War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF

War and Peace in Early Jewish and
Christian Text and Interpretation
317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 317 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

CHAPTER 17
Violence, Apologetics, and Resistance: Hasmonaean

Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue
Torleif Elgvin
1 Introduction
In the first part of this paper, I try to reconstruct elements of Hasmonaean

theology, to understand how the Hasmonaeans supported their state-building
project by scripture and theological argument. In the second part, I analyse
relevant texts in 1 Maccabees, the best extant source text for pro-Hasmonaean
state ideology. Then I read Qumran texts as resistance texts, dialectic responses
to Hasmonaean ideology, state-building, and harsh and intractable autocracy.
Some non-Qumranic sources that reflect anti-Hasmonaean voices are also
introduced into the discussion, as well as Hasmonaean responses to critical
voices. The investigation concentrates on the period from the Maccabean
revolt to the takeover by Herod the Great, but I also look for a Nachleben of
memories and discussions from the Hasmonaean period in later sources.1
1 An earlier and shorter version of this paper was included in my article “Hasmonean State
Ideology, Wars, and Expansionism,” Encountering Violence in the Bible (ed. M. Zehnder,
H. Hagelia; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 52–67. It is a pleasure to dedicate this
contribution to my long-time friend and colleague Marty Abegg. Translations of Qumran
texts usually follow Accordance, Cf. Martin G. Abegg, Qumran Nonbiblical Manuscripts:
A New English Translation. based on the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New English Translation
by Micheal O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook (2nd ed.; San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). For the OT Apocrypha A New English Translation of the Septuagint
(ed. A. Pietersma, B.G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), of Psalms of Solomon
and Testament of Levi in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James C. Charlesworth;
2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985), 2: 651–70, 1: 788–95.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_018

320 Elgvin
2 Hasmonaean State-Building and Biblical Presuppositions
2.1 From Revolt in Judaea to a Large Israelite State

The Maccabean project started as a guerrilla revolt for Torah, temple, and
Israelite purity.2 It developed into a state-building project with an organized
army, territorial ambitions, and a military expansionist policy vis-à-vis the
surrounding nations.
The Hasmonaean expansion of territory implied ethnic cleansing: forced
conversion of Ituraeans in the north (104 BCE, Ant. 13.318–19), of the Idumaeans
in the south (around 100 BCE, Ant. 13.257–258, 13.395–97), and probably of all
Gentiles who remained in the conquered territories.3 This harsh policy cre-
ated anti-Jewish reactions among non-Jews in the ancient world. With the
military conquests of John Hyrcan (135–105 BCE), Aristobul (105–104 BCE),
and Alexander Yannai (103–76 BCE), an Israelite state was established that
matched the biblical accounts of the united kingdom—and, according to his-
torians and archaeologists—by far superseded the size of both the state (or
fiefdom) ruled by David and Solomon, and the northern and southern king-
doms of the ninth century BCE together.4 Such a remarkable achievement
after four hundred years of subjugation under world empires would lead to
messianic fervour in some circles, and to critical reflection in others.
Archaeological findings supplement Josephus’ reports on the expansion
of the Judaean state. Hasmonaean coins, miqwaot, pottery, stone vessels, and
ossuaries are among the markers of Jewish presence in the region. Textual5
2 1 Macc 2–5; 2 Macc 9; Josephus, Ant. 12.265–326.

3 Uzi Leibner, “The Origins of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the Second Temple Period:
Historical Sources and Archaeological Data” Zion 77 (2012), 437–70 (Hebrew), 468–69. “There
is no positive evidence of non-Jewish settlements within Hasmonean Galilee by the reign of
Alexander Yannai”: Danny Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee. The Evidence From
Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic
Society, forthcoming), ch. 9. Uzi Leibner doubts the historicity of Josephus’ account of con-
quest and conversion of the Ituraeans. This nation lived in the northern Golan, Hermon, and
the Lebanon valley, and no traces of Ituraean culture have been found in Hasmonaean ter-
ritory: Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. An Archaeological
Survey of the Eastern Galilee (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 321.
4 For a recent discussion of the maximum extension of the northern kingdom under the
Omrides of the ninth century, see Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology
and History of Northern Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 83–117.
5 Some rabbinic lists of Jewish settlements in Galilee and Golan are indicative of the borders
of the Hasmonaean state: “Walled Towns From the Time of Joshua bin Nun” (m.ʿArak. 9.2);
“Baraita of the Borders of Eretz-Israel” (t.Šeb. 4.14); and a list of the 24 priestly courses and

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue 321
and archaeological evidence suggest that most of lower and eastern Galilee and
of the Golan were Judaized already by Hyrcan,6 with the conquest of Bet
Shean in 108 BCE as his final great achievement (Ant. 10.3).7 Hellenistic sites
were destroyed and abandoned in the second half of the second century BCE.
Sites such as Yodefat, Zalmon, and Beersheba in Galilee were destroyed and
subsequently settled by Jews, in a Galilee and Golan more densely populated
than in any earlier period.8
Large-scale Hasmonaean investment in the north around 100 BCE can be
seen in the expansion of Gamla, the fortress of Sepphoris, the takeover of the
Hellenistic fortress at Qeren Naftali, the establishment of the towns Arbel and
Migdal, and the olive-oil industry documented at Gamla and other sites.9 The
large Hasmonaean port of Migdal served this thriving Jewish town of perhaps
4,000 people—possibly the capital of Galilee until the rebuilding of Sepphoris
by Antipas.10 The massive building of settlements can only be explained
their villages reconstructed from a piyyut by Kallir, cf. Josephus’ list of nineteen fortified
settlements in the Galilee during the first revolt, when Jewish Galilee was smaller in exten-
sion (War 2.580): Mordechai Aviam, “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the
Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation,” in
Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition (ed. J. Zangenberg,
H.W. Attridge, D.B. Martin; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 115–32. The Chronography
of Georgios Syncellos (eighth century CE) records the Hasmonaean conquest of three
Galilean sites not mentioned in Josephus’ reports of the Hasmonaean campaigns
(Philoteria, Tabor, Geba), sites likely conquered by Hyrcan in 108 BCE: Leibner, “The
Beginning of Jewish Settlement in the Galilee,” 443.
6 Leibner, “The Beginning of Jewish Settlement in the Galilee,” 468–69. Danny Syon uses
numismatic evidence to pinpoint the borders of Hasmonaean Galilee and Golan. He sug-
gests that Gamla had a substantial Jewish population already before Yannai overthrew
the local ruler Demetrios there around 80 BCE ( J.W. 1.103–106; Ant. 13.394). More than
300 coins of Hyrcanos suggest that Gamla was settled by Judaeans during his reign. Coins
minted by Aristobul are primarily found in Galilee and Golan, corroborating the reports
by Josephus that during his short reign Aristobulos acted mainly in the north (Ant. 13.318–
319): Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee, ch. 9.
7 Dan Barag, “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanos,” Israel Numismatic
Journal 12 (1992–3): 1–12.
8 Leibner, Settlement and History, 323–24. Josephus’ mention of 204 Jewish settlements
in Galilee (Life 235) is probably reliable: H. Ben-David, “Were There 204 Settlements in
Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62 (2011): 21–36.
9 Mordechai Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Galilee. 25 Years of Archaeological
Excavations and Surveys. Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods (Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press, 2004), 51–59.
10 Mordechai Aviam, “People, Land, Economy, and Belief in First-Century Galilee and Its
Origins: A Comprehensive Archaeological Synthesis,” in The Galilean Economy in the Time

