The Oxford History of the Biblical World (78 page)

Enemies of the Jews, knowing of their refusal to fight on the Sabbath, often launched their attacks on that very day. Imagine Bacchides’ surprise when his Sabbath sortie against Jonathan’s forces was answered by defensive actions by the Jews, who in this way succeeded in extricating themselves from what would otherwise have been sure defeat. This bold reinterpretation of the traditional understanding of biblical law was not accepted by all Jews; some undoubtedly judged it an arrogant power play by the
Maccabees. In their defense Jonathan, or his father Mattathias before him, could have argued that obedience to God’s law was intended to result in life, not death. Perhaps more forceful than the abstract theological argumentation was the interpretation of Maccabean victory, won at the price of self-defense on the Sabbath, as signifying divine approval for such activity. In any event, the main lines of later Jewish exegesis sided with the Maccabees and even went beyond their practice to allow for offensive attacks on the Sabbath. The seventh day, when Joshua and his forces stormed the city of Jericho, was identified with the Sabbath, providing the required biblical precedent. The Maccabean period thus saw the beginnings of this line of development, when questions arose not only about the substance of this interpretation but also the authority of Mattathias and his family to formulate and impose their interpretation on others. When in mid-year 159
BCE
the high priest Alcimus suffered a painful death, this seemed another sign that the Hasmoneans were charting a course in accordance with the divine will.

With Alcimus out of the way, Bacchides felt it safe to withdraw his strong military presence from Judea. Throughout most of the remainder of the decade an uneasy but largely uneventful peace prevailed between the Seleucids and the Hasmoneans. Curiously, Bacchides did nothing to secure a successor for Alcimus, and the office of high priest fell vacant for approximately seven years.

In 152 a challenge to Demetrius I arose in the person of Alexander Balas, whose claim to the Seleucid throne was buttressed by his claim to be a son of Antiochus IV. In the bidding that followed, Jonathan prospered and set an example for later Hasmoneans who found themselves in similar circumstances. Demetrius made the first bid for Jonathan’s support: the Jewish leader could legally assemble and equip an army, those held hostage in the Akra would be released (although the Akra itself would remain as a foreign garrison), and Jonathan would be recognized as leader of the Jews. Thus equipped, Jonathan was able to enter Jerusalem, rebuild its walls, and provide for new construction on the Temple Mount. Alexander Balas raised the ante by confirming everything Demetrius had offered plus naming Jonathan as high priest and one of the “king’s friends.” Jonathan readily assumed the high priesthood in the fall of 152, during the festival of Sukkot. Demetrius’s counteroffers were ineffectual, and his defeat by Alexander Balas two years later confirmed the validity of Jonathan’s appointment. The Hasmoneans, although priests, were not from the line of Zadok. In their defense it could be added that non-Zadokites had already served as high priests, so that Jonathan’s acceptance was not unprecedented. Nevertheless, it aroused opposition and may even have precipitated the development of one or more of the sectarian movements to be discussed below. Opponents of Jonathan who voiced their concerns to Alexander Balas received no support from the Seleucid monarch. Quite the opposite: he heaped additional honors on Jonathan, further solidifying his position as the leader of Judea.

Alexander Balas’s confidence in Jonathan was not misplaced, although it was several years before the Jewish leader had to demonstrate his loyalty. At that time Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, rose to challenge Alexander Balas. When the governor of the region deserted Alexander Balas in favor of this challenger, Jonathan and his brother Simon took the lead in inflicting a punishing defeat on him. By now Jonathan
was a “kinsman of the king,” several rungs higher up the royal ladder than his earlier rankings as one of the “king’s friends” and “first friend.”

But Alexander Balas’s days were numbered. Not long after Jonathan received the last batch of honors from his royal patron, Ptolemy VI intervened on behalf of Demetrius II, who was crowned as Seleucid king following the defeat of Alexander. Taking advantage of the uncertainty associated with such changes in leadership, Jonathan launched another attack on the Jerusalem Akra. Demetrius II was not about to allow this challenge to go unanswered, and he summoned Jonathan before him. Since neither side wished to risk a full-scale conflict at this time, they reached a compromise whereby the Akra remained in Seleucid hands and Jonathan retained most of his power over a newly enlarged Judea.

