Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context id by Gasol Bakhos DRILL LEIDEN * BOSTON m8 CONTENTS Acknowledgements = Iniroduetion Anti-Semitim in Antiquity? ‘The Case of Alexandia ‘John J. Collins Greeks and Jews: Manual Migperceptions in Josephus! Contra Apicnem Brie 8. Gruen Hebrew and Imperial in Jewish Palestine Seth Schwartz The Motivations ofthe Maceabees and Judean Rhetoric of Ancestral Traditions Brent Nongbri The Torah Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Ditlrence in Antiquity Martha Himmelfab “The Jewish Philosophy”: The Presence of Hellenistic Pitsophy in Jewish Exegesis inthe Second Temple Pesind Gregory E. Sterling "Talking their Way into Empire’: Jews, Christians and Pagans Debate Resurecion of the Dy” ‘Claudia Setzer Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora in the ‘Late Roman Period: The Limitations of Evidence Marin Goodinan us 131 7a seri scanwanre Conetuson The vicistades of Hebrew use in antiquity demonstrate the inex- tsicable connections of soil and cultural with political history, but ako the complexity of those connections. Hebrew’s emergence under ‘Achaemenid and Macedonian rule asa symbol of Jewish nationhood land as a sociolet, distinguishing priestly and sesial intermediaries ‘ofthe authority ofthe temple and the Torah, cannot be understood Jin absuaction fom the praties of thei imperial rulers. These gov cerned by regulating local pariculavisms, and so, they were responsible for the spread of Aramaic and Greek as both administrative and spo ‘en languages. But che Persian and Hellenic emperors, in regulating local partcularsms also supported them, and thereby conuibuted to the marginal preservation of Hebrew a symbol of Jewish nationhood and of the prveges enjoyed by the stafs of the national ita tions. When Palestine was tubjeted to direct Roman rule, Hebrew was marginalized sill farther—preserved mainly by de remnants of the intermediary clas, implasibly zealous to reestablish their athor- ity over the Jews through their expertise in the surviving Jewish national insation, the Torah. ‘The real of partial Jewish autonomy lund Chri rofers wat connected, in tt to a revival of Hebrew asa symbol of Jewish particulaiy-much as altered versions of pre- Roman and pre-Hellenistc languages, like Copkie and Syriac, came in some oblique way to serve the interests of the national churches ofthe Jews? neighbors in precisely the same period ‘THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE MACCAREES AND JUDEAN RHETORIC OF ANCESTRAL TRADITION Brser Nonosmit lermopvenio ‘The sty ofthe history f the region around Jerusalem in the second century m.03. has come of age in recent years! "The groundbreak ing works of Bias Bickerman,? Victor Teherikover and Martin Henge" paved the way, showing that a simple model of Jews resist ing Greck influence was inadequate as a histrieal description of Palestine in the middle ofthe second century. Building on these cas sic treatments, more recent scholars have refined the methods and conclusions of earlier generations While some have pointed to the fact that “Judaism” and “Hellenism” need not be mutwally exchsive ‘categories, others have questioned the validity of the dichotomy and se Sag a 97 inn. eis tat a ae Ras Yo oe "bli: hn th Sin td Uy dr mci see i ete en aes A eg Mab en ati’ Memo a OF SS ls a i up ok Penbdy, tans Helene stn = : nai > A a 2 jkr sh. (Tubinges Mohe/Siche 1973, Eagio feeb Sin fn ha an ae Eg fal fn ued Rina face ea Gare Inve aed The present contin see ow tg see se mh aw ft tw the es pad "Stic rete worse bo nme ont bre. Of spel mt re the SE eg et MTs men fF Tee Beko eae $f Gaon Pen 199, Jam J Cli, “Cat al Cale Te Lice ot Helena in Fle” in Hs Lad of fete Cain an Sting (Nae Dane User of Nore Dae es 20 4-0, ol Mar ch ica a 0: Ann Pa has Hand eden Pas 199) 16 reea6, et Non ‘even the categories themelves® Wayne A. Meck summary ofthese developments particularly ape [Sluis of language usage, trading pater pola nuns, and ‘er ements began 0 suges to more and more scholars hat Jude Sind Calle wore far frm ing pore Jewish sande in sien of Hellion. Even the Maceabe revolts i aflrmath cae tore fand more 9 look not lke the ultimate defense of Juin from Halles, but ke & contining sage between diferent wy of adapting t6 Hellenism ned, Joan” was in some senses Heli region” Meeks’ point that Maccabean density took shape in, and isa pro uct of, the Hellenistic world should prompt ut to ask: Why, when so much work has been done in reading the events in Judea berween 200 nex. and 169 mec. in terms of shifting regional politcal ten- sions among Polemics, Sleucds, and Romans, do we continue to Frame questions about the actions of Antiochus TV and the Macrabecs from 169 to 163 ae, in terms of a stable, welldefined “Judaism” Fighting off Greek inflences?