322 Elgvin
as a state-initiated strategy. The new sites were settled primarily by Judaeans

and veterans from the Hasmonaean army, who remained loyal to the
Hasmonaeans and opposed Herod’s takeover in the north in 38 BCE (War
1.303.314–15; Ant. 14.414–417).11 Returnees from the diaspora (cf. Pss. Sol. 11) and
converted Gentiles may have played a role as well.12
2.2 Biblical Texts and the Hasmonaean State

Hasmonaean rulers and their supporters enlisted the Torah, the Prophets,
Davidic Psalms, and even Daniel as legitimation for their new state, a Judaea
with messianic pretentions. Scriptures combined with a belief in divine elec-
tion were used to legitimate a leadership that used an iron fist both against
external and internal threats.
Some scriptural texts would be attractive as hermeneutical keys to the
upheavals of the second century BCE. Early Davidic psalms and prophetic texts
stress the independent and righteous rule of the Davidic king in his own land
(Mic 5:3–5), and some texts portray the Davidic king ruling over a larger terri-
tory with peoples paying homage to him (Pss 2:8–11; 89:26 [89:25]).
In exilic and postexilic texts, the Davidic kingdom is transformed into an
empire that may transcend normal limitations: ‫ץ‬‎ ‫(עד) אספי אר‬, originally under-
stood as “(to) the borders of the land” (Ps 2:8; Mic 5:3),13 could now be read “to
the ends of the earth” (Ps 72:8–11; Zech 9:10). ‫כל הארץ‬, originally read as “all the
land”14 would, in later tradition, be read in terms of a messianic rule over “all the
earth.”15 “From the sea to the sea” and “from the River (Euphrates) to the sea,”
originally read as “from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea/the Gulf of Aqaba,”
of Jesus (ed. D.A. Fiensy, R.K. Hawkins; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 5–48.
The last digging seasons have revealed that there was a small (gentilic) village at Migdal
from the third century BCE (personal communication from Mordechai Aviam).
11 Leibner, “The Beginning of Jewish Settlement in the Galilee,” 469.
12 In contrast to Leibner, Milton Moreland sees a Judaization of Ituraeans and other pagan
inhabitants in the north: “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman
Periods: Probes into the Archaeoloical and Literary Evidence,” in Zangenberg, Attridge,
and Martin, eds., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 133–59, (150–59).
13 Mic 5:4–5 demonstrates that the Davidic king would guard and rule his own land. Most
Bible translations, however, render v. 3 “to the ends of the earth.”
14 In the royal Psalm 45, cf. v. 17 (16) “princes in all the land,” and further on King Josiah’s
actions in “all the land of Israel” (2 Chron 34:7). Unless otherwise indicated, translations
of biblical texts are my own.
15 Cf. Ps 110:5 “He will strike rulers throughout the wide earth” and Magne Sæbø, “Vom
Grossreich zum Weltreich. Erwägungen zu Pss. lxxii 8, lxxxix 26; Sach. ix 10b,” VT 28 (1978):
83–91. As God is king of “all the earth” (Ps 47:3, 8 [47:2, 7], cf. Isa 6:3), so will his Davidic

and “from Eufrat to the Mediterranean,” could now be interpreted as terms

for a coming Davidic empire in the image of the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian or
Persian empires (Amos 8:12, Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10; cf. Ps 89:26 [89:25]).
A restorative eschatology that saw the Hasmonaeans as fulfilling scriptural
promises of a Davidic empire would be close at hand for their supporters. For
voices critical to the new rulers, texts such as Isa 11; 24–27; Amos 9; and Dan
7–12 would support a more apocalyptic theology and a postponement of the
messianic kingdom to the eschaton.16
The high priests of the Hellenistic period paved the way for Hasmonaean
priests to promote themselves as rulers of the people. For generations the high
priest was both the civil and the religious leader of the Judaean province.17
This enabled Ben Sira to connect civil or royal prerogatives with the priestly
line ruling at his time.18 Furthermore, Ben Sira’s eschatological poem on Zion
(ch. 36) does not mention a Davidic ruler at all, only the coming renewal of
viceroy be. 4QMessianic Apocalypse asserts that “he]aven and earth shall obey his mes-
siah” (4Q521 2 ii 1).
16 The exilic texts Isa 11:6–10 and Amos 9:11–15 describe a restored Davidic kingdom with
terminology that could suggest some kind of new creation, even if the language in these
passages was originally symbolic.
17 James C. VanderKam argues convincingly that the high priests from 320 (Onias I) to 200
BCE (Simon II) functioned as political leaders of the Judaeans: From Joshua to Caiaphas.
High Priests after the Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2004), 122–57. According to Armin
Lange, the expanded proto-Masoretic recension of Jeremiah may reflect third century
criticism of the Oniads as ruling high priests: Armin Lange, “The Covenant with the
Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in “Go Out and Study the Land”
( Judges 18:2). Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed.
A.M. Meir, J. Magness, L.H. Schiffman; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–116, esp. 100–5.
18 Sirach 50:1–4 portrays the high priest Simon acting as the leader of the people. Cf. William
Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians. Biblical and Historical Studies (London:
T&T Clark, 2003), 43–50. According to Sir 45:24–26, the covenant with Aaron is greater
than that with David. The Hebrew version of v. 25 limits the Davidic promise to Solomon,
while the covenant with Aaron is lasting: “And there is also a covenant with David, son
of Isai, from the tribe of Judah; the inheritance of a man [i.e. David] is to his son alone,
the inheritance of Aaron is also to his seed” (MS B, translation Horbury); Greek “an
inheritance of the king for son from son only.” The panegyric praise of Simon in ch. 50
hardly allows for a Davidic ruler alongside the priest. However, the section on David and
Solomon in Ben Sira’s praise of the fathers could suggest a possible future fulfillment of
Davidic promises: “The Lord . . . exalted his [i.e. David’s] horn for ever; he gave him a royal
covenant and a glorious throne in Israel . . . But the Lord would not go back on his mercy,
or undo any of his words, he would not obliterate the issue of his elect, nor destroy the
stock of the man who loved him; and he granted a remnant to Jacob, and to David a root
springing from him” (Sir 47:11, 22).

