Maccabean Revolt
Maccabean Revolt | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jerusalem and Judea during the revolt | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Maccabees | Seleucid Empire | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Mattathias † Judas Maccabeus (KIA) Jonathan Apphus Eleazar Avaran (KIA) Simon Thassi John Gaddi (KIA) |
Antiochus IV Epiphanes † Antiochus V Eupator † Demetrius I Soter † Lysias † Gorgias Nicanor (KIA) Bacchides | ||||||
Units involved | |||||||
Judean rebels | Seleucid army |
The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: מרד החשמונאים) was a Jewish rebellion led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and against Hellenistic influence on Jewish life. The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167 to 160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence.
Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched a massive campaign of repression against the Jewish religion in 168 BCE. The reason he did so is not entirely clear, but it seems to have been related to the King mistaking an internal conflict among the Jewish priesthood as a full-scale rebellion. Jewish practices were banned, Jerusalem was placed under direct Seleucid control, and the Second Temple in Jerusalem was made the site of a syncretic Pagan-Jewish cult. This repression triggered exactly the revolt that Antiochus IV had feared, with a group of Jewish fighters led by Judas Maccabeus (Judah Maccabee) and his family rebelling in 167 BCE and seeking independence. The rebels as a whole would come to be known as the Maccabees, and their actions would be chronicled later in the books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.
The rebellion started as a guerrilla movement in the Judean countryside, raiding towns and terrorizing Greek officials far from direct Seleucid control, but it eventually developed a proper army capable of attacking the fortified Seleucid cities. In 164 BCE, the Maccabees captured Jerusalem, a significant early victory. The subsequent cleansing of the temple and rededication of the altar on 25 Kislev is the source of the festival of Hanukkah. The Seleucids eventually relented and unbanned Judaism, but the more radical Maccabees, not content with merely reestablishing Jewish practices under Seleucid rule, continued to fight, pushing for a more direct break with the Seleucids. Judas Maccabeus died in 160 BCE at the Battle of Elasa against the Greek general Bacchides, and the Seleucids reestablished direct control for a time, but remnants of the Maccabees under Judas's brother Jonathan Apphus continued to resist from the countryside. Eventually, internal division among the Seleucids and problems elsewhere in their empire would give the Maccabees their chance for proper independence. In 141 BCE, Simon Thassi succeeded in expelling the Greeks from their citadel in Jerusalem. An alliance with the Roman Republic helped guarantee their independence. Simon would go on to establish an independent Hasmonean kingdom.
The revolt had a great impact on Jewish nationalism, as an example of a successful campaign to establish political independence and resist governmental anti-Jewish suppression.
Background
Beginning in 338 BCE,
In general, the ruling Greek policy during this time period was to let Jews manage their own affairs and not interfere overtly with religious matters. Greek authors in the third century BCE who wrote about Judaism did so mostly positively.[7][8] Cultural change did happen, but was largely driven by Jews themselves inspired by ideas from abroad; Greek rulers did not undertake explicit programs of forced Hellenization. Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to the throne of the Seleucids in 175 BCE, and did not change this policy. He appears to have done little to antagonize the region at first, and the Jews were largely content under his rule. One element that would come to later prominence was Antiochus IV replacing the high priest Onias III with his brother Jason after Jason offered a large sum of money to Antiochus.[9] Jason also sought and received permission to make Jerusalem a self-governing polis, albeit with Jason able to control the citizenship lists of who would be able to vote and hold political office. These changes did not immediately appear to rouse any particular complaint from the majority of the citizenry in Jerusalem, and presumably he still kept the basic Jewish laws and tenets.[9][10] Three years later, a newcomer named Menelaus offered an even larger bribe to Antiochus IV for the position of high priest. Jason, resentful, turned against Antiochus IV; additionally, a rumor spread that Menelaus had sold golden temple artifacts to help pay for the bribe, leading to unhappiness, especially among the city council Jason had established. This conflict was largely political rather than cultural; all sides, at this point, were "Hellenized", content with Seleucid rule, and primarily divided over Menelaus's alleged corruption and sacrilege.[2][6]
In 170–168 BCE, the
-
Map of theKingdom of Macedonia (independent in 188 BCE) had been shattered and mostly conquered by the Roman Republic. The Kingdom of Pergamon, directly on the Seleucid border, was a close Roman ally. Rhodeswould become "permanent allies" of the Romans in 164 BCE.
