THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY: ITS RISE AND DEMISE

____________________

Project

Submitted to Dr. Wilson

Luther Rice University

____________________

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the course

New Testament Introduction: NT 520

____________________

By

Tobias England

JC9952

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1

II. GREEK EXPANSION....................................................................................2

III. SELEUCID RULE..........................................................................................4

IV. REVOLT AND INDEPENDENCE................................................................9

V. DECLINE OF A NATION.............................................................................11

ii

INTRODUCTION

This paper will examine the rise and demise of the Hasmonean Dynasty. This

brief era of independence helped lay the foundation for the New Testament and advent of

Christ.

The Hasmonean Dynasty and second temple period, while perhaps overlooked by

a beginning student of the Bible, provides the immediate context through which Christ

entered the world. After Cyprus allowed Judah to return from Babylon in 538 B.C., the

Hebrews enjoyed the tolerant policies of Persia toward religion and lived relatively

unmolested lives. However, the Jews chaffed at the imposition of foreign rule. As D. A.

Carson notes, “Judah was no longer an independent nation, and more importantly it was

no longer ruled by an anointed king from David’s line.”1 Furthermore, harassment from

neighbors was common due to the Jews’ small numbers and weak condition.

GREEK EXPANSION

In another corner of the Mediterranean Sea, the common threat of the Persian

Empire was forming alliances among Greek city-states that would have long lasting

results. Like the Babylonian Empire before it, Persia had ebb and flow in its military

1 D. A. Carson et al., ed., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). Mal. 1:1.

1

might. An attempt to extend the empire too far to the west would prove a fatal error. The

initial weakness of Athens would provide the necessary opening for Philip II of Macedon

to rise to power. His son Alexander would continue his work and increase his alliance’s

reach. The world was changing, and the seat of power was shifting from east to west.

The campaigns of Alexander the Great forever changed that corner of the world.

The remarkable success of this young ruler owes its lasting influence to the fact that

conscious effort was made to the spreading of Greek culture. While Alexander died at

the young age of thirty-three, his emphasis on language and culture marked the beginning

of the dominance of the Hellenistic culture. Although it is difficult to find complete unity

among scholars, “it seems best to date Hellenism from a political perspective as

continuing until 31 BC, and as a cultural phase extending at least to the time of the Roman

Empire.”2 Thus, while the unity resulting from political Hellenism is negligible, at least

in terms of duration, the cultural effect was unprecedented for the Mediterranean region.

It was common for the process of Hellenization to go through successive waves.

De Villiers notes that the first phase that commenced once a region was conquered was

characterized by the rapid spread of Greek culture. This can be seen in the renaming of

cities, the building of gymnasia and theatres, and the shift in architecture to reflect a

Greek style. Often this phase had the most effect on the elite classes, and only marginal

penetration to the lower classes. The second phase was some type of revitalization

movement that reaffirmed a people’s original cultural assets. At times, this resulted in

direct confrontation with the Greek powers, as in the case of the Maccabees.3 The

2 J.L. de Villiers, “Cultural, Economic, and Social Conditions in the Graeco-Roman World” in The New Testament Milieu, vol. 2, A.B. du Toit, ed., Guide to the New Testament (Halfway House: Orion Publishers, 1998).3 Ibid.

2

following equilibrium that developed was always deeply colored by the foreign influence.

It must be conceded that even in its final stage, Alexander’s idealistic concept of a

unifying culture at least partially came to fruition through the dominance of Hellenism

that characterized the next period of Western history.

For a period of time, the cultural goals of Alexander seemed to be making

dramatic inroads with the Jewish elite in Judea. Dr. Hellerman notes that prior to the

Maccabean revolt, the upper classes “demonstrated a willingness to compromise their

ethnic solidarity by openly adopting Greek customs and practices.”4

The death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. brought an abrupt end to the

administrative unity of his empire. It was agreed among Alexander’s principal generals

that the empire should be held by them for the posthumous child who proved to be a son

and was called Alexander II.5 However, their jealous thirst for power that would soon

engulf the entire region did not allow for such a peaceful transition of rule, and both the

boy and his mother Roxana were killed.