324 Elgvin
Jerusalem and the temple. The same is true for the concluding Zion hymn in
the contemporary book of Tobit (13:8–17).19 Ruling priests who downplayed the
hope of a Davidic messiah were, therefore, no novum with the Hasmonaeans.
The memory of the Oniads ruling the province of Judaea made it easier for gov-
erning Hasmonaean priests to implement harsh measures against dissidents.
3 Pro-Hasmonaean Voices
Probably written in the beginning of Yannai’s rule, 1 Maccabees is a consistent

apologia for the Hasmonaeans as elect deliverers of the Judaean nation, They
are the “men to whom was given salvation to Israel by their hand” (1 Macc
5:62),20 as David was in his time.
By their deeds they have established themselves both as rulers and the legit-
imate high priests of Israel. 1 Macc 2:24–28 sets Phinehas’ zeal for the purity of
Israel as a paradigmatic ideal. By repeating the deeds of “Phinehas our father”
(2:54), Matthatias and his sons earn God’s favour: “and he became zealous in
the law as Phinehas had done” (2:26). Through their actions, the Maccabees
restored the righteousness and independence of Israel. The covenant of
Phinehas, which gave legitimacy to the high priesthood of the house of Zadok,
is superseded by the new covenant with the house of the Hasmonaeans.21
3.1 The Testimony of Ben Sira, 190 BCE and 130 BCE
The Hebrew version of Sir 50 (a text likely known by the author of 1 Maccabees)
concludes with an eulogy of the Zadokite high priest Simon:22 “May his mercy
be with Simon and uphold in him the covenant of Phinehas; so that it never
will be cut off from him, and may his offspring be as the days of heaven”
19 While Tobit (written around 200 BCE) likely has an Eastern Diaspora background, the
added Zion hymn with its address to Zion represents a novum in Hebrew psalmody, orig-
inating in Judaea or Jerusalem; see Torleif Elgvin and Michaela Hallermayer, “Schøyen
ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit-Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006): 451–61, esp. 460.
20 An echo of 2 Sam 2:17, in which deliverance is entrusted to David: Jonathan Goldstein,
“How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” in Judaisms
and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987), 97–109, esp. 80.
21 John J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas, the Bible, and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122
(2003): 3–22, esp. 12–13; Horbury, Messianism, 48–50.
22 Either Simon II (ca. 200 BCE) or, more probably, Simon I, (early third century BCE); thus
VanderKam, From Joshua, 137–154. This high priest was responsible for fortifying the city
and improving its water sources—tasks of a civil leader (Sir 50:3–4).

(50:24 MS B, translation mine). 1 Maccabees 2:24–28, 54 (see above), as well as

the eulogies of the Hasmonaeans Judah and Simon (1 Macc 3:3–9; 14:4–15),
and the decree on Simon’s powers in 140 BCE (1 Macc 14:41–47, see below),
all demonstrate that the Hasmonaeans are seen as the new hereditary high-
priestly line. Josephus’ statement that Judah already had taken hold of the
high-priestly office might well be historically plausible (Ant. 12.414.419.434; on
the other hand, 20.237–38 seems to contradict a high priesthood for Judah).23
When the Greek version of Sirach came into being around 130 BCE, the eulogy
of the pre-Maccabean high priest Simon was omitted. This textual change
reflects the Hasmonaean take-over of the high priesthood. The translation was
made in Ptolemaic Egypt, but even in Egypt one needed to acquiesce to the
new reality in Jerusalem. The temple in Heliopolis, established by the Zadokite
Onias IV around 170 BCE was not mentioned (Ant. 13.72; J.W. 7.426–432).
3.2 Eulogies on Judah and Simon

The Hasmonaeans saw themselves as an integral part of biblical history, walk-
ing in the footsteps of David and Solomon. This is evidenced in two poetic
eulogies honouring Judah and Simon after their deaths (1 Macc 3:3–9; 14:4–15),
which contain a number of echoes or allusions to biblical texts on (the son
of ) David and the future Davidic kingdom.24 Here these anointed priestly rul-
ers were hailed as small messiahs, bringing to some kind of fulfilment Davidic
prophecies from the Bible as well as general prophecies on God’s turning the
23 Wise reconstructs the name Judah before Jonathan and Simon in a list of high priests
recorded around 100 BCE in 4QpsDanc (4Q245 1 i 10): “Judah, Jon]athan, Simon.” Judah
acted as de facto high priest when he dedicated the temple and reorganized priestly ser-
vice: Michael O. Wise, “4Q245 (psDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,”
DSD 12 (2005): 313–62.
24 These two poems are not discussed by Gerbern S. Oegema, who states, “[f]rom the
Maccabeans no messianic expectations have been handed down to us”: Oegema,
The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 73. Cf. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York, NY: Doubleday,
1976), 244, 490–91: “the abundant echoes of prophecies in the poem here are intended to
suggest to the Jewish reader that the age of fulfilment of the prophesies of Israel’s glory
had begun in the years of Simon’s rule” (490); and Horbury’s remark, “The rulers thus
have some of the glamour of what could be called in a broad sense a fulfilled messianism”
(Messianism, 49).

326 Elgvin
fate of his people.25 Key words recur from Gen 49:9; 1 Sam 17:5, 38; 1 Kgs 5:3–5;
8:13; Isa 11:4; Mic 4:4; 5:3–5; Zech 9:10; Pss 2:10; 45:18 [45:17]; 72:4, 17–19; 110:5–6.
When Judah “resembled a lion in his works and was like a whelp roaring in
the hunt” (1 Macc 3:4)—this refers to Gen 49:9, “Judah is a lion’s whelp . . . going
up from the prey.”26 Judah the Maccabee is thus the Lion of Judah of his time.
The transition from a ruler of the tribe of Judah in Gen 49:8–12 to the warrior
Judah the Maccabee is easily done, his acts align with the fighter envisioned in
Gen 49:8–9. The proclamations that “his memory will be a blessing for ever,”
“his name was known to the ends of the earth,” (1 Macc 3:7.9) bring to mind the
Solomonic Ps 72: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to
the ends of the earth” (v. 8), “May his name endure forever, his fame continue as
long as the sun. May all nations be blessed in him” (v. 17). “He gathered together
those who were lost” (1 Macc 3:9) would recall prophecies of the ingathering
of the dispersed ones (Ezek 34:12–13; 36:24; Mic 4:6). The description of Judah’s
armour (1 Macc 3:3) recalls that of Goliath, Saul, and David (1 Sam 17:5.38).
When Simon made Joppe “an entrance way to the islands of the sea . . . and
widened the borders of his nation” (1 Macc 14:5–6), he fulfilled prophecies of
the future Davidic rule reaching “from the sea to the sea” and “from the River
to the sea,” (Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10; cf. Ps 89:26 [89:25], see above). “They were farm-
ing their land in peace,” “everyone sat under their own vine and their own
fig tree,” “he made peace in the land” (1 Macc 14:8.11.12) allude to Mic 4:4 “they
shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one
shall make them afraid,” and the Davidic prophecy of Mic 5:4–5 “And they shall
live secure, for he shall be great to the borders of the land; and he is peace,”
cf. also Ezek 34:27 “The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth
shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil.” For “a person fight-
ing them disappeared in the land, and the kings were crushed in those days”
(1 Macc 14:13), cf. Ps 2:9 “You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them
in pieces like a potter’s vessel; 110:2.5 “Rule in the midst of your foes . . . The Lord
is at your right hand, he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.” “His glorious
name was renowned to the end of the earth” (1 Macc 14:10) recalls Ps 72:8, and
“he supported all the humble among his people” (1 Macc 14:14) the words of
Isa 11:4 “with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for
25 Goldstein notes that the expression used in 1 Macc 13:41, “the yoke of the gentiles was
lifted from Israel,” sees the liberation from the Seleucid empire, the latter-day Assyria by
the hand of Simon, as fulfilment of Isa 10:27; 14:25: “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees
Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” 77.
26 Translation of biblical passages in the following are adapted from NRSV.