-
Battles during the Maccabean Revolt. Circles mark battles against Seleucids in Judea, triangles outlying cities attacked by the Maccabees.
The rebellion
Mattathias sparks the uprising (167 BCE)
For Antiochus the unexpected conquest of the city (
Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Book 1.34–35[15]
In the aftermath of Antiochus IV issuing his decrees forbidding Jewish religious practice, a campaign of land confiscations paired with shrine and altar-building took place in the Judean countryside.
Guerrilla campaign (167–164 BCE)
After Mattathias' death about one year later in 166 BCE, his son Judas Maccabeus (Hebrew: Judah Maccabee) led a band of Jewish dissidents that would eventually absorb other groups opposed to Seleucid rule and grow into an army. While unable to directly strike Seleucid power at first, Judas's forces could maraud the countryside and attack Hellenized Jews, of whom there were many. The Maccabees destroyed Greek altars in the villages, forcibly circumcised boys, burnt villages, and drove Hellenized Jews off their land.[19][17] Judas's nickname "Maccabee", now used to describe the Jewish partisans as a whole, is probably taken from the word "hammer" (Aramaic: maqqaba; Hebrew: makebet); the term "Maccabee" or "Maccabeus" would later be used as an honorific for Judas's brothers as well.[20]
Judas's campaign in the countryside became a full-scale revolt. Maccabean forces employed
Continued struggle (163–160 BCE)
With the rebels now in control of most of Jerusalem and its environs, a second phase of the revolt began. The rebellion had additional resources, but also additional responsibilities. Rather than being able to retreat to the mountains, the rebels now had territory to defend; abandoning cities would leave their loyalists open to reprisals if the pro-Seleucid forces were allowed to take control again. As such, they focused on being able to win open battles, with additional trained heavy infantry. A civil struggle of low-level violence, reprisals, and murders arose in the countryside, especially in more distant areas where Jewish people were in the minority.[24] Judas launched expeditions to these regions outlying Judea to fight non-Jewish Idumeans, Ammonites, and Galileans. He recruited devout Jews and sent them into Judea to concentrate his allies where they could be protected, although this influx of refugees would soon create food scarcity issues in the land the Maccabees held.[25]
In 162 BCE, Judas began a long siege of the fortified Acra citadel in Jerusalem, still controlled by Seleucid loyalist Jews and a Greek garrison. Regent Lysias, having dealt with rivals back in Antioch, returned to Judea with an army to aid the Seleucid forces. The Seleucids besieged Beth-Zur and took it without a fight, as it was a fallow year and food supplies were meager.[26] They battled Judas's forces in an open fight at the Battle of Beth Zechariah next, with the Seleucids defeating the Maccabees. Judas's younger brother Eleazar Avaran died in battle after bravely attacking a war elephant and being crushed.[26] Lysias's army next besieged Jerusalem. With supplies of food short on both sides and reports of a political rival returning from the eastern provinces to Antioch, Lysias decided to sign an agreement with the rebels and confirm the repeal of the anti-Jewish decrees; the rebels, in return, abandoned their siege of the Seleucid Acra. Lysias and his army then returned to Antioch, with the province officially at peace, but neither the Hellenized Jews nor the Maccabees laid down their arms.[25]
At some point from 163–162 BCE, Lysias ordered the execution of despised High Priest Menelaus as another gesture of reconciliation to the Jews.