® 2 Maccabees describes events that ‘way, but some caution i in order. * See Gren, Hate Hani, nv. Foe quis stot the vay te ety we le Marna te Joanie Doty Tardy yf esi Pha id eu ei ‘inthe se ylume pS Alcan “Helen al Helena at intact oe a Hh rae Mains note ate bck ely ele a ie Helene ofan vom ay Jara gf Pa Sas 2890; HDI. Mack te ce tec Sine cet hn ce tt ey ton Soh “Tena fabyp and Real Prien Sco Te ri Se re ft tne 9 Wide (testo, Ont: Wied arr Univesy rem, 1509) 205906. "nt Helen he Bh of Chany in EghergPeenen, Pad Ae aan, Te eee gen Fei. or purser bold exams ake on mater shrew af tam arr Sad foie Ps, ona Jat oy ets Pere. Ta the cect work of Ta Rak ata cramer her mat wc ‘xen dean fe empleo the tert ain” al Heda” si a er ne we move hn J doer MACOABEES AND JUDEAN faweroRKE a As Bickerman noted long ago, the Maccabean documents “were produced in order to make history, not report i.” Since the Hasmonean house eventually usurped the, ancestal high priesthood, all our major sourees—I and 2 Mace and Josephs—all Gn diferent ‘ways and for diferent reasons) needed wo leytmate the Maccabecs.” Vand 2 Mace explain the rie ofthe Maceabees in tems of a fight for the “covenant of the fathers” or “Judaism.” The authors of these documents sharply dlffeentiate Between the Maccabees and those wiho held power in Jerusalem before them. While 2 Mace 3:1 makes an exception forthe virwous high priest Simon I, the over all impression is thatthe pious Maccabees in Modein were people ‘of different sor thandhe Judeans in Jerusalem. Josephus and moder scholarship tend to reinforce this impres sion, but we may legitimately ask if some ofthe similarities between the Maceabees and their contemporaries and predecessors have been overlooked. To be sure, no Jeans belore the Maccabees openly attacked the representatives ofthe Seleucid king, but ae we shall sce, he mot rave sc experiences wat te ee of ‘a th an RS Ca ond ad 00) ArT ae ee he die we oe the the pre mse wien Joo te themes” It ead mes ‘ie ch an oe te oe may che py ee “when we want to consider the mations af dhe Macca 1 porta that ‘elie ued he tno be Macaca Bert re Ga ot hata, > Th Iga ne ffs ceion ws already broken when Menus wg te eho ol depoed vo 172 meer I'l? Meas re tebe bao wer apt Jp ness that Mae ws of Ona en ‘a 122574 or mre the por we blow Fo the proj 1 ve ewe ese lo Ma rs ti de ‘tees ie the roan scan of Jan JCal cometary inte Heres =H Da Cnmnry ne Bf (Mio: Pret Pres 18 "7 falow han Gon ning ery siya natn tht Cr nce sous for hs pera may tl mores he nes wih the ns ee empovel than aon the yar flowing (0? oS lee tint Seek are he Sen eet ‘by Bah Swat 1A Nowe the Sal Type and Poa ao oe ocean Fay 7B 112198) 3°, Schrage tat the Mase "he" Teds fe “ilage rong” ami tl psa comes ‘ae en na eon a ii Sr hou {on Tbiad thug have ecrson abu hi cmp Othe ul on88 ‘BRENT WONG {ust what the Maccabees hoped to accomplish with these attacks does not look all hat different from the goals of hers who proceed them in the strvggle for prestige in Jerusalem, The primary difference hetween the actions autibuted to’ Mattathiay and his posterity and the actions of the politcal players active in and around Jerusalem in the yeas leading up to the revolt is the Maccabean thetoric of “anceaeal tradition." It will thus be informative to examine how the Maccabees might be similar to some of the other powerfl fm ilies in Judea and how the Maccabean thetic of "ancestral tradi tion” functions In order to re-contextalize the Maccabees in this way, 1 sll provide a quick summary of the period before the Maccabees with fan eye to the fights between families and dir alliances with the ‘eqional power, building on the valuable work of Seth Sehwart." ‘Then I shall examine the motivations of the Maccabees, fist with a brief analysis of Antiochus IV's edict of 167 a.ex. fllowed by a reevaluation of Matthias origins and the nature of Juda? actions in “the revo.” Finally, I shall point out similarities between the Maccabees’ use of “ancestral tations” and the use of the noi lof the ancestral constitution” in Athens, By considering some of the ‘Asser lags ve pind oot me the Maca pee toa at an te evel bate thy aay pon ge oy hae ri tani ean cre nfm ho fe an be titel ty see pla mene, ab thr mah ieee tie pleco met be at ey wets sans ore wy. Se Don (Gr Jnts nd Maltonnen is 279 161 a (eee Br 10) 259-54 Ite arg pat mn ais betwen ion i he Mcrae td how of oe rope sina pss wan the Heke wel Tho Fler ha ad ae Hascup ply pve red orn ‘tone arth Sei ite ein pater ance ene peso et enn pg an ang ie ona eS se th hfe ae wt er owe he ig Seneca he hy alr of mans he Prin sere ‘iar Meda (Dg Melon, Tiara the mae dea Peri, fn Gamage, Hay el In Jen tthe cane af te a ed eo om Sco ead the coal ier of a Mi, a ia he Sy rei” (1, “Hanne and Side pers of Wa an Pay ae cul an i Cotes nct"tn Gat ond PEt fC Egy SATA Rasher ea (Jotun The Il Expeaton Soy 25) 3-13, “Nc he Sad Type and Folie elo te Honea ay DSACCAMRES AND JUDEAN ROETORIC 89 similarities between the Maccabees and other Judean fans, we shall sce the Maccabees’ deployment ofthe idea of “ancestral tra ditions” is best understood not as conservative response to Greck incursion, but rather as part of the Maccabees innovative strat ‘egy for taking over Jerusalem and running the temple and cult a8 they saw fi Fawmy Peuos w Jones, Paer 1: Tie Tomas ‘To begin with, I want to look atthe stories ofthe Tobia family in the thie and second centuries me, for which we mainly rey o Josephus. Fortunately, there i @ good deal of high quay secondary literate that oflers various reconstructions ofthe history of Judea from the time of Antiochus H's capture of Palestine in 200° nc. to the fist Egyptian campaign of Antiochus