Although Jonathan showed himself as loyal to Demetrius as he had to his predecessor, the current monarch did not reciprocate with the generosity that had characterized Alexander’s dealings with the Jewish leader. Jonathan repaid Demetrius in kind by offering his full support to a rival claimant to the throne, Antiochus VI. This young son of Alexander Balas was championed by a man named Tryphon. Jonathan fought bravely on behalf of Antiochus and against Demetrius’s supporters, taking this opportunity to launch an expanded assault on the Akra. In Jonathan’s eyes, its continued existence was a major irritant.

Jonathan also used his increased power and prestige to enlarge the scope of his diplomatic activity. Not only did he take steps to ensure that his alliance with the Romans remained intact, but he also initiated official contacts with the Spartans, with whom he claimed a long kinship. Such a claim, although dubious, gives insight into the way Jonathan perceived the Jews in relation to other peoples of the ancient world.

Like many other regents before him, Tryphon aimed not so much to safeguard the throne for his young charge as to ascend it himself. Because he discerned that Jonathan would block such a move on his part, he lured the Jewish leader into a trap that resulted in the slaughter of his substantial bodyguard and his own capture. Leadership of the Jews now fell to Simon, the last remaining son of Mattathias. He ably parried every attempt by Tryphon to follow up his treachery with military success, but in the end Tryphon thwarted Simon’s attempts to gain his brother’s freedom. When Simon reluctantly accepted Tryphon’s offer to free Jonathan in return for ransom money and two of Jonathan’s sons, the disreputable Tryphon took all that Simon gave but refused to keep his part of the bargain. Soon after, Tryphon killed Jonathan on his way out of Judea.

These actions probably elevated Simon’s stature among his own people, some of whom declared him the new high priest. That status was later confirmed by Demetrius II, who also exempted the Jews from the payment of those taxes associated with subservience to the Syrian empire. For all practical purposes Demetrius had granted independence to his former Jewish subjects. Documents dated to this period, in the autumn of 142
BCE
and later, refer to Simon as high priest, commander, and chief of the Jews.

In general, the eight years of Simon’s leadership were positive and successful for the new Jewish state. Early on he succeeded in finally expelling foreign troops, foreign civilians, and their Jewish sympathizers from the Akra. When Demetrius II was sueceeded
by Antiochus VII, the latter left in place all of the provisions agreed to by his predecessor and even allowed the Jews to mint their own coins (a privilege later rescinded). But like several of his predecessors, Antiochus VII soon grew suspicious of the power of his Jewish allies; his moves against them were, however, countered by Simon and his sons Judas and John.

Simon, who had survived so much, was done in—along with his sons Judas and Matthias—by the treachery of one of his sons-in-law, named Ptolemy. Presumably Ptolemy, from whose perfidy only Simon’s other son John escaped, was driven by a desire to find favor with Antiochus VII. But it was John, succeeding Simon as high priest, who would lead his people through the final decades of the second century
BCE
.

John, also known as Hyrcanus, probably took action against Ptolemy as soon as possible. Such action was bound to be popular with most of the Jews. But Ptolemy had two formidable assets of his own: support of Antiochus VII and possession of Simon’s widow, John’s mother. John wisely sought to shore up his position by renewing his people’s alliance with the Romans. Antiochus VII, like Syrian monarchs since Antiochus III, was not overly impressed by Rome’s guarantees, and he laid siege to Jerusalem, which John and his followers were defending. The compromise that averted further bloodshed left Jerusalem and its defenders intact, but required the Jews to pay substantial tribute and reduced them to Seleucid subjects once more.

When Antiochus VII died while fighting on his eastern borders, John took the military initiative. Among his first steps was to eliminate the threat posed by the murderous Ptolemy, who was in control of Jericho and its environs. John’s success in this enterprise was bittersweet, since it came at the cost of his mother’s life and since he failed to capture Ptolemy. But at least Ptolemy no longer had a base of power in Judea. The throne now reverted to Demetrius II, whose weakness John exploited through an impressive series of victories in Moab, Samaria, and Idumea, to name only the most prominent territories he conquered. With respect to the Idumeans, John reportedly allowed them to become Jews, in which case they would be able to retain their place in the land. Circumcision would have been required of all Idumean males and would signify their acceptance of the monotheistic faith of Israel. Herod the Great, installed by the Romans about a century later as king of the Jews, could trace his family’s connections with Judaism to this event.