Judas had been negotiating with the Roman Republic and extracted a vague agreement of potential support. While this would be cause for caution to the Seleucid Empire in the long term, it was not a particular concern in the short term, as the Romans would be unlikely to intervene if the Judean unrest could be decisively crushed.[32]
Battle of Elasa (160 BCE)
In 160 BCE, Seleucid King Demetrius I went on campaign in the east to fight the rebellious Timarchus. He left his general Bacchides to govern the western part of the empire.[32] Bacchides led an army of 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry into Judea on a second expedition intending to reconquer the restive province before it grew too used to autonomy. The size of the rebel army facing them is disputed; 1 Maccabees implausibly claims that Judas's army at Elasa was tiny, with 3,000 men of which only 800–1,000 would fight. Historians suspect the true numbers were larger and possibly as many as 22,000 soldiers, and the author downplayed their strength in an attempt to explain the defeat.[33]
The Seleucid army marched through Judea after carrying out a massacre in the Galilee. This tactic would force Judas to respond in open battle, lest his reputation be damaged by inaction and Alcimus's faction gain strength by claiming he was better positioned to protect the people from future killings. Bacchides advanced toward Jerusalem, while Judas encamped on the rough terrain at Elasa to intercept the Seleucid army. Judas opted to attack the right flank of the Seleucid army hoping to kill the commander, similar to the victory over Nicanor at Adasa. The elite horsemen on the right retreated, and the rebels pursued. This may have been a tactic from Bacchides, however, to feign weakness and draw the Maccabees in where they could be surrounded and defeated, their own retreat cut off. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, the Seleucids regained their formation and trapped the rebel army with their own left flank. Judas was eventually killed and the remaining Judeans fled.[32]
The Seleucids had reasserted their authority in Jerusalem. Bacchides fortified cities across the land, put allied Greek-friendly Jews in command in Jerusalem, and ensured children of leading families were held as hostages as a guarantee of good behavior. Judas's younger brother
Autonomy (160–138 BCE)
While the Maccabees had lost control of the cities, they seem to have built a rival government in the countryside from 160–153 BCE. The Maccabees avoided direct conflict with the Seleucids, but the internal Jewish civil struggle continued: the rebels harassed, exiled, and killed Jews seen as insufficiently anti-Greek.
From 152–141 BCE, the rebels achieved a state of informal autonomy akin to a suzerain.[37] The land was de jure part of the Seleucid Empire, but continuing civil wars gave the Maccabees considerable autonomy. Jonathan was given official authority to build and maintain an army in exchange for his aid. During this period, the legitimized armies of Jonathan fought in these civil wars and border struggles to maintain the favor of allied Seleucid leaders.[38] The Seleucids did send an army back into Judea during this period, but Jonathan evaded it and refused battle until it eventually returned to the Seleucid heartland.[39] In 143 BCE, regent Diodotus Tryphon, perhaps eager to reassert control over the restive province, invited Jonathan to a conference. The conference was a trap; Jonathan was captured and executed, despite Jonathan's brother Simon raising the requested ransom and sending hostages. This betrayal led to an alliance between the new leader of the Maccabees, Simon Thassi (Hebrew: Simeon), and Demetrius II Nicator, a rival of Diodotus Tryphon and claimant to the Seleucid throne. Demetrius II exempted Judea from payment of taxes in 142 BCE, essentially acknowledging its independence.[37] The Seleucid settlement and garrison in Jerusalem, the Acra, finally came under Simon's control, peacefully, as did the remaining Seleucid garrison at Beth-Zur. Simon was appointed High Priest around 141 BCE, but he did so by acclamation from the Jewish people rather than appointment by the Seleucid king.[40][37] Both Jonathan and now Simon had maintained diplomatic contact with the Roman Republic; official recognition by Rome came in 139 BCE, as the Romans were eager to weaken and divide the Greek states. This new Hasmonean-Roman alliance was also worded more firmly than Judas Maccabeus's hazy agreement 22–23 years earlier. Continuing strife between rival Seleucid rulers made a government response to formal independence of the new state difficult. New Seleucid King Antiochus VII Sidetes refused an offer of help from Simon's troops while pursuing their mutual enemy Diodotus Tryphon, and made demands for both tribute and for Simon to cede control of the border towns Joppa and Gazara. Antiochus VII sent an army to Judea at some point between 139 and 138 BCE under command of a general named Cendebeus, but it was repulsed.[38]
