Difference between revisions of "Category:Maccabees (subject)"

Second Temple Studies -> (4) Maccabees / Maccabean Revolt The category: Maccabees (subject), includes scholarly and fictional works dealing with the Maccabean Revolt and the Hasmonean Kingdom, the characters of the Maccabees and associated literature, such as the First Book of Maccabees, the Second Book of Maccabees, and the Fourth Book of Maccabees. < Timeline  : (1) Babylonian Exile -- (2) Persian Period -- (3) Greek Period -- (4) Maccabean Period -- (5) Roman Period -- see also Historical Jesus Studies, and Christian Origins Studies > < People : Ptolemaic Kings - Seleucid Kings - High Priests - Zadokites - Tobiads - Hasmoneans // Onias III - Heliodorus - Antiochus IV - Jason - Menelaus - Onias IV - Judas Maccabeus - Antiochus V // Spartacus // Judith - Salome Alexandra - Tigranes the Great > < Events : Heliodorus' Mission - Maccabean Revolt - Maccabean Martyrs - Hasmonean Rule - Armenian Invasion > This page is edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, University of Michigan. Maccabees -- Overview Judea under Judas Maccabeus (167-160 BCE) Judea under Jonathan Maccabeus (160-142 BCE) Judea under Simon Maccabeus (142-134 BCE) Judea under John Hyrcanus (134-104 BCE) Judea under Aristobulus (104-103 BCE) Judea under Alexander Jannaeus (101-76 BCE) Judea under Salome Alexandra (76-67 BCE) Judea under Aristobulus II (66-63 BCE) Maccabees -- Highlights Maccabees (research) See First Book of Maccabees -- Second Book of Maccabees -- Fourth Book of Maccabees

Literature Music Cinema Art Fiction

Overview

The Maccabean Revolt refers to a conflict between the Hellenistic party (led by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV and the Jewish High Priest Menelaus) and a coalition of groups led by the Maccabees, aimed to restore the Mosaic Torah as the national law of Israel.

The Maccabean Revolt is traditionally presented and celebrated in Judaism as a national war for independence and religious freedom carried our by the Jews under the leadership of the Maccabees against the Greeks.

According to Jewish post-Maccabean sources, the villain was the Seleucid king Antiochus IV, who issued a general decree "to his whole kingdom that all should be one people and that all should give up their particular customs" (1 Macc 1:41-42; cf. 2 Macc 6:). At the beginning of the second century CE, the Roman Tacitus would reverse the blame by commending Antiochus for his eagerness to eradicate the "base and abominable customs of the Jews" (Historiae V.4-7).

From the historical point of view the situation is far more complicated. Modern historians agree that Antiochus pursued a policy of tolerance of local cults and there is not evidence of widespread religious persecution outside Jerusalem and Judah. It is difficult to imagine an attempt by the king to "abolish" Judaism when his action was intended to strengthen the power of the supreme authority of Judaism and his most faithfully ally in Jerusalem, the High Priest Menelaus.

When in 169 BCE Antiochus first intervened in Jerusalem in support of Menelaus against the rebellion of Jason, "he took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures that he found" (1 Macc 1:23; cf. Ant 12:247)--"eighteen hundreds talents from the Temple" (2 Macc 5:21). "Many of the opposite party" were also slaughtered (Ant 12:247). But no episode of religious intolerance is recorded.

"Two years later" in 167 BCE, Antiochus IV sent again "Apollonius a chief collector of tribute... to Jerusalem with a large force" (1 Macc 1:29; 2 Macc 5:24; cf. Josephus, Ant 12:248). The city was taken "by treachery... pretending peace" (Josephus, Ant 12:248; 1 Macc 1:30), and then taking advantage of "the holy sabbath day" (2 Macc 2:25-26). "Great numbers of people" were killed, the Temple was emptied of its secret treasures" (Ant 2:250).

For the first time since the Hellenistic party took power in Jerusalem, the same worship in the Temple underwent radical changes: the daily sacrifices were interrupted (Dan 9:27; 1 Macc 1:45), the altar was defiled by "a desolating abomination" (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:54), and a new calendar was introduced (Dan 7:25)--a change from the Zadokite sabbatical calendar to the Macedonian lunar calendar that would have lasting and monumental consequences in the development of Jewish thought even after the Maccabean crisis.

A large-scale religious persecution hit those who followed the Zadokite laws. "The Jews were compelled to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer to live by the laws of God" (2 Macc 6:1). As both the Seleucid and the Jewish priesthood agreed that the Zadokite law was no longer either the law of the king or the law of God, there was no justification in following it, nor pity for the transgressors: "Whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die" (1 Macc 1:50). The acceptance of the Greek way of life, which up to this time had been purely voluntary, was now enforced by the king's law (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11). Those who dared resist, were seen as political enemies and treated as such. "Many Jews complied with the king's command, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced; but the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him... on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments" (Ant 12:255-256; cf. 1 Macc 1:62-64). More than three centuries of Zadokite order came to an end amid blood shed and persecution.

