean texts. And indeed, Rappaport pointed to the importance played by “the people” in the early Hasmonean period.55 First and foremost, the people are mentioned as members of the “great assembly” (sunago¯ge¯ megale¯), the political body that assigned Simon his office (1 Macc 14:28, 46). A later verse even refers to “all the people” (pas ho laos).56 Rappaport identified this specific assembly with the h. eber, and regarded it as a permanent and fixed political body. A great assembly (possibly of warriors)57 is mentioned in Judah’s time (1 Macc 5:16); and Simon assembled the people after Jonathan’s capture by Tryphon (1 Macc 13:2 – 8). Moreover, in chapter 3 we discussed the idea—propagated by Hasmonean rulers—that the Hasmoneans were chosen by the people, and acted on their behalf. There is also the first Maccabean letter, sent by “the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea,” calling on “their brethren the Jews in Egypt” to celebrate H. anukkah (2 Macc 1:1; cf. 1:7). Finally, there are references to the Jewish people in an official Hasmonean document (1 Macc 12:6), as well as in official Seleucid (10:25b; 13:36; 15:2b) and Spartan (14:20) letters. Yet, these tell us little about Hasmonean ideology, since such an appeal to the de¯mos is also customary in royal correspondence

55 Rappaport 1974:61 – 63, 66; cf. Nestle 1895. 56 Rappaport 2004:326 interpreted the phrase as referring to “the general will of the entire nation”—assuming, that is, that only the nation could grant legal standing and sovereign authority to Simon and his sons. On this “great assembly” and its Hellenistic parallels, and the attempt to identify it with the “great assembly” (kenesset ha-gedolah) in later rabbinic sources, see ibid., 312 – 314, 316 – 317. 57 Goldstein 1976:299; Rappaport 2004:173.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

192

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

with the Hellenistic poleis.58 Moreover, the Seleucids spoke of “the Jews” well before the emergence of the Hasmonean state.59 The only possible trace in 1 Maccabees of a civil council that ruled alongside the king (after the fashion, for example, of the Macedonian assembly), relates to Jonathan. His letter to the Spartans mentions the gerousia (council of elders) along with the high priest, the priesthood in general, and the rest of the Jews.60 Jonathan also consulted “the elders of the people” regarding the building of fortresses and the strengthening of the walls of Jerusalem (1 Macc 12:35 – 37), and took with him “a chosen retinue of elders of Israel and priests” for important negotiations with Demetrius II (1 Macc 11:23). In these two latter cases, however, the authority of the elders was informal, not institutional. The aim of the Hasmoneans (or the author of 1 Maccabees) in emphasizing the shared nature of their authority may thus be misleading. There was most likely a civil gerousia or boule¯ in Jerusalem in the Hasmonean period, but it may easily have been Jerusalem’s municipal council, i. e., not one that governed the affairs of the entire state.61 In any case, this council does not seem to have played a decisive role in Hasmonean rule, and it does not explain the use of the term h. eber ha-yehudim on the coins stretching from the reign of John Hyrcanus to that of Antigonus. Rappaport also mentions two linguistic considerations that support his identification of h. eber ha-yehudim with the Jewish people in general. First, he explained, a civil council is not “of the Jews”; rather, its serves the ruler. The reference to “the Jews,” he argued, is therefore to the people as a whole, inclusive of all segments of society. Second, the rare inscription “the high priest . . . rosh (head of) h. eber ha-yehudim on several coins struck by Hyrcanus is more likely to refer to the head of the Jewish people than the head of a certain council. Indeed, John Hyrcanus was considered the head of the Jews—assuming that, like his father Simon, he held the office of ethnarche¯s or he¯goumenos (1 Macc 14:41, 47).62 58 For mentions of the boule¯ and the de¯mos of the polis in Hellenistic royal documents, see Welles 1966: 34 – 35, 72 – 73, 79 – 80, 88, 106, 118 – 119, 141 – 145, 153 – 154, 254, 260 – 261, 266, 267, 290. In comparison, specific mentions of the magistrates, chief priests, priests, elders, and archons are rare. See ibid., 111, 186, 190 – 191, 243 – 245, 238, 299 – 300, respectively. Rappaport 1974:62 argued that the fact that the ruler and the people are mentioned in some of these documents as well as on the coins indicates that the h. eber is in fact the people. 59 2 Macc 9:19; 11:16, 26, 35. Cf. Ant. 14.146. 60 1 Macc 12:6. On the Jewish gerousia, see Ant. 12.138; 2 Macc 11:27; and cf. the esteem in which the Roman boule¯ (i. e., the Senate) was held, as described in 1 Macc 8:15. 61 This is in contrast to the Jerusalem boule¯ of the first century CE, whose authority extended far beyond the boundaries of the city. Cf. Tcherikover 1964:esp. 67 – 70. 62 Rappaport 1974:62 – 63. The latter view is also followed by Goodblatt 1994:101. It should be mentioned that Hyrcanus II was also ethnarch. Meshorer 1997:36, who presumed that some of the Yehoh. anan coins were struck by Hyrcanus II, attributed the rosh h. eber ha-yehudim coins to Hyrcanus II, since he found it difficult to explain why John Hyrcanus would omit mention of this honorary title in his other coins.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

193

Civic Identity and Hellenistic Coinage Several attempts have been made to identify a parallel designation to that of h. eber ha-yehudim in the Greco-Roman world.63 Sperber pointed to the word koinon on Greek coin legends.64 Since the Septuagint version of Prov 25:24 translates h. eber as koinon,65 the meaning of the term koinon and its appearance on Hellenistic coins may shed some light on the term h. eber. Koinon appears on autonomous coins from Cyrenaca in ca. 250 BCE, representing the local government of Ecdemus and Demophanes. During this period, there were scarcely any coins in Cyrenaca that referred to Ptolemy III by name; Berenice II probably conceded a certain degree of local autonomy in Cyrenaca, including the right to mint coins.66 In drawing a direct parallel between koinon and h. eber ha-yehudim, the inference is that, since in Cyrenaca full authority rested in the Ptolemies’ hands, the koinon represents not the political independence of the governors, but rather a limited type of local sovereignty. Similarly, much later, koi[non] lake[daimonio¯n] appeared on Spartan coins under Roman rule from the second century CE. Koinon makedono¯n is also found on coins from the Roman province of Macedon beginning in the late first century CE, designating the various administrative political units, and from other Roman provinces, mainly during the imperial period.67 But here, koinon did not represent “the people.” Josephus mentions a koinon several times in relation to the Great Revolt against Rome. It seems that he used this designation for the general assembly near the Temple Mount which attempted to represent the entire people, and which nominated him commander of the Galilee.68 Elsewhere, however, Josephus mentions that the koinon was supposed to approve any changes in his own status (Life, 309). This may indicate that it was not identical with the general assembly (koinon) of the people that nominated Josephus to begin 63 Lieberman 1939 – 1944:441 – 442 suggested identifying it with the koino¯nos of the Montanists, translated by Jerome as socius, a member or associate. The problem with this suggestion is not only that it cannot be proven (the precise definition of the Hebrew word h. eber remains in debate), but also that this designation does not appear on Hellenistic coins. 64 Sperber 1965:86. See also Kindler 1991:14. 65 Rapaport 1974:66. Cf. also Prov 21:9. 66 Poole 1963:xlvii-xlix; Head 1963: 871 – 872; Warden 1990:38 – 41. On the self-government of Cyrenaca, see Polybius, 10.22. 67 Head 1963:241, 243, 312, 435, 479, 746. koinon makedono¯n appeared on inscriptions and texts from Alexander’s days onwards to designate the community of the Macedonians, in decisions that honored the king. 68 Life 341, 393. The assembly is discussed in War 2.562 – 568 without mention of the koinon. Koinon is further mentioned in Life 65, 72, 190, 254, 267. In Herodotus 3.80, 156 and Thucydides 1.90.5, 91,7; 2.12.2; 4.58.1, koinon signifies “a general assembly,” “a general council,” or a common or shared body ; it is possible that Josephus meant “a coalition government.” See Mason 2003:58.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

194

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

with.69 Thus, the Jerusalem koinon during the Great Revolt was convened quite often and also made specific ad hoc decisions that could not reflect public agreements; therefore it cannot be always identified as the people’s assembly.70 We may therefore surmise that Josephus used koinon to signify a general assembly representing all the Jews, but it is also possible that the term denoted a related council of delegates. In any event, Josephus was not precise and systematic in using such terms,71 and the conclusions that can be drawn from his references to koinon are limited. We have seen that the term koinon may be somewhat equivalent to h. eber, but is still too general a concept to assist in our attempts to clarify the meaning of h. eber ha-yehudim. For this, we will need to look to a wider spectrum of designations that appear on the legends of Hellenistic and early Roman coins. Our aim, it must be stated, should not be limited to finding the closest terminological parallel to h. eber ha-yehudim, but should rather be to understand the political or ideological trends that these legends expressed, and how they correlate (directly or indirectly) with Hasmonean coinage. The main questions in the following discussion will be: 1) whether Greco-Roman coins mention a governing council such as a boule¯, and 2) what kind of references to the people or the citizens existed. The coins of the Greek cities sometimes attested to a local identity. For example, Athena’s head and owl symbolized Athens. City coins, such as those of Tyre and Sidon, describe their cities as “holy” or a “metropolis.” On some city coins, the name of the local deity was inscribed, expressing its populace’s devotion to a certain god. When the name of the deity appears without the city’s name, the coin was usually minted by a religious organization connected with the cult in question.72 The coins of the Roman republic also stressed Roman identity in several ways: featuring Minerva, a symbol of Rome, the head of the goddess Roma, and especially the legend ROMA, which was extremely prevalent.73 Indeed, the closest parallel we have to h. eber ha-yehudim is perhaps the legend ROMANO(M), “of the Romans,” which appears on several coins minted by the early Roman republic between c. 300 – 264 BCE.74 This legend points to the collective identity of Roman citizens under the aegis 69 Rappaport 1974:66 maintained that koinon is not an assembly, boule¯, or synedrion, but rather a state (such as a federation of poleis) or its delegates. It can be translated as “commonwealth” or “communaut” (lit.: “assembly”). Note that Josephus called the leading institution in Jerusalem synedrion, “the congress,” and perhaps also boule¯ (Life 62, 204). 70 Mason 2003:129 commented on the relationship between this koinon and the boule¯ mentioned in Life 204. Perhaps this boule¯ executed the assembly’s decisions. Note that in Life 62, Josephus reported to the synedrion in Jerusalem (which is an ad hoc committee, not a higher court; cf. Mason 2003:56) concerning the state of affairs in the Galilee. Perhaps this synedrion also executed the decisions of the assembly/koinon. 71 Cf. McLaren 1991:199, 204 – 207, 211 – 218. 72 Mørkholm 1991:29 – 30. 73 Crawford 1974:713 – 714, 720 – 725. 74 Crawford 1974:131, 135, 138 – 140.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

195

of the Roman republic,75 reaching far beyond the collective identity of the citizens of the local polis. It therefore resembles the reference to the Jews on Hasmonean coins. City coins also demonstrated a city’s autonomy. Free and autonomous cities, even small ones, would use the act of minting coins to underscore their independence.76 Certain coins might also refer explicitly to the political body they represented. Coins of the Amphictyonic Council at Delphi (336 BCE), for example, mentioned amphiktiono¯n; and late Macedonian (early second century BCE) coins from several different districts and cities under Philip V and Perseus used the inscription makedono¯n.77 We can see, then, how mention of “the Jews” on Hasmonean coins would have served to stress the newly achieved sovereignty of the Hasmonean high priests. Legends on archaic and classical Greek coins sometimes refer to an ethnic group in the genitive plural (e. g., chalkideo¯n).78 For example, in Boeotia of c. 287 BCE, the coins inscribed boio¯to¯n celebrated the city’s freedom from Demetrius’s occupation.79 Legends featuring the citizens of a city in the genitive plural—i. e., referring to the people as the authoritative body—were used in the Greek poleis in Phoenicia, in Judaea’s coastal plain, and in the Decapolis. Examples include: “of the people of Ascalon (askalo¯nito¯n), holy city of asylum, autonomous”; “of the (Seleucid) people who are at Gaza”;80 “of the Antiochaeans who are in Ptolemais”; “of the people of Nysa which is also called Scythopolis”;” of the people of Pompeian Gadara.”81 The coins of Sidon featured both Geek sido¯nio¯n and Phoenician script for the name ”the Sidonians” (les.idnym).82 We have seen various ways in which the Greek, Roman, and Phoenician cities, including those of the neighboring Hasmonean poleis, used civic designations that alluded to their citizens. There are even quite rare occurrences of the mention of de¯mos; e. g., in the coins of Ascalon and Gaza 75 Cf. the relationship between Rome and the other ethnic groups conquered and assimilated by the Romans and in ca. 338 as related in Livy, 8.14.1 – 12. One may suggest that the Hasmoneans were inspired by Roman history (cf. Smith 1978), but this is mere speculation. 76 Mørkholm 1991:24. The common view that the act of minting coins in classical Greece and Macedonia was motivated primarily by the state’s desire to provide symbols of its political sovereignty (cf. Praux 1978:1.280 – 294) was refuted by Martin 1985, who argued that the impetus was rather one of practical economic concerns, at least with regard to the Macedonian policy vis  vis Thessalia. Martin 1985:236 – 238 also stressed that cities such as Sidon, Seleuceia, and Tripolis waited until at least the third or fifth year of their independence to produces autonomous coins, suggesting that financial circumstances were crucial to the emergence of independent minting authorities. 77 Mørkholm 1991:85, 164 – 165; Kremydi-Sicilanou 2005:102; Hammond 1989:384. 78 For the different variants and other legends referring to a city or a god, see Hansen and Nielsen 2004:144. 79 Mørkholm 1991:86. 80 Hill 1965a:liv, lxix. 81 Meshorer 1985:12, 40, 80. 82 Hill 1965b:cvi-cvii, 155 – 171. The coins of Dora refer to do¯reito¯n (ibid., lxxv, 113 – 116).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

196

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

in the second half of the second century BCE.83 All of these may have had a certain impact on the Hasmonean use of h. eber ha-yehudim. Yet at the same time, these references to the citizens’ local identity appear on city coins, and not, for example, on the coins of Hellenistic kings (the sole exception being the Macedonian example), since such would likely have undermined their authority.84 The fact that the Hasmonean rulers (including the kings Jannaeus and Antigonus) used this means of describing their subjects is surely exceptional. Significantly, there seems to be no reference to a council or boule¯ on Hellenistic coins; hence, there is no parallel concept to that of the h. eber as a council of delegates.85 The political bodies that minted coins in the Hellenistic world were interested in displaying their identity and their freedom, and not in internal political organization or administration. Although this provides merely an argument from silence, it makes much more probable the notion that h. eber ha-yehudim referred to the Jews as a whole, and not to a representative council or political institution.

H. eber ha-yehudim and Jewish Identity : Between Religion and “National” Identity There are four different reasons that lead me to interpret h. eber ha-yehudim as a designation for the Jewish people and not as a governing council: (1) The word h. eber better corresponds to a union of people than to a council; (2) It appears in conjunction with the high priesthood (and not to civil government), which attests to a religious rather than political or administrative connotation; (3) The Hasmonean ethos in 1 Maccabees emphasizes the support of the Jewish people, whereas a council (gerousia) is mentioned only once; and (4) Legends with citizen designations that stress local identities are common on city coins, while bodies such as a boule¯ are nowhere mentioned. What was the message the Hasmoneans sought to transmit through this legend? What, in other words, was the h. eber’s ideological or political significance? Once again, comparisons to legends on other coins provide some 83 Hill 1965: liv-lv, lxix, 105 no. 7, Pl. XI: 13, 143 – 144, nos. 1 – 7, Pl. xv : 2 – 5. De¯mos amphipolito¯n was used on the coins of the Macedonian province under Augustus (Kremydi-Sicilanou 2005:101). 84 Even the Macdonian kings who ruled over a national monarchy did not allude to the Macedonian people on their coins; the names of the kings appeared alone on Macedonian coins (Head 1963:220 – 233). It was only in 185 BCE that King Philip allowed his subjects to issue small silver and bronze coins in the name of the people (makedono¯n), and to omit his own name (ibid., 234). See the coins of the districts and cities under Philip V and Perseus, mentioned above. 85 This was already noted by Rappaport 1974:63. The only exception of which I am aware is the assembly of the Macedonians under Philip V in 187 BCE, which was composed mainly of soldiers. See Hammond 1989:60 – 64, 384.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

H. eber ha-yehudim and the Hasmoneans’ Collective Jewish Identity

197

insight. We have already seen that coins, and especially city coins, express (local) identity. Similarly, h. eber ha-yehudim was the identity marker of the people of the Hasmonean state. True, during the Persian and Ptolemaic periods, the local identity of the Judaean Jews was marked by the legends yhd (read: Yahud) and yehudah.86 Nonetheless, these terms referred to the administrative body of a territory or population, similar to the Persian coins of the Samaritan province, which bore the legend shamryn (equivalent to the Hebrew shomron).87 This legend probably did not refer explicitly to the religious or ethnic character of the Judaean Jews. During the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kochva Revolt, the rebels used the selfdesignation “Israel” on their coins. Examples include shekel Israel, ge’ulat israel, h. erut israel and nasi israel (as well as “Jerusalem” and “Zion”).88 Here, too, we see an emphasis on local identity, but the difference between ‘“Israel” and “the Jews” is significant. Israel is the traditional name of the ethnos in the Hebrew Bible. It was a genealogical designation with clear “nationalistic” overtones. “The Jews,” however, is a more complex title.89 According to Cohen, Ioudaioi referred first and foremost to the inhabitants of the territory of Judaea or to their descendants. Since the Hasmonean period, the term also denoted those people who abided by Jewish law, whether Jews by birth or converts.90 Hence, “the Jews” is also a religious designation. According to Schwartz, it mostly refers to the followers of the Jewish religion, at least in Josephus’s writings.91 Granting that h. eber ha-yehudim means “the association of all the Jews,” this legend clearly expresses the sovereignty of the Jews in both its religious and “national” senses. The Jews were, after all, both a distinctive ethnic group and a religious order, somewhat like the ROMANO(M) of the early Roman republic. In contrast to the poleis of Sidon, Akko-Ptolemais, Ascalon, and Gaza, in the Hasmonean state, the definition of local identity and independence extended beyond territorial and administrative boundaries, and was linked to the notion of the Jewish people as a “nation” or ethnic group; as such, h. eber ha-yehudim had implications for Jews outside Judaea, as well. H. eber hayehudim thus bespoke total independence from foreign civil government, as

86 87 88 89 90

Meshorer 1997:15, 23, 26 – 27. Meshorer and Qedar 1991. Meshorer 1997:105 – 106, 125 – 144. For the distinction between Judah and Israel, see Goodblatt 2006:108 – 166. Cohen 1999:78 – 82, 93 – 96, 181 – 189. See Esth 8:17; Theodotus, apud. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.22.5 (Holladay 1989:116 – 117). Note the Judaization of the Edumaeans and Ituraeans (see Chapter 7). For the use of Ioudaioi as a geographical and religious/ethnic term, see Cassius Dio 37.16.5 – 17.1 (Stern 1980:349, 350 – 351). The geographical/ethnic connotation of the term Ioudaioi for “Judaeans” was recently stressed by Mason 2007. 91 Schwartz 2007. Compare the difficulties in interpreting inscriptions containing Ioudaios in Williams 1997 and references.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

198

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

well as the religious liberty the Jews had begun to enjoy just a mere few decades following the Seleucid persecutions. Significantly, the coins of the poleis displayed the authority and independence of the local citizens (implying its people, or de¯mos) as well as of the city’s constitutional entity and form of government. In contrast, h. eber ha-yehudim represented not a city’s de¯mos but the Jewish citizens of the Hasmonean state/ kingdom. To use Hellenistic terms, it referred to the Jewish politeuma, which Josephus associates with Jewish traditional law.92 Whereas the Hellenistic reformers established Jerusalem as a Greek polis in 175 BCE, the Hasmonean coins show that the politeia of the polis had been subsequently replaced with an ethnic (and religious) Jewish identity.93 H. eber ha-yehudim also has a unique religious dimension, in that it expresses the sovereignty of the Jews and their association with their religious leader and the head of the Temple, i. e., the high priest. Recall that the inscription always appears together with the high priest (even when the high priest was also a king), and is never related to any political ruler, ethnarch, or king. The Temple in Jerusalem was the most important site for Judaism, and Diaspora Jews would send their annual tributes (the half-shekel) to it; hence, the high priest was the leader of the Jewish religion throughout the world. His appearance on the coins marked the independent status of the Jewish religion in general, and not merely that of the local ethnos within Judaea. Coins represent political bodies, and the Jews lived in many different ones. Is it possible that the Hasmonean coins aimed to represent Diaspora Jews, as well? Historical evidence shows that this is certainly possible, hence the differences between Hasmonean and Hellenistic numismatic conventions. For instance, the Maccabees regarded their accomplishments as significant for Jews outside of Judaea, even before the period of Hasmonean independence. Judah and Simon expected the Jews in Egypt to celebrate H. anukkah (2 Macc 1:1 – 9, 10, 18; 2:15), “for the God who saved His entire people and returned to all (of us) the inheritance.”94 And in his letter to Sidon, Julius Caesar nominated Hyrcanus II and his sons ethnarchs and ordered that if . . . any questions shall arise concerning the Jews’ manner of life . . . the decision shall rest with them” (Ant. 14.193 – 195). Here we see that Hyrcanus II enjoyed formal religious authority outside Judaea (in this case, in Sidon), and perhaps in the entire Roman Empire (for more on Hasmonean authority in the Diaspora, see Chapter 2). This Roman acknowledgment probably echoes 92 The Hasmoneans’ presentation of the entire Jewish ethnos as a single and cohesive political unit corresponds to Josephus’s notion of the Jewish politeuma (and at times, the politeia). See Josephus, Against Apion 2.145, 165 (where he calls it “theocracy”), 250; Rajak 2001:esp. 200 – 201. On the Torah roots of the Hasmonean Jewish politeia, as reflected in the Hasmoneans’ mass conversion of the Idumaeans and Ituraeans, see Cohen 1999:125 – 129 (see Chapter 7). 93 On the politeia, see Tcherikover 1959:167 – 168. On Jerusalem as a Hellenistic polis during the Hellenistic reform, see ibid., 161 – 170. 94 2 Macc 2:17. Cf. Schwartz 2008:168.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

199

Hasmonean ideology and claims to religious authority in the Diaspora that had been in place for several generations. Thus, I suggest that the legend h. eber ha-yehudim on Jewish coins represented the entire Jewish people as a sovereign body led by the high priest, in a manner that displayed the religious independence and political ideology of the Jews both inside and outside of Judaea. The consistent use of this designation on Hasmonean coins shows that they wished for their subjects to regard their rule as a political actualization of the Jewish religion, and to acknowledge its independent status within the Hellenistic world. The Hasmoneans placed special stress on the role of the people, as if the people were the raison d’etre of their rule. In short, the mention of h. eber ha-yehudim on their coins conveyed the message that the Hasmoneans ruled for and with the Jewish people.

4. The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”? Deciphering the meaning of the symbols on the Hasmonean coins is an interpretive task which involves some educated speculations; as such, the results remain tentative. While comparisons with Hellenistic coins and their Greek figurative symbolism may prove helpful, we should not limit ourselves to simplistic parallelisms; nor, for that matter, should we treat the meaning of a certain symbol as fixed and static. Symbols were and remain dynamic phenomena, whose meanings change according to their different contexts and applications. The structural approach, introduced at the beginning of this chapter, interprets each figure independently and in relation to its accompanying inscription. In deciphering the symbols, special attention must also be paid to their context. A given symbol may have a different meaning, for example, on Seleucid or city coins, and depending on the figures, inscriptions, and legends that appear alongside it.

Replacing Greek Iconography The figures on Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman coins were overwhelmingly either portraits of the relevant king/emperor or personae from Greek mythological iconography. The Seleucids used successive portraits of reigning kings, while the Ptolemies used that of the founder of their dynasty, Ptolemy I. Hellenistic royal portraits deliberately occluded distinctions between men and gods, mortal and divine attributes, human and Olympian iconography, and representations of superhuman power like horns or animal scalps.95 95 See Smith 1988:13, 32 – 45. For example, the posthumous coins of Alexander featured horns,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

200

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

These religious motifs of pagan iconography were also used to display the king in a religious guise. For example, Alexander’s coins showed Heracles on the obverse and Zeus with an eagle on the reverse, while the coins of Antiochus I through Antiochus IV featured a beardless portrait of the reigning king along with Apollo, the patron god of the royal dynasty. Antiochus IV, enthroned by Zeus Nikephorus, was portrayed as a sky god; since this deity was worshipped by both Greeks and Orientals, the choice surely attests to the king’s syncretistic approach.96 Hellenistic Royal iconography generally also featured representations of physical prowess (military equipment, close-cropped hair, etc.) and divine powers (kings represented as gods or with godly attributes). These portraits promised the royal subjects truphe¯, the “good life,” and aimed to shore up the king’s personal legitimacy.97 The assemblage of figurative art attests to the rampant interplay of political and religious symbolism in Hellenistic kingship. The Seleucid kings boasted of their close relations with the gods. But the use of religious cultic symbolism was not limited to manifestations of power and authority. After all, similar iconic, mythological scenes can be found on most of the coins minted by independent Greek and Hellenistic cities, as well as on those of the Roman republic.98 The reason is obvious: In the Greco-Roman world, Greek mythology was the primary cultic discourse, and politics could not be separated from religion. For the citizens of the poleis, the icons of the gods were crucial to forging a sense of political identity. Significantly, none of this applies to Hasmonean coins. Their coins lacked figurative art, a result of the prohibition against graven images.99 Their religious discourse was completely different, in that it excluded pagan iconography and mythic symbolism. But the Hasmoneans, like their Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman counterparts, also needed an imagery that would express power, royalty, and truphe¯. We can assume, then, that the symbolism

96

97 98 99

since ram’s horns were an attribute of the god Ammon (identified with Zeus), and Alexander stressed his relationship with Ammon. Likewise, coins of Seleucus I featured bull’s horns, referring to Dionysos (ibid., 40 – 41). Zahle 1990:126 – 127, 130. The coins of Ptolemy attempt to make the claim of divine patronage: The eagle and thunderbolt, for instance, link his dynasty to Zeus. Other examples are Nike holding a wreath over an anchor (Seleucus I), or Athena with a spear and shield (Lysimachus). See Hadley 1974. Fleischer 1996. On the portrait of the ruler and its origins and types, see Mørkholm 1991:27 – 29. The legend of the goddess ROMA is common on Roman republican coins (Crawford 1974:723 – 725). Roman legends represented identity, success, and victory (ibid., 714 – 725). This is in contrast to the yhd coins of the Persian era, which included owls and eagles, and the yehudah coins of the early Ptolemaic period, with their portraits of the kings (Meshorer 1997:1 – 21). On the Jewish rejection of figurative art in the Hasmonean period, see Levine 2005a:11 – 16. Levine related this trend to the Hasmonean rejection of paganism following Deut 4:15 – 18, in an effort to define Jewish identity as distinctive from the surrounding non-Jewish civilization. The Hasmoneans did, however, use the Tyrian tetradrachma with Melqart and an eagle for the halfshekel tribute to the Temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

201

on their coins is necessarily more complex to interprete than those of their contemporaries, when objects displayed meanings which their contemporaries otherwise display by iconic representations. To be sure, there are similarities between Hellenistic and Hasmonean coins. For instance, the Hasmoneans also used religious sensibilities to reinforce their authority and create a sense of identity. Specifically, they relied on the title of the high priest and the consistent mention of h. eber ha-yehudim: Since the high priest was the supreme religious leader in Judaism, he effectively acted as liaison between the Jewish people and God (Ben Sira 50), especially on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Furthermore, the symbols on all but one of the Hasmonean coins are derived from—or at the very least parallel—Hellenistic ones, including wreaths, cornucopia, anchors, stars, diadems, and lilies.100 Kindler regarded this as resulting from Hellenistic influence, especially as coming from the coins of the contemporaries of Jonathan, Simon, and John Hyrcanus: Alexander Balas, Demetrius II, Antiochus VII and Alexander Zabinas.101 In truth, similar Hellenistic influences can be seen in Nabataean coinage as well.102 Yet the Hasmoneans’ use of specific Hellenistic symbols detached from their pagan motifs does not mean that the meanings of these symbols were identical to the Greek or Hellenistic ones. On the contrary, there is much that is original in the Hasmoneans’ artistic arrangement of the symbols on their coins. The meaning these symbols held for the Hasmoneans and their Jewish subjects requires a systematic structural and contextual study. The Hasmoneans, as we shall see, used Hellenistic artistic modes to convey their own messages, which were at times similar to those of the Hellenistic kings and cities, but at other times wholly distinctive and independent.

The Wreath as a Religious Marker Both the mythological figures on Hellenistic coinage and the Hasmonean paleo-Hebrew inscription “high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim” were encircled by a wreath made of laurel leaves (plates 1 and 8). The religious message of the 100 Common objects featured on Hellenistic coins that were not used by the Hasmoneans include: clubs, scepters, shields, arrows, bows, spears, torches, amphorae, jugs, hammers, wheels, grapes, galleys, monuments, and architectural features. 101 See Kindler 1993 for a decisive survey of the parallels. Rajak 1990: 270 – 271 maintained that Hyrcanus’s coins were conventionally Hellenistic; hence, Hyrcanus did not mind the state being seen as “just another Hellenistic state.” Jannaeus’s symbols, by contrast—the stardiadem and anchor, for example—were, according to Rajak, more “international” in nature. 102 Designs on Nabataean coins include cornucopiae, eagles, a standing woman, and the palm of the hand (the latter is an exclusively Nabataean design). See Meshorer 1975:24 – 25, 34 – 35.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

202

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

Hasmonean coins may be demonstrated by the analysis of this juxtaposition.103 The wreath, held by Nike (Victory), symbolized authority and victory.104 The wreath was already in use on coinage in the classical period, but was not common until the time of Antiochus IV. Subsequently, it characterized the coins of Antiochus VI, Alexander Balas, Demetrius II, Antiochus VII, Antiochus VIII, Antiochus IX, and Antiochus XII (although, it should be noted, it rarely appears on the contemporary coins of the Phoenician cities Aradus and Tripolis).105 On the coins of the Seleucids and the Phoenician cities, the wreath appears on the reverse,106 encircling the king’s name and images drawn from mythology, such as the nude Apollo seated on an omphalos holding a bow and arrow; Athena (goddess of war, symbolizing the warrior king who had acquired the right to rule the land by means of his spear)107 holding a small Nike; or Zeus, seated on a throne holding both Nike and scepter.108 The Hasmoneans copied the wreath from their direct contemporaries,109 but altered it in several ways. On the Hasmonean coins the wreath always appears on the obverse, encircling the inscription with the name of the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim, whereas the primary image (e. g., the cornucopia) appears (without wreath) on the reverse. Thus, the Hasmoneans switched the inscription with the ruler’s name and title, as well as the wreath,

103 On the various types of wreaths appearing on Hasmonean coins, see Meshorer 1982:64 – 66. 104 Nike holds a wreath on Alexander’s coins (Mørkholm 1991:42), and a wreath and palm branch on Ptolemy I’s (Poole 1963:11). On the wreath as a symbol of victory on Roman republican coins, see Crawford 1974:281, 390 (with scepter, globe and rudder), 407, 714. Cf. Livy 10.47.3. Note that Alcimus gave Demetrius I a crown/wreath (stephanos) of gold and palm (2 Macc 14:3 – 4). 105 Houghton 1983:nos. 217 – 219, 232 – 236, 264 – 267, 329 – 331, 335 – 336, 346 – 348, 352 – 354, 404, 409, 412 – 413, 693, 719, 723 – 725, 762 – 765, 835, 850 – 859, 864. See the coins of Aradus from 133/2, 86/5 BCE, 65/4, and 46/5 BCE (Hill 1965b: plates IV 10, 12, 14, 16), and Tripolis from 112/1 and 95/4BCE (ibid., plates XXVI 2 – 4). For different types of wreaths, see Mørkholm 1991:nos. 582 – 583, 587 – 590B, 603 – 605, 612, 614 – 616, 618 – 619, 620, 625 – 626, 633, 636, 644, 654. On the wreath in classical Athenian coins, see Shear 1933:247, 262. See also the wreaths of Ptolemy VI (Poole 1963:81). Wreaths appear again on city coins from later periods, such as those of Ptolemais in 48/7 CE (Kadman 1961:nos. 73 – 74), Neapolis in 81 CE, Sepphoris during the reign of Trajan and Caracalla (Meshorer 1985:36 – 37, 48), and late Roman Sidon, (Hill 1965: plates IV 12, 14; XXV 6). 106 The exception being the coins of Demetrius II, on which the wreath appears on the obverse, circling the king’s portrait (Haughton 1983:nos. 217 – 219) 107 The fighting Athena sometimes appears with a spear. For Athena’s role in the ideology of rule, see Mørkholm 1991:26. 108 Houghton 1983:nos. 233, 264, 346 respectively. On the coins of Aradus, Nike appears with a palm branch; on those of Tripolis, Tyche wears a crown and holds cornucopiae. 109 The wreath is composed of two olive or laurel branches tied at the bottom with a ribbon and connected at the top by a single stroke. The wreaths of Mattathias Antigonus are made of ivy. See Meshorer 1982:63 – 64. For more on the various wreaths featured, see ibid., 65 – 67.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

203

from the reverse to the obverse. Consequently, both the inscription and the wreath became more noticeable and prominent than on the Seleucid coins. Moreover, on the Seleucid coins the wreath encircled the image of the god and the inscription or symbol that associated him or her with the king. As such, it relayed a certain religious or cultic message: namely, that the king had been crowned by a god, such as Athena, Nike, or Zeus. By contrast, on the Hasmonean coins, the wreath surrounds the name of the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim, thus granting them religious authority. The inscription actually took the place of both the king’s portrait and the Greek mythological figure, and the prominence of the high priest and the Jewish people were stressed.110 Mattathias Antigonus continued this pattern on his “Mattathias the priest” coins, but altered it altogether in one of his Mattathias the high priest/ antigonou basileo¯s types. There, he once again relegated the wreath to the reverse, wrapping it around his royal title in Greek. This act served a dual purpose: It both stressed his royal title and gave it a religious connotation. As already noted, his coins diverged from those of his predecessors in other respects, as well, such as in their use of the titles of both high priest and king on the same coins, and their display of Jewish Temple symbolism, such as the menorah and the table of showbread.

The Cornucopia and Divine Blessing The cornucopia (in Latin, “horn of plenty,” or abundance) is the most common symbol on the Hasmonean coins.111 All the Hasmoneans used it on some of their high-priestly coins (plates 2, 7, 9 and 10). The cornucopia originated in a Greek myth about a nymph called Amalthea whose horn broke off, subsequently becoming a source of abundant wealth.112 In the early Hellenistic period, the cornucopia appeared only on Ptolemaic coins;113 it was not used by the early Seleucids at all. Only later does it appear on Seleucid coins—those of the contemporaries of the early Hasmoneans: Alexander Balas, Demetrius I, Demetrius II, Alexander Zabinas, Cleopatra Thea (and 110 According to Meshorer 1982:64, in Jewish art the wreath is a symbol of leadership and authority, and was generally employed for the purpose of coronation; it might also have symbolized the Temple rituals. It appears extensively on Bar-Kochba coins. Three decorative wreaths (zerim) in the Temple (on the altar, ark, and incense tables) are mentioned in b. Yoma 72b. 111 For a detailed description of the various types of Hasmonean cornucopiae, (including the details of small flowers with ears of corn at the bottom and grapes at the top), see Barag and Qedar 1980:12 – 21. 112 Barag and Qedar 1980:15. 113 Mørkholm 1991:nos. 294 – 205 (Ptolemy II), 307 – 308, 313 (Ptolemy III), 316 (Ptolemy IV), 322 – 323 (Ptolemy V); Poole 1963:98 (Ptolemy VIII); 107 (Ptolemy X). See also Poole 1963:42 – 45 (Arsino II), 59 – 61 (Bernice II).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

204

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

perhaps also Antiochus VIII), Seleucus VI, and Antiochus IX.114 It is also found on the coins of Akko-Ptolemais, minted in 131 – 109 BCE, when the city was autonomous.115 Therefore, we may assume that John Hyrcanus borrowed this symbol from his neighbors, and that it remained popular among his successors. Interestingly, the Nabataeans also used it extensively in the first century CE.116 The artistic parallels do not end there, however. The exact parallel to Hyrcanus’s cornucopia (plate 2), which features a flower on its base, a ribbon tied around it, and fruits on the top of both horns (including a symmetrical pair of grape bunches), is found only on a tetradrachm, or silver coin, from the city of Lebedus in Ionia, dated to c. 150 BCE. While the coin of Lebedus has an owl and a club between the horns (and an image of Athena wearing a helmet on the obverse), the Hasmonean coin featured a pomegranate and a pair of ears of corn above them. The ears of corn were an original Hasmonean addition without parallel in Hellenistic coinage.117 The differences between the Hasmonean cornucopia and those of their contemporaries are noteworthy. The coins of Demetrius I and II, Cleopatra Thea/Antiochus VIII, and Antiochus IX, as well as all those of Akko-Ptolemais, all contain a single horn. The other Seleucids and the Hasmoneans, however, both used a double cornucopia (on one type of coins minted by Antigonus, there is only a single horn, see plate 10). There is also a significant difference between the artistic arrangements of the Seleucid and Hasmonean coins: On the Seleucid coins, the two horns stand attached to each other from behind, and only part of the horn at the rear is noticeable (sometimes bound by a fillet). On most of the Hasmonean coins, by contrast, the horns stand side by side and unattached, with a space between them that is sometimes filled by a pomegranate or ears of barley. The Hasmonean cornucopia image therefore had a distinctive composition.118 The symbolic meaning of the Hellenistic cornucopia is clear : It was regarded as a fertility symbol.119 The original object—the horn of a bull or a ram—was used as a container, usually for fruits. On certain coins of 114 Houghton 1983:nos. 408; 155 – 157, 159, 161 – 167; 874 – 878; 306 – 307; 803, 810 – 811; 376; 884 (respectively). See also Kindler 1993:109. Cornucopiae are also found on Roman republican coins from the first century BCE. See Crawford 1974:391 – 392, 409, 504 – 505. 115 Kadman 1961:nos. 11 – 42 116 Meshorer 1975:24 – 25, 34 – 35. 117 Barag and Qedar 1980:16. 118 On Hyrcanus’s (very rare) coin type with the helmet on the obverse, the arrangement of the cornucopia resembles the Seleucid style. Later appearances of a similar type of the symmetrical, double cornucopiae are found on the Trajan Tiberias coin (see Meshorer 1985:34, who noted its “Jewish character”), and to lesser extent on Domitian coins from Neapolis (ibid., 48). Interestingly, the coins of Ascalon from the late first century BCE also feature a similar arrangement of the cornucopia (Hill 1965a:111 – 112). 119 Meshorer 1982:67 – 68. For the history of the cornucopia and its meaning, see Goodenough 1953 – 1968: 8:106 – 114; Barag and Qedar 1980:15 – 16.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

205

Demetrius I and Akko-Ptolemais, the horn is held by Tyche, and on some Seleucid coins Tyche is seated on a throne holding a scepter.120 We may surmise that the horn was related to good fortune and governing authority ; it probably also bespoke the success and good fortune of the ruler or the city. In certain cases, pomegranates (Hyrcanus I) or ears of barley (Antigonus) appear between the horns, which represent the fertility of the soil (and perhaps also of the people).121 It must be noted, however, that in ancient Judaism the horn also boasted a more complex religious symbolism:122 The shofar, made of a ram’s horn, was used in the Temple as a musical instrument. It was also associated with divine announcements, intervention, and deliverance.123 Kings David and Solomon were anointed by oil poured from a ram’s horn.124 In prophetic literature, the horn is a metaphor for divinely granted political success125 and the continuation of the Davidic dynasty.126 Finally, it also symbolized military power.127 All these sentiments could be evoked by the cornucopia and the seated Seleucid Tyche seated on a throne holding a scepter. It is possible, therefore, that the Hasmonean cornucopia symbolized not only fertility, abundance, and success, but also government in accordance with divine will, and perhaps even the fulfillment of the prophetic promises of Israel’s deliverance. In short, the horn combined both political and religious connotations. The cornucopia appears on all but one of Hyrcanus’s coin types, on Judah Aristobulus’s single type, and on four of Jannaeus’s coin types, all of which contain the legend “high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim.” It never appeared on Jannaeus’s royal coins; on Antigonus’s coins, a double or single cornucopia appears only on the obverse, along with his high-priestly title (and sometimes with the title “the priest,” or with “Mattathias,” without any title whatsoever), but never with his royal title (which sometimes appears on the reverse, circled by a wreath). The implication, then, is that the cornucopia was associated with the high priesthood and h. eber ha-yehudim, and not with kingship. I therefore suggest that it did not symbolize the personal success of the Hasmoneans as political rulers, but rather had a religious meaning; e. g., the divine blessing directed at 120 Houghton 1983:nos. 143 – 151, 164, 167 – 168; Kadman 1961:nos. 45 – 47. 121 Pomegranates were symbols of fertility in Greek art (MacDonald 1922:12). They likely had similar connotations in Jewish art, but may also have symbolized the Temple, since they appeared on its pillars, Jachin and Boaz. See 1 Kings 7:18 – 20; Romanoff 1944:52 – 53. Barag and Qedar 1980:17 suggested that the cornucopia symbolized the fertility of the Land of Israel. 122 Meshorer 1982:67. 123 Exod 19:16; Lev 25:9; Isa 18:3; Jer 51:27; Zech 9:14. 124 1 Sam 16:13; 1 Kings 1:39 125 Ezkiel 29:1; Ps 89:18; 148:14; Lem 2:3. 126 Ps 132:17; Ps. 89:25; cf. 1 Sam 2:10. 127 Deut 23:17; Zech 2:4 – 5; Daniel 7:7 – 11; 8:3 – 4, 6 – 11.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

206

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

the high priest and the Jewish people for acting in accordance with the divine will. The Hasmoneans, therefore, appropriated and transformed the Greek cornucopia, both artistically and symbolically, making it into their most prominent symbol in the process. Later on, it was also adopted by the Herodians.128

The Helmet: Independence and Security after Antiochus VII One rare coin type struck by John Hyrcanus features a crested helmet, replete with visors and cheek pieces, on the obverse. The helmet had already made an appearance on classical Athenian coins and certain of Alexander’s coins,129 and is attested to in the coins of Seleucus I and II and Antiochus I and II, in both the Attic and Corinthian helmet types.130 It also however appears on Greek city coins, such as those of Athens, Sparta, and Corinth, mostly in the third and early second centuries CE;131 but it was not used by the Greek poleis of Phoenicia or other of the Hasmoneans’ neighboring cities. An Attic or Phrygian helmet is common on the coins of the Roman republic,132 whereas the Macedonian helmet reappears on the coins of Trypon as well as on a few of the coins of Alexander Balas and Antiochus VII.133 It is customary to see the helmet as a representation of military victory.134 This accords with the figure of Athena, the goddess of war, who wears the helmet in many of the coins mentioned, as well as the appearance on some helmet coins, of Apollo holding a bow and arrow on the reverse (Seleucus II), or of Nike holding a wreath and palm branch (Antiochus II). Furthermore, on some of Alexander Balas’s coins, Alexander the Great wears the helmet (perhaps alluding to Balas himself). But the military connotation is not conclusive: Some of Balas’s helmet coins show Tyche holding a cornucopia on the reverse, and the helmet also appears on the coins of cities that were not engaged in wars.135 It therefore seems that the meaning of the helmet went 128 Meshorer 1997:297 – 299 (Herod), 300 (Archelaus) 306 (Agrippa II). 129 Shear 1933:249 – 251, 261 – 262; Mørkholm 1991:42. 130 Houghton 1983:nos. 887 – 888; 47 – 49, 671 – 673; 891 – 893; 455 (respectively). See also the coins of Ptolemy VI (Poole 1963:82). 131 Mørkholm 1991:nos. 109, 110, 190, 213, 481, 501 – 502, 509 – 510, 513, 608 – 610, 639 – 640. 132 It appears especially on the head of the goddess Roma. See Crawford 1974:133, 154 – 157, 322 – 329, 721 – 722. 133 Houghton 1983:nos. 200 – 203; 818 – 819. The coins of Antiochus VII may have been struck in Ascalon in 138 – 129 BCE (Kindler 1993:110). For the coins of Tryphon in which the Macedonian helmet appears with a spike, cheek pieces, and ibex horn, see Houghton 1983:nos. 254 – 263. 134 Praux 1978:1.185; Pollitt 1986:28. The head of Athena appears in a crested helmet on Alexander’s coins (Mørkholm 1991:42). Sperber 1965:86, 88 assumed that the helmeted Hyrcanus coin commemorated a certain victory, most likely the conquest of Samaria. 135 E.g., Athens in the first half of the second century BCE (Mørkholm 1991:nos. 609 – 610).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

207

beyond merely military victory, and was likely associated with more general ideas of security and material affluence. The helmet on Hyrcanus’s coins was Macedonian, similar to those on the coins of Alexander Balas and Antiochus VII. Unlike others, the helmets of both Antiochus VII and Hyrcanus appear independently, i. e., they were not worn by a goddess or a king. It is very likely that Hyracnus was influenced directly by Antiochus VII (although on Antiochus VII’s coins, the helmet appears on the obverse, as is customary on Hellenistic coins, whereas Hyrcanus put it on the reverse). The background to this act of imitation raises several interesting questions. In 131 BCE, Antiochus imposed a siege on Jerusalem and defeated Hyrcanus. The two subsequently reached an agreement by which Hyrcanus would join Antiochus on his military campaign in the East. The Hasmonean army cooperated with the Seleucids, but Antiochus was killed in the battlefield in 129; from that point onward, the Hasmonean state was never subordinated to the Seleucids again.136 Hyrcanus’s military conquests of the Idumaeans, Samaritans, and Greek cities did not take place immediately, but rather towards the end of his reign, in c. 112/111 BCE.137 The helmet-type coins may have been among Hyrcanus’s earliest ones, meant to convey the message that the military and political power that once characterized Antiochus VII—who, we recall, had defeated Hyrcanus, and then forced him to act as an accomplice to his military campaigns—was now in the hands of Hyrcanus himself. In other words, the Hasmoneans were not merely imitating the Seleucids, but rather usurping their position. It is also possible to connect the helmet coins with Hyrcanus’s later, successful conquests.138 In any event, the helmet appeared on his coins’ reverse, while the cornucopia and the inscription “high priest and the head of h. eber hayehudim” appeared on the obverse, underlining the success of both the religious and “national” aspects of his regime. It seems, therefore, that in the 136 Ant. 13.236 – 258; Stern 1995:95 – 99; Bar-Kochva 1996a; 2010:399 – 439. 137 In contrast to Josephus’s report (Ant. 13.254 – 258; note the word euthus, “immediately,” in par. 254), which was probably based on Nicolaus, Barag 1992 – 1993 showed that in several cities mentioned by Josephus the sequence of Seleucid coins continues uninterrupted until 112/ 111 BCE. 138 Unlike all other Hasmonean coins, this type had a double denomination. Meshorer 1982:67 therefore suggested that it had been struck for a special occasion. He also regarded the helmet as symbolizing authority. Since in his earlier studies, Meshorer associated Yehoh. anan coins with Hyrcanus II, he drew on the uses of the helmet in Roman culture (although he admitted that the helmet that appeared on the Hasmonean coins was of a distinctly Hellenistic style): In Rome, the apex headdress symbolized the authority of the high priest, and different types of helmets distinguished between different ranks of officers in the Roman army. The helmet reappeared on Archelaus’s coins (Meshorer 1997:74). Meshorer 1997:39 also related the helmet to Hyrcanus’s title as the head of the h. eber ha-yehudim, suggesting that the helmet reflected his authority. While it is tempting to follow this view, and conclude that he at first assumed this title and only later omitted it, in fact this honorary title appears infrequently on his other coin types as well.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

208

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

case of Hyrcanus, the helmet was meant not only to refer to the ruler’s success in the battlefield, but also, if not more so, to the security and self-confidence of the Jewish people under the leadership of their high priest.