The Hasmonean leaders did not immediately call themselves "king" or establish a monarchy; Simon called himself merely "nasi" (in Hebrew, "Prince" or "President") and "ethnarch" (in Koine Greek, "Governor").[41][42][43]
Aftermath
In 135 BCE, Simon and two of his sons (Mattathias and Judas) were murdered by his son-in-law,
The dynasty would last until 37 BCE, when
Tactics and technology
Both sides were influenced by Hellenistic army composition and tactics. The basic Hellenistic battle deployment consisted of heavy infantry in the center, mounted cavalry on the flanks, and mobile skirmishers in the vanguard. The most common infantry weapon used was the sarissa, the Macedonian pike. The sarissa was a powerful weapon; it was held in two hands and had great reach (approximately ~6 meters), making it difficult for opponents to approach a phalanx of sarissa-wielding infantry safely. Hellenistic cavalry also used pikes, albeit slightly shorter ones.[56] The Seleucids also had access to trained war elephants imported from India, who sported natural armor in their thick hides and could terrify opposing soldiers and their horses.[57] Rarely, they also made use of scythed chariots.[57]
In terms of army size, the respected historian
The Maccabees started as a guerrilla force that likely used the traditional weapons effective in small unit combat in mountainous terrain:
The rebel forces grew with time. There were 6,000 men in Judas's army near the start of the revolt, 10,000 men at the Battle of Beth Zur, and possibly as many as 22,000 soldiers by the time of the defeat at Elasa.[33] In several battles, the rebels may have had numerical superiority to compensate for shortfalls in training and equipment.[62][note 3] After Jonathan was legitimized as high priest and governor by the Seleucid rulers, the Hasmoneans had easier access to recruitment; 20,000 soldiers are reported as repulsing Cendebeus in 139 BCE.[64]
Much of the combat in the revolt took place in hilly and mountainous terrain, which complicated warfare.[65] Seleucid phalanxes trained for mountain combat would fight at somewhat greater distance from each other compared to packed lowland formations, and used slightly shorter but more maneuverable Roman-style pikes.[66]
Writings
Original histories
The most detailed contemporaneous writings that survived were the
The book of 1 Maccabees is considered mostly reliable, as it was seemingly written by an eyewitness early in the reign of the Hasmoneans, most likely during John Hyrcanus's reign. Its depictions of battles are detailed and seemingly accurate, although it portrays implausibly large numbers of Seleucid soldiers, to better emphasize God's aid and Judas's talents.[62][70] The book also acts as Hasmonean dynasty propaganda in its editorial slant on events.[71][72][73] The new rule of the Hasmoneans was not without its own internal enemies; the office of High Priest had been occupied for generations by a descendant of the High Priest Zadok. The Hasmoneans, while of the priestly line (Kohens), were seen by some as usurpers, did not descend from Zadok, and had taken the office originally only via a deal with a Seleucid king. As such, the book emphasizes that the Hasmoneans' actions were in line with heroes of older scripture; they were God's new chosen and righteous rulers. For example, it dismisses a defeat suffered by other commanders named Joseph and Azariah as because "they did not listen to Judas and his brothers. But they did not belong to the family of those men through whom deliverance was given to Israel."[74][71]
2 Maccabees is an abridgment by an unknown Egyptian Jew of a lost five-volume work by an author named Jason of Cyrene. It is a separate work from 1 Maccabees and not a continuation of it. 2 Maccabees has a more directly religious focus than 1 Maccabees, crediting God and divine intervention for events more prominently than 1 Maccabees; it also focuses personally on Judas rather than other Hasmoneans. It has a special focus on the Second Temple: the controversies over the position of High Priest, its pollution by Menelaus into a Greek-Jewish mix, its eventual cleansing, and the threats by Nicanor at the Temple.[75] 2 Maccabees also represents an attempt to take the cause of the Maccabees outside Judea, as it encourages Egyptian Jews and other diaspora Jews to celebrate the cleansing of the temple (Hanukkah) and revere Judas Maccabeus.[75][69] In general, 2 Maccabees portrays the prospects of peace and cooperation more positively than 1 Maccabees. In 1 Maccabees, the only way for the Jews to honorably make a deal with the Seleucids involved first defeating them militarily and attaining functional independence. In 2 Maccabees, intended for an audience of Egyptian Jews who still lived under Greek rule, peaceful coexistence was possible, but misunderstandings or troublemakers forced the Jews into defensive action.[76][77]