It is not easy to explain such a dramatic development. Neither Antiochus IV nor the Hellenistic party had ever before forced the inhabitants of Judea to abandon the Zadokite law. The major goal of Antiochus had being that of putting his hands on the Temple treasure; the Hellenistic party sought exclusively their own freedom not to be bound by the Zadokite law, and the opportunity to join the Hellenistic society. What suddenly turned an economical quest into a religious crisis?

The circumstances of the death of Menelaus, who was ultimately executed by Antiochus V as a traitor, shed some light on what happened. The Greeks apparently thought that Menelaus "was to blame for all the trouble" (2 Macc 13:4) and specifically, for having "persuaded [Antiochus IV] to compel the Jews to leave the religion of their fathers" (Josephus, Ant 12:384), thus dragging the Seleucid monarchy to an unfortunate experience. The report sounds genuine, as it contradicts the view that the same Jewish authors previously offered of the Maccabean crisis as a religious persecution promoted by the Greeks. However, nothing is said about the motivations of Menelaus and in particular, about what happened in the two critical years, between 169 and 167 BCE, which separate the two interventions of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. The only text that seems to apply to this period is the very confused beginning of Josephus' Jewish War (Bel 1:31-33). We read that just before Antiochus "spoiled the Temple and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice," i.e., immediately before Antiochus' second intervention in 167 BCE, there was turmoil in Jerusalem. "A great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those who were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals". The authenticity of the passage is strengthened by the fact that it contradicts Josephus' own position that only after the beginning of the Maccabean revolt Alcimus was the first "who was not of the high priest stock" (Ant 12:387), to take the office. In order to save the continuity of the priesthood, Josephus would like his readers to believe that Menelaus was the "younger brother" of Onias and Jason (Ant 12:238-239; 15:41; 19:298; 20:235), not an Aaronite priest from the tribe of Bilgah. Here, on the contrary, we have evidence that the issue of being ruled by "equals" arose before and not after the Maccabean revolt. It happened when the non-Zadokite Menelaus took power, and more specifically between 169 and 167 BCE, after the death of both Onias III and Jason. Any other setting would be anachronistic.

Josephus' text contains some additional, important pieces of information, all of them consistent with the same historical setting. At that time "Antiochus had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria" (Bel 1:31). In 168 BCE, Ptolemy VI broke the treaty to which he had been subjected after Antiochus' first campaign in Egypt. The Roman support stopped Antiochus' military reaction abruptly and forced him to a humiliating withdrawal (cf. Polybius 29.27.8; and Livy 45.12.4ff). The defeat reopened the argument about the possession of Syria-Palestina and increased the military importance of Jerusalem. In this difficult situation, something happened in Jerusalem that must have caused not little concern in Antiochus, as it affected his major allies and leaders of the pro-Seleucid party: "the sons of Tobias [including Menelaus?] were cast out of the city and fled to Antiochus and besought him... to make an expedition into Judea" (Bel 1:31-32). The Seleucid power in the region was at stake. The king would not forget to take advantage of the war laws which allowed him to loot the Temple treasure again, but his intervention was primarily a punitive expedition against "a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy" (Bel 30-31).

The only major problem in such a reconstruction is the reference to the Zadokite "Onias, one of the high priests" (Bel 1:31), who is said to have caused the sedition against the sons of Tobiads and then "fled to Ptolemy" when Antiochus prevailed. As in Josephus' Jewish War the same Onias is later called "the son of Simon" (Bel 7:423), this is usually taken as a puzzling and anachronistic reference to Onias III, which throws discredit on the historical reliability of the entire passage. In Jewish Antiquities, however, Josephus, after apologizing for having provided in his previous work only brief and not very accurate information on the subject (Ant 12:245), corrects himself clarifying that the Onias who fled to Egypt was not Onias III but his son, Onias IV (Ant 12:237, 387-388; 13:62-73).

When the reference to Onias at the beginning of the Jewish War also is taken as a reference to Onias IV, then the text becomes clear. At that time Onias IV was still a child (cf. Josephus, Ant 12:237), yet after the murder of his father and the death in exile of his uncle Jason, he was in pectore the legitimate high priest according to the Zadokite succession. His coming to age brought up for discussion again the future of the Jerusalem priesthood. More than securing Menelaus loyalty and consensus, the common Aaronite descent stirred up the jealousy of many of his fellow priests or "equals," who would have rather seen the Zadokite line restored. When the party that supported "Onias (IV) got the better" (Bel 1:31), Menelaus and the Sons of Tobias sought Antiochus IV's support accusing their enemies to side with the Ptolemies. After the failure of his second Egyptian campaign, Antiochus had a strategic interest in strengthening his military presence in Jerusalem and avoiding the coalescence of any opposition that could be used by the Ptolomeis as a fifth column ready to rise and betray. Menelaus needed a sign of discontinuity that would definitively affirm his power and the legitimacy of his priesthood over the Zadokites, also from the religious point of view. As the author of the Letter to the Hebrews would say in a different historical context but addressing a similar theological problem: "When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well" (Hebrews 7:12). The abolishment of the Zadokite law served well both the interests of Menelaus and the king.