The Lily of the Jews The lily (in Hebrew, shoshan) appears on the reverse of one type of Hyrcanus’s (plate 3) and one type of Jannaeus’s high-priestly coins (plate 6); the observe features a palm branch with an inscription. The lily is also found on Jannaeus’s royal coins, although in this case with an anchor on the obverse, and on those of Antiochus VII’s coins minted in Jerusalem in 131 – 129 BCE (this time with an anchor on the reverse).139 Lilies are uncharacteristic of Seleucid or Greek coins, however.140 Although Antiochus VII’s coins were probably minted in Jerusalem, the later Hasmonean lily is distinct from that of Antiochus VII: The former has three petals, arranged in naturalistic fashion, while the latter is more schematic. Moreover, Hyrcanus’s lily appears between two ears of corn, thus creating an altogether new symbol. We may thus conclude that the Hasmoneans did not copy the design of the lily directly from Antiochus VII’s coins.141 Indeed, the lily was a traditional Jewish symbol; it had already appeared on the yhd coins, struck in Judaea during the Persian period.142 Lilies decorated the monumental columns of King Solomon’s Temple, as well as of his molten sea (the large brass or copper washing basin in the Temple courtyard).143 It is also possible that lilies ornamented the Tabernacle’s menorah.144 Furthermore, the flower was also popular on Jewish ossuaries from the first century CE.145 It therefore seems that the Hasmoneans used the lily as a Jewish ethnic

139 Houghton 1983:nos.831 – 834; Meshorer 2997:35. Meshorer 1982:39 also argued that the coins of Antiochus VIII that contain lilies as well as the king’s portrait were struck in Jerusalem in 102 BCE. 140 Not attested in Mørkholm 1991 and Poole 1963 (with the exception of the monograms on the coins of Ptolemy VI, ibid., 82, 85 – 86). The lily/rose is also found in Greek art and on Greek coins: For example, it appears as the symbol of the island of Rhodes (MacDonald 1922:1 – 2; Mørkholm 1991: nos. 235 – 239, 547 – 552). Another, similar flower is the silphium, an aromatic flower identified with Cyrenaica (Mørkholm 1991:nos. 103, 107, 1160). 141 Meshorer 1982:61 – 63. 142 Meshorer 1982:29 – 30; 1997:17 – 19. 143 1 Kings 7:22, 26; 2 Chr 4:5. The gate of Shushan at the eastern wall of the Temple Mount was also decorated with a large lily. See m. Middot 1:3; Romanoff 1944:46 – 47. 144 Exod 25:33; Ant. 3.145; Hachlili 2001:26 – 32, 48 – 51, 148. 145 Rahmani 1994:39 – 41 and references. For the lily in Jewish art, see Goodenough 1953 – 68.3:nos. 44 – 221.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

209

symbol,146 a supposition shored up by Antiochus VII’s Jerusalem coins, which had lilies, but no images of gods or humans upon them (unlike almost all other Seleucid coins). Either way, whether the lily symbolized the physical Jerusalem, the Jewish people, or the Jewish religion, it was undeniably meant to be a Jewish ethnic marker.147 Finally, on Hyrcanus’s coins the lily stands between two ears of barley, probably alluding to both the fruitfulness and collective material success of Hyrcanus and the Jews.148

The Palm Branch and Hellenistic Victory and Power One of Hyrcanus’s coin types (plate 3), as well as one type of Jannaeus’s royal coins, features a palm branch with an inscription on the obverse. It is a large branch, placed at the center of the coin without any other figures. Similar palm branches are also found on Hellenistic coins, such as on the Seleucid coins of Seleucus II, Antiochus V, Alexander Balas, Demetrius II, Antiochus VII, Alexander Zabinas, and Antiochus VIII; the image also makes an appearance on Tyrian shekels and half-shekels from the Hasmonean period.149 On these non-Hasmonean coins, however, the branch is a small one held aloft by a goddess, or placed next to a god or above an eagle. Although the Hasmoneans clearly adopted the symbol from the Hellenistic world, the appearance of the palm branch (or Hebrew, lulav) as an independent symbol on their coins is a clear Jewish innovation. (After the Hasmonean period, however, it was also used by the Roman procurators of Judaea.)150 To be sure, a palm tree appears on some Hellenistic coins, such as a few types struck by Antiochus III and Alexander Balas; and on Tyrian coins and the coins of Sepphoris-Diocaesarea and Neapolis from the early and middle

146 Meshorer 1982:61; Romanoff 1944:49 – 51. Meshorer 1982:100 listed additional archaeological evidence for the use of the lily by Jews. Hosea 14:6 prophesized that Israel “shall blossom as the lily”; cf. also Song of Songs 2:1. 147 On his royal coins, Jannaeus’s lily has a ring of pellets, and on several specimens the circle features a small round design on its top. Meshorer 1982:63 suggested that this denoted a diadem or schematic wreath. Similar rectangular embellishments are found on the circle of pellets surrounding the palm branch on Jannaeus’s royal coins. Possibly, the ring of pellets symbolized that the royal crown around the lily represented the Jewish people as a whole. 148 Barley or grain was not a common motif on Hellenistic coinage. It appears, for example, on the coins of Demetrius III and Antiochus XII (both of whom post-dated Hyrcanus). See Houghton 1983:nos. 858 – 861, 864. It decorated Cleopatra’s curls in one of Ptolemy VIII’s coins (Poole 1963:94), and made an appearance on a few coins minted in the Roman republic (Crawford 1974:134, 142). Later, it also appears on the coins of Domitian Neapolis (Meshorer 1985:48). 149 Houghton 1983:nos. 51;794 – 795; 744 – 747, 749 – 750; 751 – 756, 767 – 770; 759, 764; 820; 822 – 824; Hill 1965a:233 – 253, respectively. The coins of Antiochus V were struck in Ptolemais, and those of Alexander Zabinas and Antiochus VII in Ascalon. 150 Hill 1965a:254 – 255, 266 – 267.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

210

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

Roman period.151 We also see it in the bullae of Jannaeus and the seals of King Yehonathan.152 Later on, it appeared on the Jewish coins of the procurators, as well as on some of the coins of the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kochva Revolt.153 The symbolism of the palm branch in the Hellenistic world may have been quite abstract. It is held, for example, by Nike, who also holds a wreath, while a helmeted Athena appears on the obverse (Seleucus II); it also appears next to a nude Apollo seated on omphalos and holding a bow and arrow (Demetrius II). In these instances, it most likely demonstrated victory or military success. On Alexander Balas’s and the Tyrian coins, the palm branch is placed above an eagle’s shoulder, also indicating power or success.154 The palm branch also played a role in the relationship between Jews and Seleucids in the Maccabean period: Alcimus sent Demetrius I a palm branch and a golden crown in an attempt to please the latter and convince him to support his high priesthood (2 Macc 14:4). Simon likewise sent a palm branch and a golden crown to Demetrius II as a gift when the king reaffirmed the Simon’s high priesthood.155 In both instances, the palm branch may have reflected kingship or successful rule. The Maccabees, furthermore, celebrated the dedication of the Temple on H. anukkah with palm branches (2 Macc 10:7); and when Simon conquered the Seleucid Akko near the Temple Mount, the people celebrated the victory with a thanksgiving demonstration that included waving palm branches (1 Macc 13:51). Interestingly, in John 12:13, palm branches also symbolize deliverance. All this leads to the conclusion that the palm branch symbolized both military achievements and successful rule. It is difficult to ascertain which of the two meanings was intended by Hyrcanus and Jannaeus on their coins. In both cases, the palm branch appears on the obverse, and a lily on the reverse. On Hyrcanus’s coins, the branch signified his status both as high priest and as head of h. eber ha-yehudim, while on Jannaeus’s coins it appeared next to his royal title (in Hebrew). In both cases, it would seem that the Hasmoneans circumscribed the Hellenistic meaning of victorious rule by relating it to the lily : If, for example, the lily symbolized the corporate identity of the Jews, the military victories enjoyed by the Hasmoneans became associated with their “national” character. This was distinct from the Seleucid connotation of the palm branch, which was related

151 Houghton 1983:nos. 729; 748; Hill 1965b:253 – 259; Hill 1965a:1; 46, respectively. See also the coin of Cleopatra VII (Poole 1963:122). 152 Meshorer 1997:56 – 57. 153 Fine 2005:140 – 145 asserted that it represented the fecundity of the Land of Israel, and also made mention of its Phoenician roots. 154 See also the Nike with wreath and palm branch on Ptolemy I’s coins (Poole 1963:11). The palm branch and wreath are held aloft by Victory on the coins of the Roman republic (Crawford 1974:60, 341, 381, 385, 398), symbolizing victory according to Livy 10.47.3; cf. Crawford 1974:714. 155 1 Macc 13:37; Bikerman 1938:112. The palm tree symbolizes flourishing in Ps 92:13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

211

to the king’s portrait.156 Clearly, the type of authority manifested by Hyrcanus as high priest and head of the h. eber ha-yehudim was of a different nature. By featuring his father’s palm branch and lily, we may surmise, Jannaeus attempted to depict his rule as the continuation of a tradition, one in which the ruler’s authority was simultaneously restricted and legitimized on account of its having derived from the authority and power of the entire Jewish people.

Jannaeus’s Star and Diadem: Hasmonean Kingship Alexander Jannaeus put a star on two different royal coin types (plate 5). On Hellenistic coins, the star may have carried astrological connotations, specifically indicating luck and fate;157 in certain cases, such as those in which a star appears above the diademed head of Antiochus IV or next to an elephant on the coins of Antiochus VI, it may have been related to kingship or military power.158 On coins from the Greek city of Miletus, the star appears above a lion.159 Jannaeus’s star always accompanies his royal title. In the Hebrew Bible, the star is associated with kingship, as in Balaam’s blessing, “a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel”.160 Clearly, the verse made its mark on Jewish royal imagery : R. Akiba, who believed Simon Bar-Kosiba was the messiah, changed the latter’s name to Bar-Kochba (“the son of star”) because of it.161 Possibly the use of the star on Jannaeus’s coins was meant to suggest that Balaam’s ancient prophecy had been realized.162 The star is encircled by a rounded frame, most likely a diadem, in which the king’s Hebrew name, Yehonatan, is inscribed.163 The diadem—a band of white cloth with decorated edges worn around the head—was the most popular and important of the royal features depicted on Hellenistic coins. First worn by Alexander after he was crowned “king of Asia,” the diadem became, after his 156 On the Tyrian shekels, Melqarth appears on the obverse, representing the city’s cult, in a manner somewhat similar to the Hasmonean use of the lily. 157 Meshorer 1982:60. Compare the small star near Apollo (Demetrius II; Houghton 1983:no. 220) to the image of Zeus holding a star (Antiochus VIII; ibid., nos. 322, 881 – 882). 158 Houghton 1983:nos. 732; 249 – 250 (respectively). 159 Mørkholm 1991:no. 571 (200 BCE). The coins of Ptolemy V had stars on either side of the cornucopia (Poole 1963:72), and a winged thunderbolt (Mørkholm 1991:no. 329). The coins of Ptolemy VIII had a star beside an eagle (Poole 1963:97). Stars were also used as small monograms; see, e. g., Poole 1963:96 – 97. For stars on the coins of the Roman republic, see Crawford 1974:199, 492. 160 Num 24:17. Ancient biblical interpreters also related the verse to kingship. See the LXX to Num 24:17 and CD 7:19 – 20. 161 Y. Ta’aniot 4, 68d; Lamentations Rabbah 2:4 (ed. Buber, 51a); Meshorer 1982:61; SchürerVermes-Millar 1983:543 n. 130. 162 Cf. Kanael 1963:44. Note that the star always appears next to a Hebrew or Aramaic inscription, and never a Greek one. The notion of kingship it reflected was therefore probably Jewish one. 163 Identified as a diadem by Kanael 1963:44; Meshorer 1982:61; 1997:40 – 41.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

212

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

death, the symbol of his heritage. Wearing the diadem thus represented royal status.164 Yet whereas on Hellenistic coins, the diadem always appeared on the king’s portrait, on Jannaeus’s coins it substituted for his self-portrait; it was, in other words, a visual synecdoche for his kingship.165 As such, it represents the adaptation of a distinctly Hellenistic symbol into a Jewish context, followed by an artistic innovation (placing the diadem around the star, and writing “Jannaeus the King” around it from the outside). The star and the diadem, both of which stood for royal status, therefore complemented each other on the coin’s reverse, while the obverse featured an anchor.

Jannaeus’s Anchor : Power and Privilege The anchor appears on three different coin types minted by Jannaeus (plates 4 and 7), all of which are meant to express his kingship. A traditional Seleucid symbol, the anchor was employed by several of the Seleucid kings, including Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Seleucus II, Demetrius I, Demetrius II, and Alexander Zabinas.166 Like the Seleucid version, Jannaeus’s anchor was inverted, i. e., turned upwards.167 Generally regarded as a maritime symbol, its appearance on coins could be related to maritime victories or control over the seas. Jannaeus’s use of this symbol is usually associated with his occupation of the cities of the coastal plain and their harbors, especially Gaza (Jannaeus probably had no fleet).168 That the anchor was a maritime symbol is attested to by the coins of important harbor cities, including Caesarea Maritima under King Herod and Claudius, and Tiberias under Trajan.169 Yet its meaning should not be reduced to naval power alone: After all, a galley or the prow of a ship appears on the coins of several Seleucid kings who could not have boasted of any special nautical achievements.170 To be sure, galleys are found on the coins of important harbor cities such as Tyre, Sidon, Ascalon, and Ptolemais, as well as Dora, Caesarea Maritima, Tiberias (and even Gadara, on the Yarmuch river, 164 Smith 1988:34 – 38. On posthumous coins of Alexander, Dionysus wears a diadem (ibid., 61). See also Lund 1992:157. 165 Meshorer 1982:61. Such a diadem is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible; indeed, the wearing of the diadem is condemned explicitly in 1 Macc 8:14. See Goldstein 1980:73. 166 Houghton 1983:nos. 919 – 920, 1302 – 1303; 18 – 22, 1309; 896 – 897; 1322; 567 – 573; 300 (respectively). The anchor was the personal badge of Seleucus I, and figured as the Seleucid state seal. See Bikerman 1938:33; Zahle 1990:134 n. 4. Note the absence of the anchor on Ptolemaic coinage (Poole 1963). The anchor is also rare on the coins of the Roman republic (Crawford 1974:227). 167 Kindler 1968:190; Jacobson 2000. 168 Kanael 1963:44; Meshorer 1982:62. Cf. Ant. 13.357 – 364, 395. 169 Hill 1965a:7, 12. 170 Houghton 1983:nos. 726 – 728 (Antiochus III), 711, 731 – 734 (Antiochus IV), 736 – 741 (Demetrius I), 272 – 274 (Antiochus VII), 588 (Antiochus IX).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Symbols: Political, Religious, or “National”?

213

famous for its unique hot pools).171 But Sidonian galleys also appear on coins dating from the Persian period and struck in Samaria—a city with no connection to the sea.172 These galleys probably bespeak a Phoenician influence; hence, for the Samarians, the galley expressed the general themes of power and success.173 In any event, the use of both anchor and galley shows that maritime symbolism was common in the Hellenistic world at large, and especially in the poleis in and near Judaea. It also appeared in coins of cities that had no fleet or ports. Indeed, ships and boats were used by Jews as decorative and commemorative elements on buildings and funerary sites, such as the mausoleum in Mode’in erected by Simon (1 Macc 13:28 – 30) and in Jason’s tomb in Jerusalem. However, the actual vocations of maritime navigation, naval commerce, shipbuilding, and shipowning were relatively uncommon among Judaean Jews; and in any case most of the decorative depictions of ships have been discovered in inland rather than coastal settlements. Clearly, then, these decorations were meant to be interpreted symbolically, most likely as representations of power and wealth.174 A survey of the use of anchors in Hellenistic coinage reveals its complex symbolism. For example, on several coins the anchor appears on a Macedonian shield, with a horned elephant striding on the reverse (Antiochus I); in other cases, it appears on the reverse, with a horned horse175 on the obverse (Antiochus I, Seleucus I, Seleucus II). In all these cases, the symbolism is clearly that of military triumph. Still, Seleucus I used the anchor on his coins even when he did not have naval victories to his name. In fact, according to Appian the anchor was a general sign of safety and success.176 On the coins of Alexander Zabinas the anchor is adjacent to a cornucopia, and so associated 171 E.g., Tyre, late second century BCE to first century CE (Hill 1965a:254 – 263); Sidon (Hill 1965b:139 – 154); Ascalon, late second century CE to middle Roman period (Hill 1965a:105 – 113); Ptolemais (Kadman 1961:44 – 45 and no. 62; Meshorer 1985:14); Dora: (Hill 1965b:lxxv, 113 – 116; 21); Caesarea (Meshorer 1985:21); Tiberias (Meshorer 1985:34 – 35); Gadara (Meshorer 1985:80). Ships and prows are very common on the coins of the Roman republic; e. g., Crawford 1974:231, 233, 316, 339. 172 See the Sidonian galleys with the inscription smryn, dated to the fourth century BCE, in Meshorer and Qedar 1991:47, 52 – 54, 57. 173 Meshorer and Qedar 1991:37 noted that the galley is very common on Sidonian coins, which in turn had a strong influence on Samarian ones. For the Samaritans’ self-declaration that they were, in truth, Sidonians, see Ant. 12.259, 262. 174 Kashtan 2000:22 – 24 with references to archaeological evidence. In the T. Naphtali 6:1 – 10, Jacob and his sons sail on a ship, and the successful voyage, despite a storm en route, is a metaphor for the destiny of Israel. 175 The horse was associated with war. See Crawford 1974:713 – 714 and references. 176 Appian, Syr. 11.9.56; Hadley 1974:61 – 62. According to Hellenistic tradition (see also Justin Epit. Pompeis Trogus 15.4.2 – 9), the origin of this symbol can be traced to a dream of Seleucus I’s mother, in which Apollo gave her a signet ring engraved with an anchor in reward for lying with him; a ring was found in her bed the next day, which Seleucus I wore from that point onwards. See Jacobson 2000:74 – 76.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

214

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

with general prosperity. Demetrius I and II, as well as Antiochus VII (in his Jerusalem coins)177 all used the anchor as the only symbol on their coins, perhaps implying that its meaning was well known enough to serve as the sole symbol of their reign. It is likely that the anchor designated not merely maritime power, but more general power and success. When Jannaeus used the anchor, he followed the tradition of the Jerusalem coins of Antiochus VII, which featured both an anchor and a lily. Here the use of Seleucid symbolism is unmistakable: Jacobson even argued that Jannaeus used the anchor because it was a Seleucid symbol, i. e., in order to emphasize the legitimacy of his rule to the non-Jewish population. These coins—all of which were of the royal type—bear the Greek inscription “of King Alexander.”178 One popular type has the words basileo¯s alexandrou around the anchor, and a star (a symbol of kingship) with the inscription “yehonatan ha-melech” on the reverse. Hence, the symbolism of power and stability was closely associated with Jannaeus’s royal status.179 Another type with similar inscriptions had a lily (which, as discussed above, designated the Jewish people) on the reverse. Here the message seems to be less focused on Jannaeus as monarch and more on the kingship of the Jewish people. Maritime symbolism had already appeared on the Hasmonean monuments erected by Simon (1 Macc 13:28 – 30), and in the next chapter we will analyze it in relation to the swimming pools in the Hasmonean palaces. Perhaps Simon’s funerary monuments, Jannaeus’s anchor, and the Hasmonean pools invoked maritime symbolism because the Hasmoneans actually lack a substantial maritime power. That is, these symbols actually convey a quest for such achievements, a kind of virtual compensation, or even an attempt to conceal the lack of real power in this area.

5. Reading Political History in the Hasmonean Coins Many scholars have tried to use the inscriptions and symbols on the Hasmonean coins to reconstruct political issues of the day, such as the relationship between Jannaeus and the Pharisees. Yet the inferences they have drawn represent but a narrow approach to the study of Hasmonean coinage, since they focused solely on specific political events.

177 Houghton 1983:nos. 831 – 834. 178 Jacobson 2000:76, 80. 179 Another subtype (not presented in the Table) featured an anchor with a Greek inscription, while the reverse featured an Aramaic inscription along with Jannaues’s royal title (Meshorer 1982:120, type Cb). Here, the anchor was the sole symbolic representation of Jannaeus’s royalty, similar to the coins of Demetrius I and II.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Reading Political History in the Hasmonean Coins

215

Hyrcanus and the Pharisees Some of Hyrcanus’s coins bear the inscription yehoh. anan kohen gadol rosh h. eber ha-yehudim, namely, “John the high priest, head of h. eber hayehudim”—a designation that does not appear on the coins of the other Hasmoneans. It is impossible to determine what percent of Hyrcanus’s coins bear it. Sperber argued that Hyrcanus adopted the designation “head of the h. eber” towards the end of his reign, following his rift with the Pharisees (Ant. 13.288 – 298). Sperber thus maintained that at that juncture, Hyrcanus invested himself with additional power and authority, perhaps as a means of enforcing his decrees against the Pharisees. Sperber further speculated that the strength of the Pharisees’ reactions to these policies caused the title to fall into disuse, so that Hyrcanus’s son Judah Aristobulus eventually abandoned it.180 Jannaeus and the Pharisees Unlike his predecessors, Jannaeus struck coins not only with the title of high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim, but also with a royal title that did not mention the h. eber. This has led to speculations about Jannaeus’s relationship with the Pharisees. Kanael, for example, concluded that the high-priestly coins that mentioned the h. eber were the earlier ones, while the later, royal coins indicate that Jannaeus either abolished the h. eber or rendered it insignificant.181 Schalit followed this view, arguing that Jannaeus abolished the h. eber/Sanhedrin in an effort to achieve an absolute regime in the mold of the Hellenistic kings.182 Curiously, others argued that Jannaeus used specific legends or symbols to curry favor with the Pharisees. Kannael maintained that the lily (which, he argued, had replaced the star), the anchor, and the inscription “Yehonathan the king” in Hebrew, may have been a gesture of reconciliation,183 while Meshorer likewise suggested that Jannaeus had switched from paleo-Hebrew script to conventional Hebrew script as a means of accommodation. Meshorer used the same explanation for Jannaeus’s decision to render the diadem as a simple circle of dots in which the king’s name is inscribed, not between the star’s rays, but around it: In so doing, he pointed out, Jannaeus’s name and the star are separated.184 It should be nonetheless noted that both these symbols and conventional Hebrew script were struck on Jannaeus’s royal coins, which 180 Sperber 1965:86 – 90. Schalit 1972:273 – 274, 277, 278, 289 argued that Hyrcanus had removed the Pharisees from the h. eber/Sanhedrin, and that the heber became primarily Sadducean. 181 Kanael 1963:44. 182 Schalit 1972: 292, 344 n. 73. Schalit attributed the beginning of this policy to Hyrcanus (see above). 183 Kanael 1963:44. Cf. Goldstein 1980:79. 184 Meshorer 1997:43.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

216

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

omitted mention of the h. eber, supposedly on account of the Pharisees. But, we might ask, if Jannaeus really wanted to satisfy the Pharisees, why did he continue to omit mention of the h. eber?185 An extremely rare type of coin, of which only three specimens are known, bears the legend h. eber ha-yehudim on the obverse and a double cornucopia and pomegranate on the reverse. Although these features are markedly similar to those on the Hasmonean high-priestly coins, this type does not bear the name of any Hasmonean ruler whatsoever.186 Jeselsohn concluded that this omission attests to a minting authority that opposed the Hasmonean reign. One possibility is that, during Jannaeus’s civil war against the Pharisees in 88 BCE, when the king lost control over Jerusalem for a period and “fled to the mountains” (Ant. 13.379), the Pharisees temporarily took over the royal mint. Jeselsohn also speculated that following these events, Jannaeus canceled the h. eber; hence, the h. eber coins he struck as high priest predate the civil war with the Pharisees, while his royal coins (which omit mention of the h. eber) were minted after it.187 Much attention has been given to specific Jannaeus coin types on which new legends were overstruck on older ones (see Table). For example, on one coin’s obverse, the legend “Yehonatan the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim,” with a wreath, is struck over the title “Yehonatan the King” with a lily ; on the reverse, a double cornucopia is struck over an anchor and the inscription basileo¯s alexandrou (plates 7 – 9).188 This replacement of Yehonatan’s royal title with the high-priestly one has led many scholars to conclude that Jannaeus abandoned the title “king” following his conflict with the Pharisees.189 There is, however, numismatic evidence that Jannaeus continued to use his royal title towards the end of his reign. Coins with the legend “King Alexander” in both Aramaic and Greek also bear the legend “L KE,” or year 25 of his reign (i. e., 78 BCE, two years before his death and ten years after the civil war with the Pharisees).190 This proves that Jannaeus’s use of the royal title was not abandoned following his conflict with the Pharisees.191 185 See also Goodblatt 1994:101, who denies any evidence of any ideological transformation in Jannaeus’s coin minting. 186 Jeselsohn 1980. 187 Jeselsohn 1980:14 – 16. 188 Meshorer 1982:132 – 134. 189 Kindler 1958:18, 21 – 22; Kanael 1963:44 – 45; Goldstein 1976:356; Rajak 1990:270. There have been speculations that the high-priestly overstrikes were minted by Aristobulus II (although he also was a king) or Hyrcanus II (who was only a high priest). See Kindler 1991:15 – 17. However, Meshorer 1982:77 – 78 argued that the change from yonatan to yantan (omitting the vav) was motivated purely by aesthetics: The decision was contingent upon how many characters could be inserted neatly between the rays of the star. A proof that the overstrikes indeed represent Jannaeus’s coins is the double overstrike in which the second overstrike included Jannaeus’s royal title, published recently by Hendin and Shachar 2008 (see n. 4 above). 190 Naveh 1968. Kindler 1993:114 noted that including the date of the king’s reign is a Ptolemaic practice.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Reading Political History in the Hasmonean Coins

217

Interestingly, such overstrikes are not rare in Hellenistic coins and the Roman republic.192 It is possible that these overstrikes were minted by Jannaeus’s successors after his death (see below). They may have sought to stress Jannaeus’s high priesthood, rather than his royalty. In any event, attempts to correlate Jannnaeus’s use or omission of the high-priestly title and the h. eber with a power struggle between him and the Pharisees remain highly speculative. In short, we usually cannot judge whether Jannaeus used these titles in the beginning or towards the end of his reign.193 Indeed, it is quite likely that he used them simultaneously, as did his grandson Antigonus.194 In fact, the scholarly assumption that the Pharisees objected to his royal title and demanded mention of the h. eber cannot be corroborated. As shown Chapter 4, there is no reason to believe that the idea of Hasmonean kingship was rejected by the Pharisees. Furthermore, as we have seen earlier in this chapter, the h. eber was most likely not a council or Sanhedrin in which the Pharisees took part, but rather represented the entire Jewish people. Its appearance on the Hasmonean coins was not necessarily related to Jannaeus’s relationship with the Pharisees.

Posthumous Coins of Alexander Jannaeus Minted by his Successors Jannaeus’s coins are the most prevalent among Hasmonean coinage. In fact, they are more common than those of any other ruler.195 He struck seven different types (not including the overstrikes), far more than the other Hasmoneans. The reason for the various types seems to be his goal of disseminating political and religious propaganda, although, frequently, the legends were crudely shaped. Jannaeus coins are commonly found in Herodian sites and even in mid-first century CE strata, indicating that they remained in circulation for a long period.196 Furthermore, Jannaeus coin types contain more than 260 different dies197 and were struck, according to archaeological evidence, in huge quantities. All this suggests that Jannaeus’s coins continued to be minted after his death. 191 Meshorer 1982:77. 192 E.g., Warden 1990:38, 40; Crawford 1974:105 – 117. 193 According to Shachar 2004:6 – 9, who discussed the relative chronological sequence of Jannaeus’s coin types, the high-priestly types preceded the royal ones; the reason he offers is the presumed continuity with the high-priestly wreath/cornucopia of his predecessors. There is, however, no archaeological support for this view. 194 Compare Goodblatt 1994:100 – 101. The most recent study of Jannaeus’s royal coins that were overstruck by high-priestly inscriptions is that of Hendin 2009 – 10:37 – 38. 195 For example, half of all the coins found at Gamla are Jannaeus types. See Shachar 2004:10. 196 Shachar 2004:11. 197 Meshorer 1982:118 – 134.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

218

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

The coin type with the Aramaic legend “King Alexander year 25”198 probably sought to publicize Jannaeus’s reign among the populace, perhaps including Aramaic-speaking Gentiles.199 This was an extremely common coin type, and there are several indications that it was minted after that year, as well.200 The crude version of the “year 25” type with the anchor/star and “King Jonathan” inscription in Greek/Aramaic is much more common than the others. Since the earliest date of its minting is year 25 of Jannaeus’s reign (i. e., 78 BCE), and he died in 76 BCE, it is unlikely that he struck all these coins during his last three years of life.201 Both the original and crude versions of this type of coin, as well as the type made of lead with the basileo¯s alexandrou/King Alexandros (Aramaic) inscription and the anchor on the obverse (and no symbol on the reverse) are extremely common in sites that were resettled, perhaps by Jews, from the final years of Jannaeus’s reign through Pompey’s conquest in 63 BCE. They are also common in areas where earlier Hasmonean coins (including Jannaeus’s) are scarce (e. g., Samaria, Gibeon), but are absent when the earlier types are more common (e. g., Pella, Bethsaida). Thus, there is evidence for a substantial chronological gap between the “year 25” coins and the earlier ones—leading to the conclusion that the former were struck after Jannaeus’s death.202 It is possible that they were minted by his widow, Salome Alexandra, although it is also possible that some were minted by Aristobulus II (67 – 63 BCE) or, more likely, Hyrcanus II (63 – 40 BCE).203 Posthumous coins are a well-known phenomenon in Hellenistic numismatics. Alexander the Great, for example, struck posthumous coins in the name of his father,204 and posthumous coins of Alexander himself were struck by different rulers (Philip III) and cities (Miletus and Galatia).205 There were also posthumous coins of Antiocus IV.206 It seems that the successors of particularly successful kings sought to align themselves with the authority and political tradition of their predecessors by minting coins in their names. The probability that Alexandra and perhaps also Aristobulus II and/or Hyrcanus II struck posthumous coins of Alexander Jannaeus shows that later generations had a great respect for Jannaeus and regarded him a popular ruler. In minting 198 Meshorer 1997:185 and plate 28: 7 D—1 D. 199 Meshorer 1982:80. On the use of Aramaic, compare the coins of the Nabataeans. Naveh 1968:25 presumed that the Aramaic script was meant to appease the Pharisees—assuming that the use of paleo-Hebrew was common among the Sadducees. 200 Kindler 1968; Meshorer 1982:81. 201 Shachar 2004:10. This single type consists of approximately half of all the Jannaeus coins found at Meiron, Yodefat, and Horvat Mazad, and a quarter of those found at Gamla. 202 Shachar 2004:15 – 28. 203 Meshorer 1982:81 – 82; 1997:44 suggested that some of Jannaeus’s coins were struck by Alexandra. 204 Mørkholm 1991:43. 205 Mørkholm 1991:56, 143. 206 Houghton 1983:13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Reading Political History in the Hasmonean Coins

219

these coins, they attempted to reinforce their own authority by stressing the continuity between their own rule and Jannaeus’s.

Mattathias Antigonus, the Menorah and the Showbread Table Antigonus’s coins are distinct from other Hasmonean coins in several respects: (1) Unlike his predecessors, who used either the high-priestly or royal title, Antigonus used both titles on three coin types; hence, Antigonus boasted that he was both a high priest and a king. (2) Antigonus used h. eber hayehudim inconsistently : Unlike the other Hasmonean rulers, Antigonus struck two types in which he bore the high priest’s title without mention of the h. eber. (3) Although most of his coins continue to feature the traditional symbols of wreath and cornucopia (plates 10 – 11), which originated in the Hellenistic world, one type has a menorah and the table of the showbread, i. e., distinctive Jewish cultic symbols. (4) Antigonus produced large and expensive coins in comparison to those of the previous Hasmoneans; moreover, the production techniques he employed were significantly improved.207 While most of these differences can be easily explained, the omission of the h. eber remains a mystery.208 As previous scholars already noted—Antigonus, who ruled in 40 – 37 BCE, during which time he struck five different coin types—used his coins as propaganda in the war against his bitter rival, Herod, who was crowned King of Judaeans by the Romans. The depiction of Antigonus as both a high priest (in Hebrew) and a king (in Greek) on both sides of three different coin types is consistent with his political propaganda, as there is historical evidence that Antigonus stressed both his royal and priestly status. According to Josephus, Antigonus argued against the Romans’ crowning of Herod, insisting that it was unlawful for the Romans to grant kingship to Herod the Idumaean (“a half-Jew”), and that they ought to offer it instead to “those who were of the (royal) family.” Furthermore, Antigonus maintained that “there were at least as many of his family who might lawfully receive the kingship, for they have committed no offence against the Romans, and were priests; and thus they would be unworthily treated if they were deprived of this rank” (Ant. 14.403 – 404). The menorah on Antigonus’s coins209 is the earliest known depiction of the sacred vessel in ancient Jewish art; its appearance may hint at its development into a standard Jewish symbol in the Hasmonean period. Since the original menorah stood inside the Temple shrine, in the heikhal, the symbol surely had 207 Meshorer 1997:51 – 54. 208 I can only raise two very speculative explanations: either Antigonus felt that mentioning of the h. eber limited his authority, or since some Jews supported Herod and others fought against him, it was inappropriate to present himself as the leader of the entire Jewish people. 209 For details, see Meshorer 1982:92 – 93.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

220

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

a cultic or religious meaning. According to both Philo and Josephus, it was a cosmological symbol, perhaps reflecting God’s presence in the universe. Various interpretations of its symbolic message have been offered by scholars. In later synagogue and funerary art, it became a symbol of Jewish identity.210 Meshorer believed it displayed “national and religious pride.”211 Artistic renderings are known from somewhat later archaeological contexts.212 Meshorer assumed that Antigonus used it to symbolize the Temple cult, since, unlike many other symbols, it was not related to pagan cults.213 Surprisingly, however, although the Menorah was a cultic object, it was not attached to Antigonus’s high-priestly title, but rather to his royal one. One may therefore postulate that the menorah contains a symbolism beyond that of a mere cultic symbol, reflecting, perhaps, God’s support for the king’s reign. The table of showbread, on which “the bread of presence” was served at the Temple, appears on the obverse of those coins on which the menorah appears on the reverse. This makes sense, as the two sacred vessels stood side by side at the Temple’s heikhal. The table of showbread, mentioned in the Priestly Code and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, was a rectangular, four-legged table.214 On two of the three specimens of coins, two groups of loaves are set on the tabletop. The menorah and the table of showbread were already connected in Hasmonean memory, since in 1 Macc 1:21 – 22, both were confiscated by Antiochus IV when he first entered the Temple in 169 BCE; curiously, both appear on the Arch of Titus in Rome.215 Antigonus’s political use of these two cultic images seems obvious enough. Kanael argued that they symbolized his claim to be the defender of the Temple from Herod and the Romans.216 Meshorer dated the coins on which they appear to 37 BCE, and suggested that these symbols were intended to galvanize the Jews to protect the Temple from Herod and the Romans. Since these coins are very rare (in 1997, only 40 specimens were known), Meshorer concluded that they were probably struck within a very short period, perhaps during Herod’s siege of Jerusalem.217 Meshorer also compared this coin type with 210 Hachlili 2001:esp. 204. Cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.102, 105; Josephus, War 5.217. On the significance of the menorah as a major Jewish symbol in the Second Temple period, see Hachlili 2001:22 – 23. 211 Meshorer 1982:96. 212 A graffito depiction of the menorah (with a similar shape) was found on a plaster fragment in a palatial building in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. Here, the table of shewbread also appears. Several menorot were also inscribed on the wall of Jason’s tomb (Jerusalem, late first century BCE) and on ossuaries from first-century Jerusalem. See Hachlili 2001:24, 42 – 46. 213 Meshorer 1997:55. 214 E.g., Exod 25:23 – 30. See also m. Shekalim 6:4; m. Menah. ot 11:4 – 8. 215 Here the menorah has a different design than the one on the coin, however. For the different artistic renderings of the table on the coins and elsewhere, see Meshorer 1982:95 – 96; see also Hachlili 2001:232 – 239 with survey of literary sources. 216 Kanael 1963:47. 217 Meshorer 1997:54 – 56.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions

221

Herod’s earliest coins, minted in Samaria in “year 3” (c. 38 or 37 BCE), which featured depictions of Roman weaponry and ceremonial objects, e. g., an apex, tripod, winged caduceus, and aphlaston, in the style of Roman republican coins.218 While Herod’s messages were pro-Roman and bespoke military power, Antigonus reminded the Jews that his dynasty represented the Jewish religion and cult. He may have had no choice but to use, perhaps even invent, Jewish symbols that were not used by his predecessors.