Josephus wrote over two centuries after the revolt, but his friendship with the Flavian dynasty Roman emperors meant he had access to resources undreamt of by other scholars. Josephus appears to have used 1 Maccabees as one of his main sources for his histories, but supplements it with knowledge of events of the Seleucid Empire from Greek histories as well as unknown other sources. Josephus seems to be familiar with the work of historians Polybius and Strabo, as well as the mostly lost works of Nicolaus of Damascus.[78][45][79]
Daniel
The Book of Daniel appears to have been written during the early stages of the revolt around 165 BCE, and would eventually be included in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[note 4] While the setting of the book is 400 years earlier in Babylon, the book is a literary response to the situation in Judea during the revolt (Sitz im Leben); the writer chose to move the setting either for esoteric reasons or to evade scrutiny from would-be censors. It urges its readers to remain steadfast in the face of persecution. For example, Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar orders his court to eat the king's rich food; the prophet Daniel and his companions keep kosher and eat a diet of vegetables and water, yet emerge healthier than all the king's courtiers.[81] The message is clear: defy Antiochus's decree and keep Jewish dietary law. Daniel predicts the king will go insane; Antiochus's title, "Epiphanes" ("Chosen of God"), was mocked by his enemies as "Epimanes" ("Madman"), and he was known to keep odd habits. When Daniel and the Jews are threatened with death, they face it calmly, and are saved in the end, a relevant message among Jewish opposition to Antiochus IV.[82][83]
The final chapters of the book of Daniel include apocalyptic visions of the future. One of the motives for the author was to give heart to devout Jews that their victory was foreseen by prophecy 400 years earlier.[84] Daniel's final vision refers to Antiochus Epiphanes as the "king of the north" and describes his earlier actions, such as being repelled and humiliated by the Romans in his second campaign in Egypt, but also that the king of the north would "meet his end".[82] Additionally, all those who had died under the king of the north would be revived, with those who suffered rewarded while those who had prospered would be subjected to shame and contempt.[2] The main historical items taken away from Daniel is in its depiction of the king of the north desecrating the temple with an abomination of desolation, and stopping the tamid, the daily sacrifice at the Temple; these agree with the depictions in 1 and 2 Maccabees of the changes at the Second Temple.[82][85]
Related works
Other works appear to have at least been influenced by the Maccabean Revolt include the
A more uncertain work that has nevertheless attracted much interest is the Qumran Habakkuk Commentary, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran religious community was not on good terms with the Hasmonean religious establishment in Jerusalem, and is believed to have favored the Zadokite line of succession to the High Priesthood. The commentary (pesher) describes a situation wherein a "Righteous Teacher" is unfairly driven from their post and into exile by a "Wicked Priest" and a "Man of the Lie" (possibly the same person). Many figures have been proposed as the identity of the people behind these titles; one theory goes that the Righteous Teacher was whoever held the High Priest position after Alcimus's death in 159 BCE, perhaps a Zadokite. If this person even existed, they lost their position after Jonathan Apphus, backed by his Maccabee army and his new alliance with Seleucid royal claimant Alexander Balas, took over the High Priest position in 152 BCE. Thus, the Wicked Priest would be Jonathan, and the Qumran community of the era would have consisted of religious opposition to the Hasmonean takeover: the first Essenes. The date of the work is unknown, and others scholars have proposed different candidates as possible identities of the Wicked Priest, so the identification with Jonathan is only a possibility, yet an intriguing and plausible one.[92][93]