the meek of the earth”. When Simon “glorified the holy places and multiplied
the vessels of the holy places” (1 Macc 14:15), this brings to mind David’s
instructions to Solomon on the temple equipment in 1 Chron 28:11–18, and the
listing of the temple vessels in Ezr 1:7–10.
From Jonathan onwards, the Hasmonaean rulers occupied the double office
of high priest and civil leader.27 Psalm 110 with its priestly Son of David would
be a natural reference text for the supporters of the Hasmonaeans. When the
eulogy of Simon praises him for “crushing the power of the kings” (1 Macc
14:13), this could echo Ps 110:5–6, “He [God] will strike kings on the day of his
wrath . . . he [the king] will strike leaders throughout the land.” When Judah
“caused bitterness to many kings” (1 Macc 3:7), the eulogy probably alluded to
royal psalms such as Pss 2:1–4, 10–12; 110:1–2, 5–6.
These two laudatory poems probably existed before their present literary
context: in their poetic form they stand out from the surrounding prosaic
story-line, and they are more expressed in their allusions to biblical passages
than the rest of 1 Maccabees. The poem on Judah may have been written dur-
ing the rule of Jonathan or Simon (160–135 BCE), serving as legitimation for the
continued rule of his brothers.
Another indication that the Hasmonaeans incorporated Davidic pre-
rogatives is found in the repeated referral to “Judah and his brothers” in 1–2
Maccabees.28 This phrase consciously recalls the same form of reference in
Genesis (37:26; 38:1; 44:14, cf. Gen 49:8; 1 Chron 5:2) which sets the patriarch
Judah (David’s ancestor) apart as the leader of Israel.
Together these texts suggest that Hasmonaean reign was connected to
Davidic texts already before Aristobul I and Yannai took the title of king from
105 BCE. For the Hasmonaeans and their supporters, the realized eschatol-
ogy evident in the laudatory poems did not exclude a more comprehensive
future fulfilment of the prophecies; Simon (and implicitly his descendants)
would be high priest and civil leader perpetually only “until a faithful prophet
would arise,” a conditional clause (1 Macc 14:41; see below). The Hasmonaeans
and their reign were probably seen as a nucleus of an awaited messianic
kingdom.
27 The first two generations did not take the title king. This could have been seen as a prov-
ocation both by the Seleucids and Judaean opponents. Cf. Mic 4:6–8, which foresees a
restored rule from Zion and ingathering of the dispersed, but with the Lord as the king of
his people.
28 1 Macc 3:25, 42; 4:36, 59; 5:10, 61, 63, 65; 7:6, 10, 27; cf. 1 Macc 8:20; 2 Macc 2:19 “Judah the
Maccabee and his brothers.”

328 Elgvin
3.3 Wars, Territorial Expansion, and the Prayer for King Jonathan
The territorial expansion of the Judaean state under Hyrcan, Aristobul, and
Yannai would understandably have been interpreted by many Judaeans as a
sign of the messianic age. The inclusion of the Idumeans and Itureans into the
Jewish commonwealth would have brought to mind texts such as Am 9:12, Isa
2:1–4, and Zeph 3:9, on the inclusion of Edom and other neighbouring peo-
ples in the Israelite faith and commonwealth. Hyrcan’s razing to the ground
of the Samaritan city of Shechem and the temple on Mount Gerizim, some
time between 130 and 108 BCE,29 would easily be connected to texts that fea-
tured the son of David’s victory over the enemies of God’s people (Pss 2; 110;
Mic 5:1–5).
The Prayer for King Jonathan (Yannai’s Hebrew name)—strangely enough
preserved in a Qumran document (4Q448)—testifies to messianic connota-
tions that were connected to the Hasmonaean kingdom.
Awake, O Holy One, for king Jonathan and all the congregation of your
people Israel, who is dispersed to the four winds of heaven. Let peace
be on all of them and on your kingdom! May your name be blessed! For
you love Is[rael]30 from morning until evening [ ] Come near [ ] and visit
them for a blessing [ ] by your name that is called upon [ ] kingdom to
be blessed [ ] to complete his wars [ ] Jonathan and all your people [ ]
to come near
The theme of “God with us and the king” that penetrates this prayer echoes
biblical passages about Solomon.31 The term ‫ ממלכה‬is used for God’s kingdom
in the first stanza and probably for the kingdom of Jonathan in the second. This
text sees Yannai’s wars, territorial expansion, and ingathering of the exiles as
fulfilment of biblical promises such as Ezek 34:12–13; Mic 5:3–5; Zech 2:10–14.32
29 Josephus, Ant. 13.254–256; J.W. 1.62–63.

30 I choose to translate ‘Is[rael]’ although the text uses samek, not sin. A meaningful alterna-
tive is hard to find. Translation mine.
31 For ‫ וכל קהל עמכ ישראל‬in 4Q448 2 3–4 and the repeated use of ‫ברך‬, cf. 1 Kgs 8:14 (on
Solomon), ‫ויסב המלך את פניו ויברך את כל קהל ישראל‬, “The king turned around and
blessed all the assembly of Israel.” See also 1 Kgs 2:45, ‫והמלך שלמה ברוך וכסא דוד יהיה‬
‫נכון לפני יהוהעד עולם‬, “But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall
be established before the Lord forever,” and 1 Kgs 5:4 (4:24) “he had peace on all sides.”
32 The reference to the assembly of Israel spread with the four winds of heaven connects
Jonathan with the ingathering of the exiles from the ‘north’ (Babel and Persia), cf. Zech
2:10 “Up, up! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you abroad

In hymnic phrases reminiscent of 4Q448, Pss. Sol. 11 describes the return

of the dispersed from the north in the early first century BCE. Different from
other psalms in this collection, this hymn does not signal any criticism of the
Jewish rulers of the land. Pss. Sol 11 can be brought in dialogue with the large
number of Jewish settlements in Galilee and Golan from this period, and sug-
gests that also returnees from the Diaspora settled in the north.
4 Sectarian Resistance Texts
4.1 The Yaḥad and the Hasmonaean Entity

To the Wirkungsgeschichte of Hasmonaean messianism and harsh rule belongs
the contrasting messianism and alternative resistance theology of the Yaḥad,
an opposition group that one might identify sociologically as a small commu-
nity, distinct from but also in conversation with the “great cultural and reli-
gious centers from which it evolves,” constituted by the present temple and the
ruling circles.33
The Yaḥad was a non-violent opposition group that postponed the divinely
ordained judgement on their enemies to the end-time. This perspective is
clearly outlined in texts such as the War Scroll (1QM) and Isaiah pesharim
(4QpIsaa–e [4Q161–4Q165]). The exhortation to hate the Sons of Darkness was
intended as admonition to strengthen internal cohesion,34 not as an exhorta-
tion to take up arms or start a guerrilla movement against Hasmonaean rulers.
like the four winds of heaven, says the Lord.” Zech 2:10–11 refers to Zion, and col. I of
4Q448 is indeed a Zion psalm.
33 Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development
for The Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 47–51, 274–75. Oegema states:
“There might be an analogy between the Hasmonaean priest-kings and the [Qumran]
eschatological ‘Messiahs’ from Aaron and Israel” (The Anointed, 100). I see the Yaḥad as
an elite group within a larger Essene movement, originating in the mid-second century
and settling Qumran some time in the first century BCE (see T. Elgvin, “The Yahad Is
More Than Qumran,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins; New Light on a Forgotten Connection
(ed. G. Boccacini; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 273–79.
34 Årstein Justnes, “Divine Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Encountering Violence in the
Bible, 178–193. A biblical analogy is found in the texts of holy war in early Israel which, to
a large extent, contained rhetorical language and which were edited in relatively peace-
ful seventh cent. Judah, and also the exilic period. The stories may preserve memories of
northern Israelite expansion up to the mid ninth century (Finkelstein, Forgotten Kingdom,
21–22, 32–36, 52–61, 81–117), possibly stretching back to the total destruction of Hazor in
the mid-thirteenth century possibly caused by proto-Israelites (cf. Josh 11:10–13).