A rival claimant to the Seleucid throne, who took the name of Alexander, challenged Demetrius. Demetrius and Alexander each had the support of one of the feuding factions in Ptolemaic Egypt. But neither Alexander nor Demetrius could win the upper hand, and they both fell in rapid succession. Demetrius’s son ruled as Antiochus VIII for about a decade (ca. 123–113). As during the years when Demetrius and Alexander fought it out, John was generally left alone to continue his conquest of neighboring territories and to reap the benefits of his and his people’s labors. When a new king, Antiochus IX, arose to threaten this relative tranquility, John successfully appealed to the Romans, who issued a stern warning. As it was, Antiochus IX’s energies were more than taken up in conflict with his brother, who still reigned as Antiochus VIII. Perfecting a technique that had been profitably used by himself
and other Hasmoneans before, John Hyrcanus used this opportunity to further enlarge his already extensive territory.

The city of Samaria had thus far resisted conquest, although most of the surrounding land had earlier fallen into John’s hands. John judged this prize so significant that he entrusted the campaign against it to two of his sons, Antigonus and Aristobulus. The siege of Samaria was long and difficult. In response to an appeal from Samaria’s residents, Antiochus IX joined the battle, but to no avail. The Hasmonean capture of Samaria, near the end of John Hyrcanus’s long tenure, resulted in the city’s demolition. The thoroughness with which the Jewish forces carried out their task is reminiscent of the earlier Roman treatment of Carthage at the conclusion of the Third Punic War.

Much of the populace admired John and was grateful to him for the relative peace and prosperity he secured through his conquests and alliances. Although he may not have scrupulously observed Torah commands, he had established himself as leader of the Jewish religion, as well as of the Jewish people. His numerous building projects in and around Jerusalem are best understood in this light. Though he faced some internal opposition, we cannot be sure of its nature or of its seriousness. All and all, these were decades that could be remembered with nostalgia by later generations who had to endure notably deteriorated circumstances.

In common with the first generation of Hasmoneans, John bore an additional name, and he also bestowed such names on his sons. We know of three: Aristobulus, Antigonus, and Janneus. Unlike earlier appellations, these three are Greek. But since they appear to express sentiments completely at home in Israel’s monotheistic faith, we should not make too much of this linguistic distinction.

Aristobulus, more fully Judas Aristobulus I, succeeded his father, only to be followed shortly by his brother Alexander Janneus. Either Aristobulus or Janneus was the first Hasmonean to take for himself the title
king.
In either case, such a move was significant not only for its political implications, but also for its theological overtones. The restoration of a king on the throne in Jerusalem would evoke memories, fond and otherwise, of the distinctive relationship that God established with the house of David. Aristobulus was known to have initiated a new round of conquests that might have been aimed at further enlarging the boundaries of his kingdom to “biblical” proportions. But the historical sources also report that he was guilty of immense cruelty to members of his own family, his mother and brothers included. After only a year in power, death brought an end to this Hasmonean’s rule.

Aristobulus’s widow, Alexandra, bestowed the kingship on her brother-in-law Janneus, who in turn took her as his wife. Such a union accorded with the biblical practice of levirate marriage, whereby a brother married his childless sister-in-law in order to keep their line alive. Both documentary and numismatic evidence confirms that for at least part of his reign Janneus actively assumed the role of king with its attendant regalia such as the diadem. If he was not the first Hasmonean to mint his own coins, he was among the most prolific and astute producers of such numismatic materials.

But Janneus aimed too high when he sought to capture the major Phoenician city of Ptolemais. This attempt embroiled him in an intra-Egyptian family feud that threatened to undermine Janneus’s stature and credibility among his subjects. Only
the intervention of Egypt’s queen Cleopatra III saved the Jewish king from an inglorious and total defeat. In determining her course of action, Cleopatra is said to have followed the advice of Onias IV’s two sons. Onias had founded a Jewish temple at Leontopolis, and his family had established itself within the highest circles of Egyptian political life and had on this occasion chosen to aid the Hasmoneans, whom they might otherwise have regarded as rivals for the religious leadership of the Jewish people. Thwarted at Ptolemais, Janneus turned his attention elsewhere.