IV in 169 n.ex. I shall provide summary here of these scholars’ conchusons about the ‘major political ators in Palestine duting that time period ‘The main characters in Josephus’ description of this time period are the members of two files, the high priestly Oniads and the ‘Tobiads, a Judean Family based in the trans.Jordan. Both these fan- ilies seem t have had a history inthe later biblical texts, The Oniade ‘were the high priests dating back tothe Persian era, and dhe Tobias abo seem to have roots reaching back to the time of Nehemiah. On the tiny of his mil, ee Frank Moore Grom’ mat scent rca src in Chm Hy dE asl lr: ‘ples Unnesy Pren 186 1127 dg htc cry fears of Leer Son hr wah We Rok, as Hair Ra ed est Be gh ‘tad i cat ual Ons Onfrdniverty Prem, 200) 26573 Se ratam stn of Jet C Venki Jo Caso HP So Be eee ee nas en eae toe. In Ears 26, "the som of Taba ac fi ang the rere who were i ne ier eh, he eh inland hyve ce ote ps rie ode Noah 18 Accrtng fo Ears ty ce ac he of Ce oer 338 ‘et bt seg 1 Es 937 they er ene of Da 2-20 tegh inthe MT ftw he XN) a cin Tbh same an ‘haat coming font ps ch 610" a Nba Teak Cine Arment) ted appe Neem ing pi. espe tobe {powell ce ma Joa rad ah to ia" Neh at ees ca Kd pes the ope rogaine he fh pi Eas, ad aged Neem eh0 seen Nona Whi the faites became related hy mariage, they appear to have had distinct political aliances both before and alter 200 met. The frst of the Oniads whom Josephus describes in detail is Onias I, who seems to have been high pest in the middle to lte part of the thin century ne.” According to Josephus, Onias IL refused to pay taxes to the reigning Plolemy and thus brought the risk of Ptolemaic action against Jerusalem." Josephus reports that Joseph, te son of Tobias and thus Oniae 1s nephew), went to Egypt to appease Poolemy with gifts and in addition to averting Ptolemaic punishment of Jerusalem, he secured for himse ax-tarming rights fr all of Cocl-Syria (At, 12.154-79) Beyond granting Joseph the 184-10, We ao ow of “Tabi ern of Kg” fo Lach Osan Nets Riau Brom Wan fom ae Ic 4 Hn gf Hac as Dn, a1, es (Lae Wein fee rst 6B sss soca eter ele Toa ‘Rv te Zon Ry on rhe Ther, a Ee et on, ("5's gr hat She “Toa on be aang gh he tami can te wae back tu he elo ‘22038, parry 255. ec meri en ramet Telia i foam pli ht oan ‘Scat mgr tht sone leona pa et fen i me Theta he Ammer”

Shims ete nee 119 ery ht louse a Alin ao eyo Aa bt Tim mccain et it sone! eae Bucs lcs dt be ‘wt ofthe fy ofthe gh ea” oe So ht pep ee At ‘may wt Land Tron the nef Sin sting ew nd es gual 2 ny tht ha ot been eer No, howe, ia? Mace procs 4 got reba ean he hn mae ‘emacs Et. Has Hey Bean! Cah HE: hinge 1 nd (ges Mabe Saba 1) 49°30 NMAGeARIAS AND JUDEAN nameronIC 9 ‘The king wrote w bis whole kingdom that al should be one people, and each shoul fave ebiod i estos, and all the genes We femme the spech of the King ad many fron lracl were wel pln With his ites (eRennow splat) and they tacrificed ols fel profaned the sabbath And the ing set frdes}-to Fri inut ofsings and sacrifices apd drink ofering fom the santa and to profane sabathe and fev to delle sanctuary a priat to bud alars apd sacred precincts and idenpes and to scree swine and common animals and t leave their se wae ‘make their sus detestable in every purty a pray sy a fonge the la and change all the ordinances ove tablet no wk ara Smeg) ard whoever des nat do aor ing wo the speech of the King wl be putt death. [Mtr this decree, the aur reports tht “many of the people, every= ‘one who forsook the la, joined them and they devil inthe land, they drove Ira into hiding in every place of riage they had” (351-2). Finally, the author relates thatthe evildoers “erected a desolaingsac- tilege on the altar of bumt fering” (nBiynae BOA fmpercear, si Gvoworipuy, 1:56), built altars throughout Judah, destroyed the *books of the law” (1 Bia ro vino), were violent to Tstael (1:58), offered sacrifice on the altar on top of the altar of burnt offering, and put to death circumcised children and thee families.” ‘Much of this material fs very well with some of the themes in | Mace and is probably more reflective of Maccahean rhetorical aims than Antiochus’ policies. For example, the author of | Mace fits Antiochus’ actions into a biblical model; 1 Mace, attempts to portray foreigners as simply wicked, and so “forming a covenant ‘with them” and “becoming one people” with them isthe worst pose sible scenario for this author and likely hyperbole” 2 Mace, Bow ever, emphasizes some of the same details of the deere (uch as the “nha in 12056 o tienes i Fal Jui ond Craton, GN, Staton and GG. Sra en etme otha te ecm eee Rema he e tie Nadons Reamdatout 2m 19) neh Sever nts te same pa ah ‘Sale good rely wih Ram ch weve Met ye i ee Sree is Sara Han as pe ‘he Hemoneane ad thr gene ng aeinlaeie ener Te Hees ‘Thar Spht Pon Mae Des fa yom Yan Shas ra on8 we Nowa ‘erction of an altar in dhe temple, the construction of other altars, the sacrifice of pgs, and the forbidding of circumsision and sabbath ‘observance, which ells for some explanation, For Bickerman, the decree was the apex ofthe "Hellenizing” pro- fram tigated ist by Jason and then by Menclaus Several authors Ihave shown that such a hypothesis nly; dhe mater surrounding the gymmasiam