6. Conclusions In this chapter I have studied the Hasmonean coins as expressions of power and identity, and have located them at the intersection of the ancient Jewish and Hellenistic cultures. The Hasmoneans consistently preferred to use their high-priestly title as opposed to that of ethnarch or king. Even Jannaeus and Antigonus, both of whom struck royal coins, also continued to strike highpriestly ones. This clear preference attests to the Hasmoneans’ religious selfimage—that is, their claim to be religious rather than merely political leaders. This preference also corresponds to their religious ideology as reflected in the literary sources, especially 1 Maccabees (see Chapter 3). As such, the Hasmoneans diverged from the numismatic conventions of the Hellenistic kingdoms, including those of the Nabataeans and Ituraeans, all of whose rulers mentioned their royal/political title. Furthermore, the Hasmoneans’ use of paleo-Hebrew on the high-priestly coins stressed their Jewish identity as well as their authenticity, namely, the continuation of the biblical heritage and of a certain sense of sacredness. H. eber ha-yehudim denotes the entire Jewish people rather than just a distinguished council of delegates. This is evidenced by the use of h. eber in ancient Hebrew; the fact that it appears on the coins along with an image of the high priest, and not a king (that is, in a religious rather than a political context); and its correspondence to the Hasmonean ideology of ruling in line with the people’s will and on their behalf (an ideology, it should be noted, that is wholly uncharacteristic of Hellenistic kingdoms, apart from the Macedonians). Most important, mentions of a similar type of council are absent from both Hellenistic coins and those of Roman republican issues; references to the people, the citizens, and in rare cases, the de¯mos are common on the coins of Greek and Phoenician cities, as well as on certain coins from the Roman republic. By mentioning h. eber ha-yehudim, then, the Hasmoneans proclaimed the central role of the public in the religious life of the kingdom. In this sphere, then, the Hasmonean state was similar to the Greek polis, whereas in 218 Meshorer 1997:59 – 62.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

222

Hasmonean Coinage as Political Discourse

the political and military realms, it far more resembled the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms. H . eber ha-yehudim always appears in conjunction with the high-priestly title, thus denoting a religious meaning. Since the Hasmonean high priest was also the high priest of the entire Jewish people, the h. eber probably referred not merely to the Judaean Jews, but also to those in the Diaspora. This unusual aspect of the Hasmonean ideology—the claim that the Hasmonean rulers were in fact the leaders of the entire Jewish people—is seen clearly in the Maccabees’ call to the Jews in Egypt to celebrate H. anukkah every year, and Julius Caesar’s acknowledgement of the religious status of Hyrcanus II outside Judaea. The appearance of the h. eber ha-yehudim inscription on most of the Hasmonean coin types proves that it was the official claim of all the Hasmonean rulers. The Hasmoneans used symbols that were mostly common to contemporaneous Seleucid coins, but they notably omitted iconic and pagan motifs. The inscriptions (and the paleo-Hebrew script) filled in the gap of the religious symbolism conveyed by the omitted figures, and functioned similarly as identity markers. For example, according to their symbolic contexts in both Hellenistic and Hasmonean coins, the wreath stressed the religious authority of the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim, instead of the Greek god. The double cornucopia represented success in the Hellenistic sense and divine blessing in the Jewish sense. Nonetheless, these were related to the office of the high priest and the Jewish people, and not to the personal identity of the Hasmonean rulers, as they were on the Seleucid and Ptolemaic coins. The helmet symbolized the military victory, security, and affluence of the Jews as led by Hyrcanus the high priest. The lily symbolized the Jewish people. The palm branch, detached from its original Hellenistic context of a god or an eagle, represented military achievements and successful rule, in both the Hellenistic and Jewish senses. Jannaeus’s star represented his royal status, in accordance with both Hellenistic and (mainly) Jewish kingship imagery, whereas his diadem was a distinctively Hellenistic mark of kingship. The representation of the diadem around the star (instead of on the king’s portrait) was also unique in the Hellenistic world. Finally, Jannaeus’s anchor used the Hellenistic symbol of power and stability to denote his kingship as a whole, and not merely this or that military victory. Jannaeus’s coins were the most popular of the Hasmonean coins and were probably minted posthumously by Salome Alexandra and perhaps also by his sons, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. This indicates that his successors considered him an extremely successful king. Antigonus’s use of distinctive Jewish cultic symbols, such as the menorah and the table of showbread, was intended to undermine the authority of Herod and to display Antigonus’s religious stance. Overall, the Hasmonean coinage reflects both similarities and differences between the Hasmonean self-image and political idioms and those of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions

223

Hellenistic, especially Seleucid, civilization. The Hasmoneans drew on Hellenistic concepts and symbols, but altered them substantially. In so doing, they stressed their Jewishness and succeeded in creating novel representations of that identity in both content and form. All this, it should be recalled, applies to the Hasmoneans’ own intentions, but does not necessarily mean that their subjects interpreted these messages in the very same manner. However, since the different Hasmonean rulers repeated some of these messages consistently over time, it is likely that at least some of their claims were perceived successfully.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Six Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho 1. Introduction: Aims and Methods In earlier chapters, we saw that the Hasmoneans stressed their protection and maintenance of the Temple, as well as presenting themselves as the religious leaders of the Jews. We also found that notwithstanding similarities between the style of governance of the Hasmonean kingdom and Hellenistic conventions of kingship, the Hasmoneans’ religious qualities were quite exceptional, and they differed notably from conventional ’personal’ Hellenistic monarchies. In the Hellenistic ’personal’ monarchy, for example, the king ruled a “spear-won” land for his own benefits and glory ; he was the state, and the people lacked any political role. The Hasmoneans, by contrast, regarded themselves as ruling on behalf of the Jews, in the manner that certain scholars have also attributed to Macedonian national monarchy. In the Macedonian framework, the king was distinguished less from his people, and the latter were an integral component of the Macedonian state. Moreover, the Macedonian people maintained relatively open relations with the king, and the everyday style of the royal family was modest.1 The historical sources contain no information about the Hasmoneans’ royal court, the ways in which they actually ruled and their relations with their subjects. Nonetheless, Tcherikover characterized the Hasmoneans and their court as follows: The life of the court was also fashioned on the model of the court life of the Hellenistic monarchies. In their private lives the Hasmoneans were very far from the austerity and stateliness befitting a Jewish High Priest . . . the life of the court was secular also, possessing no higher a level than that of the courts of Antioch or the kings of Asia Minor.2

In searching for more concrete representations of Hasmonean political ideology, this chapter turns to the archaeological findings of the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho, excavated by Ehud Netzer. The publication of these findings3 enables us to study the private residences of the Hasmonean rulers, 1 See Chapter 4. For the everyday style of the royal family, see Hammond 1989:68. The royal palace in Pella, Macedonia (4th century BCE), however, was far from modest. It contained six courtyards and two peristyles (98  77 m. and 43  50 m.). See Nielsen 1994:88 – 94, 264 – 266. 2 Tcherikover 1959: 252. 3 Netzer; 2001; 2004; Bar-Nathan 2002; Rosenberg 2008. See also Netzer 1999.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces

225

down to their vessels and dining habits. Four palaces were excavated in total, as well as several swimming pools, porticos, and gardens. The examination of these palaces, pools, and vessels allows us to investigate closely the private lives and self-perceptions of John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus, Salome Alexandra, Aristobulus II, and Hyrcanus II, as well as their uses of elements of Hellenistic culture. In order to gain a better perspective on the size and structure of these palaces, I will compare them to other Hellenistic palaces and early Roman villas in general, and the Herodian palaces in particular. This chapter is an interpretation of the archaeological evidence. It aims at an understanding of not only how the Hasmoneans lived, but how they behaved as monarchs: How did they choose to display their authority? What type of kingship and royal court, and what kind of relationship between the king and his subjects, were manifested by their palaces? In asking these questions, I am not claiming that these messages were responded to or even acknowledged by the people; we can reconstruct only one side of this communication through material culture. My methodology is that of social archaeology, in which material culture is seen not merely as a direct reflection of human behavior ; rather, the archaeological evidence is analyzed in order to reconstruct the belief system and organization of past societies, and to identify and interpret particular ideologies and social structures along the lines of sociological and anthropological theories.4 My interpretation builds on the concept of ideology as granting legitimacy to a section, group, or governing social stratum, and as promoting the values and perceptions of the dominating power. Social archaeologists conceptualize material culture using an understanding of ideology as a means of naturalizing or masking contradictions and conflicts within a given society. They argue that material culture produces symbols, which in turn express ideological constructs.5 Thus, for example, by identifying ordinary features of material culture that would seem to contradict the royal status of the Jericho palaces’ inhabitants, it is possible to point to Hasmonean ideological features as they were implemented in practice.

2. Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces Netzer excavated four different palaces in Tulul Abu al ‘Alayiq, west of ancient Jericho and north of Wadi Qelt (see plates 12 – 13). The Buried Palace was built, 4 Hodder 1982a; Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1987:103 – 171; Hodder and Huston 2003; Meskell and Preucel 2004. 5 Shanks and Tilley 1982; Miller and Tilley 1984; Hodder and Huston 2003:75 – 89. See the discussion of ideology in the Introduction.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

226

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

according to Netzer, by John Hyrcanus in ca. 125 – 115 BCE;6 the Fortified Palace, built by Alexander Jannaeus in ca. 93 – 86 BCE, was constructed on the ruins of the Buried Palace, a result of a military setback following Jannaeus’s numerous campaigns and losses to Ptolemy Lathyrus, the Nabataeans, the Seleucids, and even the Pharisees; and the Twin Palaces were built by Queen Salome Alexandra (76 – 67 BCE) for her two rival sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II (see plates 12 – 14).7 In what manner do these palaces reflect the respective ruler’s status and prestige? To answer this question, I will examine the royal functions of these palaces and the manner in which they manifested the special traits of royal ideology—namely, luxury (truphe¯) and hospitality—according to the following categories: (1) the total size of each palace; (2) the size of public spaces, including triclinia, peristyles, and other halls where visitors and officials might gather ; and (3) explicit expressions of Hellenistic culture (mosaics, frescoes, etc.). These categories also provide a means of comparing the Hasmonean palaces to Hellenistic ones (especially Herod’s early palaces), the basis for which has already been determined by Nielsen’s study of Hellenistic royal architecture.8 The total sizes of the different palaces and the approximate measurements of their public spaces are illustrated in Figures 1 – 2. In examining the scale and grandeur of these palaces, one should bear in mind that the Jericho complex was less important than the major Hasmonean palace in Jerusalem (probably referred to in Ant. 13.411; 14.7), which did not survive, and is not described by Josephus or any other ancient source; nonetheless, it may be assumed that the Jerusalem edifice was larger and more luxurious. Since it is difficult to establish prima facia criteria for assessing the size and functions of secondary palaces, the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho should be examined in comparison to the Herodian ones in Jericho and Masada, which were also secondary and probably used for similar functions. The four Hasmonean buildings and their surroundings formed a unified complex, and the Twin Palaces lay within the borders of the original Fortified Palace. However, each one should be considered, first and foremost, as a separate domestic unit, for two reasons: (1) when Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus 6 Coins of John Hyrcanus were found in ritual bath A(A)209–A(A)243. 7 Netzer 1999:5 – 31; 2001:2 – 6, 301 – 310. Netzer’s chronology was based on the seven architectural stages at the site, as well as on historical data. Criticism has focused on his dating of the earliest phase to approximately 125 – 115 BCE, when the earliest pottery may be dated only to 100 – 90 BCE (Magness 2003:422; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2009:93 – 94, who also pointed to the paucity of pottery predating 85/75 – 31 BCE). Bar-Nathan (2002:4, 193 – 194) recognized this difficulty, and suggested that earlier ceramic types were not preserved on account of their continued use. Later, Bar-Nathan (2006:277) dated the Buried Palace to Jannaeus’s reign. It nonetheless seems that the chronological gap between 115 and 100 BCE is too narrow to be evident in the ceramic assemblage from this period, which is scanty. Furthermore, John Hyrcanus (135 – 104) could have built his palace closer to 105 BCE. I therefore conclude that dating the Buried Palace to Hyrcanus’s last years is not inconceivable and remains a possibility. 8 Nielsen 1994:esp. 155 – 163.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces

227

Figure 1: Total Size of Hellenistic Palaces.

Figure 2: Size of Public Courts, Halls and Triclinia.

II lived beside Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra, different residents dwelled in each palace; and (2) architectural analysis (both functional and structural) can only be employed in this manner. The Buried Palace, which was only partly excavated, is the largest of the four. The size of the northern wing, in which the living quarters were located, was 55.5  15 m. The central wing’s size was 41.5  26.5 m. It consisted of a large courtyard of presumably 25  20 m. The courtyard led to a small reception room or triclinium, A(A)38 (estimated width 6.5 m) in the southern

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

228

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

wing, which measured 42.5  8.5 m. The triclinium was decorated with stucco and frescoes, and featured drafted blocks of marble and imitation alabaster.9 According to Netzer’s reconstruction it may be assumed that there was a similar hall in the northern wing. Tower AA1 was situated in the southeast corner, and Netzer speculates that there may have been towers at all four corners. The eastern part was not excavated, but included a long corridor. Additional living quarters were probably located on the second story.10 The only remains from the Fortified Palace, which was surrounded by a moat and built on the ruins of the much larger Buried Palace, were the foundation walls. Kelso and Baramki excavated square walls of 11  11 m. and parallel walls around this enclosure.11 Netzer suggests that this was an inner courtyard surrounded by a peristyle and four towers. Netzer also assumes that the structure had two or three stories.12 Most of the palace’s interior was occupied by walls and towers, with only a small amount of public space.13 Fragments of fresco decorations were found inside and in its environs.14 The Twin Palaces were semi-detached mansions of 22.5  26 m. constructed as mirror images of each other. In the center of each there was a courtyard of 10  9.3 m. which, via distyle in antis, led to a triclinium of 6  6.5 m. in the southern wing.15 The scant amount of public halls led Nielsen to conclude that the function of the Twin Palaces was primarily residential.16 Remains of stucco decorations painted in red, black, and white were found in the triclinium of the Eastern Mansion, as well as traces of fresco on the walls and painted fragments on the floor. A red-painted decorative groove was found in one of the bathroom suites.17 The Buried Palace was much larger than the others, and consisted of a central courtyard that was as large as both mansions of the Twin Palaces. This is surprising, since the Buried Palace is the earliest among the four, and was purposely demolished when the Fortified Palace was constructed upon it. The large measurements of the Buried Palace are striking if one follows Netzer’s chronology, dating it to the end of John Hyrcanus’s reign. Hyrcanus was not a king but merely high priest (1 Macc 16:24; Ant. 13.230, 259). The later and more modest Fortified Palace was built by King Alexander Jannaeus.18 The 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Kelso and Baramki 1955:9 and Plate 9; Rosenberg 2008:299 – 301. Netzer 1999: 1999:7 – 11, and fig. 9; 2001:17 – 18, 302 – 303. Kelso and Baramki 1955:8 – 9. Netzer 1999:18 – 21; 2001:305 – 306. Netzer 1999:18, fig. 22. Netzer 1999:20 – 21, fig. 26. Netzer 1999:23 – 28; 2001:3, 148, 306 – 310. Nielsen 1994:159. Netzer 2001:164, 310. According to Strabo, Jannaeus was the first Hasmonean who claimed to be a king. See Strabo, Geographica 16.2.40; Stern 1976: 301 – 302. However, Josephus Ant. 13.301 argues that his older brother, Judah Aristobulus, was the first to put a royal diadem on his head, and reigned for one year in 104 – 103 BCE. Stern 1976:307 preferred Josephus.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces

229

much smaller Twin Palaces were built by his wife, Queen Alexandra. Hence there would seem to be an inverse correlation between royal status and the display of power and luxury! This anomaly underscores the complexity of the Hasmoneans’ display of power and prestige through material culture. All four palaces had Greek or Hellenistic architectural features. They were each built around a large central courtyard, in which guests and the court’s staff probably gathered. Stuccoes or frescoes were found in the Buried Palace, the Fortified Palace, and the Eastern Mansion of the Twin Palaces. These are the first appearances of such wall decorations in Jewish sites.19 Nonetheless, all four palaces lack many elements of the Hellenistic monumental approach: a peristyle court, large ceremonial halls, and more elaborate decorations (which were used by Herod as well, as discussed below). The use of Hellenistic architectural decorations in all four Hasmonean palaces was relatively limited, considering that these were royal palaces of successful monarchs (and as we shall see, Hellenistic architecture is used extensively in the Pool Complex). Compare, for example, the palace of Hyrcanus the Tobiad (early second century BCE), a rich Jewish landowner and former royal tax collector of the Ptolemies. His palace, mentioned by Josephus, was excavated in the by Will and Larche. Located in Araq el Amir in the Transjordan, the structure dates to the early second century BCE. The palace, which Josephus (Ant. 12.228 – 236) describes as a baris, featured columns with Corinthian capitals (not found in the Hasmonean palaces) and other columns decorated with lions, as well as acroteria in the form of eagles, both of which connote royalty.20 The Hasmoneans did not use zoomorphic motifs, probably due to the Jewish prohibition against displaying images. However, they barely incorporated other artistic features either,21 in contrast to the column ornamentations or decorated friezes used by Herod.22 To what extent was the modest architecture of the Fortified Palace and the Twin Palaces common in Judaea? In what way does it attest to an act of restraint with regard to luxury, which may have been intended to send a certain “egalitarian” message to the Hasmoneans’ subjects? Comparisons of these palaces to other contemporary ones lead to interesting results. Herod’s earliest and simplest palaces, the First Palace in Jericho and the Western Palace at Masada, provide the most relevant comparisons. Both 19 Painted and gilded stucco was also found in the (non-Jewish) villa in Tel Anafa dated to the last quarter of the second century BCE (Berlin 1997:26 – 29). 20 Will and Larch 1991:219 – 221, 243 – 245, 280; Berlin 1997:11 – 12. 21 One mosaic (dated to Stage 7) was found near the bathhouse of the Western Garden (Netzer 1999:30 – 31 and fig. 39; 2001:101). Corinthian capitals found in the Cypros Fortress, were tentatively dated by Netzer (1999: 64 and fig. 86; 2004: 275) to the Hasmonean period, attesting to a portico or a peristyle courtyard at the site’s summit. 22 Compare Foerster 1995:104 – 139; and the heart-shaped colonnade bases found in Herodian Alexandrion-Sartaba, in Netzer 1999: 60 fig. 82. Cf. also the decorated friezes in Tomb of the Sons of Hezir in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Avigad 1954).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

230

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

palaces were built before Herod’s extensive construction projects,23 when he was still regarded as the Hasmonean’s immediate (and perhaps even temporary) successor. His reign was still rather unstable, due to the internal strife caused by his mother-in-law Alexandra (the mother of Miriamne the Hasmonean) and her close friend Queen Cleopatra VII (Cleopatra actually ruled the Jericho Valley, which had been given to her by Marcus Antonius). Herod even feared that he would be forced to forfeit his throne to Alexandra’s son, Aristobulus III, who later drowned under suspicious circumstances in one of the royal pools in Jericho (Ant. 15.23 – 95). Herod’s First Palace in Jericho, the so-called gymnasium excavated by Pritchard, was constructed in ca. 35 BCE, and measured 46  86 m.24 It contained a central peristyle courtyard of 35  42 m, leading to a triclinium or a reception hall of 18  12.5 m, which was surrounded by colonnades on the inside and by a wide corridor on the outside. There were at least three additional large rooms which could have been used for receptions or hospitality. Mosaics decorated the bathhouse. The core (Stage I) of Herod’s Western Palace in Masada, built in the earliest days of his reign, measured 28  24.5 m. It was erected around a central courtyard of 12  10 m, opening via distyle in antis, into a triclinium measuring 7 m  6.5 m, decorated with white stucco.25 Although the Western Palace resembles the architectural outline of the Twin Palaces,26 there are also significant differences. The Western Palace’s triclinium opened through three doorways into a larger (8.7  6 m) reception room which Netzer designated the “throne room.” An additional monumental room (456) measuring 5  8 m contained a colored mosaic and was divided by distyle in antis, and probably also used for receptions. Another room (449 – 450) in the bathhouse complex was decorated with stucco, which was later replaced with frescoes. The bathhouse also contained mosaics.27 Herod’s later Second and Third Palaces in Jericho, as well as the extensions to the Western Palaces in Masada, were much larger (the latter’s maximum size is ca. 75  50 m; see Figures 1 – 2). The Northern Palace in Masada was much more impressive, containing even more complex architectural features: large dining halls, garden peristyles, round peristyles, bathhouses, and elaborate frescoes and stuccoes.28 In comparison to Herod’s early palaces, the Hasmoneans’ use of public spaces and monumental architecture is quite restrained; indeed, reception, dining, and banqueting spaces were extremely limited in the Twin Palaces (and probably also in Jannaeus’s Fortified Place).29 Moreover, unlike Herod’s 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Netzer 1991:234 – 235, 627; 2001:338. Pritchard 1958:57 – 58; Netzer 1999:32 – 34. Netzer 1991:235, 242, 245 – 247, 627. Netzer 1991:599 – 604. Netzer 1991:247 – 253. Foerster 1995. Unlike his later palaces, Herod’s First Palace in Jericho and the Western Palace in Masada were

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Plain Courts: The Size and Function of the Hasmonean Palaces

231

First Palace in Jericho, none of the Hasmonean palaces had a peristyle court, which was extremely common even in modest Hellenistic palaces.30 Herod’s First Palace in Jericho demonstrates that even a king whose royal position was questionable and unstable would make an effort to construct a palace that was much more elaborate and lavish than the Fortified Palace and the Twin Palaces. Since Herod’s First Palace was located in the same area as the Hasmonean palaces, it probably served the same royal functions as those previous ones, but nevertheless put much greater emphasis on the king’s truphe¯. The Western Palace in Masada, too, shows that a much more intensive use of public spaces and Hellenistic art and architecture can be displayed in a structure similar in size to the Twin Palaces. We know from Josephus’s detailed descriptions of Herod’s extravagant personal and political character, and his later building projects, that he was a man of extravagance.31 The contrasting Hasmonean tendency, however, requires further explanation. The mundane architectural character of the Twin Palaces recalls the building in Tel Judeideh near Marisa. Nielsen dated this structure to the second half of the first century BCE and suggested that it was the palatial house of the local Hasmonean governor.32 The entire building measures ca. 14  33 m and consists of an eastern, “official” section with a large peristyle courtyard that opened via distyle in antis into a relatively large reception room or oecus (ca. 12  5 m), and was surrounded by an additional room. The western section includes much smaller rooms. This building illustrates that the structure of the Twin Palaces was not intended to display a royal status any greater than that of the local governor of Idumaea. Furthermore, Judaean private villas from the early Roman period, such as H. ilkiya’s Palace (Kh. el-Muraq) in Idumaea and H. orvat ’Eleq near Caesarea Maritima, which belonged to local rich landowners—not to kings or rulers—have larger buildings and grander courtyards and reception halls than any in the Fortified Place and the Twin Palaces.33 In order to broaden our perspective on the Hasmonean display of kingship, it is interesting to take note of the grand palaces of the Seleucids and

30 31 32 33

“compact palaces, characterized by a linear and closed architecture, many small rooms . . . and a few large main rooms . . .” encompassing “all functions in one building and a close relationship between the official and private life of the king” (Nielsen 1994:204). Nielsen (ibid., 207) regarded these two palaces as quite similar to the Hasmonean ones, arguing that Herod avoided stretching royal symbolism (great avenues, stairs, and monumental portals) too far, and even concludes that in the beginning, Herod reigned over a national rather than a personal kingdom, much like the Hasmoneans. She saw Herod’s further “monumentalization” as a result of his close relationship with Augustus after Actium. Nielsen’s evaluation of Herod’s early palaces actually stresses the Hasmonean paucity of monumental characteristics, although she does not seem to perceive it as such. Compare the large peristyles in the simple palaces of Pergamon and in the court with the rooms on all four sides in Aigai, Macedonia (Nielsen 1994:82, 106 – 109). Richardson 1996:174 – 213; Roller 1998. Bliss and Macalister 1902:7 – 8, 47 – 50, 89 – 90, 107, 195, 199, and fig. 15; Nielsen 1994:160. Compare Damati 1982; Hirschfeld 2000.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

232

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

Ptolemies. The palace of A Khanoum in Bactria, Afghanistan (which was a governor’s palace and later a royal one), for instance, dates from the third century to 150 BCE and measured 250  350 m, including a forecourt of 137  108 m. This forecourt consisted of 118 columns with Corinthian capitals and additional peristyles and halls.34 The Palazzo delle Colonne at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica was a governor’s palace erected at the beginning of the first century BCE. It measured 90  36 m, with a main courtyard of 24  29 m, and additional peristyles and reception halls.35 As Figures 1 – 2 demonstrate, the later Hasmonean palaces were much smaller than any other similar palace, and their halls, courts, and triclinia were also much smaller. True, Hyrcanus’s Buried Palace was larger than the inner parts of Herod’s Second Palace in Jericho (excluding the outer court section) and the Northern Palace in Masada, but its public spaces were markedly less spacious than those of the Herodian palaces in Jericho. Putting aside the question of whether the Hasmoneans were capable of constructing large structures like those of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, it seems that their palaces were deliberately devoid of any intention to imitate the monumental scale of the Hellenistic royal style. They were certainly familiar with this style, however, since, as we shall see below, they made extensive use of other grand features from certain Hellenistic palaces, namely, swimming pools and gardens. I suggest that their modesty was intentional because they attempted to show their subjects that they did not regard themselves as distinguished rulers.

3. The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis The architectural outline of a palace reflects the monarchic system it serves. The palace’s layout, for instance, bears the imprint of the structure of the king’s court, which itself expresses essential social features of the relationship between the king, his officials and servants, and his lay subjects. Social archeologists have long recognized architecture’s potential in deepening our understanding of symbolic world of the inhabitants, and in particular the manner in which architecture reflects ideology.36 By physically dividing and demarcating space, using walls, gateways, or entrances, people classify and control space, just as they do social relationships. Indeed, in recent theories of spatial analysis, architectural features are used to mark 34 Nielsen 1994:124 – 128, 278. 35 Nielsen 1994:148 – 152, 284. 36 Kent 1990a; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994a; von Stackelberg 2009.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

233

distinctions between domains such as inside/outside, private/public, and initiated/uninitiated.37 Thus, the more segmented the space—by means, for example, of spatial partitions and restricted areas—the more we may presume a given society is segregated and divided into hierarchies and specialized activities.38 In order to decipher the plans of the Buried Palace and the Twin Palaces, as well as those of the Herodian palaces in Jericho and Masada, I will use the method of space syntax theory, commonly called access analysis.39 Access analysis provides analytical tools that decipher spatial complexity, viewing spatial organization as a product of social organization. It represents the spatial organization of a building or site in terms of the relationship between its doorways and rooms, or spaces and gateways. It measures the relative distance between spaces that represents social encounters and the accompanying architectural boundaries that symbolized social separation and solidarity. The spatial layout of the building or site is displayed graphically, through circles representing spaces (e. g., rooms) and linking lines representing the entrances or doorways that lead to these spaces and how they are related to the outside world. Figures 3 – 9 present the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces according to this scheme. This method uncovers the spatial relations within the architectural plan, and enables us to compare them with other buildings.40 The graphic expression of the spatial form demonstrates how encounters are generated and controlled in a given architectural unit.41 Hillier and Hanson provide several analytical tools for measuring and interpreting the graphic schemes of spaces and doorways: (1) The accessibility to a given space from the outside, namely the number of boundaries that need to be crossed to reach a certain space. The point of reference for all spaces is the building’s threshold (designated with X). This serves as a boundary in relation to the outside world, distinguishing between inhabitants and strangers.42 Accessibility also pertains to the relationship between different spaces within the structure. For instance, if few boundaries need to be crossed, a space is accessible. If a large number of boundaries need to be crossed, it will be inaccessible.43 (2) The overall “depth” of the entire configuration—i. e., its general accessibility or inaccessibility— that is calculated quantitatively, as mean depth (see below). (3) The collective spaces of social interaction, due to their high level of accessibility, where individuals frequently encounter each other. Noncollec37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Parker Pearson and Richards 1994b:5, 24. Kent 1990b. Hillier and Hanson 1984. Hillier and Hanson 1984:14. Hillier and Hanson 1984:18; Grahame 2000:29 – 36. Hillier and Hanson 1984:19; Grahame 2000:21 – 22. Hillier and Hanson 1984:11 – 12, 62 – 65, 147 – 154; Grahame 2000:29 – 36.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

234

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

tive spaces are inaccessible (and usually also small), thereby providing intimacy or privacy.44 (4) The manner in which a given space “controls” access to its immediate neighbors.45 Such control may sometimes reflect segregation. (5) The extent of accessibility/inaccessibility of given spaces and the manner in which they control or are controlled by other spaces, which attests to their relative internal division and discreteness within the entire structure. In what follows, the plans of the Buried Palace and the Twin Palaces (see plates 13 – 14) are analyzed and compared with five Herodian palaces according to the abovementioned analytic rubrics. Figures 3 – 9 present the access analysis maps of these eight palaces based on their plans in Netzer’s studies.46

Figure 3: Jericho, Hasmonean Buried Palace.

The Buried Palace (Figure 3)47 This palace consists of 32 spaces. The key space is the courtyard, which controls access to no less than 28 spaces. The courtyard’s large measurements 44 Grahame 2000:75. 45 Hillier and Hanson 1984:64 – 66, 149 – 154; Grahame 2000:29 – 36, 44 – 45. 46 Netzer 1991:241, 628, and Plan 17; 1999:8 – 10, and fig. 9; 2001:315, 338, and Plans 26, 36. All the Hasmonean palaces seem to have contained a second story, and perhaps some of the Herodian ones do, too, but they are not represented in Figures 3 – 9, since they cannot be considered in the access analysis maps. This is not only due to the limitations of the method, but also because the number of rooms and their structures are unknown. 47 The map of the Buried Palace is based on Netzer’s plan (Netzer 1999:8 – 10, and fig. 9) which is incomplete, since the palace was only partially excavated. I have added a reconstruction of at least one wall in its interior, unexcavated section (its existence, I believe, is inevitable from a strictly architectural perspective), which creates one room unattested to in Netzer’s plan. In the Eastern Wing, which was not excavated at all (and was much smaller than the Northern Wing), I

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

235

(ca. 25  20 m) and its central position in the palace’s structure indicate that most of the social interaction took place there. The courtyard opens directly into five spaces, four of which control almost all the other spaces in the configuration. Access to the triclinium from the courtyard demands crossing an additional large room, which makes the triclinium relatively isolated. The triclinium opens into a small kitchen A(A)40, where a certain amount of pottery, including cooking vessels, was found.48 Some of the rooms in the Northern Wing are also relatively segregated. Thus, for example, if one wished to reach Ritual Bath A(A)209 – 243,49 one needed to cross five spaces from the palace’s outer threshold, or two spaces from the courtyard. Access to Bathroom AA24, where a bathtub was found,50 demands crossing six spaces from the threshold, or three from the courtyard. Leisure and ritual bathing were therefore private activities, hidden from the public eye. Tower AA1 and an additional room in the Northern Wing were also seven spaces away. A long corridor led from the large entrance room located along the eastern wall of the palace to a small room, A(A)67 on the northeast.51 The purpose of this specific corridor was most likely to facilitate access to the eastern exit without having to enter the interior parts of the palace. Such corridors “protect” a building from the infiltration of strangers.52 The service and living quarters in both the Northern and Southern Wings bear a relative pattern of discreteness: It seems that visitors were welcome only in the courtyard.53 The entire architectural structure is predisposed towards differentiation. There is not only a division into different wings, but also a division of the Northern and Southern Wings into two separate sections, which is probably related to the different functions of each section. Hillier and Hanson termed such a tendency “transpatial solidarity,” which refers to limits placed on physical proximity and social encounters. Transpatial solidarity is characterized by strong internal structuring, emphasizing the discreteness of the interior by strongly controlled boundaries. It is characteristic of ritualized and conformist organizations.54

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

have also reconstructed two spaces (one between the entrance hall and the courtyard, and another opening to the courtyard from the northeast). Nonetheless, this palace may have been more elaborate than the map presented in Figure 3. The reconstructed spaces and doorways are marked by broken lines. Netzer 2001:17; Bar-Nathan, personal communication. Netzer 2001:38 – 43. Netzer 2001:35. Netzer 1999:8; 2001:302. Cf. Grahame 2000:80. On the function of courtyards and halls for visitors and officials, see Vitruvius, De Architectura 6.5.1 – 2. Hillier and Hanson 1984:20, 40 – 42, 145, 161 – 163; Grahame 2000:41 – 44, 74 – 75.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

236

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

Figure 4: Jericho, Hasmonean Twin Palaces (Right: Eastern Palace; Left: Western Palace).

The Twin Palaces (Figure 4) Netzer designated these two mansions “the Twin Palaces,” since they are “constructed as mirror images of one another.”55 He also commented that “the basic layout was repeated in both of them with only minor variations.”56 However, although they share the same external measurements, and their architectural plan looks almost identical, the access analysis map clearly shows that they are not identical twins. First, while the Eastern Mansion contains 27 spaces, the Western Mansion contains only 24 spaces. Second, they have different structural characteristics: Both courtyards open onto six spaces, but in the Western Mansion there are two spaces that are not connected to the courtyard. Thus, in the Western Mansion the courtyard is less significant, since it controls a smaller number of spaces. In both mansions there is a tendency towards differentiation between spaces (see the above discussion concerning the transpatial solidarity of the Buried Palace). The major difference between the Twin Palaces and the Buried Palace is that in the latter, the sections of the Northern and the South Eastern Wings are more elaborate. Both Twin Palaces have a similar triclinium leading to a “private two-room suite”57 that is absent from the Buried Palace (where the triclinium opens into a very small kitchen). Furthermore, in both Twin Palaces the inner and larger room is six spaces away from the threshold. It serves as the private domain of the king/prince, in proximity to the public reception hall or 55 Netzer 2001:5. 56 Netzer 2001:148. 57 Netzer 2001:152.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

237

dining and banqueting room, thus ensuring a certain degree of privacy or segregation. Some of the rooms of the Western Mansion are more accessible than those of the Eastern Mansion, while some are less accessible. In both palaces, for example, the bathhouse (East AE62; West A(E)528), which contains a bathtub, is highly inaccessible: It is seven spaces away from the threshold. This attests to the private character of bathing. The ritual baths near the bathhouse complex, AE45 (in Room AE41) of the Western Mansion and AE40 of the Eastern Mansion, are both seven spaces away. The location of another set of ritual baths, however, is different in both mansions. In the Eastern Mansion, ritual bath AE54 is quite close to the kitchen and located five spaces away (two spaces from the courtyard). In the Western Mansion, ritual bath AE34 (in Room A(E)528) is directly connected to the kitchen. This ritual bath is not connected to or “controlled” by the courtyard (it is located four spaces away from the threshold). The fact that it is adjacent to the kitchen (A(E)53558 indicates that it has a different function than the parallel ritual bath in the Eastern Mansion. Netzer believed that it was used for the ritual cleansing of utensils.59 In fact, it was probably used for cooking in a state of purity and immersion of visitors before they entered the courtyard or served the court’s staff. In the Western Mansion there is an additional ritual bath A(E)529 (in Room A(E)523) four spaces away (and immediately accessible from the courtyard60). The fact that the Western Mansion has three ritual baths instead of the two found in the Eastern Mansion, along with the immediate proximity of one of them to the kitchen, indicates that its inhabitants maintained a stricter approach towards ritual purity (on the identity of their inhabitants, see excursus). The kitchen of the Eastern Mansion, which is a double room AE47–AE57,61 was much larger than the Western Mansion’s. Unlike the latter, which was one space from the threshold, the Eastern Mansion’s kitchen was five and six spaces away. This considerable difference should give us pause. The preparation of food in the Eastern Mansion, it would seem, was limited to closer circles in the court and was regarded as a more restricted and important activity. The kitchen’s large measurements indicate that there were more diners and that meals held a greater importance than in the Western Mansion. Feasts and hospitality may have been more common. In conclusion, the access analysis of all three Hasmonean palaces demonstrates the dominant role of the courtyard, which is relatively accessible 58 Netzer 2001:155 – 157. 59 Netzer 2001:157. 60 Netzer (2001:153) noted that this ritual bath is located right next to the doorway of the western swimming pool, thus enabling the purification of persons entering from the pool. 61 Netzer 2001:165 – 167.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

238

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

in all three palaces. It also points to a tendency to separate the ruler’s private domain (and perhaps also certain official functions) from visitors, especially in the Buried Palace. The access analysis also uncovers features common to the Twin Palaces: the private rooms of the king/prince behind the triclinium, for instance, and the segregated character of bathing. Nonetheless, it also reveals differences between the Twin Palaces in the matters of purity observance and food preparation. Comparisons to the Herodian Palaces Comparison with the access analysis of other Hellenistic palaces highlights patterns common to all three Hasmonean palaces. Such comparisons— apparent only when the plans of other structures are used as a point of departure—also point to important elements not incorporated by the Hasmoneans. Lacking evidence from their direct antecedents or from contemporary palaces, the most relevant comparison to be made is with the Herodian palaces, since, unlike most other Hellenistic palaces, they were preserved in their entirety. Herod, the successor of the Hasmonean kingdom, ruled under somewhat similar cultural restrictions, such as a commitment to Jewish traditions, as evidenced by the abundance of ritual baths in his palaces.62 However, his political position was quite different from that of the Hasmoneans. Herod’s palaces represent several architectural types, all constructed in different periods of his reign and under shifting political conditions; each also aimed to serve various needs. Figures 5 – 9 introduce the access analysis maps of Herod’s three palaces in Jericho and the early and final phases of his Western Palace in Masada. The structure of Stage I of Herod’s Western Palace in Masada (Figure 5) is very similar to that of the Buried Palace and the Eastern Mansion of the Twin Palaces, and quite similar to that of the Western Mansion. The palace contains 26 spaces. The central courtyard controls 22 spaces, and opens into six different spaces (as in both of the Twin Palaces). The triclinium, however, has a different role in the structure. It opens into two different spaces from two opposite sides, and controls three spaces, as well as four additional ones that have double access (from both the triclinium and the courtyard). The “throne room,” onto which the triclinium opens, is the largest room in the palace and is situated five spaces from the palace’s threshold (and two from the courtyard). Another, smaller reception room (no. 456) with a magnificent mosaic is found in a similar position on the map. The monumental bathhouse, which contains two bathtubs, is seven spaces away. The reception room and bathhouse were used for the reception of the king’s special visitors, thus representing to them Herod’s initial manifestation of truphe¯. Significantly, such rooms are found not at all in the Hasmonean palaces! Notably, these rooms were hidden from 62 Regev 2010:207 – 212.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

239

sight. Hence, the location of Herod’s monumental additions attests to an even stronger tendency towards privacy than was demonstrated by the Hasmoneans.

Figure 5: Masada, Herod’s Western Palace, Phase I.

Figure 6: Jericho, Herod’s First Palace (“The Gymnasium”).

Herod’s First Palace in Jericho (the so-called gymnasium) features a completely different structure, in spite of the fact that it was built in the very same years as was the Western Palace in Masada, and in spite of its close geographical proximity to the Twin Palaces. As Figure 6 shows, it has a very

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

240

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

complex outline. The difference lies not only in the fact that it contains 44 spaces. Unlike the previous palaces, it has three different focal spaces: The entrance room (no. 11) directly controls 19 small service rooms; the triclinium and its surrounding wide courtyard/corridor control 11 spaces; and the huge central courtyard, the heart of the palace in both structural and functional architectural senses, controls all other spaces. This special structure enables the simultaneous hosting of a large number of people in different parts of the palace. Both the access analysis map and the architectural plan demonstrate clearly that the audience would have surrounded the king in a manner befitting his honor and eminence. The palace’s spatial structure therefore stresses the king’s truphe¯ without requiring outstanding Hellenistic monumental features, such as porticos, mosaics, etc. Although Herod’s First Palace in Jericho is much larger and contains between 11 and 19 more spaces than the Hasmonean palaces (as well as Herod’s Western Palace in Masada), its large courtyard remains only two spaces away from the threshold. In addition, the triclinium is only three spaces away (in the Twin Palaces and the Western Palace in Masada the triclinium is four spaces away and in the Buried Palace it is five spaces away). This shows that accessibility does not result from a building’s size or the number of spaces it contains, but rather is a matter of preference. Bluntly stated, Herod wanted to be more easily accessible to his audience than the Hasmoneans did. Herod’s Second Palace in Jericho was built on the ruins of the Twin Palaces’ Eastern Court, which had collapsed in the earthquake of 31 BCE.63 As shown in Figure 7, this palace has 42 spaces,64 all built around two different focal spaces. The outer courtyard controls the entire structure, including the ten spaces of the Lower Wing. The Lower Wing, in turn, is divided between the Roman bathhouse and a large pool complex A(L)255, formerly belonging to the Twin Palaces’ Eastern Court.65 In the Main Wing, the triclinium and the Ionic peristyle court control 19 spaces. The two small sections on both sides of the trinclinium are comprised of four additional spaces each, somewhat separated from the main quarters. The large external courtyard, which also contains a small pool (A(L)330 formerly belonging to the Eastern Mansion of the Twin Palaces), is the closest to the palace’s threshold. The triclinium is three spaces from the threshold (a reconstructed portico divides the outer courtyard and the triclinium), which is more accessible here than in any of the palaces discussed above. The grand peristyle, undoubtedly the heart of the palace, is four spaces away. Herod’s encounters with outsiders and large gatherings of visitors took place in both the outer courtyard and the inner peristyle. Additional, relatively large spaces, 63 Netzer 1999:35; 2001:8, 312, 339. 64 Three additional spaces south of the large swimming pool and east of the Roman bathhouse have no doorways in Netzer’s plan (2001:315), and therefore cannot be corroborated in Figure 7. 65 Netzer 2001:312 – 316.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

241

one of which includes distyle in antis, open onto the courtyard. Five or six spaces from the threshold, they may have served as Herod’s personal domain. The peristyle and the triclinium are surrounded by service rooms that probably supported hospitality functions. Spaces that parallel the triclinium and the peristyle (located on both sides of the triclinium) are isolated from other spaces in the configuration and served functions more closely related to the king and his staff.66 Again, the king’s personal domain and the royal reception and hospitality rooms are not remote or segregated. On the contrary, the palace was designed for such social encounters, aiming to impress visitors when they passed through pools and colonnades to the peristyle. Herod’s Second Palace in Jericho demonstrates a style strikingly dissimilar to that of the Hasmoneans. The public spaces are much more accessible, and more spaces control the entire configuration and enable convenient passage between spaces, whereas other, more private or accessory spaces are detached. The Roman bathhouse is also very accessible, being only two spaces from the threshold and reachable from the outer courtyard. In the Hasmonean palaces, however, bathhouses were the most segregated of all the spaces.

Figure 7: Jericho, Herod’s Second Palace.

Herod’s Western Palace in Masada, Phases II – III, built in the later years of his reign, is certainly his largest palace: It contains 86 spaces,67 which included facilities that served the entire royal complex at Masada.68 Figure 8 shows that the palace is divided into three main structures, each one constructed in a different phase. It contains four courtyards (not including the external one leading to each structure), with each controlling a large number of spaces. 66 See Netzer 2001:314. 67 Four additional spaces are not included in Figure 8 since they can be reached only from the outside of the palace. The later changes and additions made by the Zealots during the Great Revolt are also not included. 68 Netzer 1991:627 – 632; 1999:80.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

242

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

Phase II (on the right side of the map), is a relatively elaborate structure. It may have been designed for hosting visitors. Another small section of Phase II (on the upper left of the map) was also dominated by an additional court, which was later incorporated into Phase III but originally accessed from the entrance of Phase I. The accessibility of the spaces in Phase II, which were controlled by courtyards, as well as the relatively large measurements of most of the rooms, indicate that, quite like the older building of Phase I, they were designed to enable social integration, and were probably used for hosting visitors.69 Nonetheless, Phase II lacks the features of Hellenistic monumental architecture and art found in Phase I, and thus was not designed to impress outsiders. The construction of two additional court structures in Phase II attests to Herod’s attempt to host more visitors and senior staff members, implying a royal court of increased size. Here, three separate courts/buildings were built instead of a single large one, and access from one court to another was inconvenient. These characteristics point to a certain hierarchical differentiation between types of court officials and Herod’s personal associates and guests. The spatial structure of Phase III (on the left side of the map), however, is highly segregated. It is divided into separate segments, which thus intentionally make difficult the passage between spaces. The division of the building’s sections was likely guided by a certain functional hierarchy. Most of the rooms were probably living quarters and service rooms,70 many of which were highly inaccessible (seven to nine spaces from the palace’s threshold). The entire Western Palace is therefore a combination of extravagant hospitality (Phase I), formal and functional hospitality (Phase II), and service and official functions (Phase III). All are present in one large complex, reflecting the comprehensive and multifaceted character of Herod’s royal court. Although Herod’s kingdom was not larger than that of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra, a court of such a large scale is certainly unknown to the Hasmonean palaces. Herod’s Third Palace in Jericho (the so-called opus reticulatum palace), built in ca. 15 BCE71 was certainly the most elaborate of the palaces in Jericho. Figure 9 presents the access analysis map of its Northern Wing.72 This palace, 69 Netzer (1991:627, 630; 1999:87) concluded that these served as storerooms and workshops, for such purposes as pottery production. Although some rooms may have been used for such functions, the entrance room to the larger building of Phase II has benches, indicating a guard room (421) inhabited by guards (Netzer 1991:265). This, I believe, corresponds to public or formal functionality. 70 Cf. Netzer 1991:631 – 32; 1999:88. 71 Netzer 2001:9. 72 Not including 8 additional spaces which, according to Netzer’s plan, have no doorways and therefore cannot be considered in the access analysis map. Some of these rooms originally belonged to an adjacent villa, and so did the long section (rooms B213–B234) on the far right of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

Figure 8: Masada, Herod’s Western Palace, Phases I, II – III.