SELEUCID RULE

As history sadly records, the strategic advantages of the geography of Palestine

would too often work against its own tranquility. Positioned between major world

powers at nearly every moment in history, this sacred land has been fought over,

conquered, and used as a buffer zone for states and empires for ages. Such was to be its

fate again as Alexander’s empire dissolved into four factions lead by powerful generals

4 Joseph H. Hellerman, “Purity and Nationalism in Second Temple Literature: 1-2 Maccabees and Juilees,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:3, (Sept. 2003) : 402.5 H. A. Ironside, The Four Hundred Silent Years (from Malachi to Matthew) (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1914), 16-17.

3

often called Diadochi. While Ptolemy carved out a small kingdom that he ruled from

Alexandria, Egypt, Seleucus took Babylon and Syria.6

In 312 B.C. Ptolemy exiled a large number of Palestinian Jews to Alexandria, thus

paving the way for the Septuagint translation of Hebrew Bible that would follow years

later. The eventual dominance of Ptolemy I over his opponents established Egypt as the

seat of power for the next hundred years. From 301-200 B.C., the Ptolemaic Kingdom

not only controlled Palestine, but also Cyprus, and much of Asia Minor.7 The high ideals

of a superior culture were gradually displaced with a quest for finances and luxury.

However, when Ptolemy V Epiphanes ascended the throne in 204 B.C., he was

understandably inept at administering and defending such a vast empire. He was five

years old.8 Under this young monarch, Palestine fell under the control of the Seleucids in

200 B.C., setting the stage for the Maccabean revolt.9

Life under the Seleucids seemed to come as a welcome change to the leaders in

Jerusalem. Some of them had even been active in supporting Antiochus III in his

campaign against the Ptolemies.10 This support was rewarded with tolerant policies and

reduced taxes. Even the Temple benefited, as Antiochus donated generously to its

restoration.11 This relative peace was short lived, however, as Antiochus III suffered a

severe defeat in an attempt to expand his empire to the west. A subsequent treaty that

6 Thomas V. Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas, Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 175.7 Ibid., 178.8 Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 861.9 Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd ed. (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1990).10 John William Drane, Introducing the Old Testament, Completely rev. and updated. (Oxford: Lion Publishing plc., 2000), 211.11 Ibid.

4

forced him to surrender all of his territory in Asia Minor had a devastating effect on his

financial standing. In fact, it was while robbing the temple of Behus that Antiochus was

killed.12 As a place where wealth was stored in the ancient world, temples were

frequently looted by the powerful to support their kingdoms.

Antiochus III was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV. While this turmoil could

not leave the Jews unaffected forever, the rule of Seleucus IV was not significantly

different from that of his father. However, the Jewish society was creating its own storm

as two leading families competed for prominence. The murder of Seleucus IV and

ascension of Antiochus IV Epiphanes coincided almost exactly with this internal struggle.

Jason, a member of the Oniad family, bribed Antiochus IV to make him high priest.13

The devout in Jerusalem reacted strongly to this unprecedented act. II Maccabees 4:13-

15 calls Jason “ungodly” and “no true high priest.” The same passage records with

distain that even the Temple priests rushed their Temple service in order to have time to

attend the Greek games where the athletes competed completely naked. Three years

later, in 172 B.C., Jason sent his annual tribute with Menelaus, a member of the Tobiad

family. When Menelaus arrived with the tribute, he offered Antiochus twice the taxes if

he would be appointed high priest, and he promptly was.14

REVOLT AND INDEPENDENCE

12 Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Literally Translated, With Notes, 8 Vols., H. C. Hamilton, ed. (Medford, MA: George Bell & Sons, 1903), 153-54.13 Drane, 211.14 David S. Dockery et al., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 507.