Later analysis and historiography
In the First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the Maccabean Revolt is described as a collective response to cultural oppression and national resistance to a foreign power. Written after the revolt was complete, the books urged unity among the Jews; they describe little of the Hellenizing faction other than to call them lawless and corrupt, and downplay their relevance and power in the conflict.[72][94] While many scholars still accept this basic framework, that the Hellenists were weak and dependent on Seleucid aid to hold influence, this view has since been challenged. In the revisionist view, the heroes and villains were both Jews: a majority of the Jews cautiously supported Hellenizing High Priest Menelaus; Antiochus IV's edicts only came about due to pressure from Hellenist Jews; and the revolt was best understood as a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the countryside and Hellenized Jews in the cities, with only occasional Seleucid intervention.[95][96][97] Elias Bickerman is generally credited as popularizing this alternative viewpoint in 1937, and other historians such as Martin Hengel have continued the argument.[98][85] For example, Josephus's account directly blames Menelaus for convincing Antiochus IV to issue his anti-Jewish decrees.[23][99] Alcimus, Menelaus's replacement as High Priest, is blamed for instigating a massacre of devout Jews in 1 Maccabees, rather than the Seleucids directly.[23] The Maccabees themselves fight and exile Hellenists as well, most clearly in the final expulsion from the Acra, but also in the earlier countryside struggles against the Tobiad clan of Hellenist-friendly Jews.[19]
In general, scholarly opinion is that Hellenistic historians were biased, but also that the bias did not result in excessive distortion or fabrication of facts, and they are mostly reliable sources once the bias is removed.[100] There exist revisionist scholars who are inclined to discount the reliability of the primary histories more aggressively, however.[101] Daniel R. Schwartz argues that Antiochus IV's initial attacks on Jerusalem from 168–167 BCE were not out of pure malice, as 1 Maccabees depicts, or a misunderstanding as 2 Maccabees depicts (and most scholars accept), but rather suppressing an authentic rebellion whose members were lost to history, as the Hasmoneans wished to show only themselves as capable of bringing victory.[11] Sylvie Honigman argues that the depictions of Seleucid religious oppression are misleading and likely false. She advances the view that the loss of civil rights by the Jews in 168 BCE was an administrative punishment in the aftermath of local unrest over increased taxes; that the struggle was fundamentally economic, and merely interpreted as religiously driven in retrospect.[85] She also argues that the moralistic slant of the sources means that their depictions of impious acts by Hellenists cannot be trusted as historical. For example, the claim that Menelaus stole temple vessels to pay for a bribe to Antiochus is merely aimed at delegitimizing them both.[102] John Ma argues that the Temple was restored in 164 BCE upon petition by Menelaus to Antiochus, not liberated and rededicated by the Maccabees.[76] These views have attracted partial support, but have not become a new consensus themselves. Modern defenders of more direct readings of the sources cite that evidence of such an unrecorded popular rebellion is thin-to-nonexistent. Assuming that Antiochus IV would not have started an ethno-religious persecution for irrational reasons is an ahistorical position in this criticism, as many leaders both ancient and modern clearly were motivated by religious concerns.[85][103]
Later scholars and archaeologists have found and preserved various artifacts from the time period and analyzed them, which have informed historians on the plausibility of various elements in the books.[68] For recent examples, a stele (the "Helidorus stele") was discovered and deciphered in 2007 that dated from around 178 BCE, and gives insight to Seleucid government appointments and policy in the era immediately preceding the revolt.[104][105] The Givati Parking Lot dig in Jerusalem from 2007–2015 has found possible evidence of the Acra; it might resolve a seeming contradiction between Josephus's account of the Acra's fate (he claimed it was torn down) and 1 Maccabees's account (it was merely occupied) in favor of the 1 Maccabees version.[106][107]