Figure 9: Jericho, Herod’s Third Palace, Northern Wing.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

243

244

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

consisting of 42 spaces, has a very complex structure. The access analysis map shows that the palace is divided into different sections or groupings of spaces, which are quite separated from one another : the peristyle court B70, detached from all other spaces; the peristyle court B64 leading to the “throne room” B88;73 and the Roman bathhouse complex beginning with room B67. Two main spaces, B90 and B55, control almost the entire configuration, providing a double spatial focus similar to that of the First and Second Palaces in Jericho. The palace’s architectural plan is extremely dense,74 comprising a large number of rooms of different sizes and shapes, many of which are relatively inaccessible. For example, the “throne room” B88 is five spaces away from the building’s threshold, and the king’s living quarters in B81/B89 are also five spaces away. Noteworthy are the two large sections of service rooms in the eastern part, which are extremely inaccessible. The palace has two major contrasting characteristics. On the one hand, it is Herod’s most monumental palace, consisting of a colonnaded entrance (B65), three large peristyle courts (B70, B64, B55), an extremely elaborate opus reticulatum Roman bathhouse, and a “throne room.” Most of the rooms in the main sections were decorated with frescoes and stuccoes.75 On the other hand, unlike the Northern Palace in Masada, passage from one section to another is inconvenient, and the palace contains many small and less accessible rooms and cells. This demonstrates a combination of monumentalism (or truphe¯) and discreteness. The peristyles and the Roman bathhouse are meant to impress visitors, but some of the king’s private domains and the sections of the court’s staff were clearly not meant for public eyes. The king wished to exhibit his power and glory, but also to keep certain activities private. Such a combination is missing in the Hasmonean palaces, where truphe¯ is almost absent, but discreteness is also less apparent. In the Third Palace in Jericho, the large number of rooms, the complexity of the spatial structure, and the complicated combination of truphe¯ and discreteness all reflect the elaborate and complex character of the king’s court and staff. The absence of these patterns in all the Hasmonean palaces therefore attests to their simplicity—and probably also to the smaller scale of the Hasmonean royal courts. Comparing the access analysis maps of the Hasmonean palaces with the maps of these five Herodian palaces indicates that Herod’s palaces were not merely much larger and more elaborate than the Hasmonean ones. Rather, Figure 9. See Netzer 1999:41; 2001:318, and n. 1. Three rooms in the overall configuration (including the Main Entrance Room) are actually from the post-Herodian Stage 4 (Netzer 1991:235, 632 – 33). The other parts of the palace, namely the large Sunken Garden and the reception hall on the Southern Tel on the southern side of Wadi Qelt, did not contain rooms, and are not represented in Figure 9. 73 See Netzer 1999:44, 51. 74 Netzer 2001:317 – 318 divided it into eight units. 75 Netzer 1999:42.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Internal Structure of the Hasmonean Palaces: Access Analysis

245

they were designed to accommodate the king’s social encounters with both guests and the court’s staff. The use of two or more courtyards at the center of the spatial system, which controlled most of the spaces, was common to four of Herod’s palaces. Double courtyards or spatial centers are also found in the later rich villas of H. ilkiya’s Palace (Kh. el-Muraq) and H. orvat ’Eleq.76 Even in Phase I of the Western Palace in Masada, which was smaller than the Buried Palace and similar in size to the Twin Palaces, the triclinium and other spaces designated for hosting had a more central location and role. The access analysis maps will be further considered in assessing the function of the spatial location of the bathhouses and ritual baths. Whereas the previous discussion using the access analysis maps was basically interpretive, Hillier and Hanson also introduce a quantitative tool for comparing the degree of general accessibility in each of the palaces. The concept of mean depth quantifies the degree to which architectural structures use boundaries and hierarchal patterns.77 Mean Depth is calculated by assigning a score of 1 to all spaces that require crossing only one boundary in order to be reached from a given point (the palace’s threshold); a score of 2 to all spaces that can only be reached by crossing two boundaries, and so on for the entire configuration. The number of spaces at each level of depth from the original space is then multiplied by that value of depth to give the total for each depth. These totals are then added and divided by the total number of spaces in the system minus one—the original space—to give the Mean Depth: MD ¼

Sd k K1

Figure 10 introduces the Mean Depth of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces. The Buried Palace (Mean Depth 5.09) is more segregated than the Twin Palaces, and the social boundaries of the Western Mansion (4.87) slightly exceed those of the Eastern Mansion (4.73). Herod’s Western Palace in Masada, Phase I (4.66) is slightly less segregated than any of the Hasmonean palaces. Notably, Herod’s First (4.2) and Second (4.17) Palaces in Jericho are considerably more accessible to outsiders than the Hasmonean palaces, although they contain many more spaces. However, Herod’s very elaborate Western Palace in Masada, Phases I – III (6.34), and Third Palace in Jericho (6.85) are highly segregated. It should be noted, however, that many of their inaccessible spaces were used for storage and other accessory functions, and once again point to Herod’s complex court or administration. These results demonstrate that the Buried Palace was not only the largest Hasmonean palace, but was also reflective of a ruler who was more detached from his people than the ruler of the Twin Palaces. The Hasmonean palaces 76 Damati 1982; Hirschfeld 2000. For their access analysis maps, see Regev 2009a:89 – 92. 77 Hillier and Hanson 1984:148 – 175; Grahame 2000:34 – 35.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

246

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

were not designated to host large numbers of visitors and staff, as were Herod’s First and Second Palaces in Jericho. They also lacked a developed and hierarchical court and staff. All this attests to the modest scale of the Hasmonean courts and the lack of intention to make contact with outsiders, and to impress visitors in the ruler’s private quarters.

Figure 10: Mean Depth of Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces.

4. Royal Water : Swimming Pools and Gardens Contrary to the relatively modest and somewhat segregated character of the architecture and spatial organization of the Hasmonean palaces proper, the Hasmonean complex in Jericho included several swimming pools, comparable to those of the rich and elaborate palaces of the Macedonians, Seleucids, and Ptolemies in the Hellenistic period. I shall first list these pools, paying close attention to their exact location in relation to the palace buildings. Then, I will turn to the question of the royal ideology they reflect. The entire Hasmonean palace complex in Jericho included eleven different pools. Two small bathing and swimming pools, AC44 and A(C)94, measuring ca. 8.8  8.2 m with a maximum depth of 3.7 m, are located west of the Buried Palace. They were surrounded by a paved garden decorated with mosaics and walls with frescoes.78 In the same area, a small pool A(C)161 (3.6  3.6 m, and 3.9 m depth) was later added.79 Subsequently, when the Fortified Palace was built—probably by Alexander Jannaeus—Pool A(C)90 (8.8  7.7 m) was 78 Netzer 1999:10 – 11; 2001:2, 57 – 59. 79 Netzer 2001:63.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Royal Water: Swimming Pools and Gardens

247

added, following the removal of AC44 due to the construction of the moat. This structure may also have included a pavilion.80 The Hasmonean palatial complex included a Pool Complex – two swimming pools of 18  13 m and a pavilion for gatherings, located in the garden east of Fortified/Buried palace and north to the Twin Palaces (see plates 12 and 15). It was contemporary with the Buried Palace; hence, Netzer assumes it was constructed by John Hyrcanus. It was further developed in stages, when Jannaeus’ Fortified Palace replaced the Buried Palace, and was also used in the Herodian period. It contained two pools, (A[B]101), each measuring 18  13 m. The large pavilion, surrounded by porticos in Doric style (21  17 m), was constructed south of the southern pool.81 A small pool, A(B)399 (4  3.4 m), was built near the pavilion. The garden around the pools was surrounded by colonnades and walls. In later phases, storerooms were built in the western garden (west of the pools) and a triclinium was added. The pools and the pavilion were probably used for games and recreation, and the pavilion may have served as a triclinium or a reception hall.82 North of the pools was another large garden measuring 61  71 m, surrounded by colonnades.83 An additional small pool A(B)125 was constructed in Stage 6 (Hyrcanus II) in the western garden.84 Each of the Twin Palaces had a separate garden or court with a swimming pool located in the center. The western court, surrounded by a colonnade, included pool AE103 (8  7.85 m) and a rectangular building (8.1  7.5 m), which was probably a garden pavilion or a triclinium. The eastern court, which was larger, included pool A(L)330 (6.8  6.8 m), which had already been built in Stage 4 (under Alexander Jannaeus, predating the Twin Palaces); an additional, larger pool A(L)255 (20.2  12.5 m) was built in Stage 6, along with a triclinium (AL94) with couches.85 Such swimming pools were not uncommon in Hellenistic palaces. For example, a pool somewhat larger than any of the Hasmonean ones in the Pool Complex was found in the Seleucid palace at A Khanoum in Bactria, dating from the second century BCE. A pool smaller than any of those of the Pool Complex was excavated in the Palazzo delle Colonne at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. Furthermore, an enormous pool is mentioned in classical sources 80 81 82 83 84 85

Netzer 2001:67 – 68. On Roman garden pavilions with masonry triclinia, see von Stackelberg 2009:25 – 26. Netzer 2001:88 – 91, 303 – 305. Netzer 2001:136 – 139 and plan 25. Netzer 2001:98 – 99. Netzer 2001:172 – 174, 185, 189, 310. Stacey (2006) argued that the pools were mainly fishponds, and not necessarily recreational facilities. He denied the existence of the colonnaded garden north of the Pool Complex. Furthermore, he dated the Pool Complex to a period later than the Fortified Palace, and Pool A(L)255 in the Eastern Mansion to the Herodian period. In his (unpublished) reply, Netzer stressed the lavish palatial character of the Pool Complex (gardens, Doric columns, and architectural symmetry).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

248

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

in association with the palace of Gelon in Acragas, Sicily, dating from the fifth century BCE. Small pools dating from the fourth century BCE have also been found at the Royal Palace in Pella, Macedonia.86 Larger pools are common in Italian villas in the early Roman period.87 Herod, who later used some of the Hasmonean pools (see above), built an extremely large pool (B107, 90  42 m) east of the Sunken Garden of the Third Palace in Jericho, along with additional pools at Masada, in Lower Herodium, and at the promontory palace at Caesarea Maritima.88 In addition to the small gardens in the courts of the Twin Palaces and the large garden north of the Pool Complex, the Hasmonean royal complex included two smaller gardens. The Western Garden, built in Stages 6 – 7 (in the days of Hyrcanus II), north of the Fortified Palace and west of the Pool Complex, included Hall A(B)79–A(B)138 and a large hall or triclinium A(B) 131, already built in Stage 5. Later on, a bathhouse complex was constructed in the garden.89 The Eastern Garden included storerooms, an industrial installation, and ritual baths.90 Such gardens were also characteristic of Hellenistic palaces (probably due to Persian influence): in A Khanoum, Palazzo delle Colonne, in early Roman Italian villas (second and first centuries BCE), and, according to written sources, in the palaces of Ptolemy VIII Physcon and Hyrcanus the Tobiad.91 It is puzzling that the Hasmoneans preferred relatively simple, small buildings, but nonetheless invested great effort in building so many swimming pools (eight of which were used simultaneously in later stages) and large decorated gardens. Indeed, it would seem that they put more emphasis on the external features of their palaces than on their private, domestic domains. This intriguing phenomenon requires consideration, since it reveals a certain complexity in the Hasmoneans’ efforts to demonstrate their royal authority to their subjects. Why were the Hasmoneans interested in building so many pools, whereas other royal or monumental Hellenistic architectural features remained untapped? I suggest that the pools held a certain symbolism for this ruling dynasty. The Hasmoneans were concerned with the symbolism of water, or maritime symbolism. Examples abound: The monumental tomb of seven pyramids, which Simon built in Mode’in in memory of his father and brother, was decorated with carved ships (1 Macc 13:27 – 29), which served as a

86 Nielsen 1994:79, 92, 100, 127, 150. 87 Salza Prina Ricotti 1987. Cf. the smaller Roman ornamental pools mentioned in Farrar 2000:64 – 84. 88 See Netzer 1991:481 – 482, 647; 2001:317 – 319; 1999:102 – 103; and Gleason 1998, respectively. 89 Netzer 2001:95 – 98. 90 Netzer 2001:128 – 135. 91 Nielsen 1994:27, 133, 138 – 139, 150, 164 – 171; Macdougall and Jashemski 1981; Farrar 2000; Will and Larch 1991:20 – 21, 25 – 27; von Stackelberg 2009. Cf. Ant. 12.228 – 236.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Royal Water: Swimming Pools and Gardens

249

symbolic representation of power.92 Anchors were minted on the coins of Alexander Jannaeus. And as we saw in Chapter 5, the anchor was a Seleucid motif that symbolized not only maritime victories or control over the seas, but also power, stability, and political success in a more general sense. Hence, we may surmise that swimming pools were not merely recreational facilities, but were also built with the intention of displaying maritime symbolism, which in turn reflected the Hasmoneans’ political success. In a sense, these pools imitated those of other Hellenistic kings, showing that the Hasmoneans were successful rulers. The Hasmoneans’ pools and gardens also displayed power in another, rather elementary manner : The provision of sufficient water in the Jericho Valley, using several aqueducts,93 connected the palaces to the cultivation of the desert, and created a manmade oasis (i. e., an agricultural estate). This probably included the expensive balsam groves, famous for their perfume, which Marcus Antonius later gave to Cleopatra (War 4.362). Hence, the estate near the palaces also displayed enormous wealth.94 The pools and gardens recall the Near Eastern paradeisos and the early Roman country villas in Italy.95 They disseminated messages of power, political prominence, and influence to visitors and outside observers through their monumental plans and spaces.96 An interesting parallel from late first century BCE is the monumental pool complex near the Temple at Petra, which included a monumental pool (43  23 m) and island pavilion. This was part of a large palace complex, a royal paradeisos. The excavator suggests that it symbolized the Nabataean king’s power, legitimizing his place among contemporary rulers who utilized gardens and water displays as political metaphors and as gratuitous displays of conspicuous consumption.97 The role of the pools should also be examined in light of their location in the palace complex and in relation to the domestic buildings.98 As already argued, the lavish pools and gardens appear in contrast to the modest measurements of the domestic palatial buildings. Interestingly, most of the pools were not directly connected to the palaces themselves, but instead stood somewhat apart. The pools west of the Buried Palace/Fortified Palace, for example, as well as the Pool Complex and the pavilion east of these palaces, were separate 92 Fine 2005:63. 93 Netzer 2001:51 – 57, 60 – 62, 78 – 85, 125 – 126, 132 – 133. 94 On balsam (in Jericho or Judaea/Syria) and its economic value, see Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum 9, 61 – 64; Strabo, Geography 16.2.41; Pliny Natural History 12.111 – 117; Gleason 1993:161 – 165. 95 Stronach 1990; Purcell 1996. 96 On the political use made of gardens in the late republic, see von Stackelberg 2009:72 – 80. Note Julius Caesar’s invitations to the plebs urbana to a feast in his private garden to celebrate his Spanish triumph (Valerius Maximus Memorable Deeds 9.15.1). 97 Bedal 2004. 98 Compare von Stackelberg 2009:66 – 72, 101 – 125.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

250

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

complexes and were not accessed through the palaces. The pools of the Eastern Mansion of the Twin Palaces were also connected to the Eastern Garden. Only the pool of the Western Mansion was an integral part of the palace and reachable only by means of the palace’s court.99 In the Hellenistic palaces mentioned above, however, the pools were an integral part of the palace and closely associated with its building. The pool in A Khanoum was situated between the forecourt peristyle and the residential area. The pool in Palazzo delle Colonne was located in the garden of the main peristyle and more closely associated with the palace’s rooms than with the gardens; and the pool in Pella was adjacent to the bath complex and located inside the residential area.100 When examining the location of the gardens of the Pompeian villas, we can see that access to these gardens from within the domestic space was possible. In the garden peristyles of the House of Octavius Quartio and the House of the Menander, visual and physical access was by means of segregated, bounded spaces.101 Comparison with other palatial pools and gardens shows that their point of accessibility or visibility depended on the person or persons to whom they were meant to be accessible or visible—that is, what type of audience they were supposed to serve, and what symbolism these royal facilities were intended to reflect. Cyrus’s palaces in Pasargadae, for example, were located within a large garden complex. Palace P and its two garden pavilions were placed in the very midst of a welcoming “garden ambience” defined by stonelined water channels.102 The close association of the royal garden with the throne room or assembly hall may have emphasized the king’s position as ruler over his domain. A garden invisible to the public from the outside and accessible to visitors only from the king’s private quarters stressed the king’s status.103 In the palaces of the kings of Islamic Spain the pools and gardens were located in the interior part of the palace complex, associated with the king’s private space.104 Such a hierarchal arrangement of garden architecture is nowhere found in the Hasmonean palaces. On the contrary, I would suggest that the Hasmoneans did not construct the pools and gardens in order to demonstrate their personal authority, power, or wealth.105 The fact that all but one of the pools (and especially the monumental Pool Complex) were relatively detached from the actual palace buildings, were located in open gardens, were visible, and were accessible from outside the palace buildings bespeaks the unpretentiousness of the palaces. It would seem that the Hasmonean rulers (apart from Aristobulus II) were not interested in 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Cf. Netzer 2001:311 Ill. 457 and Plans 1, 6, 8. Nielsen 1994:92, 126 – 127, 150. von Stackelberg 2009:102 – 120. Stronach 1978:107 – 112. Stronach 1994. Fairchild Ruggles 2000:74, 107, 145 – 146, 149, 182 – 183, 194. Such is the case in many early Roman Italian villas; see, for example, Grimal 1969:128 – 131.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

The Hasmonean Bathhouses

251

making the pools integral parts of their own domestic units, but rather preferred more “public” and “open” facilities, probably for the same reason they preferred relatively simple palaces. This does not mean, however, that lay people were able to swim in those pools. Bearing in mind the supposed typologies of personal and national royal ideologies in the Hellenistic world, I believe that the pools were presented or conceptualized, not as the king’s personal luxurious facilities, but rather as more “national” ones: Located in the open areas outside the palaces, they displayed the success of the entire kingdom. The large number of pools and their architectural settings in gardens, porticos, triclinia, and pavilions outside the palaces’ immediate confines all suggest that Hasmonean truphe¯ was displayed as a “national” rather than a personal emblem. Whether or not the people interpreted the location and character of these pools and gardens in this fashion, we have no way of knowing. Our concern here is limited to the Hasmoneans’ intentions. This sociopolitical understanding of the Hasmonean gardens and pools is strengthened in light of von Stackelberg’s study of the spatial features of early Roman gardens in Pompeii. Since gardens are open spaces and have an “audience,” they shape social memory and hold the potential for selfexpression and self-presentation. In Roman villas, gardens were designed to evoke certain shared responses. They clarified individual and collective social roles and relationships, especially in the case of public access. The boundaries between private and public domains were sometimes blurred, since garden space allowed these boundaries to be transgressed, under a controlled set of circumstances. These weakened boundaries then generated and encouraged social encounters with the “other,” especially when the gardens were relatively accessible and their spatial layout was less hierarchical,106 as in the Hasmonean Pool Complex. Thus, I suggest that the gardens in Jericho served, in a symbolic sense, as a medium of contact between the Hasmoneans and the public. They symbolized, in monumental form, the relationship between the Hasmoneans and their subjects. It was as if the latter shared the power and success of their rulers. Such an interpretation would help solve the anomaly of the luxurious pools and gardens, on the one hand, and the plain domestic architecture and (as we shall see below) pottery on the other.

5. The Hasmonean Bathhouses Four Greek bathhouses, each containing bathtubs and heating installations, were discovered throughout the Hasmonean palace complex. In the Buried Palace, bathtub AA24 and furnace AA50 were located near bathroom AA24, in 106 von Stackelberg 2009:55, 62 – 72, 115 – 116.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

252

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

the Northern Wing of the palace.107 In the Western Mansion of the Twin Palaces, a hot bathtub was found in Room A(E)51 (plate 16); it was probably heated using a metal cauldron, traces of which were found in ritual bath AE45.108 A similar bathhouse suite (AE62) existed in the Eastern Mansion, containing a bathtub and a service room (AE44) with a furnace for heating the water for the bathtub.109 According to the access analysis, these Hasmonean private bathhouses were located in the most inaccessible spaces, and entry was highly restricted. Bathing in the palaces was not designed to impress outsiders, but rather for the relaxation of the royal residents. In contrast, in Hellenistic and Roman domestic buildings bathhouses were mostly located close to a peristyle courtyard (especially in Pompeii) and were used for the reception of guests.110 An additional bathhouse was constructed outside the palace buildings in the Western Garden, in Stage 7 (note that the Twin Palaces had already been built in Stage 5). Bathroom A(B)43 included a bathtub with an adjacent mosaic and signs of a cauldron, as well as an outstanding heated ritual bath A(B)86 with a cauldron A(B)93. A further heating chamber A(B)76, apparently containing a cauldron, was installed north of the pools.111 In this location, the Greek style of bathing was made available to visitors, demonstrating that the later Hasmoneans, probably Hyrcanus II, had encouraged those public bathing practices common to Hellenistic culture. The fact that previous Hasmoneans had refrained from constructing such public bathing facilities is noteworthy. Terracotta bathtubs were found in Mycenaean palaces and were already common in fifth-century BCE Athens and fourth-century middle-class houses in Olynthos.112 Private, domestic heated bathtubs appear in Italian villas from the second century BCE.113 The Hasmonean bathtubs and heating installations attest to the adoption of the Hellenistic culture of bathing for pleasure, relaxation, and comfort, a status symbol typical of the late Hellenistic period.114 Surprisingly, contemporary bathhouses found in Judaea and the Galilee were more elaborate. In Gezer, seven bathrooms have been found, three of which contained two bathtubs each. In Beth Zur a combination of sitz bath and basin has been found, as well as several baths in a single room (although these may have been public bathhouses, or balenia). In Tel Anafa, the private bathhouse contained three rooms (but one bathtub) and under-floor

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Netzer 2001:35. Netzer 2001:157 – 161. Netzer 2001:170 – 171. Trümper 2010:544. Netzer 2001:101 – 105, 122. Cook 1959. Trümper 2010:536 – 539. Yegul, 1992:4 – 6; Trümper 2010:543.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Jewish Royal-Priestly Purity : Ritual Baths

253

heating.115 The simplicity of the Hasmonean bathhouse complexes, their location, and the fact that, apart from a single and much later one, they were intended for private use, attest to the consciously limited adoption of Hellenistic (and originally Greek) bathing habits.

6. Jewish Royal-Priestly Purity : Ritual Baths Netzer excavated twelve ritual baths (miqva’ot), as well as four “treasuries” (small pools without steps, connected by a channel or a pipe used to “purify” the water of the adjacent bath, since drawing water would invalidate it for ritual immersion), throughout the complex.116 In the northeastern sector of the Buried Palace, ritual bath A(A)209 and an adjacent “treasury” A(A)243 were found.117 It is quite possible that additional ones exist in the unexcavated portions of the palace. The Eastern Mansion had two ritual baths: AE54 with a “treasury” AE53 in its northern sector not far from the kitchen, and AE40, close to the bathhouse. The Western Mansion had three ritual baths: AE34 (in Room A(E)528) adjacent to the kitchen, AE45 near the bathhouse (see plate 16), and A(E)529 near the corridor that led to the Western Court and the swimming pool.118 As previously noted, the greater number of ritual baths and the closer proximity between the ritual bath and the kitchen in the Western Mansion indicate that stricter purity restrictions were observed. Additional ritual baths probably existed in the poorly preserved Fortified Palace. As already shown in the access analysis of the palaces, most of the ritual baths were inaccessible from the entrance, and were therefore used for private purification. Several ritual baths were used outside the palaces. The Eastern Garden, east of the Pool Complex, also had two ritual baths next to storerooms and industrial facilities: A(B)63 and the much larger AB59/1, which had two flights of steps from the two opposite sides of the pool, with an adjoining “treasury.”119 It seems that these ritual baths were related to the production of agricultural food (such as oil and wine) in a state of purity. The Pool Complex contained a small ritual bath (B)252.120 Three installations were found in the Western Garden near the Pool Complex: A (B)64, which also included an adjacent “treasury” built in Stage 6, as well as A (B)86 (a heated ritual bath) and A(B)9, both from Stage 7.121 The location of 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Hoss 2005:39, 42, 52, 124 – 25, 133, 144 – 45. Cf. also the Hasmonean ritual bath (Pool 38) in the fortress of Cypros (Netzer 2004:274). Netzer 2001:38 – 43. Netzer 2001:153, 157, 161, 167, 170. Netzer 2001:130 – 131, 134 – 135. Netzer 2001:89, 91, 305 – 306. Netzer 2001:102, 105 – 106, 117.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

254

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

these ritual baths near the pools (note also that A[E]529 in the Western Mansion was also situated next to the exit to the pool) suggests that after swimming in the pool, the Hasmoneans and their guests immersed in the ritual bath. The proximity of the ritual baths to the pools also indicates that the pools were not designated for ritual purification. The guests and visitors were therefore invited not only to enjoy the recreational facilities of the gardens, pools, and hot bathtubs, but also to maintain religious observance. Interestingly, this combination of pleasure and purity was further implemented in the Western Garden (which also included a Greek bathhouse) in the later Hasmonean period (Stages 6 – 7), probably by Hyrcanus II. All the bathhouses122 were located in proximity to ritual baths (see Figure 4); hence, the bathers may have purified themselves after using the hot bathtub. Ritual baths adjacent to bathhouses were also found in Herod’s palaces.123 The Hasmoneans’ consistent observance of ritual purity in both their private and public domains should not be taken for granted. Although the Hasmoneans were priests and high priests, this does not explain the abundance of ritual baths for different functions. Whereas their priestly status demanded that they eat heave offerings (terumot) in a state of purity and practice ablutions before leaving Jericho to visit or serve at the Temple, the number and location of the ritual baths indicate that they observed the tenets of ritual purity on a regular, even daily basis. They probably also ate their ordinary food in a state of purity, perhaps immersing every morning. While the abundance of ritual baths is characteristic of first century CE Judaea, the one discovered in the Buried Palace is possibly the earliest ritual bath yet found.124 When John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus and their successors built and used all these ritual baths, the observance of purity in ordinary life was still not as widespread as it became in the first century CE, when Pharisees and others ate their ordinary food in a state of purity, and ritual baths were built near synagogues for purification before reading Scripture.125 Although the idea of purity, or rather the restrictions concerning Gentile impurity, was already dominant in the Maccabean period (see below), 122 In the partly excavated Buried Palace, the bathhouse and the ritual bath were in separate sections, but Netzer (2001:351 n. 2) conjectures that both sections included a bathtub and a ritual bath. 123 Regev 2010:207 – 212. 124 Several ritual baths found in Gezer may be datable to the early Hasmonean period. In Gezer, remains from the middle of the second century BCE have been excavated (Reich 1981; cf. Seger 1977), but none of the ritual baths can be accurately dated. The ritual baths in Kh. Qumran Period Ib cannot be dated before the late Hasmonean period (Magness 2002:63 – 66 147 – 158). Admittedly, the only way to date ritual baths is according to their stratigraphic context (vessels and other finds may be dated only to the period when the facility had already ceased to be used), and the number of sites that can be definitely dated to the early Hasmonean period is scant. 125 Regev 2000a.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Excursus: Identifying the Palaces of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II

255

only decades later did the practice develop of daily immersions with the aim of maintaining ritual purity, regardless of contact with Gentiles. The Hasmonean emphasis on constant purifications was therefore innovative. Since palaces represent the identity and image their inhabitants choose to display to their subjects, the ritual bath demonstrated their purity and piety as high priests. This seems to correspond to their self-identity as the religious leaders of the Jews (see Chapter 3). However, many of these ritual baths were located in restricted, domestic sections of the palaces. Unlike the installations in Gezer, Kh. Qumran, and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, they were quite small and functional.126 They were simple in form, lacking a fancy entrance, double doorways, or a partition into two lanes (differentiating between descent into and ascent from the water), all of which have been found in Jerusalem, Gezer, and elsewhere, and which may have been characteristic of priestly purity practices.127 Significantly, the Hasmonean ritual baths were not designated to display religious piety. Rather, the Hasmoneans simply seemed to be scrupulous regarding ritual purity, probably also due to their high priestly office. The ritual baths in the gardens may suggest that they expected their guests to do the same.

7. Excursus: Identifying the Palaces of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II As already mentioned, the Twin Palaces were built, according to Netzer, by Queen Salome Alexandra for her two sons. During her lifetime, Hyrcanus II, the elder, served as high priest, while Aristobulus II was the military commander (Ant. 13.408, 418). After the queen’s death, Aristobulus took control of the fortresses and army, and later met his brother twice in the battlefield (Ant. 13.422 – 14.33). Following Pompey’s conquest, the Romans nominated Hyrcanus as high priest and ruler, whereas Aristobulus and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus, were exiled; they variously launched four different attempts to take over Judaea until Antigonus finally succeeded in 40 BCE.128 Netzer identified each mansion with one of the brothers, according to the number of the swimming pools. Whereas the Western Mansion contained a single pool (AE103, measuring 8  7.85 m), the Eastern one had two: The size 126 The domestic ritual baths measured ca. 2  2.5 m. A(A)209 – 243 in the Buried Palace measured 3.4  2.4 m. The ritual baths in the Pool Complex as well as the Western and Eastern Gardens were even smaller, apart from the extraordinary installation AB59/1 (5.3  2.6 m), located in an industrial area, which may have been used for immersing large vessels. 127 Regev 1996. 128 Stern 2005:203 – 255; Regev 2000b.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

256

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

of one was similar to that in the Western palace (A[L]330) (which predated the Twin Palaces), and the other was much larger (A[]255), measuring 20.2  12.5 m). The latter was built in Stage 6, namely, after the palaces were already built.129 Netzer explains this asymmetry, conjecturing that “(e)ither Hyrcanus was prevented from using the Pool Complex with its two large swimming pools or, out of shame, he preferred to build a large pool for himself.”130 Netzer points out that after Aristobulus II first won his victory over his brother, the two switched their palaces at Jerusalem (Ant. 14.4 – 7), thus maintaining a separation in their private domains. I believe there is yet another indication that Aristobulus lived in the Western Mansion while Hyrcanus lived in the Eastern one. Ritual bath AE53 in the Eastern Mansion was connected to an adjacent “treasury” by a plastered channel, while the parallel ritual bath AE45 in the Western Mansion was a single installation lacking such a “treasury.” However, both installations have a similar location near the bathhouse, and probably served similar functions. The difference between them, I would suggest, corresponds to a halakhic difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, bearing in mind that the Sadducees held stricter purity laws. The Sadducees did not use “treasuries,” and since Aristobulus II was a Sadducee, he probably lived in the Western Mansion, which lacked such a “treasury.”131 The “treasury” that contained “living”, nondrawn water (water piped directly from a rain-filled cistern or a spring) was connected to a ritual bath containing “drawn” water, i. e., water carried from the source and poured in by hand (m. Mikva’ot 6:1, 7 – 8). A slight contact between the water of the “treasury” and the drawn water in the ritual bath transformed the latter’s status into nondrawn water suitable for ritual purification.132 It seems that the Sadducees rejected this practice. Not only did they hold stricter purity laws, but there is also a specific controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees concerning the nitsok: the Sadducees argued that a stream from a pure upper vessel down to a lower, impure one defiles the contents of the former, whereas the Pharisees argued that no defilement occurs.133 The Sadducees probably also believed that a similar interaction between drawn and nondrawn water cannot “purify” the latter and make it valid for purification.134 Aristobulus II should be identified as a Sadducee. The Sadducees were led by priests, and Aristobulus found a following among the priests (Ant. 14.20, 26), whereas his brother and rival Hyrcanus II sided with the Pharisees 129 130 131 132

Netzer 2001:172 – 174, 185, 189, 310. Netzer 2001:6. Regev 2005:172 – 202. This law certainly reflects a pre-70 CE Pharisaic view, since all excavated “treasuries” were constructed before 70 CE (cf. Reich 1990). 133 M. Yadayim 4:7; cf. 4QMMT B 55 – 58. 134 Regev 1996.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Unembellished Pottery

257

(Ant. 13.423, 428). Moreover, in Pesher Nahum from Qumran, Aristobulus is designated as the King of Menasseh, whose supporters were defeated and exiled following Pompey’s conquest in 63 CE. Menasseh is the Qunmranic designation of the Sadducees.135 Since a ritual bath corresponding to Sadducean halakhah was found in the Western Mansion, and one corresponding to Pharisaic halakhah was found in the Eastern one, it should be concluded that Aristobulus II lived in the Western Mansion and Hyrcanus II lived in the Eastern Mansion.

8. Unembellished Pottery Bar-Nathan concluded that most of the pottery found in the Hasmonean palaces was locally made (in Judaea, probably near Jericho); only a meager Hellenistic influence may be seen, coupled with a near total absence of imported fine ware. Vessels that are extremely prevalent at Hellenistic sites as well as in the Herodian palaces—Eastern Sigillata A, Rhodian amphorae, mold-made lamps, and fusiform unguentaria—were missing.136 Ceramic types found at the site developed from the local Judaean tradition, following the Persian types. Several types of vessels demonstrate a limited influence of Hellenistic tradition in both technique and form; they imitate certain types of bowls, globular lagynos, biconical and pyriform jugs, and perhaps also kraters and casseroles.137 Even the forms of the common bowls and plates show the influence of Hellenistic potters, although, unlike the Hellenistic vessels, the Hasmonean ones were unslipped.138 Nonetheless, there is a general tendency to ignore or reject genuine Hellenistic pottery, while Roman influence is limited to one single tall and narrow cup style.139 Hence, we may conclude that the Jewish potters were familiar with Hellenistic pottery, and that the lack of imported vessels was not the result of weak commercial trading ties with Hellenistic potters in the surrounding poleis. The absence of pottery made by Hellenistic potters was deliberate.140 The Hasmonean vessels were crudely shaped, and only a few were decorated or slipped. Some small plates were of levigated ware and had a coarse finish (see plate 17). Only in later stages did simple geometric patterns decorate a 135 4Q169 3 – 4iv 1 – 4; Regev 1997b:287 – 288 and references. 136 Bar-Nathan 2002:119, 121 – 122, 193 – 198. One base of an amphora was found in the Hasmonean bathhouse [Pool A(B)9]. Nonetheless, if it was found inside the bath, this might not be “a clean Hasmonean context.” Another four or five fragments were found in disturbed stratigraphic contexts, such as the moat fill. See Bar-Nathan 2002:131, n. 7. Note that the pool complex continued to be used by Herod. 137 Bar Nathan 2002:37, 45, 46, 49, 74, 76, 78, 197. 138 Bar Nathan 2002:79 – 80, 82 – 83, 86, 91. 139 Bar Nathan 2002:101 – 102. 140 pace Bar-Nathan 2002:198.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

258

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

small number of vessels, and a few red slipped wares may have provided an alternative to Eastern Sigillata vessels.141 Even the mold-made Judaean radial lamps boasted only simple and tiny decorations, and there was hardly any elegant tableware.142 The simplicity of the ceramic patterns remained quite unchanged from John Hyrcanus to Hyrcanus II.143 These plain characteristics are striking given the royal status of the inhabitants and the other Hellenistic architectural and artistic features found at the site: triclinia, Doric porticos, frescoes and stuccoes, bathhouses, and swimming pools. Palaces normally contained splendid vessels for feasting and banquets, which indicated the wealth and royal position of their occupants. Significantly, the Hasmonean kings and their associates preferred common vessels, rejecting the conspicuous consumption of goods. They were not interested in using more red-slipped and decorated vessels—which could have been manufactured especially for them in the workshops around Jericho. They ate as commoners, and did not seek to demonstrate their royal status by using luxurious vessels. This pattern corresponds to the relative simplicity of the interior of their palaces. In their domestic and daily life, the Hasmoneans were far from pompous. Bar-Nathan suggested that the Hasmoneans were strict in their observance of the Jewish laws of ritual purity, especially in relation to Gentile impurity, perhaps avoiding vessels that were suspected of having been involved in idolatry. Indeed, the abundance of ritual baths attests to the Hasmonean adherence to ritual purity.144 Purification from Gentile impurity has a central place in Maccabean ideology, as 1 Maccabees stresses in its description of the occupation of the Temple, the Jerusalem Acra, and Gezer.145 This halakhic explanation for avoiding Hellenistic pottery, however, is partial and simplistic. New vessels bought from a potter would not be considered related to pagan cults. And in fact, certain features of Hellenistic culture, such as swimming pools and bathhouses, were used by the Hasmoneans. Why, then, did the Hasmoneans embrace these recreational facilities (as well as the use of Gentile mercenaries and Hellenistic names) but reject the use of the far more common fine pottery wares? This apparent discrepancy can be explained in light of the formation of an ethnic identity and ethnic boundaries. Groups determine their own distinctive cultural markers in opposition to those of their neighbors, choosing carefully between cultural traits to be borrowed or rejected.146 Certain traits or objects 141 Bar Nathan 2002:37, 46, 55 – 56, 95 – 96, 119 – 120, 122 – 124, 196, 197. 142 Bar Nathan 2002:109. The exception is an outstanding red slipped rhyton, an ancient Greek drinking vessel, found in ritual bath A(B)64 in the Pool Complex (see plate 17). Bar-Nathan (2002:114) postulated that it was used for “a religious or official ceremony.” 143 Bar Nathan 2002:194 – 195. 144 Bar Nathan 2002:197 – 199. 145 1 Macc 1:37; 4:36, 41, 43; 13:47 – 48, 50; 14:7, 36; cf. Schwartz 1991. 146 Barth 1969.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Unembellished Pottery

259

are chosen to express the difference between one ethnic group and its neighboring one,147 because they are regarded as more crucial for a group’s own identity, and are therefore usually less affected by contact with other ethnic groups. External traits that were seen as more meaningful or threatening are not embraced. I would suggest that the Hasmonean pottery—which is related to food consumption—was regarded as too closely associated with Hellenism or paganism. Jewish society’s growing contact with the surrounding civilization, namely, the overall cultural assimilation into Hellenism, led the Hasmonean rulers to abstain from contact with Hellenistic items related to food and dining. The need to maintain Jewish purity using frequent ritual ablutions and distinctively “Jewish” vessels was also an attempt to strengthen Jewish identity in light of an ongoing process of hellenization. The distinctively Jewish material culture in the palaces of Jericho therefore does not diverge from the other Hellenistic features present at the site, but is in truth closely related to them. In fact, a similar absence of imported vessels and fine wares is typical of other Judaean sites from the Hasmonean period, such as Beth Zur, Tel el-F l, and Kh. Qumran, as well as Jerusalem (e. g., the absence of Eastern Sigillata A from the Armenian Garden).148 In the Jewish Quarter, the pottery is of mainly traditional form with little evidence of foreign influences. Only few fragments of imported wares have been found, and it is difficult to discern whether some of the fine wares should be dated to the Hasmonean or Herodian periods.149 Noteworthy is the total absence of Rhodian amphorae (used to import Greek wine) in sites in the City of David, as well as their paucity in the Western Hill of Jerusalem, from 145 BCE until the beginning of the Herodian period, whereas they were extremely prevalent in the period 215 – 151 BCE.150 This discrepancy, too, may have resulted from a similar cultural or ethnical mechanism. Rather than viewing the Hasmoneans as conforming to the general Jewish abstinence from imported or pagan pottery, I would suggest the possibility that the Hasmonean rulers were the ones who actually led this trend, displaying it prominently in their daily life. Support for this possibility may be found in the fact that, according to Netzer’s stratigraphical chronology, the vessels from the Buried Palace predate the parallel ones found in Tel el-F l, Machaerus etc.151 If the Hasmoneans initiated the Jewish rejection of foreign pottery, we may assert that it was their aim to serve as religious leaders for the Jews, instead of ruling for the sake of their own power and glory, in a manner

147 148 149 150 151

Hodder 1982b; Faust 2006: 49 – 64, 191 – 220. Bar-Nathan 2002:197; Hayes 1985:183 – 184. Geva 2003; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003:esp. 214. Finkielsztejn 1999; cf. the reservations of Ariel 2000. Bar-Nathan 2002:193 – 194.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

260

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

that corresponds to the message of 1 Maccabees and to the messages on the Hasmonean coins.

9. Royal Feasts Pottery tells us about the pattern of food consumption and the social structure evident in royal meals. The proportion of tableware in comparison to storage and cooking vessels may reflect the social significance of the meal, and the number of vessels may be indicative of the number of diners.152 As such, the ceramic assemblage from Jericho provides surprising findings.153 Small bowls and plates, intended for individual use, comprise the majority of the ceramic material found throughout the entire site in the Hasmonean period.154 The small bowls compose more than half of the total ceramic finds, with plates also in abundance. Indeed, the number of bowls and plates from the Hasmonean period is greater than it is for the Herodian one, both in terms of absolute numbers and in relationship to the total number of vessels recovered.155 It would be safe to conclude that at least 60 % of the Hasmonean ceramic assemblage was tableware (also including cups, jugs, and some of the juglets). This is an outstanding proportion of tableware in comparison to storage and cooking vessels, compared to 34 % in ’Ein Boqeq’s officina, 32 % in Gamla areas B/D, 12 % in Gamla area R, and second only to 84 % in Kh. Qumran, where communal feasts were prevalent. Such a large proportion of tableware calls for an explanation.156 It certainly shows that each diner used his own tableware.157 The unusual number of serving vessels is one of the “archaeological signatures of feasts.”158 It likely attests to the social importance of meals for the Hasmoneans, as well as the large number of participants. The Hasmoneans seemed to devote special attention to meals, and perhaps dined

152 Berlin 1999a; 1999b; Yentsch 1991; Little 1997; Shackel 2000. 153 Bar-Nathan’s report is mainly typological, and represents only a sample of the pottery ; it is lacking in full quantitative information (Bar-Nathan 2002:3). 154 Bar-Nathan 2002:6 – 7. Large plates appeared only in later stages, cf. Bar-Nathan 2002:80, 86, 91, 95. 155 Bar-Nathan 2002:79, 86, 87, 96, 198 – 199. 156 For the data, see Fischer, Gichon and Tal 2000:30; Berlin 2006:6; Regev 2009b:181 – 183. BarNathan (2002:79, 86, 198 – 199) postulated that the unusual proportion resulted from a certain “cultural change” or shift in eating habits, or else from priestly or Sadducean eating customs or purity laws. Our knowledge of the Sadducees is scant, but apart from the fact that their purity laws were stricter than those of the Pharisees (Regev 2005:172 – 202), there is nothing to suggest that they used a large amount of tableware. 157 For the phenomenon of “personal tableware” see Bar Nathan 2006:128. 158 Hayden 2001:40.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Disposal of Vessels and Priestly Purity

261

with a relatively large number of court officials, associates, and guests.159 This recalls the banquet of John Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus with the Pharisees, which resulted in the famous rift (Ant. 13.289; b. Qiddushin 66a, although the rabbinic legend mentions golden tables). Significantly, these meals were served on very simple plates and in unadorned bowls, with no fine wares for the royal participants. Bar-Nathan pointed to the small number of drinking vessels found in the Hasmonean palaces (although the small bowls could have also been used for drinking), in contrast to the far greater number of cups that were found in the Herodian palaces.160 The relative paucity of drinking vessels probably indicates that banquets were not common events in the Hasmonean palaces, although each palace had a triclinium where such celebrations could have taken place. This fact also corresponds to the plain form of the vessels, which were locally produced and barely decorated or slipped, as well as the small size of the bowls and plates. We may conclude, then, that the Hasmoneans were not interested in manifesting their royal status through their meals.161 Neither did they make any special effort to impress their guests and associates by means of their domestic architecture. I would suggest that their meals were deliberately simple in character, aiming to underscore a sense of shared commensality with their guests, based on the ostensibly equal (lay) status of all participants. Indeed, these meals may have been used to show outsiders that the ruler/king/ queen/prince was not remote from his people, as might have been assumed.162 The Hasmoneans’ unassuming day-to-day behavior accords with their claim (found in 1 Maccabees and on the h. eber ha-yehudim inscriptions on their coins) to be the representatives of the Jews, which bespeaks a very different kind of relationship between king and subject than that displayed by, for instance, the Seleucids or the Ptolemies.