are a separate affair from Antiochus actions, and there is no evidence for a grand program of cultural “Hellenzing” fon the part of Antiochus." In fact, Bickerman himself argued that the character of the eult in Jerusalem and surrounding areas ater Antiochus’ decree was more native Syrian than Greek" Teherikover famously suggested that Antiochus decree resulted from an open, longanized revolt by the Hasidic’ such that “it was not the revolt which came as a response to the persecution, but the persecution Which came a2 response tothe revel." Teherkover as not gained 2 wie following on this poing, but Dov Gera seems correct i point- ing out thatthe one-year gap between the queling of Jason's revolt. (168/8 nce.) and the insigaion of Antiochus’ new measures (167 ‘.o) is not all that long, and is completely understandable given Antioch" occupations in other parts of his empire." ‘Thus the new policy in 167 mee, while nota response to an organized rebelion, was a slightly overdue reorganization and attempted pacing of a rebellious province." 2 1 Gal f he Maat, 9 = Fens Na, i eee a ie sc ee 3 Jeate WhkAnoch propa wa regan in seo hat el Coe torn sae emer eel fut toate eS periene ats rat ag acre eee eee a aes eae ee erates (Sie of rumen” wh bencod fom the eachaity ofr Jersicm tmp 133 MAGCAMEES AND JUDEAN mTORIC % “Tim Macoanens, Par 2: Tie Faunty's Onsons Why, then, would the Maccabees choose this time to begin their major ‘maneuvers to take Jerusalem? Sehvwares i probably correct tha Jas and his followers “exploited the disorder in Jerusle” to their own fends, but T would argue thatthe Maccabees are best understood not as Sclwart’s lla strongmen,” coming to Jerusalem from the out ‘de, bat rather as Jerusalem insiders not unlike Jason and Meneas™ We do not have much information om Matthias, but scholars ‘len present the Title we do possess in somewhat misleading ways. ‘The entry for "Maccabean Revolt in one of the standard reference works in the fied cad'serve as an example, The author writes Shortly afterward, Jerwalem was agin taken by free. The Jewish polation reacted in thre ways to these messes sme reatany| {auiesed; some preferred martyrdom rather than ly the kings tds and some resorted «armed reistance, Among those whe ‘este oars were Mattias ant hi sna, When Matathis ke the officer who came to his village, Modin, to force pag its | the inhabitants uerila ware [Began about 16m) Sry eran, Matthias did and the leadership ofthe rebels was given to hi son Juan Aside from the questionable outline of the three possible reactions to Antiochs’ edit this desertion implies that Mattathias was just 4 pious villager in Modein who leapt into battle against invading pagans. This depiction of events obscures key points in the way the ancient soures describe Mantathias-he, like the Oniads and Menclaus, vas closely associated with Jerusalem and (again like the others) he was a priest, but ofthe line of Joab, | Mace 2:1 introduces him as flows: “In thowe days Matthias 8 priest of the sons of Joarib arose from Jerusalem and arrived in Mosein” (i uépns reve évéorn Marta. ep sv viv loop di Iepovondnn xa xiBwev dv Made), Josephus concurs Tha hee, ai! a am gi prc os den "Sth Nat on the Sti Type ed Pala eso of the Hanon Fan "Use Raprupr, sx Maceaean Rev” The An Bi Disney (New Ya Deut) 4438 cm se aap a at pe i yn wen, See,100 st NonoIRL ddscribing Mattathias as “a man living in Modai, a village of JJdaea a priest of the division of Joab and a Jerusalemite” Gv ‘ts olny év Modal niu sg, Tobalag,dvopar MereaBas ips Fenrpidos Taos "epooohonins, Ant 12.265) In site of these clear statements, there is a tendeney among scholars to portray Matthias as a rural priest untainted by “Hellenized” Jerusalem.” Samucl Eddy’s comments on this point are elreshing: “The evidence is hat in 167 nec the Hasmoncans were no humble, rural priests, vt family on the vb. Thy Hved in Jerusalem and ‘owned an eae near Modi A royal mesenger t made # adress Mavis at Moin a8 ending man, gest apd gue in this piace ‘There is, of course, no strong evidence that Mattathias owned “an cetate, but Eddy’ reading highlights the fact that he sources are Silent ‘on the nature of Mattathia’dveling in Modein, and what Tine information we have on Matathias' stats suggests that it was ‘quite high?" Mest scholars assume, without good reson, that Matthias ‘was a nonaflvnt, pious villager Hee I fille the Groh tata the Lac en: Nie prin “in. I Sup eens pe ts for it ig, ean ae he were Lg tape Tie rep othe sig 0 Maite” Mae Jac ar {itt at be wats of Autmonog one a he pes oy lle ‘ate el aon irs ins Maes a) Cay, ‘Math acne the coment of ha mcm we i ake place in Joralem a et Nn Sm ame but one expe, Doron Mendel The Ri and Fal of Juih ‘Nato (Gand Kapie Wir, Een Ping Ca 187) 128 Tse etn Jn cece ip mii oe Sah Sar a es ay, 70080 (Pcen Fron Uniey Pes! 201 9. Te str eee of an ancl ce ec fo Modsin sce T Mane 270 les the tundra ond ere Che ‘td inte tno hers Mod" my ko Mae 19 (The Jorn nl Stow i tie a ord en ne tm the ‘ere uA) th erences hay mai the cotton a te Mazes were prima rr ter kag Ser Mar Fn ae ani 334-31 (Qin, Nb: Ue f Netra Pra, 106) 215. The quan i om 1 Mace it a em de a nr ba {122i i, 190) Sater the Maceabean prod, Simon fic Hamann ‘rath ough 0 deena