Peter's Ancient History and Religion Pages

 Peter's Index   Deities   Ancient History Home   Bardaisan 

---

Ancient History and Religion with Peter Eyland

Maccabees and Hasmoneans

Evidence for internal opposition to the Maccabees/Hasmoneans, and was such opposition religiously motivated?

22nd August 2003
Peter Eyland

Introduction

Opposition to government comes from individuals who have political, social or religious concerns about current policies.  Now people in government usually have a built-in inertia to change, because they either have a responsibility for (and hence commitment to) past policy decisions, or they have personal benefits from the status quo.  Accordingly, expression of opposition to government has hazards whose severity depends on the particular circumstances of that society.

Judas Maccabeus inherited a “hierocratic”[1] form of Hellenistic[2] government, but by the time of Alexander Janneaus, Judea had been transformed into a Hellenistic kingdom.  The initial change of regime produced: political opposition from the previous incumbents; religious opposition from the prevailing prophetic re-interpretation of history[3]; and social opposition from the continuing “Palestinian”[4] people who lived in the area.
The geographical expansion and political transformation of the regime was accompanied by the emergence of antagonistic Jewish factions such as the Pharisees, Essenes; along with the more accommodating Hellenistic reform and Sadducean factions.

The Literary Sources

Relevant primary literary sources for the period are 1 Maccabees, Josephus, 2 Maccabees, Daniel 7-12, 1 Enoch and Tacitus etc.  As each has an agenda, a few comments about them are necessary.
• 1 Maccabees has a simple style and tone like the Books of Samuel or Kings, but its historiography was quite different, because there is no indication of supernatural intervention in accordance with a set plan.  There is no sense of the Divine inspiring religious struggle[5].  Also, according to Grabbe[6], 1 Maccabees was an official Hasmonean version of events.
• Josephus, according to Grabbe[7], has a “short and muddled account” of the Maccabees/Hasmoneans that was dependent on 1 Maccabees.  For later events he was dependent on the important Nicolas of Damascus (a Secretary to Herod the Great). Feldman[8] has argued that as a Hasmonean, Josephus was heir to some orally transmitted family traditions.
• 2 Maccabees 2:23 described itself as an epitome of Jason of Cyrene.  According to Schwartz[9], the historiographic theme of 2 Maccabees was reconciliation[10].  The Jews were initially punished for their sins[11], but then in accordance with Deuteronomy 32:36 (the only Tanakh quote in the book), "the wrath of God had turned   (τραπείσης) , to mercy"[12] and Judas Maccabaeus started to have success because that was what God intended.
• 1 Enoch asserted that Judas Maccabeus was a divinely appointed leader by clearly identifying the “horned ram” in 1 Enoch 90 with Judas[13].
All of these have an agenda to put the Maccabees/Hasmoneans in a favourable light.

Opposition from previous authorities

Bickerman[14] says that when Mattathias “on his own authority” gave a new ruling on Sabbath warfare, Mattathias effectively took over the prerogative of the high priest in Jerusalem and so became a de facto government in opposition to Sadducean interests.

The Sadducees and their precursors were the ones who had charge of the Temple worship before the Maccabees/Hasmoneans intervened.  They were religious conservatives who came from the upper classes of priests or secular aristocracy.  They insisted on laws that were limited to those in the Torah, i.e. they repudiated any innovation and oral Torah, believing that only what was in the written Torah was authoritative[15].

Contra Bickerman, the 1 Maccabees version is careful to note that Judas did not make the decision on his own authority but that it was the consensus of all the participants. This reported consensus would then have been to help legitimise Hasmonean rule against their opponents.
Since the Sadducees had a vested interest in keeping their privileges, they supported or opposed the Maccabees/Hasmoneans on a case by case basis.

Opposition from prophetic re-interpretation

A major question that faced Jews in the time of the Maccabees was this.  Did the Torah forbid active resistance to a Government sanctioned by God?
Goldstein[16] says that “pious Jews” had accepted the view of Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., that the Babylonian Exile was a punishment from God for their sins.  Then, since it was God’s will that they be placed under foreign domination, any active revolt against Babylonian rule was against God’s will[17].  Again, after the fall of Babylon, God handed on political authority over the Jews to Cyrus[18] and his successors.  The Jews could then only be liberated by an express act of God and not by human effort[19].

It has been claimed that The Book of Daniel does not give clear religious support for active revolt[20].  In Daniel 11:32, “stand firm and act” ,( יחזקו  ),   does not openly give an endorsement for revolt, because the preferred option (Daniel 11:33,34) was that “the wise” gave understanding and then become victims of oppression as “suffering servants” like Taxo and his sons in the Testament of Moses 9[21].

Since the Maccabees/Hasmoneans had revolted against the divinely appointed Seleucids, it then seemed incumbent on Jews to support the Seleucids and oppose the Maccabees/Hasmoneans.  This remained true no matter what apparent “good” had resulted from the revolt (e.g. the re-dedication of the Temple).

Nevertheless, such theory inevitably gave way in time to the anxiety and uncertainty shown in 1 Enoch 9:10  “those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, … because of … lawless deeds … 11 … You see these things … and You do not say to us what we are to do”.