10. Disposal of Vessels and Priestly Purity A peculiar phenomenon that may shed further light on the eating and religious practices of the Hasmoneans is the disposal of more than two thousand pottery vessels in ritual baths and pools on the site. In ritual bath A(A)209 – 159 On an abundance of tableware as suggestive of feasts, and on the manner in which these create solidarity and social distinction, see Regev 2009b:185 – 189. 160 Bar-Nathan 2002:79, 98 – 99. 161 The relatively small number of unguentaria and alabastra, dated mainly to the later stages (Bar-Nathan 2002:58), suggests that the use of perfumed oils were also marginal when considering the status of the inhabitants. 162 These conclusions are especially relevant for Hyrcanus II, since most of the pottery dates to Stage 7, which was terminated by the earthquake of 31 BCE. See Bar-Nathan 2002:6.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

262

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

243 in the Buried Palace, for example, one thousand complete bowls and small plates, ten cooking pots, a cup and one ungentarium were found. Their stratigraphic context predates the Fortified Palace. In ritual bath A(B)64, which may be related to the Fortified Palace, a wide variety of vessels, many of them intact, was deliberately dumped.163 Overall, Bar-Nathan lists 1626 small bowls and 881 small plates excavated in four different ritual baths and a pool.164 Smaller amounts of vessels, mostly tableware, were also found in a ritual bath in the Upper City of Jerusalem and in those of Kh. Qumran.165 BarNathan raised several possible explanations for this phenomenon, such as the use of the vessels in purification rites, the priestly lifestyle, and perhaps even a “ritual or halakhic purpose or some unknown Sadducean tenet.”166 Since defiled pottery vessels cannot be purified, the vessels were not placed in the ritual baths in order to reuse them. It is also significant that most of the vessels were tableware. Furthermore, if one wished to get rid of the vessels, he could simply have thrown them away or broken and reused the pottery shards. It seems that the vessels were deliberately stored in these water installations because they were safe and pure locations, where no one would accidentally reuse or defile them. The deep ritual baths and pools therefore served as repositories. The question remains: why were all these vessels taken out of use and placed out of reach? I would suggest that this practice was on account of the pottery’s sacral status. They may, for instance, have contained food of special religious status, such as heave offerings (terumah), given to the priests from the new crops throughout the Land of Israel, which could not be contaminated, and thus required special handling (Num 18:11 – 13; m. Terumah 2:1 – 2; 5:1 – 4). Or perhaps the Hasmoneans considered vessels that had once contained food made from heave-offerings to be sacred, and took care that they not be assigned for ordinary use; otherwise, they would become defiled and their sanctity violated. Indeed, there is evidence of a similar practice of puncturing pots in which sacrifices had been cooked or boiled; some of these were even stored in ritual baths.167 My proposition is especially plausible given the Hasmoneans’ priestly descent. It is also probable that some of their court staff

163 Bar-Nathan 2002:5 – 6. 164 Bar-Nathan 2002:86, 96. 165 Avigad 1980:74 – 65. Geva and Hershkovitz 2006:96, 102 – 103; de Vaux 2003:22 – 23. See also below on punctured vessels. 166 Bar-Nathan 2002:86, 96, 198. Bar-Nathan 2005:266 – 272, even suggested a hypothetical Sadducean exegesis of Scripture according to which the command (Lev 11:33) on breaking impure pottery was completely ignored. This was followed by Magness 2011:58 – 59. 167 Rabbinic laws mention the breaking and puncturing of such vessels, and many pierced cooking pots have been found stored (also in water reservoirs) in excavations throughout Jerusalem, such as in the Upper City (Grossberg 2002). Cf. the punctured plate in Bar-Nathan 2002:93, Ill. 71. For stored pierced vessels found in cisterns west of the Temple Mount in the Jewish Quarter’s villa, see Magness 2011: 59 and fig. 13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: Internal Modesty and External Propaganda

263

and associates were also priests. After all, Jericho was a city of priests, and according to later rabbinic sources, half of the priestly clans lived there.168 Furthermore, distinctive vessels in which heave-offerings were stored, such as pitchers or flagons (lagin) and pots (kderah), are mentioned in rabbinic law,169 although nowhere did the rabbis argue that a dish containing food cooked from heave-offering crops should be disposed of or not used afterwards for ordinary food. This may have been a halakhic practice distinctive to the Hasmoneans, or to certain social or religious circles. Given the extremely large amount of tableware found in the ritual baths and pools, it seems that meals based on heave-offerings were very common, or at least involved a large number of diners. It is also likely that many subjects gave the Hasmonean rulers heave-offerings as a gesture of gratitude, and that the Hasmoneans invited priestly associates and neighbors from Jericho to dine with them. In any event, whatever the exact reason for the storage of this large amount of vessels, the act attests to a religious scrupulousness with relation to matters of food and purity.

11. Conclusions: Internal Modesty and External Propaganda The Hasmonean palaces transmitted contrasting messages. On the one hand, the scale and architectural features of the domestic buildings were understated. If anything, these became even more modest over the years, from John Hyrcanus’s large Buried Palace through Jannaeus’s Fortified Palace to the later, smaller Twin Palaces. The use of Hellenistic monumental architecture and art was minimal in comparison to contemporary palaces. The pottery was simple and plain, with hardly any decoration, slip, or burnish. The domestic buildings had only minor features intended to impress visitors; indeed, in each palace, a single, simple bathtub is almost the only indication of Hellenistic self-indulgence. The Hasmoneans did not regard themselves as distinguished monarchs. In their restraint, they had much in common with the presumed mores of the Macedonian national monarchs, and applied, in their palatial architecture and dining habits, the ideology—manifested in 1 Maccabees and the h. eber ha-yehudim coin inscription—of ruling on behalf of, and not merely over, the people. On the other hand, the numerous swimming pools surrounded by gardens emphasize recreational facilities and Hellenistic monumental architecture in a manner that was also unique compared to other Hellenistic palaces. Built or used by all the Hasmoneans, from Hyrcanus I to Hyrcanus II, these swimming (and other smaller) pools and gardens were meant to impress visitors and 168 Schwartz 1988. 169 M. Terumah 9:5; m. Parah 10:6; m. Taharot 7:9; t. Parah 10:7 – 8.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

264

Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho

viewers and to display the dynasty’s success and prosperity. It is perhaps surprising that the Hasmoneans bothered to display their power and prestige in this fashion, while their own palaces were so unpretentious and the more private features of their material culture so plain. The dialectical relationship between inside and outside may be explained in light of the relatively weak functional and architectural relationship of most of the pools and gardens to the palace buildings. Unlike the pools in other palaces, most of the Hasmonean pools were accessed from outside the palaces, and were only loosely related to the palatial buildings. It therefore seems that the pools were not intended to reflect the Hasmonean private domain, but instead a more public or “national” realm. They may have symbolized the achievements of the Hasmonean state, and demonstrated a certain sense of “national” prosperity. Since they were modeled after Hellenistic architecture and recreational concepts, perhaps they also reflect a certain competition with other Hellenistic monarchies. The Hasmoneans’ use of Hellenistic features was relatively limited (the bold exception being the swimming pools and gardens): triclinia with distyle in antis, heated bathtubs, a limited amount of frescoes or stuccoes in the palaces, and one mosaic found in the Eastern Garden.170 The ceramic assemblage totally lacked imported pottery. On the other hand, the Hasmoneans scrupulously maintained ritual purity, as evidenced by the many ritual baths, the lack of imported vessels, and the disposal of pottery vessels, most perhaps based on priestly purity practices. The limited examples of Hellenistic material culture that do exist, and the monumental garden architecture and swimming pools, indicate that the Hasmoneans were widely exposed to Hellenistic culture and were well aware of its advantages. Nonetheless, they consciously used it in a selective and limited manner ; their partial rejection of Hellenism was intentional, and served a specific purpose. This selective approach to Hellenism probably derived from the desire to remain committed to their Jewish identity, to maintain close ties with their subjects, and perhaps even to enforce a certain segregation from the Gentiles, all the while acknowledging the existence of Hellenistic culture. Indeed, the Hasmoneans used specific forms of Hellenistic architecture and recreational facilities in order to display prosperity and success, which in turn achieved specific political or cultural aims. According to this reading, they did not appreciate Hellenistic culture for its own sake, or view it as a “higher culture.” As for their relations with their subjects, the palaces’ structures stressed privacy and discreteness. The limited size of the communal spaces and their restricted location in the architectural structures show that, unlike Herod’s First and Second Palaces in Jericho, the Hasmonean palaces were not designed to impress visitors or to offer hospitality to large numbers of them. In contrast 170 Cf. Nielsen 1994:160, 162.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: Internal Modesty and External Propaganda

265

to Herod’s Third Palace in Jericho and the final phases of his Western Palace in Masada, the Hasmonean palaces did not have a large or complex royal court, and the royal staff and administration are nowhere in evidence in the plans of any of their palaces. All this accords with the portrait of the Hasmoneans as religious leaders who aimed at close relations with their Jewish subjects, as reflected in 1 Maccabees (see Chapter 3) and in line with the Macedonian concept of a national monarchy (see Chapter 4). The Hasmoneans not only claimed to represent the people, but refrained from stressing their personal pomp and luxury (truphe¯). Finally, when they did display their power and success, they did so to send a message about the status of the entire kingdom, and not only to tout their personal achievements. It is to these “national” characteristics we shall now turn.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Chapter Seven Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

This chapter shifts from the way in which the Hasmoneans wanted the Jewish people to perceive them to the actual effect of their rhetorical strategies on their Jewish subjects and the Jewish people in general. At times these strategies had their desired effect; at times their efforts may have had unlooked-for consequences. My argument is that not only was the Hasmonean ideology politically successful, but it transformed the collective identity of the Jews in Judaea and to a certain extent in the Diaspora as well. The Hasmoneans’ political and cultural claims strengthened the self-identity of the Jews as an ethnos and a religious order, and also enhanced the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In what follows I use the term “collective identity” instead of the common and somewhat anachronistic term “nationalism,” although I will try to draw insights from research into modern nationalism in the last section of this chapter. Certain general features of Jewish life and identity during the late Second Temple period are usually taken for granted, as if they were self-generated: devotion to the Temple; purity boundaries; the relationship between Jews in Judaea and the Diaspora; and the notion, shared by both Jews and Gentiles, that the Jews were more or less a unified religious, social, and at times even political, community. These notions are attested in Philo, Josephus, and especially in the New Testament.1 My contention is that the Hasmonean religious and political claims discussed in the previous chapters shaped these phenomena. Aspects of Jewish collective identity had already existed in the Hebrew Bible and the religious traditions deriving from that, but the Hasmoneans realized and fostered their religious and cultural potential. This is demonstrated in Mendels’s Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationality, which begins with the Maccabean period and identifies a shift in the meaning of Jewish “national” symbols after the Hasmoneans’ loss of political independence following the Roman conquest (63 BCE).2 We have already seen that the Hasmoneans regarded themselves as the religious and political leaders of the 1 For Jewish identity in the Diaspora, that is, the bonds which held Diaspora Jews together, see Barclay 1996:402 – 444. See also the concept of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem as a homeland for Diaspora Jews (Gruen 2002: 239 – 252). 2 Mendels 1992. Mendels surveyed “national” features such as kingship, territory, Temple, and army. Nonetheless, Mendels did not credit the Hasmoneans with these developments!

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Popular Support for the Hasmoneans’ Territorial Conquests

267

Jewish people and acted accordingly. Here I would like to show that their actions contributed to the development of Jewish collective identity in a way that has not been previously acknowledged. I begin this chapter showing that Hasmonean policies, especially military campaigns, were supported by the Judaeans, and that the Hasmoneans acted on behalf of what they considered the basic interests and welfare of their Jewish subjects. Hence, the relationship between the Hasmoneans and their Jewish subjects was reciprocal: the Hasmoneans not only asked for support but also served their people. This leads to the conclusion that many Jews responded positively to the Hasmonean ideology. Consequently, in their messages, institutions, and policy, the Hasmoneans enabled the Jews to perceive themselves differently, as a more unified ethnic group or “nation.” In the subsequent sections I will discuss this phenomenon from social-scientific perspectives, using theories of social identity and modern nationalism. Admittedly, the manner in which Jewish identity was established in antiquity is elusive and it is difficult to point to specific evidence that proves that the Hasmoneans actually generated it. Still, several specific Hasmonean moves can be identified as shapers of this identity. Since my concern is limited to the consequences of Hasmonean ideology, I will not review sources and studies dealing with Jewish identity generally in this period. I should stress that the subject of Jewish collective identity requires a much broader study, based not only on the well-known historical evidence but also on archaeological findings from the Judaean settlements and their environs. My intention in this chapter is not to outline such a challenging project, but to draw on my previous observations. I intend to assess their implications in order to understand a major and crucial development in ancient Judaism that goes far beyond the Hasmoneans themselves.

1. Popular Support for the Hasmoneans’ Territorial Conquests Several previous scholars have concluded that the Hasmoneans, especially Jannaeus, were not at all popular, since they illegally took over the high priesthood and the crown.3 However, as we have already seen in Chapters 3 – 4, this view is unfounded: there are no traces of such criticism in the evidence at hand; non-Davidic kingship was probably more than legitimate in this period; the Hasmoneans had superior priestly descent and perhaps were even Zadokites; and the Oniad high priests who fled to Egypt probably acknowledged Hasmonean rule. But we still have not approached the question of what the masses thought about the Hasmoneans. Some have described the Hasmonean kingdom as a system of government 3 This view is refuted by Alon 1977:1 – 18, esp. 5 – 8.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

268

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

which totally contradicted the traditional constitutional principles sanctified by Jewish society. They have argued that the practical means employed to secure the existence and welfare of the Hasmonean state led to the Pharisaic revolt, supported by the masses, against Jannaeus.4 I shall now refute this view, pointing to evidence that many Jews favored the militant policy of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans. In addition, circumstantial evidence suggests that these wars were considered necessary for the future and welfare of the Judaean Jews. In the section that follows, I assess the public reaction, not to the Hasmonean ideology, but to their very actions, especially territorial military occupations.

Commemorating Maccabean and Hasmonean Victories Megillat Ta’anit (“the Scroll of Fasting”) originated among the early rabbis in the mid-first century CE and contained a list of thirty-five dates in Aramaic, arranged in calendrical order. On these days the Jews were to abstain from fasting and eulogize the deceased. The scroll aimed to preserve the memory of these joyful events for the Jewish people during the Second Temple period, turning them into minor festival days. The purpose of the scroll is halakhic and not historical, and the events listed are hinted at only in brief. Later on, an explanatory commentary in Hebrew was added, known as the Scholion to Megillat Ta’anit. It adds stories, legends, and homilies relating to the events mentioned by the scroll. The Scholion’s earliest manuscripts contain two different editions. They have several parallels in the Babylonian Talmud and other rabbinic literature, but they also contain independent rabbinic material from the Talmudic period. In certain cases they preserve authentic records of historical significance.5 Megillat Ta’anit, and to a lesser degree the Scholion, attest to historical events as perceived by the rabbis and ritualized by many common people. They detail the events that had the greatest impact on their collective memory. The manner in which the Hasmoneans and their acts are portrayed in these texts reflects their public image. Megillat Ta’anit and its Scholion contain several traditions that commemorate Maccabean and Hasmonean military achievements and even echoes of political accomplishments, in addition to H. anukkah and Nicanor’s Day, which commemorates the latter’s defeat and execution by Judah.6 These additional traditions include: (1) the conquest of the Acra;7 (2) the removal of the 4 See the criticism of this approach in Bar-Kochva 1977:167 and the references, ibid., 173 – 174 n. 2. 5 Noam 2006. For the relationship of these documents to rabbinic literature, see Noam 2003:333 – 382. She concludes that for the Tanna’im the scroll was an authoritative text and that the Babylonian Amora’im knew at least extensive portions of the Scholion. 6 Adar 13; Noam 2003:266 – 276, 298 – 302. Nicanor’s Day is also mentioned in y. Ta’anit 66a; y. Megillah 70c. Cf. 1 Macc 7:39 – 49; 2 Macc 15:25 – 36. 7 Iyyar 23; Noam 2003:187 – 190. Cf. 1 Macc 13:49 – 53 (where an annual festival is established).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Popular Support for the Hasmoneans’ Territorial Conquests

269

partition wall of the Temple court;8 (3) the abolition of the coronation tax from Jerusalem and Judaea, probably in Jonathan’s or Simon’s days;9 (4) the exile of the people of Beit Shean and the Valley (following its capture by Hyrcanus’s sons);10 (5) the capture of the wall of Samaria (probably by Hyrcanus);11 (6) “The day of Mount Gerizim,” obviously relating to its destruction by Hyrcanus;12 (7) and the capture of Straton’s Tower (later Caesarea Maritima), probably by Jannaeus.13 There are also several obscure traditions that may have originally commemorated other such accomplishments.14 It should be noted that Megillat Ta’anit and the Scholion usually do not mention the specific names of Judah, Simon, or the other Maccabees or Hasmoneans. The exceptions comprise one mention of Yoh. anan the high priest, which does not relate to his achievements; and two negative references to Jannaeus.15 The writings do contain repeated references to “the house of the 8 Marheshvan 23; Noam 2003:239 – 242. The Scholion connects this event to the removal of a structure made for whores, and thus probably related to the Syrian cult established in the Temple by Antiochus IV. That is, the event is somehow connected to the purification of the cult, so probably related to H. anukkah (cf. 1 Macc 4:42 – 45). Although it seems that this confused explanation is mistaken (Liebner 2002 suggested that the original day actually referred to the removal of the fence built by Jannaeus), what matters for our present concern is the favorable memory of the Hasmoneans. 9 Iyyar 27; Noam 2003:192 – 193; cf. 1 Macc 11:35; 13:39; 15:5 – 8. 10 Sivan 15 – 16; Noam 2003:196 – 197; cf. Ant. 13.275 – 283. 11 Marheshvan 25; Noam 2003:243 – 249; cf. Ant. 13.275 – 283. Note, however, that the Scholion associates this event with the early postexilic conflict with the Samaritans (kutiyim) and the establishment of a Jewish settlement in the region. Here the Scholion suppressed the Hasmonean achievements noted in the original scroll. 12 Kislev 11; See Noam 2003:262 – 265; cf. Ant. 13.255 – 56. Noteworthy is the Scholion’s omission, once again, of the Hasmoneans; the destruction is attributed to the Jews in the time of Alexander the Great, headed by Simon the Just (cf. Ant. 11.326 – 347). 13 Sivan 14; Noam 2003:192 – 194; b. Megillah 6a; cf. Ant. 13.324 – 335, 395. This is the interpretation of the Scholion. Several commentators amended it to Simon’s capture of Beth Zur (1 Macc 11:65 – 66). See Bar-Kochva 1989:220, 265 – 266. 14 (1) The day when Antiochus (V?) left Jerusalem, Shevat 28 (see Noam 2003:291 – 292; and cf. 1 Macc 6:28 – 63); (2) the beginning of the killing of the apostates, perhaps those in the Acra, Elul 22 (Noam 2003:232 – 234); (3) The Scholion credits the Hasmoneans with the removal of the banners from the Temple court (Kislev 3), although the original scroll referred to sama’avta, which were most likely the se¯maiai of the Roman emperor (see Noam 2003:255 – 259); (4) the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Iyyar 7 (Noam 2003:180 – 182); (5) the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, Elul 4, possibly by Jonathan and Simon (Noam 2003:226 – 227; cf. 1 Macc 10:11; 13:10; War 5.143); and (6) “the mention” (of God’s name) was removed from Hasmonean documents, according to the Scholion, in the reign of Hyrcanus (Thisri 3). While the Scholion addressed the halakhic issue of the mention of God’s name in vain, some commentators argued that the original tradition referred to the beginning of the independent Hasmonean reckoning in their documents, as attested in 1 Macc 13:42 (Noam 2003:235 – 238). Two entries might be considered negative commemorations of the Hasmoneans: 1) the Scholion also interpreted the obscure festival of Kislev 7 as a commemoration of Herod’s death; 2) the Scholion also marked Jannaeus’s death (Shevat 2). Noam 2003:280 – 282, concluded that this was a relatively later tradition. 15 In addition to the traditions I have mentioned in the previous note, see the perplexing tradition

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

270

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

Hasmoneans.” Nevertheless, the original scroll assigned special festive days to commemorate Maccabean achievements in the early conflicts against the Seleucids and their supporters as well as Hyrcanus’s and Jannaeus’s conquests of several Hellenistic cities. One cannot conceive of a more distinguished and formal way to mark political or military achievements. Admittedly, the Scholion is not always favorable towards the Hasmoneans. Its criticism is directed against Jannaeus (and perhaps even the last years of Hyrcanus) only because he was a Sadducee and suppressed the Pharisees; indeed, elsewhere the Scholion highlighted several halakhic polemics in which the Pharisees or early rabbis prevailed over the Sadducees.16 We have already mentioned the rabbis’ favorable treatment of the Hasmoneans as “the kingdom of the house of the Hasmoneans.”17 Rabbinic literature also preserved favorable traditions about Hyrcanus in relation to his Temple prophecy concerning the victory of his sons in Samaria.18 It is the rift between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, continued by Jannaeus which led the Pharisees, and subsequently the rabbis, to portray Hyrcanus and Jannaeus in dark colors.19 Megillat Ta’anit and the Scholion reflect what modern historians call collective memory (in this case marked by refraining from fasting and mourning in order to commemorate important and favorable events). The collective memory of a community/group is crucial to the establishment of its identity. Such a memory is a social memory which is shaped by the present and serves the cognitive needs of the present.20 Significantly, the most extensive and authoritative text which reflects the ancient Jewish collective memory views the Hasmoneans as those who saved their own people and prescribes that every Jew should remember their victories for generations. This popular recollection also sheds a new light on 1 and 2 Maccabees. Since many of the Maccabees’ achievements described in these pro-Maccabean texts were later commemorated in Megillat Ta’anit, it is possible to see 1 and 2 Maccabees not only as propaganda intended to flatter these rulers but also as glimpses of collective memory. These writings reflect, I suggest, the admiration and gratitude of many contemporary Jews for the outstanding accomplishments of Judah, Jonathan, Simon, and John Hyrcanus. In fact, the basic notion of commemorating and ritualizing historical victories by creating annual festive days is first used by the Hasmoneans in

16 17 18 19 20

related to Adar 17 in ms. Oxford, which may echo Jannaeus’s persecution of certain sages (Noam 2003:306 – 308). See the Scholion on Nisan 1 – 8, Tamuz 4, Av 24, Marheshvan 27, and Tevet 28. For the Hasmonean attitude towards both the Pharisees and Sadducees, see Regev 2005:247 – 292 E,g. the H . anukkah tradition in the Scholion (Noam 2003:266 – 276); b. Shabbat 21b. T. Sota 13:5, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Cf. the praise for the reign of Salome Alexandra in Sifra Beh. uqqotai 1.1 (ed. Weiss, 110); Sifre Deut. Eqev 42 (ed. Finkelstein, 89) and par. Regev 2005:255 – 261. Gelber 2007:297 – 298, 307 – 315 following Halbwachs.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Popular Support for the Hasmoneans’ Territorial Conquests

271

three cases. H. anukkah, Judah’s victory over Nicanor, and Simon’s conquest of the Akra (1 Macc 7:49; 12:52). The masses probably shared the view (encouraged by the Hasmoneans) that these were crucial points in their collective history. That this corporate memory served political interests should not refute this recognition. The reconstruction of history by historians has always been biased and suited to present needs or aspirations for the future. History was used (and continues to be used) to explain and justify the (disputed) present.21 Hence, the idealized narrative of Hasmonean historiography does not mean that it was not seen as historical fact by many.

Territorial Expansion and Jewish Welfare Schalit argued that the Hasmoneans used self-interested heavy taxation to cover the cost of their wars. Their territorial expansion imitated the policies of Hellenistic kings who sought more land to gain more taxes and economic resources; the Pharisees opposed such schemes.22 Schalit may have had in mind the political role of war in the Hellenistic kingdoms where acceptance of monarchical rule was founded on war and military power, and military success compensated for the lack of dynastic legitimacy (a factor which Schalit and others have ascribed to the Hasmoneans as well).23 Bar-Kochva has refuted several aspects of these claims. The taxes that the Hasmoneans imposed were not heavy (much lower than the Seleucid ones), and in any case were necessary to maintain the state, especially the army. The hiring of mercenary soldiers was limited to 6000 – 9000 troops (Ant. 13.338, 377; War 1.93). This move was necessary since local Jewish troops (around 40,000 men) were available only in emergencies. They could not constitute a force large enough and stable enough to defend the state’s borders from the Seleucids and the Nabataeans. Territorial expansion was essential due to the overpopulation of the Judaean highlands and the need for new land reserves.24 Applebaum concluded that there was an objective need to resettle landless Jewish peasants in new territories. He argued that some of the land in the region of Lydia, seized by Jonathan and Simon, was occupied by Jews and was formally Seleucid royal land. The conquests demanded taxation, mercenaries, and the further extension of royal estates by the Hasmoneans, both as reserve supply centers and as land for the settlement of retired soldiers.25 Affirmation for these views comes from the archaeological record. Based on the analysis of extensive archaeological surveys, Safrai showed that during the 21 22 23 24 25

Lewis 1975:54 – 55. Schalit 1972:esp.268 . Chaniotis 2005:57 – 62. Bar-Kochva 1977:167 – 177. Applebaum 1989. However, Applebaum ibid., 27 – 29 regarded this process as the reason for the Pharisaic opposition to Hyrcanus and Jannaeus.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

272

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

Hasmonean period there was an enormous accelerated demographic growth in the Judaean hills and the land of Benjamin (north of Jerusalem). In contrast, areas which were inhabited by non-Jews, such as Samaria and Idumaea, did not show demographic growth. The population growth required migration to new areas, probably to the conquered territories. There is also archaeological evidence for extensive demographic growth in the eastern Galilee in 100 – 50 BCE.26 One has to conclude that the Hasmonean conquests fulfilled a demographic need and served the basic interests of the Judaeans, and were not merely the result of the Hasmoneans’ quest for power and prestige. There were certainly other political reasons for the Hasmonean conquests. They acted out of ethnocentric or “national” motives against non-Jews when they destroyed and burnt pagan sanctuaries as they banished the non-Jewish population from its settlements.27 A glimpse into the Hasmoneans’ own perspective on their policy of territorial occupation is found in 1 Macc 15:33 – 34. Here Simon justifies his conquests in his reply to Antiochus VII’s demands to return conquered lands to the Seleucids: “We have not taken the land that is not ours, nor have we conquered anything that belongs to others. Rather we have taken our ancestral heritage, which had been unjustly conquered by our enemies using one opportunity or another.” According to this perspective, the wars and acquisition of further land were undertaken for the benefit of the Jewish populace, and it is unlikely that it aroused Jewish opposition. Perhaps the most important accomplishment of the Hasmoneans was that “the yoke of the Gentiles was lifted from Israel,” as the author of 1 Maccabees declares in relation to Demetrius II’s letter to Simon, acknowledging the latter’s sovereignty. Josephus rephrased this accomplishment by saying that Simon had “liberated (e¯leuthero¯sen) the people from servitude to the Macedonians.”28 Surely the Hasmoneans and their supporters believed that the aim of their military activity was the welfare of the Jews. Consequently, there are good reasons to think that this activity was welcomed by the masses. In other words, the public support of Hasmonean territorial occupations indicates in turn, a positive response to Hasmonean ideology and to their claims to be legitimate rulers who represented Jewish religious and ethnic interests.

26 See Leibner’s archaeological surveys of eastern Galilee (Leibner 2009:esp. 319 – 326). Several sites were established in ca. 100 BCE. See Leibner 2009:esp. 309 – 314. Cf. Aviam 2004. The possibility of immigration (already raised by Bar-Kochva 1977:191 – 194) is supported by the dramatic increase of settlement size in the late first century CE. See Leibner 2009:322. 27 See Introduction. For the destruction of pagan sanctuaries and non-Jewish settlements in light of the archaeological evidence, see Safrai 2000:71 – 74. 28 1 Macc 13:41; Ant. 13.213.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Wars, Judaization, and Hasmonean Transformations of Jewish Identity

273

2. Wars, Judaization, and Hasmonean Transformations of Jewish Identity Before turning to the assessment of how Hasmonean ideology fostered Jewish collective identity, it is necessary to describe the Maccabean and Hasmonean approach to Jews and Jewishness. The Maccabees carried out military campaigns to save Jews outside Maccabean territory, a fact which attests to their feeling of responsibility for Jews wherever they lived. The judaization or conversion of Idumaeans and Ituraeans within Hasmonean territory was a unique attempt to redefine the Jewish ethnos using military and political power. Both attest to a conscious transformation of what “Jew” meant, in the wake of ethnic conflicts and political independence. I should state from the outset that these two phenomena require further explanation in light of the study of ethnicity, using the archaeological record, in a manner that cannot be elaborated upon here. My discussion is limited to the implications of these events in order to understand the consequences of Hasmonean ideology for the collective identity of the Jews.

The Maccabees as the Defenders of the Jewish People Until 163 BCE, the Maccabees successfully fought against the Seleucids in order to abolish religious decrees and persecutions. They took over of the Temple and dedicated it on H. anukkah. Sometime after H. anukkah 164 BCE, they engaged in diplomatic negotiations which led to the cancellation of the decrees by Antiochus V. By 163 BCE, Judah had achieved his initial goals. The situation in Judaea returned to its status quo as of before the decrees and persecutions. Why then did the Maccabees continue to fight?29 In a single moment, Judah became the leader of some Jews outside Judaea (which in this period comprised the Judaean highland) and expanded his authority over the Jews in the entire area, including the Galilee and the Transjordan. This moment also transformed the Maccabean revolt, from an uprising against Seleucid decrees and the desecration of the Temple, to an 29 The main reason was not the continuing role of the Jewish Hellenizers in Seleucid politics, namely, the fact that Menelaus was still the high priest. Menelaus stayed in Antioch, and the Jewish Hellenizers were an oppressed minority, some of whom probably stayed in the Jerusalem Acra. Their power was completely dependent on the Seleucids’ support and with the Seleucid defeat they probably lost most of their influence on Judaean society. See 1 Macc 6:21 – 27; cf. 10:61. Alcimus’s nomination and the renewal of the Jewish Hellenizers’ authority in Jerusalem (1 Macc 7:5 – 26) took place after the beginning of the second wave of Maccabean resistance to the Seleucids and the battle of Beit Zechaira (1 Macc 6:32 – 48). The Seleucids renewed the military campaign against Judah and regained their control of Jerusalem because he had attempted to capture the Acra (1 Macc 6:18 – 21).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

274

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

attempt to achieve Jewish political independence, through decisive conflicts with many of the Gentiles throughout the entire region. The moment occurred when Judah heard that the “neighboring Gentiles” were attacking the Jews in Idumaea, the Transjordan and the Galilee. He decided to fight back to save his fellow Jews. After the dedication of the Temple, these Gentiles had become incited and began to murder Jews. Judah first fought against the Idumaeans, then crossed the Jordan and fought the Ammonites. Then the Jews in the Gilead and the Galilee (who had been attacked by the inhabitants of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon) sent Judah letters, calling for help against the “Gentile neighbors” who were plotting to kill them. Judah assembled people for a mass meeting to seek advice. He sent Simon to save their brethren in the Galilee, and Simon succeeded in bringing them to Judaea. Judah and Jonathan themselves then set out on a long campaign in the Gilead, burnt cities and pagan sanctuaries and brought Jews to Judaea.30 The fact that Judah did not conquer the cities and settlements he attacked proves that his aim was to defend the local Jews and not to expand his territory. In these cases the Maccabees took responsibility for the Jews in other parts of Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯. In fact, the local Jews were the ones who requested the help. The conflict between the Maccabees and the Seleucids developed into an ethnic struggle throughout the entire region. Judah’s endeavor to protect the Jews far away from Jerusalem was a response to their sudden oppression. He did not plan it, and had to consult with his followers before engaging in such a dangerous mission. He acted as the actual leader of these Jews although they lived far away. It seems that, in relation to this episode, 1 Maccabees presents him as the head of an ethnic group rather than a religious one.

The Judaization of Idumaeans and Ituraeans When Hyrcanus conquered Idumaea, including Adora and Marisa, in 112/111 BCE, he permitted the Idumaeans to remain in the country if they underwent circumcision and observed the laws of the Jews/Judaeans (Ioudaios). So “they submitted to circumcision and to making their manner of life conform in all other respects to that of the Jews. And from that time on they have continued to be Jews” (Ant. 13.257 – 258). Strabo stated that the Idumaeans “joined the Jews and shared in the same customs with them.”31 Judah Aristobulus made war on the Ituraeans (who, according to the archaeological record, lived in the Golan), he acquired a good part of their 30 1 Macc 5:1 – 54; Sievers 1990:51 – 57. According to 2 Macc 12:2 – 9 the Gentiles in Joppa drowned two hundred local Jews in the sea. Judah’s troops burnt the local harbor and left. Then Judah attacked Jamnia and burnt its harbor, because he discovered that its inhabitants had plotted to do the same as in the people of Joppa. For the reasons that led the Gentiles to act against the Jews, see Kasher 1988:27 – 30; cf. Rappaport 2004:166 – 186. 31 Strabo, Geographica 16.2.34; Stern 1976:294, 299, 304.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Wars, Judaization, and Hasmonean Transformations of Jewish Identity

275

territory for Judaea and compelled the inhabitants, if they wished to remain in their country, to be circumcised and to live in accordance with the laws of the Jews (Ant. 13.318). Josephus also cites Strabo (who cites Timagenes of Alexandria) noting that Aristobulus “acquired additional territory for them (the Jews), and brought over to them a portion of the Ituraean nation, whom he joined to them by the bond of circumcision.”32 The archaeological evidence may also imply that similar conversions took place in the Galilee. It is difficult to ascertain whether the extensive demographic growth and transformations in the ceramic types (which may reflect ethnic transformation) is a result of the conversion/judaization of local Gentiles or immigration from Judaea, or perhaps both.33 Scholars have debated whether converting to Judaism was forced or voluntary. As the sources cited above show, there are conflicting accounts that point in both directions.34 One reasonable solution is that the rural Idumaeans and Ituraeans sought alliances with the Jews while the urban and hellenized ones did not.35 Regardless of whether these two ethnic groups were subjugated by the Hasmoneans or joined the Jews voluntarily, some of them retained their own ethnic identity but others were committed to Judaism for generations to come.36 For example, the Romans regarded the Idumaeans as part of the Judaean population when they included Idumaea in the Judaean district in 63 BCE. Six thousand Idumaeans came to the help of the Zealots in Jerusalem in 67 – 68 CE.37 Evidence for the incorporation of Ituraeans within the Judaean ethnos comes from inscriptions of persons of Ituraean geographical origins (or descendants of people with Arabian names) containing Jewish names, as well as a synagogue found next to an Ituraean temple.38 Shaye Cohen concluded that none of these ethnic groups became “ethnic Judaeans” but only

32 Ant. 13.319. See Kasher 1988:80 – 83; Myers 2010:24 – 30, 153. 33 See Aviam 2004; Leibner 2009:319 – 326. Cf. Bar-Kochva 1977:191 – 194; Berlin 1997:37 – 43. 34 Note also that Jannaeus destroyed Pella when the inhabitants did not accept Jewish ancestral laws (Ant. 13.397). Cf. Cohen 1999:111 n. 3. 35 Kasher 1988:47 – 62, 66, 69 – 70, 74 – 75, 84; Cohen 1999:116 – 118. 36 Rappaport 2009 and Ronen 2003 pointed to cultural similarities and connections between Judaeans and Idumaeans before the Judaization. They regarded the Hasmonean acts as a result of a gradual interaction and assimilation of the Idumaeans with the Judaeans. Most notable are the three ritual baths found in the upper city of Marisa (although it is impossible to ascertain whether they were used before or after Hyrcanus’s conquest) and one in the lower city that predated the conquest. See Kloner 2003:16 – 17. 37 War 1.155 (cf. Ant. 14.74); War 4.228 – 232; 6.148; Kasher 1988:62 – 63, 65. 38 Kasher 1988:84 – 85. Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, the Ituraean ruler, became the protg of Aristobulus II’s family (when the latter was poisoned by Pompey’s partisans) and married the widow of Aristobulus II (Ant. 14.126). This fact raises the question of whether Ptolemy was Jewish. Later Mattathias Antigonus stayed with Ptolemy, who supported his attempt to take over Judaea from Hyrcanus II (Ant. 14.297); Ptolemy’s son, Lysanias was also Antigonus’s ally (Ant. 14.330).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

276

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

Judaeans in the political sense, and that they also “obligated themselves to observe the ways of the Judaeans.”39 This must have satisfied the Hasmoneans. This incorporation of Idumaeans and Ituraeans into Judaism—bestowing the name Ioudaioi on them—and the Judaean state itself, is unprecedented.40 In fact, one may suspect that this move contradicts the previous expulsion of Gentiles and burning of pagan sanctuaries.41 The novel policy had political and military advantages for the new kingdom, since it guaranteed the loyalty of the converted people, but it also demanded an innovative conception of what it means to be Jewish.42 This, Cohen suggested, was the Greek concept of “citizenship” (politeia), the quality of being a citizen; which also meant “constitution” or “way of life” (of the citizens).43 For Greeks such as Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 BCE) and Antiochus III, the Mosaic Torah was the Jewish politeia.44 Interestingly, Josephus mentioned that Hyrcanus altered the Idumaeans’ politeia and made them adopt the customs (ete¯) and laws (nomima) of the Jews (Ant. 15.254). Unlike birth, politeia (way of life or citizenship) is mutable and can include non-Jews by birth. Thus, Cohen suggested that these events marked the transformation of Jewishness from a genos towards a politeia. This process was sparked by Jewish hellenization and Seleucid persecutions. Antiochus IV attempted to force the Jews to abandon their ancestral laws and ancestral politeia; when the decrees were withdrawn they were allowed to follow their own laws and conduct their politeia in accordance with their ancestral customs.45 The Hasmoneans thus accepted the Greek definition of their own way of life as a politeia, and separated it from descent by birth. In consequence, they were 39 Cohen 1999:128. He believed that “the glue that held this union together was common hatred of the Greeks.” Cf. already Smith 1978, who had pointed to the similarities between Hasmonean and Roman incorporation of conquered ethic units as citizens. 40 Although there are several earlier cases of Gentiles who had attached themselves to Israelites/ Jews or their God, there is no evidence of the concept of conversion to Judaism, or of Jewish proselytes (that is, a Gentile who considered himself an Israelite/Jew and was considered one by the Israelites/Jews) before Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. See Cohen 1999:121 – 125, 130 – 132. Cohen 1999:129 – 130 dated the descriptions of religious conversion in Judith 14:10 and 2 Macc 9:17 to the Hasmonean period. See also Cohen’s (ibid., 175 – 197) discussion of the verb “Judaize” (ioudaizein) 41 For the latter, see Cohen 1999:118 and Introduction. 42 S. Schwartz 2001:40, argued that the Hasmoneans were motivated by the biblical idea that the Land of Israel should be “unpolluted” by idolatry. Alternatively, he suggested (following Smith 1978) that they were inspired by the Roman allies who had given Roman citizenship to some of the people they conquered. 43 Cohen 1999:125 – 129. He compared the Hasmonean state to Polybius’s (2.37.10 – 11; 38.4, 7; 39.6) description of the Achaean League. Cf. the essential role of ancestral customs/laws for Jewish identity (e. g., Goodblatt 2006:24 – 26). 44 Hecataeus, apud. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 40.3.3 (Stern 1976:26, 28); Ant. 12.142. On Hecataeus, see Bar-Kochva 2010:90 – 135; on Antiochus III’s letter, see Bickerman 1980b. See also Philo, Special Laws 1.51; Josephus, Against Apion 2.210. 45 1 Macc 2:19; 3:29; 6:59; 2 Macc 4:11; 6:1; 8:17; 11:24 – 25; Cohen 1999:126 – 127.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Wars, Judaization, and Hasmonean Transformations of Jewish Identity

277

able to incorporate Gentile-born people into the Judaean politeia. Judaism became a way of life rather than an ancestry. An additional turning point in Jewish identity should be noted. Jason, a Zadokite high priest who possessed the most distinguished descent in Second Temple Judaism, as well as other priests (Menelaus and Alcimus) who served in that office, had broken traditional laws and cooperated with Antiochus IV. This proved that noble descent cannot guarantee commitment to tradition and loyalty to the religious community. The Hasmoneans’ conclusion was that allegiance to Judaism should be based on behavior (submission to Jewish traditional Law) rather than genos. Cohen also approached the subject from a philological perspective. He distinguished four different meanings of Ioudaios and its equivalents in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin: genos, geography (i. e., pertaining to the land of Judaea), Jewish religion and culture, and political affiliation (citizenship of the state of Judaea). In all occurrences, before the end of the second century BCE “Judaean” was an ethnic-geographic term which referred to a specific genos and country, namely, a member of the ethnos whose origins are in Judaea, the homeland of the Judaeans.46 The second, religious, meaning of “Jew” appeared only in the Hasmonean period. It referred to someone who venerates the God of the Judaeans, and denotes a culture, a way of life,47 in contrast to the ethnic and geographic sense of the term. The conceptual differentiation between origins and culture/religion allowed Gentiles to join the Judaeans as a religion or political entity.48 This new conception was probably created by the Hasmoneans. All this is indicative of the Hasmonean conception of Jewish/Judaean identity. Hyrcanus and Aristobulus intended to create and succeeded in creating a collective Judaean identity for a large number of people of these ethnic groups, although judaization or conversion was a procedure that was previously unknown (in fact, such a massive act of judaization has never been repeated in Jewish history). Their purpose was probably to make the Judaean/ Jewish ethnos as dominant as possible in their state or kingdom. They initiated a creative type of ethnic purification in which ethnic identity is transformed. This fact is extremely significant for the present discussion of the Jewish collective identity. Hyrcanus and Aristobulus probably believed that the conceptual framework of commitment to the Jewish way of life and submission to their own political power would suffice to transform communities of 46 See 1 Macc 8:20, 23, 27, 29, 31; 10:23, 25, 29, 33, 34, 36; 11:30, 33; 12:3, 6, 21; 13:36, 42; 14:20, 22; 15:1, 2, 17. For Judaeans in a territorial context see the inhabitants of the province Yehud (Ezra 6:7; Neh 4:6; 5:8). For an ethnic sense, see Neh 5:1, 17. For the ethnic sense of Ioudaioi, see Mason 2007. 47 E.g., 2 Macc 6:6. 48 Cohen 1999:69 – 106. Strangely, Cohen did not credit the Hasmoneans explicitly with this conceptual development. For a critical approach to Cohen’s stress on the geographical sense of Ioudaios, see Schwartz 2007.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

278

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

Idumaeans and Ituraeans into Jews. This demonstrates that the Hasmoneans regarded their own religious and political ideology as powerful enough to change one’s religious identity, and in a certain sense ethnic identity, since judaized Idumaeans and Ituraeans were distinct from their own kinfolk. What is important for our concerns is that throughout this judaization the Hasmoneans created a new conception of Jewish identity, which was built on commitment to Jewish laws and to their own rule, even when these commitments did not coincide with Jewish birth. The judaization, and the cultural-religious conception behind it, were extremely effective, probably also because the Hasmoneans were successful in the military and political spheres. But this conception of Jewish identity also provided them with new political tools. These conclusions are particularly important when we evaluate the manner in which the features of Hasmonean ideology discussed in the previous chapters created a new sense of Jewish identity.