Legacy
The Jewish festival of
The Jewish victory at the Battle of Adasa led to an annual festival as well, albeit one less prominent and remembered than Hanukkah. The defeat of Seleucid general Nicanor is celebrated on 13 Adar as Yom Nicanor.[113][114]
The traumatic time period helped define the genre of the apocalypse and heightened Jewish apocalypticism.[115] The portrayal of an evil tyrant like Antiochus IV attacking the holy city of Jerusalem in the Book of Daniel became a common theme during later Roman rule of Judea, and would contribute to Christian conceptions of the Antichrist.[116]
The persecution of the Jews under Antiochus, and the Maccabees response, would influence and create new trends in Jewish strains of thought with regard to divine rewards and punishments. In earlier Jewish works, devotion to God and adherence to the law led to rewards and punishments in life: the observant would prosper, and disobedience would result in disaster. The persecution of Antiochus IV directly contradicted this teaching: for the first time, Jews were suffering precisely because they refused to violate Jewish law, and thus the most devout and observant Jews were the ones suffering the most. This resulted in literature suggesting that those who suffered in their earthly life would be rewarded afterward, such as the Book of Daniel describing a future resurrection of the dead, or 2 Maccabees describing in detail the martyrdom of a woman and her seven sons under Antiochus, but who would be rewarded after their deaths.[117][118][119]
As a victory of the "few over the many", the revolt served as inspiration for future Jewish resistance movements, such as the
The Jewish downplaying of the Maccabees would be challenged centuries later in the 19th century and early 20th century, as Jewish writers and artists held up the Maccabees as examples of independence and victory.
See also
Notes
- ^ The date of the treasury raid is disputed. 1 Maccabees suggests the Temple treasury was raided in 169 BCE after the first expedition to Egypt. 2 Maccabees suggests the treasury was raided in 168 BCE after the second expedition to Egypt. Possibly, the Book of Daniel (Daniel 11:28–11:30) suggests Antiochus IV raided Jerusalem twice, after each trip. Josephus says Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem twice and looted the city the first time, the Temple the second time.[11]
- ^ 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees are both sources heavily slanted against the Seleucids and in favor of the Maccabees, so historians such as Lester L. Grabbe caution that the outrages described within them should be taken with some skepticism. Nevertheless, it is clear enough that whatever actions the Seleucids did take were sufficient to enrage the populace, even if they were later exaggerated.[2]
- ^ Historian Bezalel Bar-Kochva propounds the view that the Seleucid army was a small but elite force that largely consisted of high-morale Greeks devoted to maintaining "their" empire, hence his writings that the rebels likely outnumbered the Seleucids despite the Books of Maccabees claiming otherwise. That said, the matter is not settled; other scholars such as Israel Shatzman keep to the older view that the Seleucids deployed a larger but less disciplined force with many non-Greek soldiers with low morale, fighting only for money and with little care for the Seleucid cause.[63]
- ^ The nature of Chapters 1–6 of Daniel is contested; some scholars believe that these chapters existed prior to the Revolt and were lightly modified at most, while others suggest that such reliance on pre-existing legends of Daniel was minor.[80]
- ^ The degree to which diaspora Jews celebrated Hanukkah in the centuries after the revolt but before the medieval age is unclear and disputed, however. The main surviving somewhat contemporary Jewish source mentioning Hanukkah outside Judea is Josephus, who as a distant relation to the Hasmonean family line and who grew up in Jerusalem, would be more inclined to play up its importance.[110]
- ^ The Maccabi World Union organizes the Maccabiah Games, first held in 1932. Commentators have noted the irony of naming an Olympics-style sporting competition, whose origin was from ancient Greece, after a group that explicitly fought Greek influence.[42]
References
- ^ Grabbe 2008, p. 278-281
- ^ a b c d e Grabbe 2010, p. 10–16
- ^ Grabbe 2008, p. 65-68; 305-306
- ^ Hengel 1973, p. 64
- ^ Grabbe 2008, p. 144-146
- ^ a b Cohen 1988, p. 46–53
- ^ a b Regev 2013, p. 17–25
- ISBN 9780520290846.