Also, 1 Maccabees 2:29 - 41 conveyed the depth of problem that the Sabbath rules produced in warfare.  These Jews primary concern (before their decease) was not passive resistance, because their enemies deliberately waited until the Sabbath so as to avoid the resistance that would have occurred on any other day.  These incidents and tensions inevitably led some “pious Jews” to a different form of piety that included armed resistance.

Opposition from the Hasidim ( חסידים   Ἀσιδαίων the pious or loyal)

The hasidim were actively opposed to foreign prevention or perversion of Torah observances.  1 Maccabees 2:42 indicates that the hasidim were a distinct faction of Jews, by virtue of their untranslated name, and being set in contrast to the “lawless men” of 1 Maccabees 1:11[22].  Unlike Goldstein’s category of “pious Jews”, they initially joined with the Maccabees, because they “were zealous for Torah”[23].  They were further identified as “Scribes”[24] in 1 Maccabees 7:12,13 when a group of them “were first[25] among the Israelites to seek peace”.  They thought that the Jewish priest Alcimus would be a dependable arbiter[26].  1 Maccabees 7:10 pointed out that Judas was not deceived like the hasidim, which not only emphasised their distinctiveness from the Maccabees/Hasmoneans, but also that their political agenda had turned away from the Maccabees/Hasmoneans.  They were probably pre-cursors of the Pharisees.

Opposition from ethnoi within Judea

When the Maccabees/Hasmoneans started to rule, “Judea proper” was restricted to a rough quadrilateral area extending North from Beth Zur to Beth El, and extended West from the Jordan River to Emmaus[27]. (Modein lay near the North West corner of this area.)  1 Maccabees[28] has Mattathias’ first acts as forcibly circumcising everyone in Judea proper.

Forced circumcision seems an extraordinarily violent and counter-productive measure.  An attempt to use the Genesis 34 tale of Jacob’s sons and the Shechemites as a way to justify it, seems bound to fail when it is realised that circumcision of the Shechemites was only a stratagem to facilitate the Shechemites’ deaths[29].  Weitzman[30] has suggested that Mattathias was more concerned with persuading Gentiles to be circumcised (rather than dealing with Hellenising or intimidated Jews) and this was to “restore the social boundaries between Jews and Gentiles”.  This conveys the idea that - if you want to do business in the new regime, then here are the new rules.

When Judea expanded under Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus, other national groups, such as Samaria, Idumea, Iturea and the Galilee, were invaded and taken over.  If they were forcibly circumcised there would have been continuing opposition.  Smith[31] has argued that there were not enough Judean troops to take over these regions and what happened was more an alliance of “family relationships”.  He argued that they were already practicing circumcision so it was no change in customs.

Opposition from the Samaritans

The Samaritans were, from before Maccabees/Hasmoneans times, politically and religiously opposed to the Judeans.  There were continual tensions between Samaritans and Judeans.
Josephus (Antiquities 12.4.1) reported that the Samaritans “distressed the Jews” in the time of Onias.  Ecclesiasticus 50:25, (ca. 180 BCE) has: "With two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is no nation: Those who live on Mount Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that dwell in Shechem."  In 2 Maccabees 6:2 the apparently Yahwist Samaritans dedicated the temple on Mount Gerizim to “Zeus the friend of Strangers”.  Josephus (Antiquities 13.9.1) also reported that John Hyrcanus (134-104 BCE) defeated the Samaritans, destroyed their cities and their temple on Mt. Gerizim.  That the Samaritans were an opposition group seems to be realistic.

Opposition from the Idumeans

In 1 Maccabees 5:3, the Idumeans appear as opponents of the Judeans and are defeated by Judas.  Josephus (Antiquities 13.9.1.257) portrayed the Idumeans as needing to be conquered again by Hyrcanus.  Hyrcanus, it was said, permitted them to stay in their own country only if they agreed to be circumcised and keep Jewish customs.  This is probably the same kind of uneasy alliance as the Samaritans and it is noteworthy that Josephus never describes them as Jews[32].

Opposition from the Galilee and the Itureans

Judas Aristobulus I (104-103 BCE), reigned probably less than “a year” [33], yet apparently conquered the Galilee[34] .  Josephus (in Antiquities 13.11.3.318) wrote that he forced circumcision on the Itureans, an Arab tribe settled in Lebanon, the Golan, and the Galilee.  It is probably the same kind of alliance as above.

Opposition from Pro-Seleucid Jewish Hellenisers

There were Jewish groups who were pro-Seleucid.  1 Maccabees 1:41-61, Josephus in Antiquities 12.4.251-257, 2 Maccabees 6:1-12, Tacitus [35] and Diodorus 34-35.1.3 all describe a move by Antiochus IV Epiphanes to suppress the Jewish religion.  The view of Bickerman [36] was that the motivation for this suppression came from Jewish Hellenistic reformers like Jason and Menelaus.  If this were so then Jewish Hellenisers would be in opposition to the later Maccabee/Hasmonean dynasty not only in religious terms but also as the result of loss of political power.