3. Novel Features of Hasmonean Jewish Collective Identity In the previous chapters I have demonstrated how the Hasmoneans legitimized their rule using novel institutions and concepts. Now I would like to show that in the course of maintaining their political ideology, which also involved religious claims, the Hasmoneans established new forms of Jewish collective identity. There were several practical and symbolic means by which the Hasmoneans enhanced the ties among the Jews themselves. Certainly, they took such steps in order to promote their own political interests. However, the previous discussions of the Hasmoneans’ defense of the Jews in the Transjordan and the Galilee, and the judaization of the Idumaeans and Ituraeans, indicates that they were concerned with the question of Jewish identity and were consciously shaping it. Some of their innovations directly and effectively intensified the Jews’ relations with each other. Other aspects of Hasmonean ideology probably had more implicit consequences, which will be discussed in the next section.

H . anukkah When Judah Maccabee first celebrated H. anukkah in 164 BCE he stressed the religious aspects of his victory. H. anukkah was celebrated again in 163 BCE, thereby becoming an annual festival, when the Jews commemorated not only a historical accomplishment but also the transformation of the Jewish destiny, independence, and the centrality of the Temple as a marker of religious (in fact, ethnic) identity.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Novel Features of Hasmonean Jewish Collective Identity

279

The most far-reaching feature of H. anukkah is that it was also celebrated by Diaspora Jews. The two letters preceding 2 Maccabees, sent by Judah and Simon to the Jews in Egypt, attest to the Maccabees’ wish that these Jews celebrate and remember the historical event and its present glorious consequences. When Jews both within and outside Judaea and Hasmonean sovereignty celebrated H. anukkah on the same days, remembering the purification of the Temple, they actually acknowledged (explicitly or implicitly), perhaps even admired, the Hasmoneans and their rule. H. anukkah therefore united Jews in Judaea and the Diaspora in remembrance of the new religious and political consequences of the Maccabean revolt. For eight days every year, many Jews (perhaps even most of them) had a more or less similar shared consciousness, keeping in mind the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans. Judah and Simon created a new way for Diaspora Jews to identify with the Temple, Jerusalem Jewry, and the Hasmoneans. An illustration of the sensibilities related to the Jewish collective identity that were sparked by H. anukkah is found in the second letter preceding 2 Maccabees.49 In its conclusions, the authors highlighted the implications of the reinstatement of the Jewish divine destiny. They declared that God “returned to all (of us) the inheritance [namely, the land], including the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity ; as is promised in the Law” (2 Macc 2:17 – 18). The letter proceeds to the hope for a prompt and conclusive return of Diaspora Jews to “the Holy Place” (2:18). Here the restoration of the Temple cult provoked Messianic expectations. The authors believed that this was the beginning of a new era in which God intervened in history. The purification of the Temple became a sign for the realization of the divine promises in Scripture concerning “kingdom,” “holiness,” and the return of exiled Jews to the Land of Israel. God’s current acts, according to the authors, applied to the entire Jewish people, particularly the Egyptian Jews to whom the letter was addressed. The reference to “the kingdom” probably reflects a hope or aspiration (that may be attributed to Judah and the Maccabees already in 163 BCE) for political independence.50 Thus, the liberation of the Judaean Jews celebrated at H . anukkah serves as a divine sign for all the Jews, and they should therefore celebrate it as well.

49 I am following my view from Chapter 1 that it was originally authored by Judah; skeptics may regard it as a later flashback of Judah’s mindset. 50 Flusser 1996:74 – 76. According to Flusser, Judah probably had political aspirations to lead the Judaean Jews to independence, and this naturally led to a certain responsibility for the Jews outside Judaea.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

280

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

The Temple and the Half-Shekel Tax The Hasmoneans reinforced their authority as the defenders of the Temple, but this also worked the other way around. As they became more and more successful in their military campaigns, conquests and the judaization of the Idumaeans and Ituraeans, their reliance on the Temple also increased the importance of the Temple as a marker of Jewish identity. Since the Temple had been desecrated by Antiochus IV and then purified in the course of the awakening of Jewish independence, it was no longer taken for granted. The elevation of the role of the Temple as the essence of Judaism was nourished by the Hasmoneans. It became more substantial in the minds of Judaean and Diaspora Jews, and was contemplated by the Jewish Hellenistic authors of 2 Maccabees, Eupolemus and Aristeas. Both the Judaeans and Diaspora Jews became more aware of the significance of the Temple for their identity. Their growing awareness of the fact that they all share the same (and single) Temple and their concern for its protection and enhancement increased their sense of Jewishness and communality.51 The Temple, as a ritual center, was an effective means to generate identity. The sacrificial cult and public gatherings included systematic and repetitive performances. Those who participated or watched felt related and connected to each other. As Josephus said, the major purpose of the sacrifices and prayers was the welfare of the community and the general spirit was of a fellowship (koinonia). Halakhic debates between the Jews notwithstanding, the Temple represented unity and identity of religious belief, perfect uniformity in habits and customs, and a single doctrine about God.52 The empowerment of the Temple in Jewish society therefore enhanced social solidarity. The half-shekel tax is the most effective collective identity mechanism that the Hasmoneans created or used. When many thousands of Jews in Judaea as well as in the Diaspora sent their money to the Temple they were actively identifying with it. The half-shekel tax created and symbolized commitment to the Temple; it also linked the donors to the Hasmonean high priests who had initiated and used it. When every Jew turned towards the very same Temple and donated the same amount of money, they were united by their practical and symbolic devotion to the Temple. As I mentioned in Chapter 2, the Romans understood the unifying power of the half-shekel tribute as a Jewish

51 Baumgarten 2004:21 – 23 already mentioned that the loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple connected the Diaspora Jews to each other. 52 Against Apion 2.196, 179 – 281, respectively. See also the unified concept of one Temple to one God in Chapter 2. The unifying function of the Temple can be demonstrated by the lack of differentiation between Pharisees and ‘Am ha-’Aretz (who usually did not conform to pharisaic rules of ritual purity) during the pilgrim festivals (m. H. agigah 3.7; t. Bikkurim 2.8, ed. Lieberman 292).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Novel Features of Hasmonean Jewish Collective Identity

281

identity marker when they transformed it into the Fiscus Judaicus tax (and a symbol of humiliation) and subjugated the defeated Jews to Rome’s rule. When Jews in Judaea and throughout the world were connected to the Jerusalem Temple, they were also connected to one another. Roman authorities such as Flaccus, Cicero and Vespasian made note of this bond and were quite critical of it. The public aspects of the tribute made it extremely effective in establishing a Jewish collectivity. Jews knew that other Jews were also devoted to the Temple, and this intensified their solidarity and social identification with their kinfolk. The pilgrimage to Jerusalem was a less common but more intensive mechanism of collective identity. I have already cited in Chapter 2 the descriptions of Philo, Josephus, and the rabbis concerning the sense of togetherness pilgrims felt when they reached the Temple. The face to face encounter with other devotees of the Temple cult from Judaea and probably also from the Diaspora convinced the pilgrims that they all shared the same convictions and social identity—that they were all Jews. This experience made a further imprint once the pilgrims returned home and shared their experience with their relatives and friends.53 The symbolic effect extended beyond the pilgrims themselves and contributed to the feelings of a shared destiny among Jews throughout the world. Aristeas’s visit to Jerusalem is probably imaginary, but his idea that the Temple and Eleazar the high priest represent the essence of Jewish identity (substantiated in the course of Aristeas’s pilgrimage) is authentic. Philo may have visited the Temple only once, but he was extensively occupied with its legal practices and symbolic meaning.54 Once the Jews acknowledged that the pilgrimage was a common event, their identification with the Temple and other Jews increased.

Hasmonean Rule and Religious Leadership The victories over the Seleucids and the cancellation of Antichus IV’s decrees increased Jewish pride and self-assurance and probably encouraged Jews to pursue and manifest their Jewish identity. The very fact that for the first time since 586 BCE Judaean Jews were enjoying political independence greatly contributed to the formation of Jewish identity, in Judaea as well as in the Diaspora. The state structure provided Jews with new means and oppor53 On the contribution of the pilgrimage to “imagined community,” see Anderson 1991:53 – 56; following Turner’s model (1971:166 – 271) of the function of the geographical journey in creating meaning and (in our case) the perception of Jerusalem and the Temple as the center of the universe. 54 Spec. Leg. 1.131 – 298; Vit. Mos. 2.66 – 158; Leg. 310 – 317.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

282

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

tunities to sustain their collective identity,55 and the independence of Judaean Jews made the Diaspora Jews more aware of their Jewishness. To justify their leadership and rule, the Hasmoneans did not draw for the most part on their political power. Unlike Hellenistic kings they stressed their religious qualities. As I have shown in Chapter 3, Judah, Jonathan and Hyrcanus were presented as religious leaders who prayed to God, judged the people and possessed divine revelations as prophets. The Hasmoneans regarded themselves first and foremost as high priests and this was the most common designation on their coins. Unlike political power, which is limited by borders and competing political entities of neighboring rulers, religious authority depends mainly on the subjects’ recognition and consciousness. When the Hasmoneans portrayed themselves as the religious (instead of political or military) leaders of the Jews, they also addressed those who were not directly under their rule but could nonetheless acknowledge their leadership and associate themselves with the Hasmonean regime. I believe that the Hasmoneans initially intended to approach the Jews beyond their borders (as Judah’s H. anukkah letter indicates). Their ideology was relevant for Diaspora Jews as well. Jews, wherever they lived, could identify with the Hasmoneans. In doing so, these Jews also strengthened their bond with other Jews. Documents in the Jewish Antiquities Book 14 attest to the intervention of John Hyrcanus and Hyrcanus II on behalf of the religious rights of the Jews in Asia. In his letter to Sidon, Julius Caesar declared that Hyrcanus II was responsible for Jewish religious matters, and this probably pertained to the Jews throughout the entire Roman Empire. Hyrcanus II seems to have acted on behalf of the Jews far beyond the territory he ruled, and his predecessors probably did the same. He was considered the religious leader of all the Jews, as far as the Romans were concerned (see Chapter 2). Hence, the Hasmoneans aspired to have all the Jews see them as their representatives. In this manner the Hasmoneans actively shaped the phenomenon in which “the people of Israel pledge one another”;56 namely, that Jews take care of each other.

H . eber ha-yehudim: Coins and Collective Identity Every single Hasmonean ruler who struck coins used the inscription “the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim.” The title parallels ethnic designations on Roman republican issues and Greek and Phoenician city coins, but is absent from the coins of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. In Chapter 5 I concluded that h. eber ha-yehudim did not refer to a political institution such as “the council of the Jews,” but rather to “the Jewish people,” that is, the entire Jewish ethnos or 55 See also below on the state as shaping national consciousness. 56 Sifra Be. huqqotai 7:5 (ed. Weiss, 112b); b. Sanhedrin 27b and par.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Novel Features of Hasmonean Jewish Collective Identity

283

“nation.” The implications are that John Hyrcanus, Judah Aristobulus, Alexander Jannaeus and Mattathias Antigonus all declared in this slogan that they represented the Jews. Since coin inscriptions manifest sovereignty and authority, that meant that their rule was (symbolically, of course) associated with the Jews. Not only did they rule on behalf of the Jews, but virtually in companionship with the Jewish people. There are two reasons why h. eber hayehudim should not be limited to Judaean Jews in the Hasmonean state but probably included Diaspora Jews as well. First, the designation appears together with that of the high priest, who is the high priest of all the Jews. Second, we have already heard that the Hasmoneans directly addressed Diaspora Jews—in H. anukkah, the half-shekel tax, and intervention in their religious rights. The coins both represented the Hasmoneans’ own policy vis  vis their relations with Jews throughout the world and conducted propaganda for them. To utilize Geertz’s terminology, h. eber ha-yehudim is both the model of and model for a reciprocal relationship,57 perhaps even unity, between the Hasmoneans and the Jewish people. The use of the word h. eber (which somewhat parallels the Greek koinon) for the Jews denotes a sense of togetherness. This new term in itself attests to the Hasmonean notion of the Jewish collective identity. Moreover, the Hasmoneans repeatedly declared in public forums that they ruled on behalf of and in association with the Jewish “nation.” In doing so they actually advanced the perception that all Jews were one and that they were an ethnic group which, as the coins proved, had a substantial representation in the political structure. This notion, I contend, is already manifested in the conclusion of Judah’s H. anukkah letter, but the coins attest to the manner in which the Hasmoneans carried it out.

Purity Boundaries and the Material Symbols of Collective Identity 1 Maccabees promoted the notion of purification from Gentile impurity. The Gentiles were banished and their dwellings were purified at the Temple and the Jerusalem Acra. This notion is probably related to the Hasmonean destruction and burning of pagan Temples.58 In the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho we encounter (perhaps for the first time) many ritual baths which attest to frequent ritual purification on a regular basis. Vessels produced by Gentiles are not found.59 Since social boundaries are the basis of ethnic identity,60 this notion of im/purity was essential to the construction of the Jewish collective 57 Geertz 1973:93 – 94. 58 See Introduction. 59 For literary evidence and historical reflections on Gentile impurity, which is mostly moral and not ritual, see Hayes 2002:3 – 67. 60 Barth 1969. See Chapter 5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

284

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

identity. It is one component of the Judaean ethnic separation from and hostility towards Gentiles that emerged in the course of the Seleucid persecutions and Maccabean revolt (and especially during the military campaigns against the “neighboring Gentiles”). The nature and extent of these boundaries throughout the Hasmonean state requires comprehensive archaeological study. The Hasmonean pools and gardens signified, according to my interpretation, the collective power shared by the Hasmoneans and their subjects. I am not claiming that the pools and gardens were representative of Jewishness. Yet, they symbolized the reciprocal political relationship between the Hasmoneans and their subjects. They signified the accomplishments, affiliations, and successes of the Hasmonean state, not the Hasmonean rulers. Since they contributed to the collective identification of the Judaeans with their rulers, they also indirectly increased their collective consciousness. All this is quite remote from the political concept of Hellenistic kingdoms in which ethnic identity was somewhat irrelevant. Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule was based on the occupation of land inhabited by foreign people, which, as Mooren noted, “had no roots in the nation. In fact, there existed no nation in the political sense.”61 Hellenistic kings were titled simply basileus with no accompanying ethnic name since they were the kings of whichever land they could conquer.62 In this sense, the most significant characteristic of the Hasmonean state was distinctive in relation to its most powerful neighbors. The emergence of the Jewish collective identity stands in contrast to other features of Hasmonean hellenization. The Hasmoneans could have achieved power using more conventional means, without taking into account Jewish collective identity, but tradition, religious sensibilities, and political wisdom led them to establish new forms of Jewishness.

4. Social Identity and the Symbolic Construction of Jewish Collectivity In order to explain how the Hasmoneans were able to establish this new Jewish collective identity we must first understand what the mechanisms of social and communal identity are and how they operate. Social identity refers to the ways in which individuals and collectivities are distinguished in their social relations with others. The basic cognitive mechanism of identification involves the systematic establishment of signification of similarity and difference between individuals and between 61 Mooren 1983:222. 62 Gruen 1985. See also Chapter 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Social Identity and the Symbolic Construction of Jewish Collectivity

285

collectivities. It is about knowing who we are and who others are.63 Institutions and social organizations establish identities. They combine the individual and the collective, and classify people in different positions according to political or power relationships.64 This explains how the Hasmoneans were able to use state mechanisms and institutions to shape the identity of their subjects. The formation of the Jewish collective identity in the Hasmonean period involved two major aspects—categorization and symbolic construction. Any process of group identification involves categorization. Groups identify themselves as such because of their initial categorization by others, as an intrinsic component of the group identification.65 Judaean Jews were categorized as “others” by Antiochus IV in his religious decrees and persecution. As a result, they became more aware of their Jewishness. This awakened consciousness demanded that they relate to it in an active manner. Boundaries—an effective means of categorization66—are essential for the formation of a community and ethnic group, since they symbolize exclusion as well as inclusion. When the Maccabees and Hasmoneans advanced the separation from “the neighboring Gentiles”—fought against them, burnt several pagan temples and avoided their vessels,67 they created strong social boundaries that differentiated Jews from Gentiles. Crucial to the present discussion is the symbolic construction of a community. Anthony P. Cohen introduced the concept that a “community exists in the minds of its members”; namely, the reality of community is expressed and embellished symbolically by its members. It is a mental or cognitive construction.68 According to Cohen, community membership depends upon the symbolic construction and signification of similarity, as an umbrella of solidarity under which all can take shelter. The similarity of communal membership may be only imagined. However, its symbolic presence in people’s lives is real. Symbols generate a sense of shared belonging (such as a flag or sports team). Rituals serve as symbols of the community. Community membership means sharing with others and participating in a common symbolic domain. People believe that they understand things in the

63 Jenks 1996:4 – 5. 64 Jenks 1996:24 – 25. This is because the self is constructed through the perception of and interaction with society. 65 Jenks 1996:87 – 89: (following Marx). See also Banks 1996:132 – 133. This may also explain why the Hasmonean categorization of the Judaized Idumaeans and Ituraeans as Judaeans was successful. 66 Group identity is constructed across the group boundary, in interaction with others. See Jenks 1996:24 – 25 following Cohen 1985. See also Barth 1969. 67 For details, see Introduction and especially Schwartz 1991. I am not denying earlier Jewish separation from the Gentiles. See, e. g., Apollonius Molon, cited in Josephus, Against Apion 2.258. For further references see Cohen 1999:135 n. 74. However, from 167 BCE social boundaries of Jews in relation to gentiles became much more widespread and extensive. 68 Cohen 1985:esp. 98. For the cultural significance of symbols, see e. g., Geertz 1973.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

286

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

same way which differ from other communities (whether or not they actually think in the same manner is a different matter). Cohen’s model can easily be applied to nations and ethnic groups.69 The Hasmonean ideology that fostered the Jewish collective identity comprised a number of symbolic elements. The identification with the Temple was essentially symbolic (notwithstanding the practices of paying the half-shekel tax and the pilgrimage); the title h. eber ha-yehudim was a public and extremely common manifestation of this symbolic construction of Jewish community ; and the festival of H. anukkah became a domestic ritual practiced by individuals, but nonetheless it symbolized a Jewish collective memory and shared religious political sensibilities (it also stressed the significance of the Temple cult). The Hasmoneans therefore created a symbolic concept of Jewish collective identity which was the most essential feature in the development of the Jewish collective consciousness. But in what sense did the Hasmoneans transform or strengthen the Jewish collective identity in comparison to pre-Hasmonean Judaism? I believe that Jewish identity during the early Second Temple period developed gradually and slowly and that a sense of Jewish collectivity throughout the world before the Hasmonean period was still relatively weak. However, it is impossible to substantiate this claim here.70 For the present purpose I will only point to significant developments following the emergence of the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean contribution may be assessed in light of the different forms of social identity. Collective identity is distinguished by two distinct types of organization: social groups and social categories. In a social category, membership is rather passive, marked by a relative lack of relations between members. In essence such a category is dependent on or created by outsiders (in our case, non-Jews). On the other hand, group identity in a social group is the product of a collective process of internal definition. It is distinguished by the nature of its relations between its members. Membership in a category, however, does not entail relations between members, the mutual recognition of that categorization notwithstanding.71 The Hasmonean ideology contributed to the transformation of the Jewish ethnos in Judaea and the Diaspora from a category into a group. Before the Hasmoneans, most of our knowledge of the Jews as an ethnos, a collectivity, 69 Cohen 1985:97 – 118; Jenks 1996:110; Banks 1996:148 – 149. The similarity to Anderson’s (1991) Imagined Communities (discussed below), is apparent. 70 Note the distinction between Separatists and Assimilationists in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (Smith 1971:99 – 192), which disappeared only with the Maccabean victory. The fragmented character of Jewish social identity can be demonstrated by the emergence of the synagogue in late third century BCE Egypt (according to epigraphical evidence), in contrast to literary allusions to it in the historical sources only in the late Hasmonean period. See Rivkin 1963; Levine 2005b:esp. 41 – 42, 83 and references. The fact that the synagogue did not appear or flourish before may attest to a low level of social and religious development. 71 Jenks 1996:82 – 86.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Social Identity and the Symbolic Construction of Jewish Collectivity

287

comes from non-Jews.72 Here Jews were categorized as such by outsiders. Such categorization characterizes the persecutions by Haman (according to the Book of Esther) and Antiochus IV. In finding the means to survive, the Jews’ responses resulted in increased solidarity and social distinctiveness. In contrast, H. anukkah, the half-shekel, and the Hasmonean perception that Jews all together were connected to the Hasmonean leaders enhanced the social relationship between the Jews.73 New practices and symbols connected Jews to the Temple. They had one center that was both real and symbolic: they sent money to Jerusalem and knew that the Hasmoneans felt responsible (to a certain extent) for their religious welfare. Now Jews all over the world felt closer to one another. The political power of the Hasmoneans made the most significant contribution to classifying Jews as an ethnic group rather than an ethnic category. Jerusalem and the Temple were meaningful symbols for the Jews long before the Hasmonean period. Yet, from 164/3 BCE, when Judah called upon Egyptian Jews to celebrate H. anukkah, and even more so from the full establishment of Hasmonean independence in 152 BCE, this center was no longer visionary (based on the heritage of the Davidic monarchy) but real. The political and military power of the Hasmoneans was increasing. They used it wisely to create their religious ideology, in a manner that inspired many Jews and revived their muted Jewish identity. The revival of a Jewish state made Jews in Judaea and Egypt proud, encouraged them to stress their Jewishness, and inspired them to increase their contact with the Jewish center as well as with other Jews. The political success of the Hasmoneans and their ability to direct it in religious channels raised Jewish self-consciousness and solidarity in general. To be a Jew in Egypt or elsewhere meant thinking and acting differently and more boldly than before. The increased interaction between the Jews enhanced their collective identity. Now Jews actualized it much more than before.74 Social identity is created and realized by social institutions, which are sources and sites of identification for individuals. Institutions have organizational mechanisms which enable the institutionalization of collectivities and 72 The sources are collected in Stern 1976:1 – 101. Ezra, Nehemiah and ben Sira certainly define Jewish identity, but they relate to a local Jewish community and not to the entire Jewish ethnos in scattered communities. They do not form a unified sense of the Jewish collective identity. A general outlook on “Judaism,” and a unified identity is found only later, especially in the works of Philo and Josephus. Of course, this claim requires further extensive study. 73 It is probably not incidental that Esther was translated into Greek by a Jerusalemite in the Hasmonean period. This is another example of an interest in the shared Jewish identity and its transmission from Jerusalem to Egypt in this period. Cf. Bickerman 1976b who pointed to the hatred against Gentiles expressed in the translation and also dated it to 78/77 BCE (ibid., 231 – 232, 243 – 245). 74 On interaction and performance of social identity, see Jenks 1996:91; Barth 1969:28 – 30.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

288

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

collective identifications.75 The Hasmoneans created not only symbolic means but also actual tools which facilitated this process: social institutions, such as the Temple, H. anukkah, and the very existence of their state structure. Even if the Hasmoneans were much less active in this process, their political independence provided new means to foster the Jewish collective identity. However, as we have seen, their territorial expansions for the sake of their subjects, the military intervention to save Jews outside Judaea, and the judaization of Idumaeans and Ituraeans, demonstrate that they were extremely interested in transforming the Jewish collective identity in both the political and religious realms.

5. Insights from Modern Nationalism Modern Nationalism and Its Ethnic Origins Scholarly discussions of ancient Judaism have commonly used the term “nation” and “nationalism” in referring to the Jewish people as a collective entity.76 This usage seems to confuse ethnicity and nationalism. Although both ethnicity and nationalism are social and political constructions of social identity, it should be first of all noted that they are not synonymous. Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them.77 Discussing these two phenomena may provide theoretical insights useful for understanding the complex process of creating a collective identity in antiquity. Nationalism demands that political boundaries overlap cultural boundaries or the national unit. It is a modern phenomenon which takes preexisting cultures and turns them into nations, sometimes inventing them and often obliterating them.78 Nationalism is hardly a uniform phenomenon. To be more precise, it is an ensemble of various components of national identity.79 Most scholars, such as Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson, regarded nationalist ideologies, nations and national identities as products of modernization and modernity (understanding these concepts in relation to modern industrial states, colonialism and “print capitalism”).80 Smith, however, argued in favor of the ethnic origins of nations, pointing to the example of old, continuous nations in the premodern and even medieval 75 Jenks 1996:133 – 134. 76 See the survey of Goodblatt 2006:1 – 3. For a reference to the Hasmonean period, see Hengel 1974:1.307. 77 See, however, Goodblatt’s (2006:7 – 19) reduction of the difference between nationalism and ethnicity, following Anthony Smith. 78 Gellner 1983:1, 48 – 49; Hobsbawm 1990:9. 79 Smith 2000:25. 80 Gellner 1983; Hobsbawm 1990; Anderson 1991. See the survey of Smith 2000:27 – 34.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Insights from Modern Nationalism

289

and ancient periods; he held that a nation has no clear-cut point of origin. The concept of nation refers to a number of historical processes which over time come together and form a distinct cultural community that may resemble, to a greater or lesser degree, the ideal type of the nation.81 In fact, even those who stress the modernity of the nationalistic idea admit that it stems from a protonationalism based on feelings of collective belonging.82 This proto-nationalism may derive from ethnicity, which can bind together people living on large territories or even in dispersion, where they lack a common polity.83 In his discussion of the ethnic origin of nations, Smith distinguished between ethnicity and nationalism.84 He pointed to premodern social and cultural antecedents, which he called “ethnosymbolism,” upon which the character, identity, and location of a given nation is based.85 He regarded the ethnic unit as a collective cultural identity that has an “ethnic past.” It is comprised of collective and cultural identities and ideologies which span generations. These antecedents are based on the population occupying a historic homeland, sharing common myths and memories, a mass public culture, a single economy, and common rights and duties for all members.86 Given that ethnicity is the basis of nationhood, even if we refrain from treating the Hasmonean ideology of Jewish collective identity as nationalism, we can at least point to its ethnic characteristics, which are essential components of a national identity. The Hasmonean construction of the Jewish collective identity was built on common biblical traditions, the Land of Israel, and the memory of the Davidic monarchy.87 In order to understand its symbolic construction and effectiveness we should study more closely modern nationalism.

National Consciousness and Its Political Fulfillment The construction of national consciousness is first and foremost symbolic, a “narrative” which is socially constructed. For Hobsbaum, this is an invented tradition and for Anderson, a community which is merely imagined.88 In his Imagined Communities, Anderson stressed the simple fact that “members of 81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88

Smith 2000:34 – 38, 83 n. 15. See also Smith 1986; Hastings 1997. Hobsbawm 1990:46. Hobsbawm 1990:64, specifically referring to Kurds and Jews. Smith 2000:50. Mendels 1992:13 identified ethnicity with “nationalism” for the sake of convenience in his discussion of Hellenistic and ancient Jewish nationalism. Smith 2000:69 – 70. Smith 2000:62 – 66, also pointed to the example of first century CE Jews. According to this model later generations rediscover, authenticate and appropriate aspects of what they assume is “their” authentic past. Compare the “national” identity of ancient Israel, summarized in Grosby 1991. Hobsbawm 1983; Anderson 1991:esp. 6 – 8.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

290

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”89 This certainly applies to the ancient Jews (and indeed, to most ethnic groups).90 But the fact that it is invented or imagined through social rituals or “cultural work” does not make national identity less real. The sociocultural symbolism consists of memories, values, and traditions which define the distinctive character of a specific ethnic unit, even if they are imaginary, invented, and “ideological.” National symbols give concrete meaning and visibility to the abstractions of national ideology and provide a sense of belonging. These symbolic meanings are an “energizing force of myths, resonance of shared memoirs and the vivid appeal of symbols, all of which carry across generations to establish a chain of felt and willed continuity.”91 The imagined community is not merely an elite manipulation but is also constructed of popular outlooks, cultures, and traditions. It is a moral community and a sacred communion, demanding sacrifices from all its members. Its members are powerfully attracted to nationalism. They feel part of a transgenerational community of history and destiny, since the nationalist memory shapes the present.92 This should explain why the Hasmonean ideology of a Jewish collective identity was attractive to so many Jews. It gave them the benefit of identity, and it was rooted in existing traditions and memories. Hobsbawm noted three phases in the development of national movements.93 These phases shed light on the evolution of the Jewish collective identity in the Hasmonean period. The first phase is that of shared cultural folklore with no particular political or even national implications (which may pertain to the shared biblical traditions of Judaeans in the Persian and Ptolemaic periods). The second phase involves a body of pioneers and militants of the “national idea” and the beginnings of political campaigning for this idea. This calls to mind the Maccabean revolt, Judah’s defense of the Jews in the Galilee and the Transjordan, and his H. anukkah letter to the Jews in Egypt. It seems that the “national” awareness in the wake of the Seleucid decrees and persecution shows that claims for nationhood arise especially in a time of crisis.94 The fact that “nationalism” filled the void left by the decline of religious and dynastic territorial control95 also sheds light on the correspondence between the decline of the Seleucids and the emergence of the Jewish collective identity during the Hasmonean period. The third phase, according to Hobsbawm, is a nationalistic program which acquires mass support, 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Anderson 1991:6. Baumgarten 2004. Smith 2000:55, 66 – 67, 73 – 74. Cf. ibid., 51 – 52. Smith 2000:57 – 62. Hobsbawm 1990:12. Smith 2000:70. Anderson 1991:19 – 22.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Insights from Modern Nationalism

291

usually after (and as a consequence of) the creation of the national state.96 The Hasmonean construction of a Jewish collective identity was therefore the product of the Hasmonean state. One marker of national consciousness is the recognition that the world is divided into nations and that political power resides only in the nation.97 It is probably not a coincidence that 1 Maccabees engages extensively with “the neighboring nations.”98 Judah’s military clashes with the Gentiles in the Hellenistic cities, Idumaea, and the Transjordan are represented in 1 Maccabees as responses to severe threats to Jewish life and territory. Nonetheless, they attest to an awareness of ethnic boundaries between Jews and Gentiles, which paved the way to subsequent aspirations for political independence. Nationality is not realized by “the people,” but by organizations that can command community resources and actually define the group. The political organization is effective when it succeeds in identifying itself with the community rather than simply representing the community or pursuing its interests.99 These observations help explain why the Jewish collective identity was weak in the Persian and Ptolemaic periods, when Judaean political institutions were latent (if they existed at all). The Hasmonean ideology produced an effective collective identity because it tied the rulers and their institutional power to the Jewish people. H. anukkah is the best example of the identification of the masses with the Hasmoneans. Other such features are mention of h. eber ha-yehudim on their coins, and the Hasmoneans’ selfportrayal as religious leaders of the Jews who ruled by the will of “the people,” and the display of their material success—recalling the pools and gardens in the palaces in Jericho—as “national” rather than royal or personal. Indeed, the most powerful institution that is capable of creating a collective identity is the state.100 According to Anderson, the state, as an administrative organization, creates meaning. The administrative unit, even when it is arbitrary and fortuitous, becomes reality and can be conceived as a fatherland.101 In fact, Anderson’s book is full of examples of how empires and local governments create local identities to carry out their interests. If, as Gellner maintained, nationalism is, above all, “the crystallization of new units, suitable for the conditions now prevailing,”102 the very establishment of a new independent political unit in Judaea was a significant step in the creation of the 96 97 98 99 100

Cf. the nationalism in Italy and Poland after their independence in Hobsbawm 1990:44 – 45. Smith 2000:72 – 73. Schwartz 1991. Brass 1991:48, 50. Brass referred specifically to Zionism and Jewish identity. I follow Weber’s (1948:78) definition of a state as a “human community which (successfully) claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” 101 Anderson 1991:52 – 60, referring to eighteenth and early nineteenth century Latin America. See also Hall 1999. 102 Gellner 1983:48 – 49. His main concern is the new division of labor in the industrial society.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

292

Hasmonean Construction of the Jewish Collective Identity

Jewish collective identity. When state religion is enforced,103 it culturally unifies the population. The centrality of the Temple and the judaization of the Idumaeans and Ituraeans are manifestations of such a state religion which shaped a cohesive social identity. The formation of nationalism is produced not only by the state but also by the elites.104 Ethnic identity and modern nationalism stem from specific types of interactions between the leadership of centralizing states and elites of nondominant ethnic groups. In doing so, the elite members seek political and economic advantages.105 These elites draw upon, distort, and sometimes fabricate materials from the cultures of the groups they wish to represent. As a result, they protect their well-being or existence or gain political and economic advantage for their group as well as for themselves. These are modern phenomena connected to the modern centralizing state. The Maccabees, the Hasmoneans, and their close supporters and courtiers were elite groups that rose to power and led the Judaeans to political independence. We have seen how they explained and legitimized their power. Identity is not created by itself. There are specific people who generate it, build the institutions that convey it to the masses, and convince them that it is both appealing and necessary. In ancient Judaism, these people were the Hasmoneans.

103 As happened many times in antiquity (e. g., Augustus and imperial Rome). For an example from pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, see Pollard 1991. 104 Smith 2000:71. 105 Brass 1991:8.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: Power through Piety This book has examined the dynamics of Hasmonean power and identity based on the Hasmoneans’ own perspectives: through the writings of their advocates and ministers (i. e., mainly 1 and 2 Maccabees), and the coins and palaces through which these rulers expressed their self-images and propaganda. It is not surprising, therefore, that the picture is painted in very favorable colors. The Hasmoneans’ self-presentation consists of particular elements they used to achieve legitimacy, which is essential for a ruler to survive, not least to succeed. The Hasmoneans stressed their Jewishness and particularly the religious and cultic aspects of their achievements and intentions. They claimed religious authority and used it to attain political power. 1 and 2 Maccabees highlight the religious virtues and acts of Mattathias, Judah, Jonathan, and Simon. Josephus and the rabbis later mention that even John Hyrcanus was a prophet. The Maccabees are zealous for the law, pray to the Lord, serve as high priests, and are devoted to the Temple. According to Judah’s dream, he was given a sacred sword by Jeremiah the prophet and Onias III, the legendary high priest. In a sense, these religious features overshadow their political and military achievements. The Hasmoneans are systematically presented as the defenders and directors of the Temple. They are both the guardians of the sacred and the high priests, in charge of performing the sacrificial cult. They have won their prominent position not only in the battlefield, but due to their struggle to reestablish the cult and purify the altar. Their stature as rulers was attached to their function as the Temple’s saviors and protectors. The coins of John Hyrcanus and Judah Aristobulus did not mention their political title as secular rulers, but only their high priestly title. Even King Alexander Jannaeus, who did mention his royal title on his coins, continued this tradition and stressed his high priesthood on most of his coin types. The Hasmoneans also presented Jewish religious messages on their coins. The Hasmonean palaces in Jericho display religious scrupulousness in relation to purity : they feature many ritual baths, both private and public, and a lack of Gentile pottery vessels. The Hasmoneans therefore regarded themselves as high priests devoted to Jewish law and identity ; they drew on these strategies of representation to reinforce the legitimacy of their rule. What makes this strategy especially complex is that the Hasmoneans operated in a political scene dominated by Hellenistic culture, which actually served them well. In addition to the well-known Hellenistic aspects of their rule (see Introduction), they utilized many additional Hellenistic features: a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

294

Conclusions: Power through Piety

festival in commemoration of the dynasty’s rise to power ; benefactions for the Temple; Tyrian coinage for sacred purposes; public records affirming the ruler’s authority ; various Hellenistic symbols on their coins, especially some that carried religious imagery, in support of the ruler’s claim to power ; frescoes, stuccoes, bathhouses, swimming pools, and gardens in the royal palaces. In fact, the entire discourse of 1 Maccabees stresses the Seleucid and Roman acknowledgment of the Maccabees as rulers, including the customary ceremonial gestures of sending the individual Maccabean rulers a purple robe, a golden brooch, golden goblets, etc. Hasmonean ideology found no contradiction between Jewish religious piety and the adoption of Hellenistic features of power, wealth, and political relations. If one wants to argue that their entire religious apparatus was a sham, used in order to mask their true colors as monarchs interested in power and money just like any other Hellenistic kings, it would have been one of the most successful shams in history, one in which the rulers actually deceived themselves. It is perhaps the most remarkable of the Hasmoneans achievements that they were so gracefully able to act simultaneously on two stages—that of religious governance of Judaea and that of Hellenistic secular politics within the wider national environment. The Hasmoneans’ takeover of the royal crown was a natural and almost predictable step. Not only was it customary in their Hellenistic environs, it had a sound basis in biblical or Jewish tradition. Whoever challenged their royal position, such as the Pharisees in their civil war against Jannaeus, did so, not because the Hasmoneans defied Davidic kingship in the messianic age, but due to a fundamental opposition to their (mostly religious) actions. Here, as well as in the case of the Hasmonean territorial expansions and conversions of Gentiles to Judaism, it was hard to argue with success. But when the Hasmoneans drifted into friction among themselves, in the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the ideological system, which was based on cohesion and solidarity, broke down. As a result, internal resistance emerged and some argued that only a Davidic king was worthy of the royal crown. The Hasmoneans made many efforts to demonstrate their close relations with the masses. According to their self-portrait, they were Temple benefactors, pious high priests, descendants of the noble priestly clan of Joiarib, at times even divinely elected saviors or prophets—not rulers with troops of swords and armor, ambassadors, and servants. In 1 Maccabees they are portrayed as being elected time and again by the people, not only by the Seleucids. Their pious virtues and acts made it easy for the people to identify with them. The Hasmoneans were able to execute networks of power (to use Foucault’s definition, discussed in the Introduction) in order to give the public the impression that the government served their needs as devoted Jews. The Hasmonean ideology, its internal coherence, consistency, and various expressions were the main source of the Hasmonean governmental power.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

Conclusions: Power through Piety

295

Surely, they also used other means of direct and coercing power, which eventually resulted in the devastating civil war against Jannaeus, but surprisingly, this was only a short-lived phase. The consistent use of the designation h. eber ha-yehudim, probably referring to the entire Jewish people, on their high priestly coins, demonstrated to the public that the Hasmoneans ruled for the Jews and on their behalf. The Hasmoneans were probably ambitious enough to claim such authority not only in Judaea, but also in the Diaspora. While this was merely a slogan, it was an official one, and quite extraordinary in comparison to contemporary Hellenistic kingdoms. It might have affected the political atmosphere so as to cause the Jewish masses to regard the Hasmonean rulers in a different way from that in which the citizens of the poleis regarded Seleucid monarchs. The Hasmonean palaces in Jericho express a similar posture toward the people. The modest palaces, small courts, and plain vessels demonstrated that the rulers did not attempt to show that they were at the center of the state. The Hasmoneans reserved a truly monumental building style for the construction of what amounted to public gardens and pools, separate from their own living quarters, denying the ruler’s own pleasure. For the Hasmoneans, their claim to be close to their subjects was the source of their political power. The Hasmoneans’ actions were Judaeo-centric. The territorial occupations and the conversion or Judaization of the Idumaeans and Ituraeans were successful, and intentionally transformed Jewish identity. Other aspects of the Hasmonean ideology, especially H. anukkah, the half-shekel tribute, and the use of h. eber ha-yehudim on the coins, expressing the claim to rule for and over all the Jews, were probably means to the very same end: a new sense of Jewish collective identity, not only to empower the Hasmoneans, but also to unite the Jews in a manner that had never been done before. In a sense, whether or not the Hasmoneans were fully aware of this, they created a new form of Judaism. The manner in which their policies were related to or affected Jewish practice still awaits a detailed study of ancient Jewish ethnicity based on the archaeological findings. No matter how one interprets the Hasmonean ideology, even if it is viewed as mere propaganda, it undoubtedly shaped an atmosphere of how things should happen. The Hasmoneans painted an image of reality which in effect created a new sense of reality. They used their power to let the Jews, including themselves, believe that government and Jewish religiosity are one; that the pious should govern; and that the authority of the Jewish laws should be expressed through the Temple—an ideology which will reemerge in the Great Revolt against Rome. They also created a standard of rule by which the ruler governs not because of his army and friends, but because he is entitled to rule, that is, because he serves his people. Now religious ideas were defended and executed by the power of the king, in a manner that had been absent since the Deuteronimistic portrayal of the Davidic monarchy, especially King Josiah of the late seventh century CE.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

296

Conclusions: Power through Piety

All this had profound implications for Judaism as a religious and political system and for the Jews’ religious and political expectations in the generations to follow. While the subject deserves a separate study, I would like to demonstrate this by commenting on the immediate consequences for Herod, the Hasmoneans’ heir. Simply because of his non-Hasmonean descent and his dependence on Rome, Herod could not measure up to the Hasmonean standards of religious piety, devotion to the law, closeness to his Jewish subjects, and Jewish ethno-centric policy. Nonetheless, the Jews, especially Josephus, condemned him for these failures. However, there are some indications that Herod did try to adhere to some of the Hasmonean ideological features, as in his rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple.1 What the Hasmoneans accomplished, or claimed to accomplish, would become an essential requirement for any Jewish ruler to follow: power through piety.