330 Elgvin
But a number of Yaḥad texts reflect theological and exegetical responses to the
presence and propaganda of Hasmonaean rulers.35
The ultimate powers given to Simon by a Judaean assembly in 140 BCE
would only be needed if there already existed anti-Hasmonaean groups such
as the Yaḥad. 1 Macc 14:41–47 (cf. Ant. 13.213) gives the following account:
The Judeans and the priests were pleased that Simon would be their
leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet would arise,
and that he would be commander over them . . . over the country and
over the armed forces and over the fortresses, and that the responsibil-
ity would be upon him concerning the holy places, and that he would
be obeyed by all and that all documents in the country would be written
in his name . . . And no one of the people or the priests will be able to set
aside any of these resolutions or to dispute anything to be said by him or
to convoke a gathering in the country without him . . . But whoever acts
against or sets aside any of these resolutions shall be culpable . . . And
Simon accepted and was pleased to be high priest and to be commander
and ethnarch of the Judeans and priests and to protect all of them.
This chronicle was written before the violent divisions within the people under
Yannai in the first decade of the first century BCE. The author had likely not
witnessed Yannai’s slaying of tens of thousands of his opponents (Ant. 13.372–
376, 379–383). However, 1 Maccabees repeatedly refers to opponents of the
Hasmonaeans as “impious and lawless men” who allied themselves with exter-
nal enemies (1 Macc 7:23–24; 9:23–26, 73; 10:14, 61). Dissenting voices were not
“of the seed of those men to whom was given salvation to Israel by their hand”
(1 Macc 5:62). Tough measures against dissenters were thus qualified as sancti-
fied violence; that is, “violence (performed by human agents) that is believed
to be sanctioned and/or required by God.”36
35 Echoes in sectarian texts of Simon’s edict quoted in 1 Macc 14:41–45 demonstrate
that the origin of the Yaḥad should be sought not later than the rule of Simon, pace
Michael O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of his Movement,”
JBL 122 (2003): 53–87; John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community. The Sectarian
Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 103–21.
36 Alex P. Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschato
logical Imagination,” in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and
Christianity (ed. R.S. Boustan, A.P. Jassen, C.J. Roetzel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 13–44, (15, n. 7).

4.2 The Wicked Priest and Wicked Rulers

The Yaḥad’s critique against the Wicked Priest (an acronym either for
Jonathan, Simon, or a sequence of Hasmonaean rulers) addressed the mis-
use of wealth, a wicked, divisive, and violent leadership, and disobedience to
halakhic rules of purity. 1QpHab 8:8–9 accepts that the Wicked Priest was
called by the name of truth when he rose to power. But he is criticized for
violently persecuting the Righteous Teacher on his day of fast, on Yom Kippur
as celebrated according to the calendar of the Yaḥad (1QpHab 9:2–8). He is
further castigated for pride, living a life in luxury, and halakhic impurity likely
connected to temple service and marital relations.
This refers to the Wicked Priest who had a reputation for reliability at the
beginning of his term of service; but when he became ruler over Israel,
he became proud and forsook God and betrayed the commandments for
the sake of riches. He amassed by force the riches of the lawless who had
rebelled against God, seizing the riches of the peoples, thus adding to the
guilt of his crimes, and he committed abhorrent deeds in every defiling
impurity (1QpHab 8:8–13).
These specific points of criticism are echoed in a group of non-sectarian texts

from Qumran, the so-called Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a,
4Q389). According to the recent analysis by Kipp Davis this text praises the
Hasmonaean priests as keepers of the covenant. Three Hasmonaean priests
“are called by the name of the God of Israel” (4Q385a 5 7–8/4Q387 3 4–9),
and they are contrasted against their Hellenistic predecessors who are cas-
tigated for their pride, for violating the covenant, and for their idolatry
(4Q385a 5 8; 4Q387 3 15). Davis separates 4Q390 as an independent work—
dependent on the Apocryphon, but more closely related to the Yaḥad than its
precursor—that has turned the critique of the pre-Maccabaean priests against
the Hasmonaeans: they are likewise censured for their avarice, for exogamy, for
violating the Law and the commands, and for their failure to replace the lunar
calendar introduced in the time of Antiochus (4Q390 2 i 8–12; 2 ii 10–11). The
historical reviews in both compositions describe the Hasmonaean period as a
time of internal division and quarrel (4Q387 3 7–8; 4Q390 2 i 6, 9).37
37 Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions:
Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity (STDJ 111; Leiden: Brill,
2014), 193–226.

332 Elgvin
Two Qumran texts, 4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Apocryphon of Joshua

(4Q378–4Q379)38 describe two evil brothers who rebuild the city and fall under
Joshua’s curse over Jericho (4Q175 1 21–30; 4Q379 22 ii 7–15; cf. Josh 6:26). Their
father is described as an evil man of Belial, and the sons as having brutally
shed blood in Jerusalem. Most scholars connect these texts with Hyrcan’s sons
Aristobul I, Antigonus, and/or Yannai, and the city with Hasmonaean Jericho,
but Milik’s suggestion that the brothers are Jonathan and Simon who fortified
and rebuilt Jerusalem remains a valid option.39 Whatever the right interpreta-
tion of these texts, a restoration of the holy city by a ruler in Jerusalem40 would
easily be interpreted as a sign of the messianic age. Hasmonaean rebuilding
of Jerusalem and/or Jericho led to the polemic in the Apocryphon of Joshua
and 4QTestimonia, sectarian counter-texts to Hasmonaean claims of messianic
rebuilding of the Israelite state.
The Nahum Pesher (4Q169) calls Alexander Yannai the Lion of Wrath and
castigates him for his persecution of Pharisaic political opponents in the 90s
BCE (4QpNah 3–4 i 4–8; Ant. 13.372–383). This term could be understood as a
perversion of the biblical nom de guerre Lion of Judah (cf. Gen 49:9–10), and
meant to convey that he was a destructive ruler who did not represent the will
of God. For members of the Yaḥad, obedience to the Hasmonaeans (cf. 1 Macc
14:41–44) is exchanged for faithfulness to the Righteous Teacher (1QpHab 8:2–3).
4.3 The Offices of Ruler, Priest, and Prophet

It is noteworthy that the future hope of 4Q175 designates separate offices for
prophet (1 1–8), Davidic ruler (1 9–13), and priest (1 14–20), which could be con-
strued as a critical response to the double office of Hasmonaean rulers. 4Q175
mirrors the edict of 140 BCE that made Simon and his descendants both high
priests and ethnarchs of the Judaeans “until a trustworthy prophet would arise”
(1 Macc 14:41). Simon’s edict recognizes the three offices of prophet, priest, and
38 The Apocryphon of Joshua is quoted as authority in 4QTestimonia, along with scripture
texts from Exod 20 (in the pre-Samaritan tradition), Lev 24, and Deut 33.
39 Cf. e.g. Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (SDSSRL; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 63–89; J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness
of Judaea (London: SCM Press, 1959), 61–64.
40 See 1 Macc 4:60; 10:10–11; 12:36–37; 13:52; 14:7–15; Ant. 13.181–183. Hasmonaean rebuilding
of the temple and the temple mount was on such a large scale that essential features were
preserved in Herod’s temple. The eastern balustrade, the colonnade of Solomon, belongs
to this stratum: Jostein Ådna, Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n.
Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999), 4–31.