Hengel[38] and later Keel & Staub argue that Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not set out to suppress the Jewish religion but to reform it.  This reform did not involve the worship of a new god, but merely the suppression of practices that were considered superstitious by the Greeks, namely, Sabbath observance, circumcision and the refusal to eat pork.  They argue that Antiochus had no particular interest in, or knowledge of the Jewish religion.   If, as Grabbe [39] has asserted, all Judaism was as Hellenised as the rest of the ancient near East, then there should have been no significant debate.

However, Feldman[40] and Collins [41] have criticised the view that a reform group motivated Antiochus.  The evidence from all of the sources is that Antiochus was the source of the decision, and also that Antiochus set out to suppress Judaism not to reform it.

In 2 Maccabees 14, the former high priest Alcimus was a Maccabean opponent.  He reportedly incited Demetrius to attack Judas.  Alcimus further reported that Judas led the hasidim, but this was incorrect as indicated above.  This was perhaps stated, either because of a desire by the writer to enhance Judas’ piety by association, or as an agenda of Alcimus to discredit the hasidim[42].

Opposition from the Pharisees

The Pharisees were a Jewish faction that probably originated from the hasidim.  They generally opposed the Maccabees/Hasmoneans.  They had a Hellenic view that education could transform the individual [43].  In particular, training about the torah, and the oral traditions about how to keep torah, were considered better than repentance after a fault.

Josephus (Antiquities 13.10.5) said that John Hyrcanus was initially a student and friend of the Pharisees, but he became alienated from them when he was insulted.  As a result, the Pharisees became opponents of John Hyrcanus and later Maccabees/Hasmoneans  rulers.  In particular they disliked Aristobulus I’s adoption of the royal diadem (Antiquities 13.11.1; The Wars of the Jew 1.3.1).

Opposition by the Pharisees apparently reached a high point during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.  Although not explicitly named by Josephus (Antiquities 13.13.5; 14.2; The Wars of the Jew I. iv. 6), Pharisees may have constituted a majority of the 800 Jews that Alexander Jannaeus had crucified.  Queen Salome Alexandria was the only exception to Pharisee opposition.  Probably because of her age, she accepted their advice (Josephus Antiquities 13.9.1).

Opposition from the Essenes

Bickerman [44] wrote that the Essenes were a “thoroughly Hellenistic growth upon Palestinian soil”, who imitated the Pythagoreans in organization and morals but zealously studied Torah.  Bright[45] says their opposition to the Maccabees/Hasmoneans  was irreconcilable because they saw them as illegitimate and apostate.  Accordingly they withdrew from the Maccabees/Hasmoneans  society into the wilderness.

Conclusion

As discussed above, The Maccabees/Hasmoneans had political opposition from the continuing upper class who wanted to exercise power; religious opposition from non-Hellenist conservatives who resisted innovations; and social opposition from resident “Palestinians” who were forced to comply with Jewish customs.  They also had increasing religious opposition from antagonistic Jewish factions such as the Pharisees and Essenes.

 

Bibliography

• Bickerman, E., From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, Schocken Books, NY, 1972 (Copyright 1947)

• Bickerman, E., The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, Brill Leiden, 1979, (German edition 1934).

• Bright, J., A History of Israel, SCM, London, 1969

• Casey, P.M., “Porphyry and the Book of Daniel”, JTS 27, 1976

• Collins, J.J., "The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans," HTR 73, 1980

• Collins, J.J., Daniel, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993

• Daniel, the Book of

• 1 Enoch, the Book of

• Feldman, L.H., “How much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?”, Journal for the Study of Judaism, XXXIII,3, Brill, Leiden, 2002

• Goldstein, J., ”The Hasmonean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty” in ed. Davies, W.D., and Finkelstein, L., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol 2 The Hellenistic Age, CambridgeUP, Cambridge, 1989

• Grabbe, L.L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992

• Grimm, C.L.W., Das erste Buch der Maccabäer (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes, 3) Hirzel, Leipzig, 1853

• Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 Vols, SCM, London 1974

• Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, The Wars of the Jews, vita

• Keel, O., & Staub, U., Hellenismus und Judentum: Vier Studien zu Daniel 7 and zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2000

• 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book Moses, The Testament of

• Pummer, R., “Genesis 34 in the Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods," HTR, 75, 1982

• Rajak, T., “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism”, in ed. Davies, P.R., & White, R.T., A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, JSOT.SS 100, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1990

• Shatzman, I., The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod, JCB Mohr, Tübingen, 1991

• Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1990

• Smith, M., “The Gentiles in Judaism 125BCE – 66CE”, in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Vol 1. Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, ed. Cohen, S., Brill, Leiden, 1996

• Schwartz, D.R., On Something Biblical About II Maccabees, a paper at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found at
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/1st/papers/Schwartz96.html

• Tacitus, The Histories

• Weitzman, S, “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology”, HTR, Jan, 1999

 

Footnotes:

---

Copyright Peter & BJ Eyland. 2007­15 All Rights Reserved. Website designed and maintained by www.eyland.com.au ABN79179540930. Last updated 23January 2015