whem money (1 Me 432, “Sie ce so Swat, “A Note onthe Sol Type and Pata elegy ae Hasonean Pay 307 DIACOAMEES AND JUDEAN RIIETORIE wo [Even if we regard the material about Mattathias a spect indeed, he is not even mentioned in 2 Mace 2 Mace places Judas or fins in Jerusalem as well The first we hear of Juda is that he fled from Jerusalem before Antiochus IV's major decree: Whe this man [Apallonis) appeared in Jerusalem pretending to be pref. he puto the sword all thee coming out forthe spt de the fan ilo the Gy wi his ame nen and led great m ter. Bat Judas the Maccabean, with about nine others, got away 10 the wldemes (25-7) In fact, Modein plas almost no roe in 2 Mace; the wom only appears asa campsite for Jadas and his force in 1314, Thu, all three of our Iajor sources for the Maccabeane connect the east fighters wi Jerusalem ‘Also, | Macc connects Matthias the priestly Hine of Joab (loupi). This line rises from relative obscurity to the highest post tion in priestly fists. The name Joasib or Yoiarb occurs five times asa dan name in the Hebrew Bible (Neh 11:10, 126, and 1 T-Ghron 9:10 and 24:7, Though not listed among the priests in ara 2:36 and Neh 7:59, Yoiasib i found in Neh 11:10 among the priests living in Jerusalem. In Neh 125, Yoiai is named as a priest ‘who went up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel, In t Chron 267, i David himself who makes Yoiarib the head of the frst of dhe twenty ‘our divisions of priests, pushing the former fist poston, Jedaiah, to second Thit notice x the last we hear of Joab until the Maccabees rise to power. The we Matin pd i he ating of ged. Given the dep ‘les wand one erence Poa rng tha the nay pe ‘ued ear sens why reds ef he Mata in Sl, Poel ‘igi i, ee she way nl anal do ey eon Sing ogra nr ot ‘hare in he defen oie ph we os too, 3270 Ue ete ‘eh 1) dst te pn, nb het Jo heres Yolach meatal in Ear O16; bei an of ing” sure ‘won by Ear gt ation lap el 1 Bae evo) t's "fio noteworthy for compari inti regard i the Hon iy. The dean Hakone bed Ean 261 aps wd aprons fom the pehod a sco” oo ako Nc 3 and 1 Tan 50) Any thet Neen weer Meaty wm of Cia» pt he tne a Haken sm ea ing ige he rebngof te enpe102 ‘ext NoNCERL ‘The fanily of Mattathias and Judas was, ke the Tobiads a fam at was guning, over a long period of time, a higher dogree of prestige than it intially hain the early Persian era” The Tobiads Acquired a notable degree of power a century before the Maccabees, but Jas and his aay were able to sacceed where Hyrcan Bled, in that dhey actually did gain conteol of Jerusalem and held on to power for some eighty years y Tur Maccansss, Pax 3: Tae Morivanions Jost became the Maccabees and dhese other fanilis share similar histories does not show that the Maccabees acted forthe same reasons as these famibies, The Maccabees? motives are generally supposed to bre quite diferent from those of the Tobias, Jason, and Menelaus, wo took the initiative and bribed regional powers to improve their ‘wn status, The Maccabees, 40 the argument goes, were reading 10 oppression with military force gpa a regional power on behalf of “the people,” and only later dl they get entangle in poe mat- tera” | ahallangue that a more compelling case can be made that, se Schwartz phrates it, the Maccabees’ “main concern at all pei- fads wae their own advancement. ‘The typical explanation of the Maccabees early actions is that the “revolt” began with Matthias the old wilager, fll ofthe zeal of Phineas, hostile to foreigners, reacting to the prospect of urban Hellenizing eligious practices in his village! The discussion of Sie ead la ht Ae a iat hemminrg & eames wi re ‘ape Habe Spe : eae atest SE EACLE LE te vee seep nn ema acorn “Note on the Social Type and Political Ideology of the Hasmonean Fail ot hat the Macabre were hai a ge pf he ec ‘Sh Schwan ha wn, sa and he Rates Reds T-Sh Te pn lhe Macabro wi ame the See [MACOAMEES AND JUDEAN RHIEORI vos. Mattathias above has already problematized such a view. In fat, given dhe shadowy evidence we have, Matthias is probably not the place to start looking forthe Maccabees? motives, Samuel Baldy has pointed out that Mattahias docs not come off at testy important in | Mace and Josephus: Marathi died amet a s00n a the rsitance begun. his death ace lvence alto te coe of erets-- lee te probe tem of Ging out what entiated Matthias i at really as por tant finding ov what intentions the Hasmonean fly had and that ther contemporaries nreght of ems they wanted ery bay 1o improve the poion in respect wo the ether poe Tacs of Judah or in oder words to beeome high rr Thi is what ete ‘ly Rappened ae cz i no reason for Winking that ft was not ‘motive from the besnning, Tir piety was tempered with ambation.