civil ruler:41 two of them were already functioning at the time, while the office
of prophet was postponed to the future. The collection of scriptures in 4Q175
represents a silent protest: the present anointed leadership is illegitimate; the
Yaḥad still waits for the right prophet together with the anointed ones of Aaron
and Israel: “until the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel will arise”
(1QS 9:11).
There were opponents to Hasmonaean priestly rulers also outside the
Yaḥad. The non-sectarian 4QpsDanc (4Q245), written around 100 BCE, con-
tains two separate lists of kings and high priests, presupposing a separation
of these offices. The list significantly culminated with the rule of Alexander
Jannaeus, who was the first to identify himself both as king and high priest.42
A talmudic text with parallel in Josephus refers to Pharisaic critique against
Yannai (Talmud) or Hyrcan (Josephus), asking him to be satisfied with the
office of ruler and leave that of high priest (t. Qidd. 66a; Ant. 13.288–292). Both
texts refer to a rumour that his mother had been a wartime captive, thereby
rendering the son unfit for priestly office. According to the Talmud, this dis-
agreement led to the king’s violent persecution of the sages.43
Two Josephus texts suggest that Hyrcan countered opposition by
claiming also the third office, that of the prophet. Josephus and his pro-
Hasmonaean source saw Hyrcan “accounted by God worthy of three of the
41 Also in NT writings the end-time offices of the Davidide, the prophet, and the priest are
of central importance for understanding and interpreting the roles of Jesus and John the
Baptist (cf. e.g. Mark 11:1–10; Matt 11:9–10; 21:11; Mark 11:32; Luke 7:16.26; 13:33; 20:6; 24:19;
John 1:19–21.25; 6:4; 7:40; Acts 3:20–23; 7:37; Heb 4–9).
42 Wise (“4Q245 [psDanc ar] and the High Priesthood,” 339) sees these lists that deliberately
separate priest from prince as a silent critique of the Hasmonaeans, which significantly
made no mention of Alexander Jannaeus, and seemingly set the eschaton in his reign.
Two or three of the Hasmonaeans are mentioned as priests, not rulers—a feature suggest-
ing an origin outside the Yaḥad.
43 Vered Noam recently argued that the talmudic text has roots in the first century BCE and
renders a Pharisaic response to the divisions in the Hasmonaean period and specifically
to the Yaḥad. According to Noam, this text distinguishes the Pharisees from those who
criticized the king, and mirrors specific Yaḥad terminology in its polemic: “A Pharisaic
Reply to Sectarian Polemic” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 18
November 2012). Noam notes that some Yaḥad terms also appear in the talmudic text,
such as ‫“ איש לץ רע ובליעל‬a man of naught, frivolous and evil,” cf. CD 1:14 ‎‫איש הלצון‬,‎
4Q175 1 23–24 ‎‫איש ארור אחד ובליעל‬.‎ Cf. ‫“ ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם‬the sages of Israel
separated themselves in anger” (b. Qidd. 66a) with 1QS 5:1–2, ‫“ להבדל מעדת אנשי העול‬to
separate from the men of evil.” I agree with Noam that the incident fits the time of Yannai
better than the time of Hyrcan.

334 Elgvin
greatest privileges; the rule of the nation, the office of high priest, and the gift
of prophecy” (Ant. 13.299–300). Elsewhere Josephus reports a prophetic revela-
tion given to Hyrcan in the temple during his priestly service (Ant. 13.282–283),
a tradition positively affirmed in the Tosefta (t. Sotah 13.5).44 These three texts
should be seen as Hasmonaean counter-propaganda, responding to criticism
from movements such as the Yaḥad and other oppositional voices still waiting
for the eschatological prophet to arise.
4.4 The King at War

The War Scroll (1QM) preserves material from the early Hasmonaean period
and uses Dan 11:40–12:3 as a source. In its description of the first phase of
the eschatological war, the War against the Kittim, the enemies of the Sons
of Light are listed as Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, the Kittim of Assyria
(=the Seleucids), and those who have violated the covenant (1QM 1:1–2). The
mention of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia as outside of Judaean control
implies that the text was composed before Yannai conquered most of these
territories.45 According to Yaḥad ideology, the Hasmonaeans would surely
have been counted among “those (Israelites) who have violated the covenant”
and identified with the forces of the Sons of Darkness,46 In the eschatological
scenario of the Yaḥad, the time would come for for the Sons of Light to pass
vengeance and judgement on the evil ones within Israel (1QS 9:23; 10:19–20;
1QpHab 5:4–5).
The Temple Scroll may not be a composition of the Yaḥad, but it neverthe-
less aligns closely with Yaḥad ideology. The treatise of kingship in 11QTa cols
56–59 prescribes that the king shall be subject to a council of chiefs, priests,
and Levites (57:12–15). This radical alternative version of the deuteronomic law
of the king may be read as a critique of Alexander Yannai that tacitly toler-
ates his claim to kingship, but that was meant to set severe limitations on the
44 A number of texts connect the high priest serving in the temple with the spirit of revela-
tion. Cf. Josephus’ report of a revelation to the high priest Jaddus at the time of Alexander
the Great (Ant. 11.326–8), and rabbinic references to an angel appearing to the high priest
in the sanctuary during the Yom Kippur liturgy, a tradition connected with Simon the
Righteous (t. Soṭah 13.8: y. Yoma 5.2; Lev. Rab. 21.12; b. Yoma 39b; b. Menaḥ 109b; cf. John
11:49–51). In rabbinic writings, a distanced scepticism or expressed silence vis-à-vis the
Hasmonaeans is usually found. Tosefta’s acceptance of Hyrcan’s gift of prophecy suggests
a more nuanced view among Jewish sages in the Roman period.
45 Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden:
Brill, 2009), 99–102, 129–32, 154–58.
46 Schultz sees the decade after the death of Judas Maccabeus as a particularly fitting setting
for 1QM col. 1. Conquering the World, 158–59 n. 247.

king’s prerogatives.47 11QTa may be the only Qumran text that criticizes the
expansionist policy of the new Judaean commonwealth: 11QTa 58:3–11 limits
the commitment of troops for warfare against external enemies to a speci-
fied percentage of the total force, giving priority to the defence of the cities.
Unlike other rules in this treatise, this non-expansionist policy lacks scriptural
support; it is perhaps understood as critique that was possibly triggered by
Yannai’s military practice.48
4QpIsaa cites Isa 11:3 to argue that the Davidic messiah should be guided
by others (probably the priestly leadership of the Yaḥad) in his military cam-
paigns against the nations (4Q161 8–10 17–24). As the pesher should be dated
to the early or mid-first century BCE, this text may also be read as a response
to Hasmonaean politics of warfare.49 While the utopian war manual of 1QM
expects decisive angelic action that helps the warriors on earth—priests and
pious ones, not trained men of war—this Isaiah pesher foresees an active
military role for the Davidic messiah (Prince of the Congregation and Shoot
of David) and his army in the end-time war. Angelic intervention is not men-
tioned within the extant text (4Q161 frgs 5–6 and 8–10). Thus, Hyrcan and
Yannai may be positive examples as leaders of military campaigns, only that
the ideal king should listen to his spiritual advisors first.
5 Hasmonaean Response
1 Maccabees demonstrates that Hasmonaean state ideology developed in a dia-