5

The military misfortunes of Antiochus IV in his Egyptian campaign resulted both

in embarrassment and increased debt. Military and political blunders began to pile up as

Antiochus raided the Temple with the help of Menelaus and took its treasure. He

outlawed circumcision, opened the Temple to Gentiles, and eventually demanded the

worship of Zeus. The climax of his atrocity was remembered by Josephus in the

following manner:

And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive, together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest building; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple, on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol altar upon God’s Altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars, in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. 15

This action, which was accompanied by a command for similar sacrifices to be

conducted in every community, proved to be the flash point for the region.16

Resistance was rewarded with severe punishment, and II Maccabees 7 records a

family of seven brothers and their mother who were dismembered and fried alive

after refusing to comply. A group of pacifists were systematically murdered in

15 Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).16 Drane, 213.

6

the desert where they sought refuge after they refused to take up arms on the

Sabbath to defend themselves (I Maccabees 2).

When Antiochus’ soldiers reached the rural town of Modein, they ordered

an elderly priest remembered as Mattathias to sacrifice on a Greek altar. He

refused and killed the Hebrew who volunteered to take his place as well as the

officer who made the order. A remarkably effective guerilla warfare followed,

and leadership of the movement passed on to Mattathias’s third son Judas upon

the priest’s death. It was under his rule that the Temple was retaken and cleansed

exactly four years to the day after the abomination of desolation.17 This

dedication on December 25 of A.D. 164 was remember with the Feast of the

Dedication of the Temple (observed by Christ in John 10:22) and today is known

as Hanukkah.

The cleansing of the Temple marks the point where this revolt became purely

political and not simply one concerned with religious purity. The struggle for liberation

was continued by Jonathan, Mattathias’s youngest son when Judas died in A.D. 160.

Jonathan was unlawfully declared to be high priest in 152.18 (This event is placed in 153

by earlier scholars.)19 This was a serious breach of tradition, since the high priest had

always come from the family of Zadok.20 In fact, Rodkinson shows the importance of this

event in his introduction to the Babylonian Talmud by saying:

17 A.B. du Toit, "History of Palestinian Judaism in the Period 539 BC to AD 135," in The New Testament Milieu, vol. 2, A.B. du Toit, ed., Guide to the New Testament (Halfway House: Orion Publishers, 1998). Note: This opinion is contradicted by John Drane who claims this event happened three years to the day after the defilement of the Temple. (See Drane, 214.)18 Ibid.19 Ironside, 60.20 Harold W. Attridge and Helmut Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 97.

7

Until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, before which period all the high priests since the erection of the second temple had been of the family of Zadok, King David’s high priest (see App. 2), and the priests had been also among the sages of the Pharisees and no disputes arose between them as to the interpretation of the law. From the time of Antiochus, however, when the high priesthood passed from the descendants of Zadok to other families, finally coming into the possession of the Maccabees, who were not descendants of the house of Zadok, began to differ from the Pharisees in the interpretation of the Torah, and to explain the texts on the basis of oral tradition. They founded a distinct sect, styled “Sadducees” (after Zadok), and the dispute with the Pharisees and their teaching, i.e. with the Talmud, was begun.21

Simon, the second oldest son of Mattathias, led the movement from 143-

132 B.C. If Jonathan was the last of the Maccabean revolters, Simon was the first

of the Hasmoneans. Simon assumed the office of high priest and under his rule

Judea was granted total independence in 142 B.C. When Antiochus sent soldiers

to rob Judea, the elder Simon personally lead in the defense. Josephus records the

success of this defense by stating: “Nor did he fail of success in any one of his

attempts.”22 The following period of independence is summed up succinctly by

Knowles when he says, “They ruled until the Roman general Pompey captured

Jerusalem in 63 BC.”23

DECLINE OF A NATION

The Hasmonean Dynasty gradually decayed as the subsequent kings resembled

Hellenistic monarchs to a greater degree.24 There was also a clear departure from the

promised prominence of the family of David. While Mattathias was well aware of God’s

21 Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud, Volumes 1-10: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 19 (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 6.22 Josephus and Whiston.23 Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 345.24 Brisco, 186-87.