® “This point is worth pressing. After Matathias’ death, Judas led sev ral winning campaigns and then as soon as he gained contol of at last part of Jerusalem, he “purified and renewed?” the seemingly Abandoned temple (1 Mace 436) After removing the defiled stones ofthe gentle’ altar, the priests appointed by Jud even tore down the original altar of burnt offering and replaced it with a newly built tne (4-7), esentally rebuilt the entre inner sanctuary from scratch and made new “holy ves” (48), Jada then inaitated a new fes- tival to commemorate the event (4:58). While Josephus claims that Judas even became high priest, most scholars fejeet such an idea * Hig Dk 28 SE He all we ny pig "Ss Jospin alee amidst the ance sources in caiming that Jas was ai ved Arn me dds ae re Ai ade BEh ea cee te Shp cpp Mae Se a 836 Fn cei nt Birgce So mes ats, Eine paneer ee Sar tae to bat a iets ey She Par aan Po ae et oR rea ean in Soke ha ly Sats Sel ia Eero prem 415" i We, ag pat RELEGCGSs Bh Se alt a Ea a le ss ery ea iShletsat cnet hes ae el a Fro one! ehevrtoar 8 inn th Geb Rak oop Sle, Bete ang Se SS Let eae ee Sel oa os ees ees afar nee Sorplcer casing sno aot oarsrot ane Noon ‘Whether or not that is dhe case, Judas moved beyond simply restor- ing what was changed under Antiochus He continued fighting even alter the rebuilding of the sanctuary and fonged an alliance with Rome (I Mace #:1-92). After his death, fist Jonathan and thea Simon forged more alliances with frcgn leaders in order to secure their hold on power in Jerusalem. Jonathan fit aed himself with Alexander Epiphanes (also known as Alexander Balas), who claimed to be the son of Antiochus IV. Alexander in turn made Jonathan high pres (1 Mace 10-18-25). When both Philometor and Alexander sed and Demetris I became king of Sia, Jonathan brought riches to Demetrius in Antioch, andl Demetrve accordingly confirmed his status as high priest (1 Mace 11:25-9), Then, in exchange forthe service of Jewish mercenaries to help quell an attempted coup, Demetras falsely promised several benefations for Jonathan, AMter Demetrius broke his promises, Trypho, the guardian of Antiochus Vi, formed an alliance with Jonathan, who at the same time was newing alliances with Rome, Sparta, and “other places” (12:1-2) rypho, however, tuned on Jonathan and had him killed. Shorty afterward, the aba, established under Antiochus TV in 167 mo. finally fell in 141 mex. (1349-51), Simon confirmed the fiendships with Sparta and Rome, sending the later @ gold shild of conse rable vale (14:24) igh pics arte coin of he Ani, Joe sts hat afer Alms it eon high psa fo re eno ke eee in at he ‘ret onsen Years thot hg pe Bata he ey fe so Tie THaonen ng een ted wih ther dhe priest hang ‘made war the Maeda, et wp Joan ih Pi, ho Ted et tiem fr ven year Tha bay Mag exclu he pty tat od a high pit Mace sno te quo, tol atest mp ht Ju wah ni eer cg at thse tues wo pected ha he “Books ef the Matas sy math of Juda trcning Hh st, bt they ying either wa ed a Hh Pe 1 thereon ah Temple, went sce 0 igh Pe wo poe shy have bm Maybe tht they were cone ele he icin i te te ad ie pes ne ee wt {co be jated by appucent bythe fsognsed ity the Ring he "yest weed ty orl Seer ance fa uns the le “Wee UWENet Sts cat ey edly 8.) D Cale, Se fe Gi of Tae LenB, 980,19, oul ge that ekg hee ta ey Adin minting conta | ‘pl ni fda eel soe othe ton te raf span AM Pe cn pl emein, “P iane ‘the ae in charge of making that wx mi “Tada oder ns eth ro sine (Peles At | | DMACOAMEES AND JUDEAN RuBETORIE 105 This picture of a family gathering an army and acquiting power ‘with the help of shifting poltialaliances seems very similar to what ‘we saw with the Tobiads, Oniads and even Menelsi Seth Schwartz shewaly describes this phenomenon. He notes that in oring alliances and continuing to wage campaigns after the temple had been retaken Judas leaned more lke an ambioas courier than resus fedormgher So he was probably nt secking to overthrow the exiting ste but to advance within Judas strategy of wining eonessons fom dhe Saki by pestering them military had proved suc inthe ps, and he probably hoped would continae to work” ‘The Maccabees and thei allies fought against the Seleucids while JJson and Menelaus had bribed them, but both actions had the same ‘g0al—to gain power in Jerusalem. As sated atthe outset, the difeence is thatthe Maccabees clearly cast their ation aa defense of ances- tral customs. 1 Mace styles its protagoniss as defenders of “the ‘covenant of our fathers” (uth xanépov ji and there seems to be litle reason to doubt thatthe movement used such a slogan from early on. As far as we can tell, 2 Mace’s “Judaism” (Toobion, 221, 81 and 14:38) a neolognm, but it seems t occupy the same Thetorical posion in 2 Mace as doce “covenant of out fathers” in | Mace. How might thie rhetoric function? “Paros Pouriein” ar Artes AND “Touasson” ay Jenesatsae To my knowiedge, no one has looked into the suggestive parallels provided by events in Athens in #11 and 404 nce. at which times appeals to paris pala, or the “ancestral constitution,” hecame pop ular” After the devastating failure of the Sicilian expedition in 413, ‘murdered Sion and is Ju a Matai. Sa te nb Hora ‘ge an epee and bee heh ps (1-7) PSA Roc on te Sil Type tnd ea gy fhe Hathoean Fay mm, "te 1 Mace 220s re paral oa he nance” (gy ep Haar ir oy a 38 cme of a Joh Pa Tees cite ea enod” but he ‘pi Tae inthe Mab er See is Ih Rg and Hapa: Ses dna Hy (Sei: Sheed cane re, 109) HST Ey meno106 sax Nowa ‘soy Athens was as vulnerable as it had been at any time since the Persian wars. In the wake of this defeat, a party arose and tempted to take power in Athens by appeaing to dhe “ancestral ‘onstituton,” a station similar to the Maccabees! move to power with a “waditionals shetorie when Jerusalem was