lectic process, where pro-Hasmonaean voices responded to others who were
critical of or distanced themselves from the new establishment. Somewhat
unexpectedly, 1 Macc 2:59–64 even enlists Daniel and his three friends as
types and ideals for the Hasmonaean cause. Such an apologetic use of Daniel
demonstrates not only the high standing this book enjoyed by multiple,
47 Martin Hengel, James C. Charlesworth, Doron Mendels, “The Polemical Character of ‘On
Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple,” JJS 37 (1986): 28–38.
48 Marcus K.M. Tso, Ethics in the Qumran Community (WUNT 2.292; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2010), 136–40. The text is phrased with regard to external threats to the nation: “At the
time the king hears of any nation or army trying to steal something that belongs to
Israel . . . they will dispatch one-tenth of the army to go out with him to battle against
their enemies . . . But if a mighty army comes to the land of Israel, they shall send with him
one-fifth of the warriors . . . If, however, the battle is going against him, they must send
him half of the army, the men of war; but the other half of the army cannot be separated
from their cities” (11Q19 58:3–11).
49 Tso, Ethics, 89.

336 Elgvin
even adversarial Jewish groups, but may also be seen as a response to anti-
Hasmonaean voices that used Daniel as a scriptural basis for their own
ideology.50
Another apologetic response from the Hasmonaean side is found in the coin-
age of Yannai, the first Hasmonaean ruler to use the title king—written both in
Greek and Hebrew—on his coins. According to Dan Barag, the title of priest the
king inscribed on the coins were a reaction to Pharisees who opposed Yannai’s
holding the double office of king and high priest (see above).51 Another group
of his coins, with the title king enscribed only in Hebrew, shows an anchor
and a star surrounded by a diadem, probably alluding to the star of Jacob
(Num 24:17).52 I see such a proclamation as a response to the Yaḥad’s escha-
tological exegesis of Num 24:15–24 from the second century onwards in
such texts as CD 7:18–21, 4Q175 1 12–13, and 1QM 11:6–7.53 The Rule of Blessing
(1QSb) delivers the following invocation for the Prince of the Congregation
(‫—)נשיא העדה‬a sectarian designation for the future ruler:
May you trample the nati]ons like mud in the streets! For God has estab-
lished you as “the scepter” over the rulers; bef[ore you peoples shall bow
down, and all nat]ions shall serve you. He shall make you mighty by his
holy name, so that you shall be as a li[on (‫ )כא[ריה‬among the beasts of the
forest.] (1QSb 5:27–29).
If ‫ כא[ריה‬is correctly reconstructed in line 29, this text foresees a future ruler
that will be the true Lion of Judah. It forms a sharp contrast against the pro-
Hasmonaean tribute to Judah the Maccabee, who “resembled a lion in his
works and was like a whelp roaring in the hunt” (1 Macc 3:4).
50 Yonder M. Gillihan, “Apocalyptic Elements in Hasmonaean Propaganda: Civic Ideology

and the Struggle for Political Legitimation,” in The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and
the Apocalyptic Worldview (ed. L.L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, forthcoming).
51 Dan B. Barag, “Alexander Jannaeus—Priest and King,” in Maeir, Magness, and Schiffman,
eds., ‘Go Out and Study the Land’, 1–5.
52 Cecil Roth, “Star and Anchor: Coin Symbolism and the End of Days,” Eretz Israel 6 (1960):
13*–16*.
53 Cf. Schultz, Conquering the World, 139–41, 152–53. See also the non-sectarian 4QMessianic
Apocalypse that may refer to a coming ruler— ‫“ שבט[ו‬its/his scepter”—who shall cause
freedom and joy in the nation (4Q521 2 iii 6). While Yannai and his advisors would not
have been familiar with the sectarian texts, they would have been acquainted with their
ideology; there were Judaean circles who did not accept Yannai’s kingship and were wait-
ing for an end-time Davidide who would be the star of Jacob.

6 Other Anti-Hasmonaean Voices
The condensed chronicle that is 2 Maccabees records events up to 161 BCE.

This book reflects a Diaspora background, and is perhaps related to the Jews
of Alexandria.54 It praises Judah the Maccabee as leader of the revolt, but
offers no hint of the continuing Hasmonaean dynasty. The ultimate honour
is given to God, who intervenes and gives Judah and the Israelites victory over
the enemies. Judah is portrayed as a warrior, not as civil leader of Judaea.
Thus, a dismissal of the Hasmonaeans succeeding Judah as civil leaders may
be perceived.
Some of the Psalms of Solomon were composed shortly after the Roman
conquest in 63 BCE, by authors close to the Pharisees. The messianic hymn in
17:21–44 expresses a weariness of Hasmonaean rulers who were levying taxes
on the people in order to finance their luxury and wars. The ideal is a future
son of David who would inaugurate a time of peace:
He will not rely on horse and rider and bow,

Nor will he collect gold and silver for war.
Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war.
He shall be compassionate to all the nations
who reverently stand before him (17:33–35).
Psalms of Solomon 2, 4, and 8 see the Roman conquest as a just punishment for
the sins of the preceding generations and their Hasmonaean leaders:
Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord,

they were profaning the offerings of God with lawless acts . . . (2:3)
And the daughters of Jerusalem were available to all
. . . because they defiled themselves with improper intercourse (2:13–14).
Let crows peck out the eyes of the hypocrites,
for they disgracefully emptied many people’s houses
and greedily scattered them (4:20).
They stole from the sanctuary of God
as if there were no redeeming heir.
They walked on the place of sacrifice of the Lord
in all kinds of uncleanness;
54 The dating of 2 Maccabees is difficult, “almost anywhere in the last 150 years BC,” states
Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees. A Critical Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 14–17,
esp. 14.

338 Elgvin
and with menstrual blood on them they defiled the sacrifices

as if they were common meat.
There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the
Gentiles (8:11–13).
The Testament of Levi, although still being edited in the second century CE,
has a wording that suggests an earlier Jewish source critical to Hasmonaean
priestly rulers. Levi prophesies to his offspring:
You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy
the light of the Torah . . . teaching commandments opposed to God’s just
ordinances. You plunder the Lord’s offerings; from his share you steal
choice parts, contemptuously eating them with whores. You teach the
Lord’s commands out of greed for gain; married women you profane; you
have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take gentile women
for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and
Gomorrah. You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood (14:4–7).
The Vision of Gabriel from the second half of the first century BCE can be com-
pared to 1QM, as it fully relies on angelic intervention to save Zion from enemy
armies in the end-time war. The prophet behind this apocalyptic text was no
supporter of the military might of the Hasmonaeans or of Herod. He listens
to a dialogue between God and the Davidic messiah in the context of the final
war, a dialogue inspired by Ps 2, and declares that “Jerusalem shall be as in for-
mer times” (line 32), thus hinting at the illegitimacy of the present leadership.55
Philo, who enjoyed family connections with the Herodian dynasty, describes
the brutality and savagery of earlier rulers in Judaea in Every Good Man is Free,
89–91. According to Joan Taylor, this section is an expressed criticism of the
Hasmonaean dynasty.56 Philo specifically denounces rulers who dismembered
the bodies of enemies still alive, cutting off their limbs—a probable reference
to Judah the Maccabee (cf. 2 Macc 15:29–36).
55 T. Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” Journal of the Jesus
Movement in Its Jewish Setting 1 (2014): 5–25.
56 Joan Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2013), 35–38, 48.