8

promise to the house of David, and there were decedents of David in the land, those

qualified for this position were never in authority during this era.25 Attridge and Koester

remark, “In the late second temple period there emerge expectations of an eschatological

priestly Messiah, probably as part of opposition to the claims of the Hasmoneans.”26

Additionally, an internal feud would eventually prove to be a fatal weakness.

During the Hasmonean Dynasty, several sects of Judaism developed,

sometimes with disastrous consequences. Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC) was

lucky to ever have the chance to rule. The brief reign of his brother, Judas

Aristobulus, was highlighted by the imprisonment of his mother and murder of his

brothers. Alexander alone was spared, but his reign was marred by serious

division. The Pharisees resisted the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC)

and sought Syrian assistance in overthrowing him.27 This move was obviously ill-

advised, and they soon recanted and joined with Alexander to drive out the

Syrians. While the independence of Judea was saved, Alexander was the kind of

monarch to hold a grudge. “He captured the leaders of the rebellion and crucified

eight hundred before the Sadducees at a victory banquet.”28 Upon his death,

power shifted between his surviving widow and two sons.

Initially, Alexandra and Hyrcanus II took control, and were influenced by

the Pharisees to kill many members of the Sanhedrin. Alexander’s other son,

Aristobulus II, found a ready ally in the powerful Sanhedrin, and after their

25 Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Promises of David in Early Judaism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July 1993): 286.26 Attridge, 98.27 Robert G. Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1974), 11-12.28 Ibid.

9

mother’s death, forced his brother to flee for his life. While in exile, Hyrcanus II

allied himself with the formidable power of Rome, and was established as High

Priest by Pompey when he marched on Jerusalem in 63 AD.29 The Jewish civil

war had an abrupt end that also terminated the independence enjoyed by Israel

during the intertestamental era.

The foundation was now in place for the forced peace of Rome, or Pax

Romana, that would usher in the New Testament age and aid in the rapid growth

of the early church. The unprecedented tranquility of the Roman Empire was

undoubtedly on Paul’s mind when he described God sending His Son in “the

fullness of time.”30

29 Brisco, 186-87.30 Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 301.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attridge, Harold W. and Helmut Koester. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Brisco, Thomas V. Holman Bible Atlas. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Carson, D. A., R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham, eds. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Dockery, David S., Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church et al. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992.

Drane, John William. Introducing the Old Testament. Completely rev. and updated. Oxford: Lion Publishing Place, 2000.

George, Timothy. Galatians, vol. 30. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1974.

Hellerman, Joseph H. “Purity and Nationalism in Second Temple Literature: 1-2 Maccabees and Juilees.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:3 (September 2003).

Ironside, H.A. The Four Hundred Silent Years (from Malachi to Matthew). New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1914.

Josephus, Flavius and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Knowles, Andrew. The Bible Guide. 1st Augsburg books ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.

Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.

11

Negev, Avraham. The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. 3d ed. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1990.

Rodkinson, Michael L., trans. Vol. 19, The Babylonian Talmud, Volumes 1-10: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English. Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918.

Rogers, Cleon L, Jr. “The Promises of David in Early Judaism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July 1993).

Strabo. The Geography of Strabo, Literally Translated, With Notes, in Three Volumes. H. C. Hamilton, ed. Medford, MA: George Bell & Sons, 1903.

du Toit, A.B. “History of Palestinian Judaism in the Period 539 BC to AD 135.” Vol. 2, The New Testament Milieu. Halfway House: Orion, 1998.

de Villiers, J.L. “Cultural, Economic, and Social Conditions In the Graeco-Roman World.” Vol. 2, The New Testament Milieu. A.B. du Toit, ed. Halfway House: Orion Publishers, 1998.

12