1 Regev 2010. Note also the many ritual baths in the Herodian palaces (ibid., 206 – 212). Cf. Also Regev 2012b.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

Abegg, M.G., Bowley J.E. and Cook, E.M. 2003. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill. Abel, F.-M. 1946. “La fÞte de la Hanoucca,” RB 53: 538 – 46. – 1949. Les Livres des Maccabes, Paris: Gabalda. Alexander, P. 2003. “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of the Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in S. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, SVTSupp 94; Leiden: Brill, pp. 17 – 31. Allegro, J.M. 1968. Qumran Cave 4:I (4Q158 – 4Q186), DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon. Alon, G. 1977. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, Jerusalem: Magnes. Althusser, L. 2001. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. B. Brewster, New York: Monthly Review Press. Amit, Y. 1999. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing, BIS 38; Leiden: Brill. Amusin, J.D. 1977. “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166),” HUCA 48: 123 – 152. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, revised edition, London: Verso. Applebaum, S. 1989. “The Hasmoneans—Logistics, Taxation, and Constitution,” in idem, Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays, SJLA 40; Leiden: Brill, pp. 9 – 29. Aptowitzer, A. 1927. Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum, Vienna: Kohut-Foundation. Ariel, D.T. 2000. “Imported Greek Stamped Amphora Handles,” in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969 – 1982, Vol. 1: Architecture and Stratigraphy : Areas A, W, and X-2, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 267 – 283. Assis, E. 2005. Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech, and Jephthah Narratives (Judg 6 – 12), VTSupp 106; Leiden: Brill. Atkinson, K. 2004. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting, JSJSupp 84; Leiden: Brill. Aviam, M. 2007. “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation,” in J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition WUNT 210; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 115 – 32. Avigad, N. 1954. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

298

References

– 1980. The Upper City of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Shiqmona (Hebrew). Aymard, A. 1967. tudes d’histoire ancienne, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Baillet, M. 1982. Qumrn grotte 4:III, DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon. Banks, M. 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions, London: Routledge. Bar-Kochva, B. 1977. “Manpower, Economics, and Internal Strife in the Hasmonean State,” in H. van Effenterre (ed.), Armes et fiscalit dans le monde antique, Colloque National CNRS, Paris: ditions du CNRS, pp. 167 – 194. – 1989. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – 1996a. “Antiochus the Pious and Hyrcanus the Tyrant: A Chapter in the Historiography of the Hasmonean State,” Zion 61.1: 7 – 44 (Hebrew). – 1996b. Pseudo-Hecataeus On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. – 1999. “The Battle between Ptolemy Lathyrus and Alexander Jannaeus in the Jordan Valley and the Dating of the Scroll of the War of Sons of Light,” Cathedra 93: 7 – 56 (Hebrew). – 2002. “The Conquest of Samaria by John Hyrcanus: The Pretext for the Siege, Jewish Settlement in the ‘Akraba District, and the Destruction of the City of Samaria,” Cathedra 106: 7 – 34 (Hebrew). – 2010. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973 – 1987 Excavations, Vol. 3: The Pottery, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. – 2005. “Qumran and the Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho,” in K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg (eds.), Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates, Leiden: Brill, pp. 263 – 277. – 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963 – 1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barag, D. 1986 – 1987. “A Silver Coin of Yoh. anan the High Priest and the Coinage of Judea in the Fourth Century BC,” INJ 9: 4 – 21. – 1992 – 1993. “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I,” INJ 12: 1 – 12. Barag, D. and Qedar, S. 1980. “The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage,” INJ 4: 8 – 21. Barclay, J.M.G. 1996. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE), Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Barkay, R. 2007 – 2008: “New Nabatean Coins,” INJ 16: 92 – 99. Barker, R. 2001. Legitimating Identities: The Self-Representations of Rulers and Subjects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barth, F. 1969. “Introduction,” in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 9 – 38. Barthlemy, D. and Milik, J.T. 1955. Qumran Cave 1, DJD 1, Oxford: Clarendon. Bartlett, J.R. 1968. “Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem,” JTS 19: 1 – 18.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

299

Barzilay, Y. 2002 – 2003. “The Law of the King in the Temple Scroll: Its Original Characteristics and Later Redaction,” Tarbiz 72.1 – 3: 59 – 84 (Hebrew). Baumbach, G. 1989. “The Sadducees in Josephus,” in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Leiden: Brill, pp. 173 – 195. Baumgarten, A.I. 1996. “Invented Traditions of the Maccabean Era,” in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70 Geburtstag, Vol. 1, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, pp. 197 – 210. – 1997. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation, Leiden: Brill. – 2004. “The Jewish People in the Second Temple Period as an ‘Imagined Community,’” in I.M. Gafni (ed.), Center and Diaspora: The Land of Israel and the Diaspora in the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud Periods, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, pp. 17 – 36 (Hebrew). Baumgarten, J.M. 1979. “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic,” Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Romischen Welt II.19.1: 219 – 239. Bedal, L.A. 2004. The Petra Pool-Complex. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press. Bell, C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, New York: Oxford University Press. Benson, M.E. 1996. Hasmoneans, Herodians, and Davidic Descent: Kings and Kingship in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University. Berrin, S.L. 2004. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, STDJ 53; Leiden: Brill. Berlin, A. 1997. “Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period,” Biblical Archaeologist 60.1: 2 – 51. – 1999a. “The Archaeology of Ritual: The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi,” BASOR 315: 27 – 45. – 1999b. “What’s for Dinner? The Answer is in the Pot.” Biblical Archaeology Review 25.6: 46 – 55, 62. – 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, IAA Reports 29; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Bikerman, E. 1938. Institutions des Slucides, Paris: Geuthner. Bickerman, E. 1962. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, New York: Schocken. – 1976a. “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 1, Leiden: Brill, pp. 109 – 136. – 1976b. “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 1, Leiden: Brill, pp. 225 – 245. – 1979. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, SJLA 35; Leiden: Brill. – 1980a. “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, pp. 136 – 158. – 1980b. “La charte sleucide de Jrusalem,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, pp. 44 – 85.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

300

References

– 1980c. “Un proclamation sleucide relative au temple de Jrusalem,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, pp. 86 – 104. – 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Billows, R.A. 1990. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Birch, B.C. 1976. The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy : The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7 – 15, SBLDS 27; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Blenkinsopp, J. 1989. Ezra–Nehemiah, Old Testament Library ; London: SCM Press. Blidstein, G.J. 1982 – 1983. “The Monarchic Imperative in Rabbinic Perspective,” AJS Review 8 – 9: 15 – 39. Bliss, F.J. and Macalister, R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898 – 1900. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Bloch, M. 1974. “Symbols, Song, Dance, and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?” Archives europennes de sociologie/ European Journal of Sociology 15: 55 – 81. Bockmuehl, M. 1998. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/ 4QS),” RevQ 18: 541 – 560. Bohak, G. 1999. “Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and Its Singular Ramifications,” JJS 50.1: 3 – 16. Brass, P.R. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, New Delhi: Sage. Briant, P. 1973. Antigone le Borgne: Les dbut de sa carrire et les problmes de l’ Assemble macdonienne, Paris: Les belles letters. Bringmann, K. 1983. Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa: Eine Untersuchung zur Jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (195 – 163 v. Chr.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – 1993. “The King as Benefactor : Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism,” in A. Bulloch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 7 – 24. Brin, H.B. 1980a. “The Mystery of the Inscription on the Hasmonean Coins,” SAN, Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatics 11.1: 9 – 13. – 1980b. “The Mystery Solved: A New Definition of HVR ha YEHUDIM,” SAN, Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatics 11.2: 29 – 31. Brutti, M. 2006. The Development of the High Priesthood during the Pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology, Leiden: Brill. Buber, M. 1973. Kingship of God, trans. R. Scheimann, third edition, New York: Harper & Row. Bunge, J. 1971. Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bonn. Burkert, W. 1988. “The Meaning and Function of the Temple in Classical Greece,” in M.V. Fox (ed.), Temple in Society, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 27 – 47. Butcher, K. 2005. “Information, Legitimation, or Self-Legitimation? Popular and Elite Designs on the Coin Types of Syria,” in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, V. and A. Burnett

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

301

(eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141 – 156. Cataldo, J.W. 2009. A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Province, New York: T&T Clark. Chaniotis, A. 2003. “The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers,” in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 433 – 446. – 2005. War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, Oxford: Blackwell. Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.). 1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, New York: Doubleday. Claessen, H.J.M. 1978. “The Early State: A Structural Approach,” in H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalnk (eds.), The Early State, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 533 – 596. Claessen, H.J.M. and Oosten, J. G. 1996. Ideology and the Formation of Early States, Leiden: Brill. Clements, R.E. 1974. “The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the Founding of the Monarchy in 1 Sam 8,” VT 24: 398 – 410. Cohen, A.P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community, London: Tavistock. Cohen, S.J.D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Collins A.Y. and Collins J.J. 2008. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Collins, J.J. 1987. “Messianism in the Maccabean Period,” in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97 – 109. Collins, J.J. 2000. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, second edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cook, J.M. 1959. “Bath-Tubs in Ancient Greece,” Grecce & Rome, Second Series, 6.1: 31 – 41. Cotton, H.M. and Wörrle, M. 2007. “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159: 191 – 205. Crawford, M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – 1983. “Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion,” in C.N.L. Brooke et al. (eds.), Studies in Numismatics Method Presented to Philip Grierson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47 – 64. Creighton, J. 1995. “Visions of Power: Imagery and Symbols in Late Iron Age Britain,” Britannia 26: 285 – 301. Cross, F.M. 1969. “The Early History of the Qumran Community,” in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, pp. 63 – 80. – 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

302

References

Danby, H. 1987. The Mishnah, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Damati, E. 1982. “The Palace of H. ilkiya,” Qadmoniot 15.4 (60): 117 – 120 (Hebrew). Davies, W.D. 1974. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Davies, P.R. 1987. Behind the Essenes, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Dequeker, L. 1986. “1 Chronicles XXIVand the Royal Priesthood of the Hasmoneans,” in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature, Leiden: Brill, pp. 94 – 106. Doran, R. 1981. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQMS 12; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Eagleton, T. 1991. Ideology : An Introduction, London: Verso. Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Efron, J. 1987. Studies on the Hasmonean Period, SJLA 39; Leiden: Brill. Eilat, M. 1998. Samuel and the Foundation of Kingship in Ancient Israel, Jerusalem: Magnes (Hebrew). Eilers, C. 2003. “Josephus’ Caesarian Acta: History of a Dossier,” SBL Seminar Papers 42: 189 – 213. Elias, N. 1983. The Court Society, trans. E. Jephcott, Oxford: Blackwell. Epstein, I. 1936. The Babylonian Talmud, London: Soncino. Erder, Y. 1992. “The First Date in Megillat Ta’anit in Light of the Karaite Commentary on the Tabernacle Dedication,” JQR 82: 263 – 83. Errington, R.M. 1974. “Macedonian ‘Royal Style’ and Its Historical Significance,” JHS 94: 20 – 37. – 1978. “The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy,” Chiron 8: 77 – 133. – 1990. A History of Macedonia, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Eshel, H. 1991. “The Prayer of Joseph, A Papyrus from Masada, and the Samaritan Temple on AQCAQIFIM. ,” Zion 56: 125 – 136 (Hebrew). – 1996. “4QMMT and the History of the Hasmonean Period,” in J. Kampen and M.J. Bernstein (eds.), Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, Atlanta: Scholars Press. – 2008. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Yad ben-Zvi. Eshel, E., Eshel, H. and Yardeni, A. 1992. “A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom,” IEJ 42: 199 – 229. Fairchild Ruggles, D. 2000. Gardens, Landscape, and Vision in the Palaces of Islamic Spain, University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

303

Farmer, W.R. 1956. Maccabees. Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period, New York: Columbia University Press. Farrar, L. 2000. Ancient Roman Gardens. Stroud: Sutton. Faust, A. 2006. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion, and Resistance. London: Equinox. Feldman, L.H. 1994. “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees,” in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, Leiden: Brill, pp 41 – 68. Fine, S. 2005. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finkielsztejn, G. 1999. “Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps,” New Studies on Jerusalem 5: 21*-36*. Fischer M., Gichon M. and Tal, O. 2000. ’Ein Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. Vol. 2: The Officina. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Fischer, T. 1980. Seleukiden und Makkabäer : Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte und zu den politischen Ereignissen Judäa während der 1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Bochum: Brockmeyer. – 1990. “Hasmoneans and Seleucids: Aspects of War and Policy in the Second and First Centuries B.C.E.,” in A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, pp. 3 – 19. – 1992. “Maccabees, Books of,” in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 4:439 – 450. Fleischer, R. 1996. “Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins,” in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 28 – 40. Fletcher-Louis, C.H.T. 2002. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill. Flusser, D. 2007a. “Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” in idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Magnes, pp. 214 – 257. – 2007b. “A Comment on a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan,” in idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Magnes, pp. 170 – 174. Foerster, G. 1995. Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963 – 1965, Final Reports: Art and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Foucault. M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, trans. A. Sheridan, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Frankfort, H. 1978. Kingship and the Gods, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Fried, L.S. 2004. The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Fuks, G. 1990. “Josephus and the Hasmoneans,” JJS 41: 166 – 176. Gafni, I. 1989. “Josephus and I Maccabees,” in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Leiden: Brill, pp. 116 – 131.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

304

References

Garca Martnez, F. and Tigchelaar E.J.C. 2000. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols., Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans. Geertz, C. 1973. “Religion as a Cultural System,” The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books, pp. 87 – 125. – 1977. “Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power,” in J. Ben-David and T.N. Clark (eds.), Culture and Its Creators, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 150 – 171. Geiger, A. 1928. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der Innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt a.M.: Madda. Geiger, J. 1984. “The History of Judas Maccabaeus: One Aspect of Hellenistic Historiography,” Zion 49: 1 – 8 (Hebrew). – 2002. “The Hasmoneans and Hellenistic Succession,” JJS 53: 1 – 17. Gelber, Y. 2007. History, Memory, and Propaganda: The Historical Discipline at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Tel Aviv : Am Oved (Hebrew). Geller, M.J. 1979. “Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift,” JJS 30: 202 – 211 Gellner, E. 1983. Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell. Gera, D. 2009a. “Olympiodoros, Heliodoros, and the Temples of Koile¯ Syria and Phoinike¯,” ZPE 169: 125 – 155. – 2009b. “Jeremiah and the Sword of God,” in J. Geiger, H.M. Cotton and G.D. Stiebel (eds.), Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee, Ra’anana: Open University of Israel and Israel Exploration Society, pp. 39 – 58 (Hebrew). Gerbrandt, G.E. 1976. Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History, SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press. Geva, H. 2003. “Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2,” in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969 – 1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 113 – 175. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. “Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969 – 1982, Vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 94 – 143. Gleason, K.L., 1993. “A Garden Excavation in the Oasis Palace of Herod the Great at Jericho,” Landscape Journal 12: 156 – 65. – 1998. “The Promontory Palace at Caesarea Maritima: Preliminary Evidence for Herod’s Praetorium,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 23 – 52. Goldstein, J. 1976. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. – 1980. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41 A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. – 1987. “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” in J. Neusner et al. (eds), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67 – 96.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

305

Goodblatt, D. 1984. “The Title Na¯ˇsi’ and the Ideological Background of the Second Revolt,” in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Bar Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, pp. 113 – 132 (Hebrew). – 1994. The Monarchic Principle, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. – 2001. “The Union of Priesthood and Kingship in Second Temple Judea,” Cathedra 102: 7 – 28 (Hebrew). – 2006. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, New York: Oxford University Press. Goodenough, E.R. 1953 – 1968. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols., New York: Pantheon Books. Goodman, M. 1999. “The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Continuum, pp. 69 – 76. Grabbe, L.L. 1994. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, London: SCM Press. Grahame, M. 2000. Reading Space: Social Interaction and Identity in the Houses of Roman Pompeii, BAR International Series 886; Oxford: Archaeopress. Gray, J. 1970. I and II Kings, second edition, OTL, London: SCM Press. Griffin, M.T. 1991. “Urbs Roma, Plebs, and Princeps,” in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire, JSOTSup 122; Sheffield: JSOT Press, pp. 19 – 46. Grimal, P. 1969. Les jardins romains, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Grossberg, A. 2002. “Cooking Pots with Holes Found in Jerusalem and the Customs of Haverim and Amei ha-Aretz,” New Studies on Jerusalem 8: 59 – 71 (Hebrew). Grosby, S. 1991. “Religion and Nationality in Antiquity,” Archives europennes de sociologie/European Journal of Sociology 32: 229 – 65. Gruen, E. 1985. “The Coronation of the Diadochoi,” in J.W. Eadie, and J. Ober (eds.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, pp. 253 – 271. – 1996. “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation,” in R.W. Wallace and E.M. Harris, Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360 – 146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 254 – 269. – 1997. “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16:47 – 70. – 1998. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. – 1999. “Seleucid Royal Ideology,” SBL Seminar Papers 38: 24 – 53. – 2002. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gutman, Y. 1969. The Beginnings of Jewish-Christian Literature, 2 vols., Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Habicht, C. 1976a. 2 Makkabäerbuch, JSHRZ 1.3; Gütersloh: Mohn – 1976b. “Royal Documents in II Maccabees,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80:1 – 18. – 2006. “Hellenism and Judaism in the Age of Judas Maccabaeus,” in idem, The Hellenistic Monarchies: Selected Papers, Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, pp. 91 – 105.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

306

References

Hacham, N. 2005. “The Letter of Aristeas: A New Exodus Story?” JSJ 36.1: 1 – 20. Hachlili, R. 2001. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origins, Form, and Significance, JSJSup 68; Leiden: Brill. Hadas, M. 1951. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), New York: Harper and Brothers. Hadley, R.A. 1974. “Royal Propaganda of Seleucus I and Lysimachus,” JHS 94: 50 – 65. Hall, R.B. 1999. National Collective Identity : Social Constructs and International Systems, New York: Columbia University Press. Halpern, B. 1981. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel, HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Hammond, N.G.L. 1988. “The King and the Land in the Macedonian Kingdom,” Classical Quarterly 38: 382 – 91. – 1989. The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History, Oxford: Clarendon. Hammond N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T. 1979. History of Macedonia, Oxford: Clarendon. Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hastings, A. 1997. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion, and Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting,” in M. Dieter and B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 23 – 64. Hayes, C.E. 2002. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud, New York: Oxford University Press. Hayes, J.W. 1985. “Hellenistic and Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham (ed.), Excavations in Jerusalem 1961 – 1967, vol. 1, Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, pp 181 – 194. Hayward, C.T.R. 1996. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook, London: Routledge. Head, B.V. 1963. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, new and enlarged edition, London: Spink & Son. Hempel, C. 2006. “The Literary Development of the S Tradition: A New Paradigm,” RevQ 22: 389 – 401. – 2007. “Emerging Communal Life and Ideology in the S Tradition,” in F. Garca Martnez and M. Popovic´ (eds.), Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth IOQS Meeting in Groningen, STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, pp. 43 – 61. Hendin, D. 2009 – 2010. “Hasmonean Coin Chronologies: Two Notes,” INJ 17: 34 – 38. Hendin, D. and Shachar, I. 2008. “The Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types,” Israel Numismatic Research 3:87 – 94. Hengel, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

307

Hengel, M., Charlesworth J.H. and Mendels, D. 1986. “The Polemic Character of “On Kingship” in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt Dating 11QTemple,” JJS 37.1: 28 – 38. Henten, J.W. van 2001. “The Honorary Decree of Simon the Maccabee (1 Macc 14:25– 49) in Its Hellenistic Context,” in J.J. Collins and G.E. Sterling (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 116 – 145. – 2007. “Royal Ideology : 1 and 2 Maccabees and Egypt,” in T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 265 – 282. Herman, G. 1997. “The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age,” in P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E. Gruen (eds.), Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 199–224. Hill, G.F. 1965a. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea), Bologna: Forni. – 1965b. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Greek Coins of Phoenicia, Bologna: Forni. Hillier B. and Hanson J. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hirschfeld Y. 2000. “Architecture and Stratigraphy,” in idem (ed.), Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Reports of the 1984 – 1998 Seasons, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 235 – 370. Hobsbawm, E. 1983. “Introduction,” in E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 – 14. – 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hochfeld, D. 1902. “Die Entstehung des Hanukkafestes,” ZAW 22: 264 – 284. Hodder, I. 1982a. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – 1982b. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder I. and Huston, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölbl G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London: Routledge. Holladay, C.R. 1983. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. 1: Historians, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Holladay, C.R. 1989. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. 2: Poets, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hölscher, G. 1916. “Josephus,” in A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll (eds.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumwissenschaft 9.2, Stuttgart: Druckenmuller, pp. 1934 – 1999. Honigman, S. 2003. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas, London: Routledge. Hoss, S. 2005. Baths and Bathing: The Culture of Bathing and the Baths and Thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans to the Moslem Conquest, BAR International Series 1346; Oxford: Archaeopress.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

308

References

Houghton, A. 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, New York: American Numismatic Society. Howgego. C. Heuchert, V. and Burnett, A. (eds.), 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunt, A. 2006. Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History, London: T&T Clark. Hydahl, N. 1990. “The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of ‘Hellenization,’” in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 188 – 203. Jacobson, D.M. 2000. “The Anchor on the Coins of Judaea,” Bulletin of the AngloIsrael Archaeological Society 18: 73 – 81. Japhet, S. 1989. The Ideology of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. – 1993. I&II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Jenks, R. 1996. Social Identity, London: Routledge. Jeselsohn, D. 1980. “Hever Yehudim—A New Jewish Coin,” PEQ 112: 11 – 17. Jones, A.H.M. 1974. “Numismatics and History,” in idem, The Roman Economy : Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, ed. P.A. Brunt, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 61 – 81. Kadman, L. 1958. “The Development of Jewish Coinage,” in L. Kadman et al. (eds.), The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins and Symbols, Jerusalem: Schocken, pp. 98 – 103 – 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais, Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 4, Jerusalem: Schocken. Kahana, A. 1959. Ha-sefarim ha-H. iz. onim, 2 vols., Ramat-Gan: Masada (Hebrew). Kalmin, R. 1996. “Portrayals of Kings in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” JSQ 3: 319 – 341. Kanael, B. 1952. “The Greek Letters and Monograms on the Coins of Jehohanan the High Priest,” IEJ 2:189 – 194. – 1963. “Ancient Jewish Coins and Their Historical Importance,” Biblical Archaeologist 26: 38 – 62. Kasher A. 1980. “Diaspora Jews in the Period of Persecution and the Revolt,” in B. BarKochva (ed.), The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel, Tel Aviv : Ha-Kibbutz haMeuchad, pp. 205 – 225 (Hebrew). – 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. – 1990. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Kashtan, N. 2000. “Seafaring and the Jews in Graeco-Roman Palestine: Realistic and Symbolic Dimensions,” Mediterranean Historical Review 15.1: 16 – 28. Katzoff, R. 1985. ”Jonathan and Late Sparta,” American Journal of Philology 106: 485 – 489. Kaufmann, Y. 1956. Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisre’elit, vol. 8, Jerusalem: Dvir, for the Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

309

Kelso and Baramki. 1955. Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet EnNitla, AASOR 29 – 30; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Kent, S. (ed.). 1990a. Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kent, S. 1990b. “A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space,” in idem (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127 – 152. Kertzer, D.I. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power, New Haven: Yale University Press. Kindler, A. 1958. “The Coinage of the Hasmonean Dynasty,” in L. Kadman et al. (eds.), The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins and Symbols, Jerusalem: Schocken, pp. 10 – 28. – 1968. “Addendum to the Dated Coins of Alexander Jannaeus,” IEJ 18: 188 – 191. – 1987 – 1989. “Coins of the Ituraeans,” Israel—People and Land: Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 5 – 6: 37 – 46 (Hebrew). – 1991. “Hasmonean Coinage: Two Problems,” Cathedra 59: 12 – 18 (Hebrew). – 1993. “Hellenistic Influences on Hasmonean Coinage,” in U. Rappaport and I. Ronen (eds.), The Hasmonean State: The History of the Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic Period, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, pp. 102 – 121 (Hebrew). Kister, M. 1999. “Studies in 4QMiqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language, and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68: 343 – 348 (Hebrew). Klausner, J. 1968. The History of the Second Temple, vol. 3, 5th ed., Jerusalem: Achiasaf (Hebrew). Klawans, J. 2001. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, New York: Oxford University Press. Kloner, A. 2003. Maresha Excavations Final Report 1: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, IAA Reports 17; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Knohl, I. and Naeh, S. 1993. “Milluim ve-Kippurim,” Tarbiz 62: 17 – 44 (Hebrew). Knoppers, G. 1995. “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program,” CBQ 57: 229 – 254. – 1996. “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108: 329 – 346. Koenen, L. 1993. “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure,” in A. Bulloch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 25 – 115. Kooij, A. van der. 2007. “The Greek Bible and Jewish Concept of Royal Priesthood and Priestly Monarchy,” in T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 255 – 264. Krauss, S. 1895. “La fÞte de Hanoucca,” REJ 30: 24 – 43. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. 2005. “‘Belonging’ to Rome, ‘Remaining’ Greek: Coinage and Identity in Roman Macedonia,” in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 95 – 106.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

310

References

Krupp, M. 2007 – 2008. “A Metallurgical Examination of Hasmonean Coins,” INJ 16: 57 – 75. Kurtz, D.V. 1978. “The Legitimation of the Aztec State,” in H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalnk (eds.), The Early State, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 169 – 189. Laato, A. 1997. A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of Jewish Messianic Expectations, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Lambert, C. 1927. “A Hoard of Jewish Bronze Coins from Ophel,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, pp. 184 – 188. Laqueur, R. 1920. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Eine biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage, Giessen: Munchow; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. Launderville, D. 2003. Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Layton, R. 1981. The Anthropology of Art. New York: Columbia University Press. Le Moyne, J. 1972. Les Sadducens, Paris: Gabalda. Leibner, U. 2002. “The 23rd Day of Heshvan in Megillat Ta’anit,” Tarbiz 71: 5 – 17 (Hebrew). – 2007. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee, TSAJ 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Leszynsky, R. 1911. “Das Laubhüttenfest Chanukka,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 55: 400 – 418. Levine, L.I. 1981. “The Political Struggle between Pharisees and Sadducees in the Hasmonean Period,” in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport and M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, pp. 61 – 83 (Hebrew). – 1998. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity : Conflict or Confluence, Seattle: University of Washington Press. – 2002. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.–70 C.E.), Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. – 2005a. “Figural Art in Ancient Judaism,” Ars Judaica: The Bar Ilan Journal of Jewish Art 1:9 – 26. – 2005b. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, second edition, New Haven: Yale University Press. Levinson, B.M. 2001. “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of the Torah,” VT 61: 511 – 534. Levick, B. 1999. “Messages on Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions,” in G.M. Paul and M. Ieradi (eds.) Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp. 41 – 60. Lvy, E. 1978. “La monarchie macdonienne et le mythe d’une royaut dmocratique,” Ktema 3: 201 – 225.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

311

Lvi-Strauss, C. 1963. “Split Representation in the Art of Asia and America,” Structural Anthropology, vol. 1, New York: Basic Books, pp. 245 – 268. Lewis, B. 1975. History : Remembered, Recovered, Invented, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Liber, M. 1912. “Hanoucca et Souccot,” REJ 16(63): 20 – 29. Licht, J. 1965. The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea, 1QS 1QSa 1QSb: Text, Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Lieberman, S. 1939 – 1944, “The Martyrs of Caesarea,” Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 7:395 – 446. – 1950. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary. Little, B. 1997. “Expressing Ideology without a Voice, or Obfuscation and the Enlightenment,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 1.3: 225 – 241. Liver, J. 1963. “The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HTR 56: 173 – 198. – 1967 – 1969. “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priests’ in the Dead Sea Sect,” RevQ 6:3 – 32. Lock, R. 1977. “The Macedonian Army Assembly in the Time of Alexander the Great,” Classical Philology 72: 91 – 107. Lohfink, N. 1993. “Distribution of the Functions of Power : The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18 – 18:22,” in D.L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 336 – 352. Lorberbaum, Y. 2008. Subordinated King: Kingship in Classical Jewish Literature, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew). Lowery, R.H. 1991. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah, JSOTSup 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press. Luce, T.J. 1968. “Political Propaganda on Roman Republican Coins: Circa 92 – 82 B. C.,” American Journal of Archaeology 72.1: 25 – 39. Lund, H.S. 1992. Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, London: Routledge. Lukes, S. 1977. “Political Ritual and Social Integration,” in idem, Essays in Social Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 52 – 73. Ma, J. 2002. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, J.M. 1922. The Uses of Symbolism in Greek Art, Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. Macdougall, E.B. and Jashemski, W.F. (eds.), 1981. Ancient Roman Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks: Trustees for Harvard University. MacMullen, R. 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press. Mack, B. 1985. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Magen Y. 2008. Mount Gerizim Excavations, Vol. 2: A Temple City, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

312

References

Magness J. 2002. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – 2003. Review of R. Bar-Nathan, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973 – 1987 Excavations, Vol. 3: The Pottery, DSD 10.3: 420 – 428. – 2011. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Main, E. 1990. “Les Sadducens vus par Flavius Jos phe,” RB 97: 161 – 206. Mandel, S. 1984. “Who Paid the Temple Tax when the Jews were under Roman Rule?” HTR 77: 223 – 232. Martin, T.R. 1985. Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mason, S. N. 1988.”Priesthood in Josephus and the “Pharisaic Revolution,” JBL 107: 657 – 661. – 1991. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, Leiden: Brill. – 2003. Life of Josephus. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, Vol. 9; Leiden: Brill. – 2007. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38:457 – 512. Mauss, M. 1969 [1924]. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. I. Cunnison, London: Cohen and West. Mayes, A.D.H. 1978. “The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy,” ZAW 90: 1 – 19. McLaren, J.S. 1991. Power and Politics In Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100BC-AD 70, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Meadows, A. and Williams, J.H.C. 2001. “Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome,” JRS 91: 27 – 49. Mendels, D. 1992. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, New York: Doubleday. – 1998. “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish Patrios Politeia of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus 40.3),” in idem, Identity, Religion and Historiography : Studies in Hellenistic History, SSPSS 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 334 – 351. Mendelsohn, I. 1956. “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of Akkadian Documents from Ugarit,” BASOR 143: 17 – 22. Meshorer, Y. 1975. Nabataean Coins, Qedem 3; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. – 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage. Vol. 1: Persian Period through the Hasmoneans, Dix Hill, N.Y.: Amphora Books. – 1985. City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period, Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. – 1997. A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Meshorer, Y. and Qedar, S. 1991. The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, Jerusalem: Numismatic Fine Arts International. Metso, S. 1997. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

313

Mettinger, T.N.D. 1976. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, Lund: CWK Gleerup. Meyers, C.L. and Meyers, E.M. 1987. Haggai; Zechariah 1 – 8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Milgrom, J. 1991. Leviticus 1 – 16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 A; New York: Doubleday. Millar, F. 1978. “The Background of the Maccabean Revolution [Reflections on Martin Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism],“ JJS 29: 1 – 21. – 2006a. “The Problem of Hellenistic Syria,” in idem Rome, the Greek World and the East, Vol. 3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East, ed. by H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 3 – 31. – 2006b. “The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation,” in idem, Rome, the Greek World and the East, Vol. 3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East, ed. by H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 32 – 50. Momigliano, A. 1975. “The Second Book of Maccabees,” Classical Philology 80:81 – 88. – 1980. “The Date of the First Book of the Maccabees,” in idem, Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, vol. 2, Rome: Storia e Letteratura, pp. 361 – 366. Mooren, L. 1983. “The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy,” in E. van’t Dack, P. van Dessel, and W. van Gucht (eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven, 24 – 26 May 1982, Studia Hellenistica 27; Leuven: Orientaliste, pp. 205 – 240. – 1985. “Ptolemaic Court System,” Chronique d’Egypt 60: 214 – 22. Morgenstern, J. 1947. “The Chanukkah Festival and the Calendar of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 20: 1 – 136. Mørkholm, O. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamaea (336 – 188 B.C), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mosca, G. 1939. The Ruling Class, trans. H. Kahn, New York: McGraw-Hill. Mouffe C. 1979. “Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci,” in idem (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 168 – 204. Mowinkel, S. 1967. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas, Oxford: Blackwell. Mulder, M.J. 1998. 1 Kings, HCOT; Leuven, Peeters. Murphy O’Connor, J. 1974. “The Essenes and Their History,” RB 81: 215 – 244. Murray, O. 1967. “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS 18: 337 – 371. – 1996. “Hellenistic Royal Symposia,” in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 15 – 27. – 2007. “Philosophy and Monarchy in the Hellenistic World, in T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 13 – 28. Myers, E.A. 2010. The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources, SNTSMS 147; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

314

References

Naveh, J. 1968. “Dated coins of Alexander Janneus,” IEJ 8:20 – 26. Nestle, E. 1895. “L5; = ehmor,” ZAW 15: 288 – 290. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963 – 1965, Final Reports: The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. – 1999. The Places of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew). – 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973 – 1987 Excavations, Vol. 1: Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. – 2004. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973 – 1987 Excavations, Vol. 2: Stratigraphy and Architecture; The Coins. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society. Neusner, J. 1977. The Tosefta, 6 vols., New York: KTAV. Nielsen, I. 1994. Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Nihan, C. 2008. “Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28 – 29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature,” in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 177 – 231. Noam, V. 2003. Megillat Ta’anit. Versions, Interpretation, History, with a Critical Edition. Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Noam, V. 2006. “Megillat Taanit—the Scroll of Fasting,” in S. Safrai, Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz and P. Tomson (eds.), The Literature of the Sages, Second Part, CRINT II.3b, Assen/Philadelphia: Royal Van Gorcum/Fortress, pp. 339 – 362. Nodet, E. 1986. “La Ddicace, les Maccabes et le Messie,” RB 93: 321 – 375. NoreÇa, C.F. 2001. “The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues,” JRS 91: 146 – 168. Norton, J. 2003. “Observations on the Official Material Reconstruction of Sefer haMilh. amah (11Q12 and 4Q285),” RevQ 21:3 – 27. O’Neil, J.L. 2000. “Royal Authority and City Law under Alexander and His Hellenistic Successors,” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 50.2: 424 – 431. Parker Pearson M. and Richards C. (eds) 1994a. Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, London and New York: Routledge. – 1994b. “Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time,” in M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards (eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1 – 37. Pollard, H.P. 1991. “The Construction of Ideology in the Emergence of the Prehispanic Tarascan State,” Ancient Mesoamerica 2:167 – 179. Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomykala, K.E. 1995. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Poole F.J.P. 1986. “Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Religion,” JAAR 54: 411 – 457.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

315

Poole, R.S. 1963. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt, Bologna: Forni. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Praux, C. 1978. Le monde hellnistique: La Grce et l’Orient de la mort d’Alexandre  la conquÞte romaine de la Grce, 323 – 146 av. J.-C, 2 vols., Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Pritchard, J.B. 1958. The Excavation at Herodian Jericho, 1951, New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Pucci Ben-Zeev, M. 1998. Jewish Rights in the Roman World, TSAJ 74, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Purcell, N. 1996. “The Roman Garden as a Domestic Building,” in I.M. Barton (ed.), Roman Domestic Building, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, pp. 121 – 151. Qimron, E., and Strugnell, J. 1994. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah, DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon. Rabin, C. 1958. The Zadokite Documents, Oxford: Clarendon. Rahmani, L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Rajak, T. 1990. “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism,” in P.R. Davies and R.T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 261 – 280. – 1996. “Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,” in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 99 – 115. – 2001. “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’ Political Thought,” in idem, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, Leiden: Brill, pp. 195 – 218. Rankin, O.S. 1930. The Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Rappaport, U. 1970. “When was the Letter of Aristeas Written?” Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, 1: 37 – 50 (Hebrew). – 1974. “On the Meaning of H . eber ha-Yehudim,” Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 3: 59 – 67 (Hebrew). – 1976. “The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage,” AJS Review 1: 171 – 186. – 1991. “The Hasmonean State and Hellenism,” Tarbiz 60.4: 477 – 503 (Hebrew). – 2004. The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew). – 2009. “The Conversion of the Idumaeans under John Hyrcanus,” in J. Geiger, H.M. Cotton and G.D. Stiebel (eds.), Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee, Ra’anana: Open University of Israel and Israel Exploration Society, pp. 59 – 74 (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

316

References

Regev, E. 1996. “Ritual Baths of Jewish Groups and Sects in the Second Temple Period,” Cathedra 79: 3 – 21 (Hebrew). – 1997a. “More on Ritual Baths of Jewish Groups and Sects: On Research Methods and Archaeological Evidence – A Reply to A. Grossberg,” Cathedra 83: 169 – 176 (Hebrew). – 1997b. “How Did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?” JJS 48: 276 – 289. – 2000a. “Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 31: 176 – 202. – 2000b. “Why Did Aristobulus II and his Son Alexander Fortify AlexandrionSartaba?” in J. Schwartz, Z. Amar, and I. Ziffer (eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume, Ramat Gan/ Tel Aviv : Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University/Eretz Israel Museum, pp. 70 – 88 (Hebrew), pp. 119 – 132 (Hebrew). – 2003. “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community : The Formation of the Concepts of Purity and Impurity in Qumran,” DSD 10.2: 243 – 278. – 2005. The Sadducees and their Halakhah: Religion and Society in the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew). – 2007. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Religion and Society Series 45; Berlin: de Gruyter. – 2009a. “Access Analysis of Kh. Qumran: Reading Spatial Organization and Social Boundaries,” BASOR 355: 85 – 99. – 2009b. “The Archaeology of Sectarianism: Ritual, Resistance and Hierarchy in Kh. Qumran,” RevQ 24/94: 175 – 214. – 2010. “Herod’s Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths and Speeches,” JQR 100.2: 197 – 222. – 2012a. “The Hasmoneans’ Self-Identity as Religious Leaders”, Zion 77.1, pp. 5 – 30 (Hebrew). – 2012b “Inside Herod’s Courts: Social Relations and Royal Ideology in the Herodian Palaces,” JSJ 43: 180 – 214–. – 2012c. “H. eber ha-yehudim and the Political Ideology of the Hasmoneans,” Tarbiz 80.3: 329 – 346. Reich, R. 1981. “Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer,” IEJ 31: 48 – 52. – 1990. Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). Reifenberg, A. 1965. Ancient Jewish Coins, fourth edition, Jerusalem: Rubin Mass. Richardson, P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. Ricotti, E.S.P. 1987. “The Importance of Water in Roman Garden Triclinia,” in E. B. MacDougall (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library Collection, pp. 135 – 184. Riley, W. 1993. King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History, JSOTSup 160; Sheffield: JSOT Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

317

Rivkin, E. 1963. “Ben Sira and the Nonexistence of the Synagogue: A Study in Historical Method,” in D.J. Silver (ed.), In the Time of Harvest: Essays in Honor of Abba Hillel Silver, London: Macmillan, pp. 329 – 354. Rocca, S. 2008. Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World, TSAJ 122; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Rof, A. 1988. “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the History of the Biblical 4=MD,” Textus 14: 163 – 174. Roller, D.W. 1998. The Building Program of Herod the Great, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Ronen, I. 2003. “The Findings from the Excavations in Maresha and the Conversion of the Idumaeans,” in A. Oppenheimer, M. Mor, J. Pastor and D.R. Schwartz (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Land of Israel in the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud Periods, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, pp. 123 – 131 (Hebrew). Rooke, D.W. 2000. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, New York: Oxford University Press. Romanoff, P. 1944. Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins, New York: American Israel Numismatic Association. Rosenberg, S. 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Vol. 4: The Decoration of Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. “Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Ware and Lamps from Area A,” in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969 – 1982, Vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 192 – 223. – 2009. “Ceramics from Jericho and Masada: Review Article,” IEJ 59.1: 92 – 99. Rouse, J. 2003. “Power/Knowledge,” in G. Gutting (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, second edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95 – 122. Rubinstein, J.L. 1995, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Safrai, S. 1965. Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, Tel Aviv : Am Ha-Sefer (Hebrew). – 1974. “Jewish Self Government,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, CRINT 1.1, Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, pp. 377 – 419. – 1976. “The Temple,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, CRINT 1.2, Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, pp. 865 – 907. Safrai, Z. 1995. The Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew). – 2000. “The Conversion of the Newly Conquered Areas in Hasmonean Judea,” in J. Schwartz, Z. Amar and I. Ziffer (eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume, Ramat Gan/ Tel Aviv : Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University/Eretz Israel Museum, pp. 70 – 88 (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

318

References

Samuel, A.E. 1993. “The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship,” in P. Green (ed.), Hellenistic History and Culture, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 168 – 192. Sanders, E.P. 1990. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, London: SCM Press. – 1992. Judaism, Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE, London: SCM Press. Satlow, M.L. 2008. “Beyond Influence: Towards a New Historiographic Paradigm,” in A. Norich and Y.Z. Eliav (eds.), Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext, Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, pp. 37 – 53. Schalit, A. 1969. König Herodes: Der Mann und Sein Werk, Berlin: de Gruyter. – 1972. “Domestic Politics and Political Institutions,” in idem, (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People: The Hellenistic Age, Jerusalem: Masada, pp. 255 – 297, 339 – 345. Schiffman, L.H. 1983. “Legislation Concerning Relations with non-Jews in the Zadokite Fragments and in Tannaitic Literature,” RevQ 11: 377 – 389. – 1985. “The Sacrificial System of the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” SBL Seminar Papers 24: 217 – 233. – 1994a. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. – 1994b. “The Milluim Ceremony in the Temple Scroll,” in G.J. Brooke (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies, Leiden: Brill, pp. 241 – 54. – 1994b. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. – 1996. “The Place of MMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts,” in J. Kampen and M.J. Bernstein (eds.), Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 81 – 98. – 1999. “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel = Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 267 – 284. – 2008a. “The King, His Court, and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll,” in idem, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies in the Temple Scroll, Leiden: Brill, pp. 487 – 504. – 2008b. “Laws of War in the Temple Scroll,” in idem, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies in the Temple Scroll, Leiden: Brill, pp. 505 – 517. Schmidt, F. 2001. How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Schofield, A., and J.C. Vanderkam. 2005. “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” JBL 124.1: 73 – 87. Schultz, B. 2009. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered, STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill. Schunck, K.-D., 1954. Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, Halle: Niemeyer. Schürer-Vermes-Millar 1973. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, vol. 1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

319

– 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135), revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black, vol. 2, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Schwartz, D.R. 1983. “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees,” JSJ 14:157 – 171. – 1992. “On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr, pp. 44 – 56. – 1994. “Josephus on Hyrcanus II,” in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, Leiden: Brill, pp. 210 – 232. – 1996. “MMT, Josephus, and the Pharisees,” in J. Kampen and M.J. Bernstein (eds.) Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 67 – 80. – 1997. “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 57: 5 – 22 (Hebrew). – 2001. “Priesthood and Monarchy in the Hasmonean Period,” in I. Gafni (ed.), Kehal Yisrael: Jewish Self-Rule through the Ages, Vol. 1: The Ancient Period, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, pp. 13 – 26. – 2007. “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josephus?” in J. Frey, D.R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog (eds.), Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World/Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt, Leiden: Brill, pp. 3 – 27. – 2008. 2 Maccabees, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin: de Gruyter. – 2010. “On the Jewish Background of Christianity,” in D. Jaff (ed.), Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity : Text and Context, AJEC 74; Leiden: Brill, pp. 87 – 105. Schwartz. J. 1988. “On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period,” JQR 79: 23 – 48. Schwartz, S. 1991. “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion,” JJS 42.1: 16 – 38. – 1993a. “A Note on the Social Type and Political Ideology of the Hasmonean Family,” JBL 112: 305 – 309. -1993b. “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and JudaeanSamaritan Relations,” Jewish History 7:9 – 25. – 1994. “On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.,” JJS 45: 157 – 68. – 1995. “Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” Past & Present 148: 3 – 47. – 2001. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Seger, J.D. 1977. “The Search for Maccabean Gezer,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, pp. 389 – 395. Shachar, I. 2004. “The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’s Later Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations,” PEQ 136: 5 – 33. Shackel P.A. 1993. Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695 – 1870, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