7 Conclusions
Pro-Hasmonaean and anti-Hasmonaean texts show a dialectic interaction

between the Hasmonaean establishment and other groups in Judaea in the
second and first century BCE. Hasmonaean power and propaganda led to
oppositional voices and “textual resistance,” that in turn influenced the argu-
ments of the rulers and their supporters.
Hasmonaean messianism represented an eschatology different from the
more apocalyptic eschatology shared by other circles in second century BCE
Judaea, such as the Yaḥad and the authors of the Enochic books.57 Both the
maskilim of Daniel (cf. the distance to the Maccabeans reflected in the men-
tion of the little help in Dan 11:34) and the Yaḥad were peaceful opposition
groups who deferred the fight against the evil to the eschaton.58
1 Maccabees demonstrates that restorative messianism was a prominent
feature in Hasmonaean ideology. This messianism was used to legitimate strict
measures against internal dissenters and an expansionist policy to defend and
enlarge the new kingdom. The developing Judaean state was seen as fulfilment
of biblical prophecies and the Hasmonaeans as part of biblical history. Texts
from the Torah on Phinehas and Judah were enlisted as legitimation for the
Hasmonaean leaders who combined priestly and royal prerogatives. Royal
psalms and prophetic texts referring to the coming son of David offered them-
selves as attractive proof texts and were utilized as such.
Both pro-Hasmonaean theology and the deeds of the new rulers led to criti-
cal response. Voices were raised in criticism of the new dynasty and the double
office of ruler and high priest. These voices found expression in Yaḥad texts,
the Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Levi. They may be silently sensed
in 2 Maccabees as well, and are reflected in a story preserved by Josephus and
the Talmud criticizing the double office of king and high priest. It should be
noted, however, that only one or two sources criticize the expansionist policy
of the new rulers: Pss. Sol. 17:33–35 and perhaps 11QTa 58:3–11. The double office,
57 Gabriele Boccacini has noted that the more a contemporary text supported the
Hasmonaean dynasty, the less apocalyptic it was: “Non-Apocalyptic Responses to
Apocalyptic Events. Notes on the Sociology of Apocalypticism,” forthcoming in Grabbe,
ed., The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview.
58 “Confidence in God’s ultimate vengeance frequently becomes rationale for passivity,
non-retaliation, and even merciful behavior in the face of persecution”: Shelly Matthews,
“Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen,”
in Boustan, Jassen, and Roetzel, eds., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early
Judaism and Christianity, 117–44, (134).

340 Elgvin
halakhic impurity, a luxurious lifestyle, and a harsh policy against dissenters is

condemned, but not the establishment of a new Judaean state as an heir of
the united kingdom. At least until the early days of Yannai’s rule, there seems
to have been a broad, positive acceptance of the new Judaean kingdom, an
acceptance that still can be traced in Josephus and specific rabbinic traditions.
Both the Hasmonaeans and the Yaḥad held to a combination of a realized
and a futuric eschatology: some of the promises are already reality (in the
Hasmonaean priest-state or in the ecclesiola of the Yaḥad), while others still
await fulfilment. Each party claimed to have God and his spirit on its side.
Josephus’ mention of Yohanan the Essene as an officer during the first revolt
( J.W. 2.567, 3.11) may indicate that, a century after the last Hasmonaean rulers,
some Essenes were growing weary of the non-violent resistance theology of
the Yaḥad, Evidence for this may be found in the scrolls discovered at Masada;
some of which exhibit similar characteristics to those that are commonly iden-
tified with the Yaḥad.59 It would seem that Yohanan was not the only Essene
who departed from his movement’s non-violent ideology and took up arms
together with other Judaeans at the outbreak of the great revolt against the
nations, the violent Kittim described in the pesharim of the first century BCE.
Were some of the men of the Yaḥad finally convinced that the end-time war
had begun?
59 The clearest example is MasShirShab (Mas 1K). The attribution of the songs also in
this copy to the maskil (reconstructed to the margin in col. i 8) suggests attributing a
sectarian character to the text. Also other compositions with Yaḥad characteristics
and Qumranic orthography were found in the genizah close to the synagogue built by
the rebels: MasApocryphon of Genesis (Mas 1m), MasApocryphon of Joshua (Mas 1l),
MasJubilees (Mas 1j), and MasUnidentified Qumran-Type Fragment (Mas 1n): S. Talmon,
Y. Yadin, Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Report (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), 104–49; H. Eshel,
Masada (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), 87–90.

War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

War and Peace in Early Jewish and

Christian Text and Interpretation

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 317 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

Violence, Apologetics, and Resistance: Hasmonaean

In the first part of this paper, I try to reconstruct elements of Hasmonaean

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_018

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 319 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

2 Hasmonaean State-Building and Biblical Presuppositions

2.1 From Revolt in Judaea to a Large Israelite State

2 1 Macc 2–5; 2 Macc 9; Josephus, Ant. 12.265–326.

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 320 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 321 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

as a state-initiated strategy. The new sites were settled primarily by Judaeans

2.2 Biblical Texts and the Hasmonaean State

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 322 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

and “from Eufrat to the Mediterranean,” could now be interpreted as terms

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 323 6/29/2015 9:07:45 PM

Probably written in the beginning of Yannai’s rule, 1 Maccabees is a consistent

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 324 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

(50:24 MS B, translation mine). 1 Maccabees 2:24–28, 54 (see above), as well as

3.2 Eulogies on Judah and Simon

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 325 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 326 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 327 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

29 Josephus, Ant. 13.254–256; J.W. 1.62–63.

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 328 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

In hymnic phrases reminiscent of 4Q448, Pss. Sol. 11 describes the return

4 Sectarian Resistance Texts

4.1 The Yaḥad and the Hasmonaean Entity

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 329 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 330 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

4.2 The Wicked Priest and Wicked Rulers

These specific points of criticism are echoed in a group of non-sectarian texts

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 331 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

Two Qumran texts, 4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Apocryphon of Joshua

4.3 The Offices of Ruler, Priest, and Prophet

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 332 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 333 6/29/2015 9:07:46 PM

4.4 The King at War

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 334 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

1 Maccabees demonstrates that Hasmonaean state ideology developed in a dia-

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 335 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

50 Yonder M. Gillihan, “Apocalyptic Elements in Hasmonaean Propaganda: Civic Ideology

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 336 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

6 Other Anti-Hasmonaean Voices

The condensed chronicle that is 2 Maccabees records events up to 161 BCE.

He will not rely on horse and rider and bow,

Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord,

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 337 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

and with menstrual blood on them they defiled the sacrifices

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 338 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

Pro-Hasmonaean and anti-Hasmonaean texts show a dialectic interaction

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 339 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

halakhic impurity, a luxurious lifestyle, and a harsh policy against dissenters is

317-340_Davis et al_F9a.indd 340 6/29/2015 9:07:47 PM

You might also like

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_018

2 1 Macc 2–5; 2 Macc 9; Josephus, Ant. 12.265–326.

29 Josephus, Ant. 13.254–256; J.W. 1.62–63.

50 Yonder M. Gillihan, “Apocalyptic Elements in Hasmonaean Propaganda: Civic Ideology