laid low by Antiochus in 169/8 mx. The difference with the Athenian case is that we possess explicit etiqus of the use of the rhetoric of ances tral trations.” | ince the inception of democracy in Athens under the guidance of Clithenes in 508 1.61, Athens had experienced great prosper- iy, becoming the most powerful state inthe Greck world. By the lime ofthe Peace of Niias (21-413 mc), however, ses to Sparta and its alls during the course ofthe Peloponnesian War had ser fously damaged the infastractare and economy of Athens, depleted its manpower, and put the democratic leaders in peril” After the of Athenians, “the Four murdered leading supporters of the democracy and. attempted to take power under the banner of preserving the ances teal consition Although they gained contol in Athens fora brief period, the Four Hundred were defeated in 410 mst, but their ‘opposition, the supporters of democracy, had taken up thei ttm he coe of 404 nc. in rater rent context, The Hg is Ded, 218. Te Se are thea of he pr ind ae ont 1 The lv sce soe ae Ther 1-29 al i oe on 29-3, atsbued Yo Are. or more deaied enon of the epee ef ‘isenian hss eI Hcy, Tr Ue ff ay (New Yar Viking Pres 1973) 3430: Marin Oud Pa fyi Sty he Set of lm Suey nia Fi Cay ds (Rese Unt a Calis Mos, {339-11 and ener Tart Reber: den Tra. The da ‘Trai 1 Wei Tg (Piet: Ponca aera Pe, 199) C10 Fe ‘lr ‘iw ee Alder Fas The Aa Cm ow Se i Pop Nutr d bal gf ae We amy Bie anon Regs Shape a Oth general comon in Ath hs in ee Daal Kagan, Th a se tha kara NY Coro neray Br, Vt 10-1 The dim Contin prec te var plats he dat ht rene inthe alee Fos Hane. One seen she pop fot ‘erwowing the denracy conan an expat appeal tos mplon, von (ey Cs 29.5) On ota Fe ctrl bac tt te ae teat By rele the Engage he pope Ti we en Wp Heth ery "prec ho heting 2 Coe ef ea rl 1 teu to he fam, poms a mansion he so {Sado they Fo Pipa Sey 701 Te reg ater deed in Tmeyer RO 6 rr th leroy of Matai’ ai, NMAGeAMEES AND JUDEAN sumrroRKG 7 nology,” and a debate ensued between competing noions of pais pla. The dispute is most ceatly testified in a speech of the con temporary sophist Thrasymachs of Chakedos, who thought both sides misconstrued and misused the appeal to ancestral tradition. He laments, “There is an uproar over the ancestral eonsitution(apiog sohaeia), which is in fact easy to understand an which all citizens hhave in common,” ‘This debate about the ancesual constitution at Athens continued alter the fll ofthe Four Hundred. Thus when another group of ‘Athenians, “the Thiry,” atempted to take power after Athens inal surrender to Sparta in 404 nx, Aviole describes them as “pre- tending to be administering the ancestral constitution (epooexmbvi0 Suixew sv spiov solely. They alkered laws “as though restor ing and clarifying the constitution (ag éxavopQotvees xab oxovees enfin cy nse)” when actually dey were belngextemnely innovative.” The accusation that the Thirty were “pretending” sug- sets thatthe democrats had quite different idea of the ancestral ‘constitution. Both sides thus laid claim to the ancestral traditions, bout as far as we can tell, the “oligarchs” the “democrats,” and the “moderates” were proposing new and diferent forms of life under the guise of ancestral tradition as they tied to take control of a ‘weakened Athenian goverament.” What this Athenian example shows ‘sis that appeals to ancestral wadtions need not indicat the stability The Ge ret pao yh gps le tp iy pg noy edict erence lata a Be pee eae ESSE Re ce Wen Sh nba on Ba SS wt Oa ak ple ie 7 smn Cat 58.2 The prc ode eve th eg he Thiny is ena Fr god dann he pens me Bae Rien, Tr Tho “gy aca: Cee He 7 "st we tink ee date an act te ith centary, we shold ee that vn 4 tery the ely Helene psn. ey eo [eft sved titra we. Wh eno Par oe ens fen, be wan Chr a “rere snc entation ‘hap saa) dpa Sey 10463, oy a tach 1, ‘Sle "democsy" Demet "rotr™ wa far fen that ih cea Ink ee Grey em Te Hen ‘ei (rey: Cnet af Cao Pe 1980) 40° Thee, ema ks bare Aen Cs th ac tn pect snr wef te crease dns apy os tach fhe las awash Aan .108 sew soso of the trations; such appeals can, and in fact often do, point to the tidy of the tractions find this situation tobe an interesting parallel to the Maccabees we of “the covenant of the fathers.” In both cases, the shetrie of Ancestral trations finetios a8 4 means to acquire power and legit Jmate auboriy. When Athens was vulnerable, diferent groups in the city ted to implement their political views by calling ther pl forms returns to the ancesteal laws. Doing 40 helped to justly the sometimes violent suppression of eppesing viewpoint. The Maccabees" appeal to “the covenant of the fathers” allowed them to cast their ‘own political postion as ancestral law and, ithe Maceabean Hteratre is to be believed, legitimated the Maccabees! murder of many of thee ove counteymen, scorned as “lawless men sho hate their own nation” juoobves rb vos aeav dvBpes mapdvoyoe, 1 Mace. 11:21)" The Athenian example is particularly weeul because in that case we possess the rivaling claims to pubis pace that reveal the term's mbiguity an hence its urefuness for would-be upstart ruler.” The Maccabean lierature, unsurprisingly, docs not preserve akeradive viewpoints, but it is very probable that the Maccabees" we of