320

References

Shanks M. and Tilley, C. 1982. “Ideology, Symbolic Power, and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices,” in I. Hodder, (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 129 – 154. Shatzman, I. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – 1992. “The Hasmoneans in Greco-Roman Historiography,” Zion 57: 5 – 64 (Hebrew). Shear, J.P. 1933. “The Coins of Athens,” Hesperia 2.2: 231 – 278. Sherwin-White, S. 1991. “Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology : The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa,” JHS 111: 71 – 86. Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shils, E. 1965. “Charisma, Order and Status,” American Anthropological Review 30.2: 199 – 213. Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek World after Alexander 323 – 30 BC, London: Routledge. Sievers J. 1990. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Smith, A.D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford: Blackwell – 2000. The Nation in History : Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism, Hanover N.H.: University Press of New England. Smith, M. 1971. Palestine Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York: Columbia University Press. – 1978. “Rome and the Maccabean Conversion—Notes on 1 Maccabees 8,” in E. Bammel and C.K. Barret (eds.), Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 1 – 7. Smith, R.R.R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits, Oxford: Clarendon. Spawforth, T. 2007. “Introduction,” in Spawforth, A.J.S. (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 – 16. Sperber, D. 1965. “A Note on Hasmonean Coin-Legends Heber and Rosh Heber,” PEQ 97: 85 – 93. Stacey, D. 2006. “Hedonists or Pragmatic Agriculturalists? Reassessing Hasmonean Jericho,” Levant 38: 191 – 202. Stegemann, H. 1971. Die Entsttehung der Qumrangemeinde, Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Stern M. 1976. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 1: From Herodotus to Plutarch, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. – 1980. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. – 1983. “Jewish-Hellenistic Literature,” in M. Stern and Z. Baras (eds.), The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World, Jerusalem: Am Oved, pp. 237 – 208, 346 – 355 (Hebrew). – 1986. “The Treaty between Judaea and Rome in 161 BCE,” Zion 51: 3 – 28 (Hebrew). – 1991. Studies in Jewish History : The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

321

– 1993. “Timagenes of Alexandria as a Source for the History of the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud Periods: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, pp. 3 – 15 (Hebrew). – 1995. Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew). Stevenson, G. 2001, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation, BZNW 107; Berlin: de Gruyter. Stronach, D. 1978. Pasargadae. Oxford: Clarendon. – 1990. “The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B.C.,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4:171 – 180. – 1994. “Parterres and Stone Water Courses at Pasargadae: Notes on the Achaemenid Contribution to Garden Design,” Journal for Garden History 14(1): 3 – 12. Stuart, R.A. 1968. “The Sinless High Priest,” NTS 14:126 – 135. Tabori, Y. 1995. Jewish Festivals in the Time of the Mishnah and Talmud, Jerusalem: Magnes, (Hebrew). Talshir, D. 1991. “ý@B8 CND98= or CND98= ý@B8,” Leshonenu 55:227 – 230 (Hebrew). Tcherikover, V. 1958. “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” HTR 51: 59 – 85. – 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, New York: Atheneum. – 1964. “Was Jerusalem A Polis?” IEJ 14:61 – 79. Tellbe, M. 2005. “The Temple Tax as a Pre-70 CE Identity Marker,” in J. dna (ed.), The Formation of the Early Church, WUNT 183; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, pp. 19 – 44. Thoma, C. 1989. “The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus,” in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Leiden: Brill, pp. 196 – 215. Thompson, D.J. 1990. “The High Priests of Memphis under Ptolemaic Rule,” in M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 95 – 115. – 2000. “Philadelphus’ Procession: Dynastic Power in a Mediterranean Context, in L. Mooren (ed.), Politics, Administration, and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 365 – 388. Tilley, C., 1989. “Interpreting Material Culture,” in I. Hodder (ed.), The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 185 – 194. – 1991. Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity, London: Routledge. Tromp, J. 1993. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill. Trümper, M. 2010. “Bathing Culture in Hellenistic Domestic Architecture,” in S. Ladstätter and V. Scheibelreiter (eds.), Städtisches Wohnen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum 4. Jh. v. Chr.–1. Jh. n. Chr. = Urban Living in the Eastern Mediterranean, 4th c. BC—1st c. AD., Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, pp. 529 – 567. Turner, V. 1971. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

322

References

VanderKam, J.C. 1987. “Hanukkah: Its Timing and Significance according to 1 and 2 Maccabees,” JSP 1: 23 – 40. – 1989. “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” in G.J. Brooke (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies, JSPSup 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 211 – 36. – 1990. “People and High Priesthood in Early Maccabean Times,” in W.H. Propp et al. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 205 – 225. – 2004. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gorcum. Vaux, R. de. 2003. The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, Vol. 1B: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes. trans. S.J. Pfann, NTOA.SA 1B; Fribourg/ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Fribourg/ Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Von Stackelberg, K.T., 2009. The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society, London, Routledge. Urbach, E.E. 2002. “mattay paska ha-nevua,” in The World of the Sages: Collected Studies, 2nd ed., Jerusalem: Magnes, pp. 9 – 20 (Hebrew). Wacholder, B.Z. 1974. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. – 1978. “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Maccabees 1:10b – 2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49:89 – 133. Walbank, F.W. 1984. “Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas,” in F.W. Walbank et al. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History 7.1, The Hellenistic World, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 62 – 100. – 2002. Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982a. “Civil Princeps: Between Citizen and King,” JRS 72: 32 – 48. – 1982b. “The Golden Age and Sin in Augustan Ideology,” Past and Present 95: 19 – 36. – 1986. “Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus,” JRS 76: 66 – 87. Warden, P.G. 1990. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports IV, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Weber, M. 1948. “Politics as a Vocation,” in H.H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. – 1978. Economy and Society, eds. G. Roth and C. Wittich, Berkeley : University of California Press. Weber, G. 2009. “The Court of Alexander the Great as Social System,” in W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle (eds.), Alexander the Great: A New History, Chichester : WileyBlackwell. pp. 83 – 98. Webster, B. 2002. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judean Desert: Introduction,” in E. Tov (ed.), The Texts from The Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 351 – 446.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

References

323

Weitzman, S. 1999. “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” HTR 92: 37 – 59. Welles, C.B. 1966. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy, Roma: “L’Emera” di Bretschneider. Wellhausen, J. 1874 Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer : Eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte, Greifswald: Bamberg. Werman, C. 2000. “The Sons of Zadok,” in L.H. Schiffman et al. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery : Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, pp. 623 – 630. Weyde, K.W. 2004. The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkt Festival in Other Biblical Texts, FAT 2.4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Will, E. and Larch, F. 1991. Iraq el Amir : Le Chteau du Tobiade Hyrcan, Paris: Geuthner. Williams, D.S. 1999. The Structure of 1 Maccabees, CBQMS 31; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Williams, M.H. 1997. “The Meaning and Function of Ioudaios in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,” ZPE 116: 249 – 262. Wise, M.O. 2005. “4Q245 (PsDan Ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” DSD 12:3 313 – 262. Wright, N.L. 2005. “Seleucid Royal Cult, Indigenous Religious Traditions and Radiate Crowns: The Numismatic Evidence,” Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 67 – 82. Yadin, Y. 1971. “Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered,” IEJ 21: 1 – 12. – 1977 – 1983. The Temple Scroll, 3 vols., Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew), Yegul, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, New York, Cambridge MA and London: Architectural History Foundation and MIT Press. Yentsch A. 1991. “The Symbolic Division of Pottery : Sex-Related Attributes of English and Anglo-American Household Pots,” in R.H McGuire and R. Paynter (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 192 – 230. Zahle, J. 1990. “Religious Motifs in Seleucid Coins,” in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 125 – 139. Zeitlin, S. 1938 – 39 “Hanukkah: Its Origin and its Significance,” JQR 29: 1 – 36. Zsengellr, J. 2005. “Maccabees and Temple Propaganda,” in G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, Leiden: Brill, pp. 181 – 195.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

List of Plates * The pictures of the Hasmonean coins are the courtesy of Mr. Michael Krupp. The pictures of the Hamonean palaces are the courtesy of Mr. Zeev Radovan The drawings of the plans of the Hasmonean palaces are the courtesy of Prof. Ehud Netzer. All are used by permission.

1: John Hyrcanus, wreath encircling the inscription “Yehoh. anan the high priest and h. eber ha-yehudim.”

2: John Hyrcanus, double cornucopia.

3: John Hyrcanus, lily and palm branch with the (abridge) inscription “Yehoh. anan the high priest head of h. eber ha-yehudim.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

List of Plates

325

4: Alexander Jannaeus, anchor with the inscription basileo¯s alexandrou.

5: Alexander Jannaeus, star and diadem with the inscription “Jehonathan the king.”

6: Alexander Jannaeus, lily with the inscription “Jehonathan the king.”

7: Alexander Jannaeus, double cornucopia overstruck on anchor.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

326

List of Plates

8: Alexander Jannaeus, wreath overstruck on anchor.

9: Alexander Jannaeus, double cornucopia overstruck on the inscription basileo¯s alexandrou.

10: Mattathias Antigonus, single corbucopia with the inscription “Mattathias the priest.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

List of Plates

11: Mattathias Antigonus, wreath with the inscription basileo¯s antigonou.

12: Reconstruction of the Hasmonean palaces complex, Jericho.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

327

328

List of Plates

13: Reconstructed plan of the Hasmonean plalaces.

14: Plan of the Twin Palaces, Jericho.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

List of Plates

329

15: One of the two large pool of the Pool Complex, Jericho.

16: A bathhouse (top) and a ritual bath (down) in the western mansion of the Twin Palaces, Jericho.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

330

List of Plates

17: Pottery vessels from the Hasmonean Palaces, Jericho.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

General Index

Access Analysis 232, 233–245, 252, 253, 316 Acra 17, 41, 48, 61–63, 90, 109, 111, 114, 115, 258, 268, 269n, 273n, 283 Acrabattene 61 Acragas 248 Adasa 62 Akko (see also Ptolemais) 21, 168n, 204, 205, 210 Alcimus 49n, 62, 106, 107, 109–111, 120, 126n, 202n, 210, 273n, 277 Alexander Balas 21, 95, 104, 111, 125, 126, 201–203, 206, 207, 209, 210 Alexander Jannaeus 25, 95n, 104, 126, 154, 159, 166, 171, 175, 177, 183, 211, 217, 218, 225, 226, 228, 247, 249, 254, 261, 283, 293, 298, 304, 306, 325, 326 Alexander son of Theodorus 23 Alexander the Great 19, 24, 206, 218, 269n, 311, 322 Amathus 17 Ammaus 59, 60, 108n, 109, 124 Amphorae, Rhodian 17, 20n, 182, 201n, 257, 259, 297, 303 Ananias 82, 123, 124n Anthropology/Sociology 12, 14, 181n Antiochus III 19, 58, 74n, 99n, 102, 106, 132, 135n, 209, 212n, 276 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27n, 36n, 60, 61, 63, 67, 71, 87, 101, 107, 180, 184, 200, 202, 211, 212n, 220, 269n, 276, 277, 280, 285, 287 Antiochus VI 21, 202, 211 Antiochus VII 21, 26, 65, 90, 125, 126n, 184n, 201, 202, 206–209, 212, 213, 214, 272

Antiochus VIII 184n, 202, 204, 209, 211n Antiochus IX Cyzicenus 69, 70, 83n, 202, 204, 212n Antiochus XII 29, 202, 209n Antipater 22, 28–30, 83, 124n, 130n Aristeas, 14, 35, 58, 75, 81, 82, 84, 89–93, 98, 104, 117n, 132n, 134, 136n, 137, 280, 281, 299, 306, 307, 313, 315, 321 Aristobulus, Judah 17, 23, 24, 29, 71, 80n, 130, 175, 177, 183, 205, 215, 228n, 274, 283, 293 Aristobulus II 23, 30, 72, 96, 97, 130, 148n, 158, 161–166, 171, 173, 175n, 176, 183, 216n, 218, 222, 225, 226, 251, 255–257, 275n, 294, 316 Aristobulus III 230 Askelon 21 Athenobius 125 Augustus 137, 138, 161, 172n, 196n, 231n, 292n, 322 Azotus 17 Babylonian Talmud 35, 52, 154n, 268, 302 Bacchides 110, 111, 112n Bactria 232, 248 Bar-Kochva Revolt 197, 210 Bar-Kochva, Bezalel 5, 12n, 19n, 21n, 23n, 26, 27n, 28n, 29n, 61n, 63n, 65n, 70n, 89n, 90, 91, 108n, 150n, 161n, 162, 207n, 268n, 269n, 271, 272n, 275n, 276n, 298, 308 Baumgarten, Albert 5, 12n, 54, 55n, 75n, 77, 99n, 122n, 280n, 290n, 299

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

332

General Index

Ben Sira 13, 58n, 104, 105, 108n, 120n, 123n, 142, 148, 201, 287n, 311, 317 Beth Zachariah 23 Beth Zur 36, 109, 115, 253, 259 Bethel 44 Bickerman, Elias 18, 20, 38n, 47, 54n, 56n, 58n, 75n, 90, 91n, 105, 106n, 276n, 287n, 299 Caesarea Maritima 212, 213n, 231, 248, 269, 299, 304, 311 Cassius Dio 74n, 78n, 138, 166n, 197n Categorization as means for collective identification 285–287, 312 Chelkias 123, 124n Chronicles, Book of 67, 100, 147, 148n, 302, 308, 317 Cicero 75, 76, 78, 281 Circumcision 17, 61, 103, 108, 274, 275, 323 Citadel 57, 70, 90 Clement of Alexandria 47, 66, 68n Cleomenes III 137 Cleopatra 23, 75, 249 Cleopatra III 82, 123, 124 Cleopatra VII 209n, 230 Cleopatra Thea 203, 204 Covenant during time of Ezra and Nehemiah 44, 45, 47 Cyrenaica 84, 208n, 232, 248 Cyrus 100, 250, 305 Damascus Document 94, 188 Dead Sea Scrolls 12–14, 35, 97, 185, 297, 298, 302–304, 306, 312, 318, 323 – Qumranic law/halakhah 46, 76, 150–153 – Qumran sectarians 12, 96, 114n, 121, 149, 152, 165, 167, 168, 188, 316 Demetrius Poliorcetes 136 Demetrius I 62, 66, 68, 106, 111, 125, 126n, 161, 162, 184n, 202–205, 210, 212–214

Demetrius II 21, 74n, 112–115, 126, 184n, 192, 195, 201–204, 209–214, 272 Demetrius III Akairos 156, 167, 184n, 209n Deuteronomistic 43, 70, 99, 100, 143–146, 148, 155n, 159, 301, 304, 309, 310, 311 Diodorus 29n, 30n, 105n, 123n, 158n, 161, 162, 163, 164, 172n, 276n, 312 Dium 17 Dollabela 83 Dor 17 Dositheus 22 Elasa 110 Eleazar 82, 91, 92, 155, 281 Elephantine 100, 105n, 315 1 Enoch 17, 149 Eschatology 118, 150, 297 – Davidic 116, 148, 149, 170, 174 – Maccabean/Hasmonean 52, 53, 68, 116, 148, 170, 174 – Qumranic 104, 149, 150 Essenes 18, 302, 303, 313 Ethnarch 83, 115, 154, 159, 166, 183, 184, 186n, 187n, 190, 192, 198, 221 Eupolemus 22, 51, 66–69, 280, 322 Eusebius 22n, 47, 51n, 66, 67n, 68n, 197n Ezra 24n, 42n, 43n, 44, 52n, 71n, 100, 106n, 121n, 277n, 287n, 299, 300 Flaccus

75, 76, 281

Gadara 17, 195, 212, 213n Galilee 16, 68, 72, 78, 80, 109, 118n, 193, 194n, 253, 272–275, 278, 290, 297, 307, 310 Gaza 17, 29, 90, 156, 195, 197, 212 Gentiles 16, 20n, 29, 59–63, 71n, 88n, 92, 95, 96, 99, 108, 109, 113–115, 119, 124n, 127, 141, 149n, 157, 166, 189n, 218, 255, 264, 266, 272, 274–277, 283–285, 287n, 291, 294, 317, 323

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

General Index Gerasa 17 Gezer 17, 114, 115, 117, 253–255, 258, 316, 319 Gideon 142, 297 Great Assembly 63–65, 191

–

– Half-Shekel Tribute/Tax 54, 71n, 73–82, 89, 98, 99, 198, 209, 280, 283, 286, 287, 295, 311 H. anukkah 11, 27, 36–37, 49, 54–58, 60, 63, 68, 78n, 84, 85, 88, 93, 102, 109, 128, 166n, 210, 268–271, 273, 286–288, 290, 291, 295 – connection to Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot) 36 – 54, 71, 72, 78, 80, 111, 156 – first 28n, 36, 32, 34, 36, 41, 278 – Hasmonean establishment as an international Jewish Temple festival 77, 81, 82, 89, 98, 191, 198, 222, 278–279, 282, 283 – in the New Testament 36 – new millu’im festival 36, 37, 42–54 – why eight days 37 Hasideans 110 Hasmoneans 11, 13, 16, 27–30, 35, 36, 42, 46n, 48, 51n, 55, 74, 75, 79, 80, 97, 125, 127, 142, 148, 156n, 157, 195 – accusation of questionable lineage 155 – as both Kings and High Priests 18, 26, 31, 73, 83, 92, 95, 98, 99, 104, 107, 118–120, 128, 165, 171–174, 182–186, 190, 221, 222, 224, 255, 266, 282, 293–294 – coins of 15n, 23, 31, 34, 128, 131, 141, 175–223, 293, 295, 324–327 – Hellenist influence on 14, 18, 19–26, 102, 129, 141, 154, 157, 181, 184, 201, 224, 229, 252, 253, 257–259, 263–265, 293–294 – identity/self-identity 12–14, 31–32, 34, 92, 93, 173, 174, 180, 183, 185, 221,

–

– – –

– –

– – – –

–

–

333

254, 255, 258, 260, 263, 265, 266, 272, 277, 290, 291, 293, 295 in Josephus 11, 12, 23n, 25, 28–31, 69–73, 98, 99, 105, 110, 111, 121, 123, 127, 158, 159, 165, 171, 172, 183 Jewish national/collective identity 12, 15, 17, 18, 32, 56–73, 81, 89, 98, 99, 141, 175, 185–188, 196–214, 221, 222, 259, 260, 264–292 legitimization/self-legitimization 14, 25, 31–34, 55, 82, 99, 101, 103–108, 116–118, 120–124, 128–131, 141, 144, 147, 165, 172, 174, 181, 267, 272, 278, 292, 293 opposition to as both kings and high priests 18, 129, 155–165, 267 opposition to as non-Davidian 96, 98, 147–150, 154, 163–166 palaces 17, 25, 31, 34, 125n, 131, 136, 141, 214, 224–265, 283, 293, 295, 324, 327–330 Pharisaic opposition 72, 121, 155–160, 215, 216, 268, 294 political ideology/national monarchy 12–15, 31, 33, 49, 56–73, 77, 84, 98, 127, 128, 140, 175, 191–193, 196, 198, 199, 224–265, 249, 251, 258, 282, 287, 290, 294–296 priestly lineage 120–124, 127, 129, 160, 263, 267 Qumranic views of 93–96, 98, 122, 148–152, 164–170, 173 Rabbinic views of 153–155, 159, 160, 166, 270 relationship to their subjects 34, 103, 120, 127, 140, 141, 165, 180–182, 187, 191–192, 196–199, 221, 222, 224, 249, 251, 252, 265, 267–288, 294 – 295 ties to/representing Diaspora Jews 78, 81–84, 89, 92, 98, 180, 198, 199, 273, 279, 282, 283, 286, 287 use of Temple for authority 33, 34, 56–73, 77, 78, 81, 84, 89–92, 98, 99, 101, 102, 128, 224, 280–283, 293, 295

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

334

General Index

H. eber ha-yehudim 115n, 119n, 141, 158n, 176, 177–179, 186–199, 201–203, 205, 207, 210, 215–217, 219, 221–222, 264, 282, 283, 286, 295, 315, 316, 324 Hecataeus of Abdera 106, 162n, 172n, 276, 312 Heliodorus 28, 84, 85–87, 104 Hellenism 5, 12, 17, 19, 86, 126, 128, 131 – Hellenismus 19 – Hellenist influence on Hasmoneans 14, 18, 19–26, 102, 129, 141, 154, 157, 181, 184, 201, 224, 229, 252, 253, 257–259, 263–265, 293 – 294 – Hellenistic Reform 16, 18–20, 66, 105, 107, 109, 110, 120, 123, 164n, 198 – Jewish Hellenizers 18, 20n, 63, 64, 68, 88, 111, 273n Hengel, Martin 18, 19n, 20, 27, 28n, 36n, 68n, 89n, 151n, 152n, 288n, 299, 306, 307, 313 Herod 11, 13n, 17, 18, 24, 28–30, 72–74, 76, 79–81, 83n, 90n, 98, 156, 161, 164, 166, 171, 179n, 186, 206, 212, 217, 219, 220–222, 225, 226, 229–234, 238–248, 254, 257, 259–261, 265, 269, 296, 298, 299, 304, 312, 314–318, 320 Herodium 248 High Priest 13, 21, 49, 59, 62–65, 69, 72, 77, 78, 80–83, 86, 89–93, 100, 102–115, 117, 125, 126, 141, 154n, 155, 156, 158–163, 191, 196, 198, 199, 201–203, 205–207, 254–256, 269, 273, 280, 281 – as religious authority of Diaspora Jews 83, 84, 92, 198–199 – coins of 175–179, 182, 183, 185–187, 189, 190, 192, 195, 208, 210, 215–217, 219 – Hasmoneans as both Kings and High Priests 18, 26, 31, 73, 83, 92, 95, 98, 99, 104, 107, 118–120, 128, 129, 165, 171–174, 182–186, 190, 219, 221,222, 224, 255, 266, 282, 293–294

– Oniad 47, 49n, 82, 84n, 86, 88, 93, 99, 104, 123, 124, 267, 293, 305, 319 – Qumranic views of Hasmonean High Priest 93–96, 98, 122, 148–152, 164–170, 173 – Zadokites 15, 20, 99, 120–124, 127, 129, 148n, 158, 160, 267, 277, 298, 308, 311, 315, 317, 318, 323 Hyrcanus II 23, 28, 29n, 30, 69n, 72, 76, 80, 82–84, 95–98, 124, 129n, 130n, 148, 158, 161, 163–166, 172–176, 183n, 186n, 187n, 192n, 198, 207n, 216n, 218, 222, 225, 226, 247, 248, 252, 254–258, 261n, 264, 275n, 282, 294, 319 Hyrcanus the Tobiad 229, 248 Ideology 11, 14, 31, 46n – definition of 32–34 – Hasmonean ideology 12–15, 29, 31, 33, 36, 46, 49, 53, 54, 56–74, 77, 78, 84, 80, 81, 98, 127, 128, 140, 175, 191–193, 196, 198, 199, 224–265, 249, 251, 258, 282, 287, 290, 294–296 – Hellenistic royal ideology 131–141 Idumaea 16, 17, 21, 61, 91, 108n, 117, 166, 198, 207, 219, 231, 272, 291, 308, 315, 317 – Judaizied by Hasmoneans 273–278, 280, 285n, 288, 292, 295 Incense altar 49, 51, 52 Invented tradition 54, 77, 289, 299 Ioudaioi 35, 83, 114, 197, 276, 277n Ioudaismos 19, 35n Ituraeans 17, 24, 29, 158n, 181, 183, 197n, 198n, 221, 309, 314 – Judaizied by Hasmoneans 273–278, 280, 285n, 288, 292, 295 Jamnia 119, 274n Jason of Cyrene 19, 27, 66n, 85, 89 Jeremiah 50–52, 66, 88, 109, 123, 147, 293, 304 Jericho 125, 230, 309, 319, 320

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

General Index – Hasmonean Palaces 11, 17, 25, 136, 224–265, 283, 291, 293, 295, 298, 312, 314, 317, 327–330 – Herodian Palaces 229–233, 238–246, 298, 304, 312, 314, 315, 317 Jerusalem 26, 28, 38, 39, 41n, 59, 63n, 74, 75, 83n, 88n, 96, 97, 105, 107, 108n, 111, 112, 123, 125, 135, 145n, 148, 149n, 163, 191, 192, 194, 213, 216, 229n, 255, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274, 296 – Battles for 16, 36, 79, 106, 109, 167n, 207, 220, 275 – Coins with/from 197, 208, 209, 213, 214 – Hasmonean palace in 226, 256, 262, 263n – Hellinizing of 15, 16, 20, 60, 106, 198, 273 – Pilgrimage to 78–82, 84, 89, 98, 281 – Purification of 17, 57, 115, 283 – Qumranic literature 94, 157, 167 – Temple 18, 36, 47, 48, 61n, 65, 70, 71, 73, 77, 85, 89, 91, 98–101, 103, 105, 111, 198, 279–281, 287, 296 Jesus 41n, 78n, 180n, 312, 318, 319 Joakim 105 Johanan (John Hyrcanus) 13n, 17, 26, 28–30, 35, 59, 62, 69, 76, 80, 81, 83, 84, 89, 101, 103–105, 107, 126–128, 152, 155, 165n, 270, 282, 283, 298, 319 – as prophet 117–120, 128, 293 – coins of 175, 176, 183, 186, 192, 201, 204, 206, 226n, 293, 324 – conversion of Idumaeans 108n, 315 – palaces 225, 226, 228, 247, 254, 258, 261, 263 Jonathan, the Hasmonean 11, 15, 17, 21, 22, 35, 51n, 59, 62–65, 68, 69, 95, 96, 103–105, 109n, 110n, 111–116, 119, 120, 122–128, 131, 149, 151n, 152, 155, 159, 166–170, 183, 189, 191, 192, 201, 218, 269–271, 274, 282, 293, 302, 303, 308

335

Josephus – attitude towards Hasmoneans 11, 12, 23n, 25, 28–31, 69–73, 98, 99, 105, 110, 111, 121, 123, 127, 158, 159, 165, 171, 172, 183 – royal ideology 138, 150, 151, 162, 198n Joshua, Book of 143 Joshua son of Jehozadak 43 Jubilees, Book of 43, 44, 120, 150, 318, 322 Judaea – territorial expansion 271–277 Judah Maccabee 11, 15–17, 22, 23, 28n, 35, 36, 40, 42, 49, 51, 52, 55, 66, 68, 69, 94, 95, 108, 111, 113, 116, 119, 146, 169, 183, 191, 198, 271, 278, 282, 287, 290, 291 – as savior 108–110 – death of 110 – in 1 Maccabees 59, 61–63, 106, 109, 110, 124, 127n, 128, 293 – in 2 Maccabees 84, 98, 103, 106, 109, 123, 293 – in Megillat Ta’anit 268–270 – letters sent 38, 47, 53–55, 66n, 68, 116n, 279, 282, 283, 322 – purifying the Temple 16, 32, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63n, 84, 279 – revolt 21, 27, 29, 46, 87–89, 109, 273, 274 Judah the son of Hezekiah the Galilean 150 Judges, Book of 111, 142, 143, 297 Judith 79n, 105, 276 Julius Caesar 28, 83, 98, 101n, 124, 166n, 186n, 187n, 198, 222, 249n, 282 Kendebaios 117 King Hezekiah 37n, 40, 42, 109n, 123n, 145, 167n King Josiah 145, 295 Kings, Book of 41–43, 52, 67, 74n, 99,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

336

General Index

100, 116n, 143, 145–147, 170n, 205n, 208n Kingship 13, 18n, 24, 30n, 49, 55, 131 – Biblical notions 13, 129, 142–150 – Egyptian notions 116, 132, 184 – Hasmonean notions 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 68, 73, 83, 92, 95, 98, 99, 104, 107, 118–120, 165, 171–174, 182–186, 190, 221, 224, 231, 232, 249, 252, 255, 263–266, 282, 293–294 – Hellenistic/Seleucid notions 14, 24, 102, 129, 131–138, 140, 184, 224, 250, 252 – King David as model 145, 169–170, 173 – Macedonian notions 19, 138–140, 224, 263 – Qumranic ideas (The Law of the King) 13, 150–153 – Rabbinic notions 153–154 – Roman notions 14, 137 Laodicea 83 Leontopolis (Oniad Temple) 84n, 99, 123 Levites 70n, 144, 151 Lysias 21, 36, 87 Lysimachus son of Pausanias 23, 200, 306, 311 1 Maccabees 12, 21, 22, 29, 35, 45, 57, 85, 87, 107, 108, 124–127, 182, 210, 213, 214, 228, 249, 283, 294, 303, 307, 319, 320, 323 – Antiochus IV’s desecration of the Temple 60–61 – authorship and dating 25–26, 127 – background of Maccabees 107–117, 141, 170, 183 – Hasmonean rule 103, 118–120, 128, 141, 142, 154, 159, 183, 190–192, 196, 221, 260, 261, 265, 272 – ideology of the Temple 59–66, 68, 69, 89, 90, 93, 95, 98, 220, 258

– millu’im 37 – nationalistic ideology of Hasmoneans 13n, 16, 17, 25, 98, 103, 127, 128, 260, 274, 291 – rededication of the Temple 36, 37, 51n, 269n 2 Maccabees 12, 63, 69, 87, 98, 103, 109, 110, 116n, 119, 123, 210, 270, 293, 302, 304, 307, 319, 322 – attitude of the Jewish Hellenizers towards the Temple cult 63 – demonstrating Diaspora support for Maccabees and subsequent Hasmonean rulers 82–89, 103, 191, 198, 279 – authorship and dating 26–28 – first letter 38 – Hanukkah and millu’im 36–45, 47–57, 85, 93, 191, 198, 279 – Hasmonean attitude towards Hellenism 19, 20, 21n – ideology of the Temple 58–66, 84, 86, 280 – questions as to authenticity 47–49 – second letter 38, 44, 47 Maccabees (see Hasmoneans) 11, 15–29, 35, 36 Maccabean Revolt 12, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27, 59, 103, 107, 273, 279, 284, 290, 299 Macedonians 11, 19, 21n, 128, 138–141, 151, 192, 193n, 195, 196, 206, 207, 213, 221, 224, 247, 263, 265, 272, 302, 306, 311 Marcus Antonius 83, 230, 249 Marisa 21, 85n, 101, 231, 274, 275n Masada 226, 229–233, 238–246, 248, 265, 298, 302, 303, 308, 314, 317, 318 Mattathias 16n, 17, 25–27, 35, 59, 61, 104, 107, 108, 115, 116, 118–120, 121, 128, 170, 183, 293 Mattathias Antigonus 11, 18, 29, 30, 35, 71, 72, 79, 80, 117, 130, 164, 166, 171, 175–179, 183–186, 189, 190, 192, 196,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

General Index 202n, 203–205, 217, 219–222, 256, 275, 283, 326, 327 Megillat Ta’anit (Scroll of Fasting) 27n, 37, 46n, 63n, 71n, 73n, 84n, 172n, 268–270, 302, 310, 314 Menachem the Sicarius 150 Menelaus 18, 20, 61–63, 86, 87, 106, 107, 109–111, 120, 123, 164n, 273n, 277 Michmash 111 Mithridates 75, 77n Mizpah 59 MMT (Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah) 96, 169, 170, 318, 319 Mode’in 22, 107, 126, 213, 249 Moses 37, 42, 44, 45–47, 49–51, 52–54, 67, 68, 70, 74, 77, 105, 117n, 138n, 152, 160, 164n, 171n, 172n, 321 Mount Gerizim 30n, 66n, 70, 71, 75, 84n, 85, 269, 312, 319 Nabataeans 23n, 24n, 29, 30n, 72, 152n, 156, 157, 166, 179n, 181, 184, 187n, 201, 204, 218n, 221, 226, 249, 271, 312 Nationalism/ethnicity 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 32, 56–73, 81, 89, 98, 99, 141, 175, 185–188, 196–214, 221, 222, 259, 260, 264–292 Nehemiah 24n, 38, 42n, 44, 45, 47, 49–55, 74, 79n, 100, 101n, 106n, 287n, 300 Netzer, Ehud 5, 224–226, 228–230, 234–237, 240–242, 244, 247–250, 252–256, 260, 314, 324 Nicanor 16, 27, 61, 62, 84, 87, 88, 109, 110n, 124 Nicanor, Day of 27, 57, 84, 88, 268, 271 Nicolaus of Damascus 28–30, 79, 156n, 157n, 207n, 319 Numenius son of Antiochus 22 Onias (Oniad) 47, 49n, 82, 84n, 86, 88, 93, 99, 104, 123, 124, 267, 293, 305, 319 Oracle 69, 70, 117n, 118n

337

Palaces 5, 11–14, 25, 31, 34, 79, 125, 128, 131, 136, 141, 150, 174, 214, 224–265, 283, 291, 293–296n, 298, 302, 303, 312, 314, 317, 324, 327, 328, 330 – Buried Palace 225–248, 250, 252, 254, 255n, 260, 262, 263 – Fortified Palace 226–248, 250, 253, 262, 263 – Hellenistic 11, 14, 17, 225–227, 231, 232, 238, 247, 248, 250, 264, 314 – Herodian 225, 226, 229, 230–234, 238–246, 254, 257, 261, 265, 298, 304, 312, 314, 316, 317 – Roman 137n, 138, 304 – Seleucid 232, 247, 248 – Twin Palaces 226–248, 250, 252, 255, 256, 263, 328, 329 Pasargadae 250, 321 Pella 17, 108n, 218, 224n, 248, 250, 275 Pesharim 93–95, 122, 149, 168 – Pesher Habbakuk 94, 149n – Pesher Nahum 157, 158, 257, 299, 303, 323 Petra 249, 299 Pharisees 12, 18, 30, 46, 62n, 72, 76, 77, 96, 116, 121, 122, 130, 151–161, 168, 171, 214–218, 226, 255–257, 261, 270, 271, 280, 294, 303, 304, 310, 312, 319 Philip II 139 Philip III 218 Philo 74, 75, 77, 78, 82, 86n, 99, 117, 143n, 150, 152, 160, 172, 219, 220n, 266, 276, 281, 287 Phineas 107, 120, 170n Phoenicia 25, 68, 195, 202, 206, 210n, 213, 221, 282, 307, 313 Pilgrimage 73, 78–82, 84, 86n, 89, 91, 98, 280, 281, 286, 305, 317 Plutarch 23n, 136, 136, 320 Pompeius Torgus 30, 171, 213n Pompey 29n, 30, 72, 96, 97, 126n, 129n, 130, 149n, 158n, 160–166, 171, 183n, 212, 256, 257, 275n, 316

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

338

General Index

Pottery 226n, 235, 242n, 252, 257–264, 293, 298, 299, 304, 312, 323, 330 Priesthood (see High Priest) Psalms of Solomon 14, 35, 93, 96–98, 148, 150, 163–166, 297 Ptolemaics 23, 56, 74, 82, 90, 101, 102, 106, 115n, 116, 123, 124, 132, 136n, 138, 197, 200n, 203, 212n, 216n, 221, 222, 284, 290, 291, 307, 309, 313, 321 Ptolemaieia 56, 132n Ptolemais (see also Akko) 17, 21, 123, 126, 151n, 195, 197, 202n, 204, 205, 209n, 212, 274, 308 Ptolemais in Cyrenaica 232, 248 Ptolemy 47, 75, 89, 90, 91, 126n, 137, 200 Ptolemy I 199, 202, 210n Ptolemy II 203n Ptolemy II 56, 89, 136 Ptolemy III 193, 203n Ptolemy IV 21, 203n Ptolemy V 203n, 211n Ptolemy VI 126, 202n, 206n, 208n Ptolemy VII 184n Ptolemy VIII 203n, 209n, 211n, 248 Ptolemy X 184n, 203n Ptolemy Lathyrus 29n, 123, 156, 167, 168, 226, 298 Ptolemy Philadelphus 89 Ptolemy son of Abubos 117, 125 Ptolemy son of Mennaeus 183n, 275n Purity 40, 59, 63, 80, 96, 97, 309, 316 – Hasmonean 17, 40, 109, 237, 238, 253–256, 258, 259, 261n, 262–264, 266, 283, 293 – Qumranic 94, 97n, 169 – Ritual 237, 280 Qarnayim 17 Qumran (see also Dead Sea Scrolls) 13, 42, 46, 62n, 76, 93–96, 104, 116, 157–159, 172, 254n, 255, 257, 259, 260, 262, 297–299, 301–303, 312, 313, 315–320, 322

– law/halakhah 46, 76, 150–153 – opposition to Hasmoneans 93–96, 98, 122, 148–153, 164–170, 173 – Qumran sectarians 12, 96, 114n, 121, 149, 152, 165, 167, 168, 188, 316 – regarding Jerusalem 94, 157, 167 Rajak, Tessa 13, 14, 19n, 21n, 24n, 129n, 172n, 181n, 198n, 201n, 216n, 307, 309, 313, 315 Raphia 17 Restoration Period 44, 100 Ritual 14, 17, 33n, 34, 37, 39, 44, 45, 47, 56, 61, 72, 126, 136, 146, 299, 309, 311 – collective rituals as acceptance of political authority 56, 268, 270, 280, 285, 286, 290 – Hasmonean priestly purity 37, 40, 226n, 235, 237, 238, 245, 248, 252–259, 320 – purification of the Temple 36, 61 – ritualization of Hanukkah 32, 36, 46, 49, 54–56, 60, 286 – Temple 48–54, 59, 60, 96, 100, 104, 111n, 203n, 280 Ritual baths (miqva’ot) 17, 226n, 235, 237, 238, 245, 248, 252–259, 262–264, 275, 283, 293, 296n, 316, 329 Rome 16, 21, 22, 31, 66–68, 109, 120, 128, 137, 138, 160n, 165, 193–195, 207, 220, 281, 292n, 295–297, 301, 303, 309, 312–315, 320, 322 Rosetta Stone 101, 116 Sacrifices 36–38, 40, 43, 44, 50, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69–72, 74–79, 85–87, 90–92, 96, 97, 102, 104, 107, 109, 145, 156, 169, 262, 280, 290 Sadducees 12, 18, 42, 46, 72n, 76, 77, 96n, 122, 130n, 151, 155, 157–160, 164n, 168n, 218n, 256, 257, 261n, 270, 299, 303, 310, 316 Safrai, Shmuel 317, 321 Salome Alexandra 23, 30, 75n, 130n,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

General Index 157, 158, 176, 218, 222, 225–226, 244, 255, 270n Samaria 61, 68–70, 91, 101, 117, 206n, 213, 218, 220, 269, 270, 272, 298, 307, 312 Samaritans 30n, 52n, 70, 71, 75, 85, 101, 197, 207, 213n, 269n, 302, 319 Samuel, Book of 143, 162n, 300, 302, 312 Sanhedrin 119n, 153, 187, 215, 217 Seleucids (see also Kingship, Palaces and individual kings) 12, 13, 15–23, 25–29, 36, 58–75, 86–88, 90, 95, 98, 102, 103, 106, 109–115, 119, 120, 124–128, 140, 141, 150n, 156, 171, 226, 261, 270–274, 281, 294, 294, 298, 303, 305, 308, 320, 323 – anti-Jewish prohibitions/laws 16, 17, 19, 27, 61, 63n, 108, 198, 273, 276, 281, 284, 290 – coins of 179, 181, 184, 191, 192, 195, 199, 200, 202–205, 207–210, 212, 214, 221, 222, 282 Seleucus I 123n, 132, 135n, 179, 200n, 206, 212, 213, 306 Seleucus II 206, 209, 210, 212, 213 Seleucus IV 101, 133, 135, 204 Shechem 70, 121, 142 Simon, the Hasmonean 17, 21, 22, 28, 35, 59, 62–66, 68, 89, 104, 105, 107, 111n, 112n, 113–117, 119, 120, 122, 124–128, 131, 148, 152, 154, 158, 159, 169, 170, 173, 183, 187, 190–192, 198, 201, 210, 213, 214, 249, 269–272, 274, 279, 293, 307 Simon bar Giora 150 Social Archaeology 11, 225 Social Identity 267, 281, 284–288, 292, 308 Social-Scientific 31, 34, 267 Solomon 37, 42–47, 49–51, 53, 54, 66–68, 117n, 120, 145–147, 169, 170n, 205, 208, 309 Sons of Sanballat 101

339

Sossius 72 Space Syntax Theory (see Access Analysis) Sparta 22, 64, 112, 120, 124, 125n, 128, 137, 191–193, 206, 305, 308 Strabo 24, 28–30, 65, 75, 78, 123, 154, 161, 162, 165, 228n, 249n, 274, 275 Straton’s Tower 17, 269 Sukkot (Festival of Tabernacles) 36–54, 317 Symbolism as a means for collective/ national consciousness 32, 56, 180, 181n, 200, 214, 285, 289–290 Tacitus 30n, 74n, 78n, 138n, 165 Teacher of Righteousness 93–95, 122 Temple (see also Jerusalem) 18, 45, 47, 61n, 65, 70–77, 85, 89, 91, 98–101, 103, 105, 111, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 153, 166, 198, 266, 270, 273, 279–281, 292, 299, 300, 303–312, 316–320, 321, 323 – as principle ethos of the Maccabean military resistance 60, 88, 89, 98, 278 – centrality of in Hasmonean Ideology 11, 13, 32–34, 36, 42, 48, 56–73, 77, 78, 81, 84, 89–92, 98, 99, 101, 102, 128, 169, 172, 224, 278, 280–283, 286–288, 293–296 – Diaspora Jews’ relationship towards 82–84, 89, 92, 98, 279–281, 286 – Eupolemus’s description of 66–67 – First Temple 45, 48, 49, 52, 311 – Hasmoneans’ use of the Temple as a political center 36, 54–57, 64, 65, 73, 78, 92, 98, 101, 103–107, 109–111, 114–123, 126–128, 130, 278 – in 1 Maccabees 59–66, 68, 69, 89, 90, 93, 95, 98, 220, 258 – in 2 Maccabees 58–66, 84, 86, 280 – Judah purifying 16, 32, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63n, 84, 279

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435

340

General Index

– millu’im 36–45, 47–57, 85, 93, 191, 198, 279 – Pilgrimage to 78–82, 84, 89, 98, 281 – Qumranic opposition to the Hasmonean Temple 93–96 – represented in coins 179, 186, 203, 205, 208, 210, 219–221 – Second Temple 14, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 73, 100, 104, 121, 142, 147, 150, 153, 164, 170n, 173, 185, 220n, 266, 268, 277, 286, 299, 303, 305, 309, 310, 316, 317, 319, 321 Temple Scroll 42, 46, 50n, 76n, 150, 151, 152, 154, 168n, 173, 188n, 190n, 299, 307, 318, 322, 323 Testament of Levi 104n, 120 Theophanes of Mytilene 30, 161, 162, 164 Timagenes 24, 28n, 29, 275, 321 Torah and Temple 65, 66 Transjordan 16, 17, 21, 30n, 60, 109, 117, 157, 229, 273, 274, 278, 290, 291 Tryphon 21, 95, 113, 125, 191, 206n Tulul Abu al ‘Alayiq 225 Vespasian

99, 281

Wicked Priest 93–95, 97, 114n, 122, 149, 169, 170 Zadokites 15, 20, 99, 120–124, 127, 129, 148n, 158, 160, 267, 277, 298, 308, 311, 315, 317, 318, 323 Zealots 150, 242, 275, 303 Zecharia, Book of 69n, 100, 173n, 313 Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel 43, 148n 4QMMT (Halakhic Letter) 62n, 93n, 94n, 168, 257, 302, 318, 319 4Q159 Ordinances 76 4Q167pHos 168n 4Q169pNah 130n, 157n, 158n, 168n, 257n, 297 4Q174 Florilegium 149 4Q245PsDan 110n, 168n, 323 4Q252CommGen 149n 4Q285 Sefer ha-Milh. amah 149n, 314 4Q322 168n 4Q371–372 (Prayer of Joseph) 71n, 302 4Q448 (prayer for the Sake of King Jonathan) 166, 183n 4Q504DibHama 149n 4Q541 Aaron 104 4Q543 Visions of Amrama 104

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550434 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550435