Even in this outbreak of violence, the goal of Menelaus and Antiochus was not to abolish Judaism, but only the Zadokite kind of Judaism. As Paolo Sacchi points out, "no one wants to become the high priest to a god in liquidation." Menelaus had succeeded in becoming the high priest of a well-established sanctuary of a well-established religion. He had neither any intention nor any interest in undermining the roots of his power and wealth. Given the economic and political importance of sanctuaries in the Hellenistic world, the king's goal was to take control of the Jerusalem Temple not certainly to destroy it. The religious persecution was limited in time and in space; it aimed not to fight the Jews and the Jewish religion but only to hit the king's political enemies in Jerusalem. "From the perspective of hindsight... it is clear that the debate was not between Judaism and Hellenism as opposed forced, but really over the degree to which an already hellenized Judaism would self-consciously conform even further to international cultural norms" (Martin S. Jaffee)

Within this context, it is likely that Menelaus himself directed the king by suggesting him those measures that in a very simple and effective way could identify their enemies and lead to their punishment. "The very fact that Antiochus was able to individuate precisely which Jewish practices to abolish demonstrates that the person advising him on the matter knew the Judaism of the period very well and wanted to destroy that particular Judaism, not all Judaism" (Paolo Sacchi).

Without a hint from the high priest in Jerusalem, Antiochus would have never so ferociously ban circumcision as the mark of separation between Jews and Gentiles (2 Macc 6:10), or introduced pigs as sacrificial animals and forced Jews to consume them (1 Macc 1:47: 2 Macc 6:21; 7:1), which was not customary among the Greeks and was an abomination for most of the peoples of the region.

Without a hint from the high priest in Jerusalem, Antiochus would have never "defiled the sanctuary and the priests" (1 Macc 1:46) by actually erecting a new altar and offering magnificent sacrifices on it (1 Macc 1:54; 2 Macc 6:7; Dan 11:31; 12:11), or "building altars in the surroundings towns of Judah and offering incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets" (1 Macc 1:54-55). Only in the eyes of the Zadokite law, these measures were an abomination as they challenged the holiness and uniqueness of the Jerusalem Temple. In every other context the same measures of benevolent patronage would have sounded as a sign of the king's favor and respect to the Temple of Jerusalem, which Antiochus did not destroy but honored, and to his priesthood, which Antiochus did not persecuted but supported.

Without a hint from the high priest in Jerusalem, Antiochus would have never commanded "to profane sabbaths and festivals" (1 Macc 1:45), or "to change the sacred seasons" by introducing a new calendar in the Temple (Dan 7:25), which altered the holiness of times which in the Zadokite worldview was no less crucial than that of people and places.

All these measures implied an inside knowledge of the Zadokite law and a conscious and well-meditated plan aimed not to eradicate the religion of the Jews but on the contrary to affirm the importance of the Jerusalem cult under the new priesthood of Menelaus, while targeting the boundaries of separation within people and animals, places, and times as established by the Zadokite purity laws. Antiochus had vital political and military interests in Jerusalem; Menelaus knew that only the support of the king could give legitimacy to the new priesthood. Both wanted to get rid of their enemies. Antiochus had the power, but only Menelaus could articulate a plan of religious reforms that would serve both well. Antiochus trusted and supported him.

What Antiochus IV and Menelaus did not foretell, however, was that the punishment of their enemies would ignite the flames of a ruinous civil war. The unexpected opposition came not from the nostalgic of the Zadokite or Ptolemaic power but from those who, mostly in the countryside outside Jerusalem, more heavily had to bear the burden of taxation while being excluded from the benefits of Hellenistic economy and culture. The catalysts were "a priestly family of Joarib," the Hasmoneans or Maccabees as they were soon called out of admiration for the military skill of Judah. Soon, the conflict escalated into a large-scale civil war.

The genius of the Maccabees was to present themselves not as the leaders of just another rival priestly family seeking for power, as they were, but as the champions of the national tradition against the Greeks, and to turn the civil war into a war of liberation against the foreign oppressors. The Maccabean propaganda presents Antiochus' measures in Judah not as the result of infra-Jewish conflicts but as the last chapter and inevitable outcome of the opposition between Hellenism and Judaism (1 Macc 1:1-10).

Around the military and political leadership of the Maccabees a varied coalition of groups arose, with different religious or political agendas, but united in their opposition to Menelaus. Their victory would mark the restoration of the Mosaic law and its transformation from the law of the House of Zadok into the national law of all Jews. Their victory also meant the defeat of any hypothesis of inclusive monotheism; from now on, any form of Judaism will have to define itself as exclusive monotheism. Religious conflicts however did not cease, even when the Maccabees reached complete independence as the new high priests and kings of Judah. Competitive interpretations of the crisis emerged and clashed. Judaism would remain a profoundly divided society.