covenant ofthe thers” and the ike spurred a similar debate, make ing the definition of Judaism even more of a bone of contention, ns efecting the rise and proliferation of sectarianism.” But that is a sory for another day. [hope I have been able to highlight the many similarities besween 1° Maccabees and others who struggled for supremacy in Jerusalem. With Jerusalem in turmoil, a priest goes out of the city ‘and forms an army, making war on foreigners and fellow Judean alle in an ° Tepe“ men” were not Kd bt for examples se Mane 224,244 5561, and "Se Tabet Rr db Tia 6-2. > Ghee yout ler ea hap rn Hengelo conde usin nd ‘ay i ne etn that the Macaean epee ros sa sane Foa aaron the aw (he aplogeialy igi wading of he Tee) that eo“ onerous 30, The il ile aed io ced cst he cy wen of Jour wee very tach spa AGOAMESS AND JUDEAN RiHFORIC hoo tempt to take Jeruslem. Upon his death, his son takes over his nilitary forees and, afer taking the city, completely rebuiling the inner sanctuary, and creating a new festival, begins forming alliances ith foreign powers” This raising of armed forces, alteration of cul tic practice, and cultivation of alliances with foreigners make the “Maccabees lok lest like stubbom defenders of a fixed ancestral law and more like an ambitions family strugeing to gain authority in the temple by a variety of strategies. The Maccabees did, however, ‘aim to be preserving ancestral traditions, but these ancestral tr lions, this “Jodaion,” was a part of their power stroggle; i¢fane- tioned as a too fr leytimating these wsurpers of the ancestral high priesthood" This “Judas” was an aserton, and its characteristics ‘were open to debate, a situation not unlike the patos pia con- troversy in Athens in the late fih century mo ‘Shaye Cohen focises on 2 Mac's term “Judaism” (looSaioui) ‘asa watershed moment i the sef understanding of Jews. He writes: ven if Judean" aay etaine it eic meaning, in the Hasan pod common mode of worship and common way of Iie became Imuch more important in the new deiiton of Joean/ Je» It was "his Haumonean rede of Jain tha permite Joep at Ue tt ofthe fist century cr. to sate thatthe cotton eiablshed by Moss was at only agra nation, a "birth" —bat ao “a choiee in the manner of Ie John Collins i easy corect to eritique Coben and angue that dere ‘was an established Judean way of le long before 2 Mace intro- duces the term “Judaism. "© What needs to be pushed isthe way in which these authors construct their particular aon of “Judaism” one gay ns mat acts Gas amen ee She racecar eens Sepa cene ner a haat rane Saat se a ete ee a ae ae a tirer a enin te re eerie ESS nsarecieaeeee Soe ee Ha ayho unr Nowcam and “covenant of our fathers” and what work these terms accom plik! The authors of the Maccabean literature had a particular ia of just what the ancestal practices should be (or better, should hae been), and the author of 2 Mace called his version of that set of practices “Judaism "There is novation going on here that tends to be lot when discussions bringin opposing terms like Jorch and Helms, censeatce and ier, ood and rgfem.® Even adopting 2 Macc’s own rhetoric and easing the discussion in terms of Judeans resting Greek customs obscures the creative aspets of what the authors of the Maecabean teraire were doing? I submit that this process of continuous innovation and perpetwal “reinvention” of Judaism is easier to see when we read the Maccabees a just another ‘in a Tne of families contending for power ‘This is not to say that we should consider 1 and 2 Mace “mere ori” Far from it These works are extraordinarily powerfl and Persuasive and in te hands of Jospehus, 1 Mace came to be a tool for understanding the Judean confit with Rome in the late fst century Ga All three document (I and 2 Mace and Joseph) have ‘ome to be tools for understanding many other confics thoughout Le rather han saying the Maa” prnn was o defend whatever he sce ls weed we sea 2 he ance ncisos wee wha ‘rice othe so pans othe ct atte sare “igo comtoce ad deed by erin gee Bema ce" Maca mr se ha iw 3 Cree Resear) Te fa ft sD a Me, 139 May hang He have lll cers ecg fe Bera Sais wie pion he To a ae re ‘hen abuso wih a ewck. cnr fo ha ef he Masten be ‘enh tn apps tad opel al sale pgs Themaces pope he trae norton, Th i of th Boke bes ‘tes the ater talc wach hs vey at tthe eran i ‘espn Bu to mrt te eating way of the Toy want tikes his aon apinn ei alee above Speen fe hi ok 1 Ghne a, anger ese er dy am tae et rr the Tora Fon Bi Lat he Mara ame Pot el un (Nee a Shen Hn Wher ay i ln eae Feta of emerente”ewpor Martha Hoel hese he pet ‘tekemant pon fate nse Bika on Jaa sad Helen Te Fath Pot Ratio Meow snl D. NN ad ‘iy Raman (New Haven: Yale Unieray Pre 28 (98-2, Rajat mcs take ar tance The Joh Dh ah Gat Ro, 7 AGCABEES AND JUDEAN sumFORIC M1 westem history. Nor should we say that because the Maccabees? ie desire was to take power in Jerusalem, their motivations were not religious. To the contrary, the preceding discussion should high- light the fact that relationship of power, prestige, and police are the very substance of religion in antiquity” woul et oer dank to Jot J Caos a Dia Swan fr fe ‘wc o eater sero of he pp and tothe para ney cn 1's porn fis pe resent the Greco ama Lan tae Unive.