- ^ a b Hengel 1973, p. 277
- ^ Tcherikover 1959, p. 170–190
- ^ ISBN 90-04-12007-6.
- ^ Grainger 2012, p. 25–29
- ^ Hengel 1973 p. 280–281; 286–297.
- ^ Cohen 1988, p. 37–39
- ISBN 978-0-19-964602-9.
- ^ Honigman 2014, p. 388–389. Honigman downplays strongly the claims of actual religious persecution, however.
- ^ a b Grainger 2012, p. 32–36
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 194–198.
- ^ a b Honigman 2014, p. 282–284
- ^ Grainger 2012, p. 17
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 276–282.
- ^ a b c d Grabbe 2010, p. 67–68
- ^ a b c Mendels 1997, p. 119–129
- ^ Regev 2013, p. 273–274
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 342–346
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 335–339
- ^ Mendels 1997, p. 129
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 348–350
- ^ Scolnic 2004, p. 12–36
- ^ a b Tcherikover 1959, p. 230–233
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 359–361
- ^ a b c Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 376–402
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 47–62
- ^ Schürer 1896, p. 235–238
- ^ a b c Schürer 1896, p. 239–242
- ^ 1 Maccabees 9:73
- ^ a b c Tcherikover 1959, p. 236–240
- ^ a b Mendels 1997, p. 174–179
- ^ Schürer 1896, p. 251
- ^ Honigman 2014, p. 163
- ^ Schürer 1896, p. 265
- ^ a b c Spiro, Ken (2001). "History Crash Course #29: Revolt of the Maccabees". Aish HaTorah. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
- ^ Regev 2013, p. 115–117. Regev translates "Nasi" as "King", however, and credits Simon with less restraint than other authors, though he acknowledges the different terms.
- ^ Schürer 1896, p. 271–273
- ^ ISBN 978-90-47-40019-6. Alternate location: Rajak, Tessa (March 1981). "Roman Intervention in a Seleucid Siege of Jerusalem?". Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies. 22 (1): 65–81. Rajak hypothesizes a Roman intervention to explain Antiochus VII's seeming change of heart.
- ^ Mendel 1997, p. 180–181
- ^ Regev 2013, p. 165–172
- ^ Mendels 1997, p. 62
- ^ "GERUSIA - JewishEncyclopedia.com". www.jewishencyclopedia.com.
- ^ "GOVERNMENT - JewishEncyclopedia.com". jewishencyclopedia.com.
- ^ Cohen 1988, p. 123–125
- Elias Bickerman.
- ^ Tcherikover 1959, p. 246–255
- ISBN 0-8006-0647-7.
- ISBN 0-691-08850-0.
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 8–14
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 16–19
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 30–36
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 40–43
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 68–75
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 85–89. Note that historian Israel Shatzman directly doubts Bar-Kochva's suggestion of diaspora Jews providing training to the Maccabees, suspecting Jews trained as mercenaries abroad would have been more likely to aid the Seleucids instead (Shatzman 1991, p. 19).
- ^ a b Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 63–67
- ^ Mendels 1997, p. 167.
- ^ Shatzman 1991, p. 29–31
- ^ Shatzman 1991, p. 12, 310
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 116-127
- ^ Bickerman 1937, p. 9
- ^ a b Regev 2013, p. 25–30
- ^ a b Bickerman 1937, p. 22–23
- ^ Shatzman 1991, p. 26
- ^ a b Harrington 1988, p. 57–59
- ^ a b Bickerman 1937, p.17–21
- ^ Honigman 2014, p. 6–7
- ^ 1 Maccabees 5:60–5:62
- ^ a b Harrington 1988, p. 36–56
- ^ ISBN 978-90-04-33017-7.
- ^ Schwartz 2008, p. 48–50
- ^ Harrington 1988, p. 109
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 191
- ^ Grabbe 2020, p. 88–91
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 211–212
- ^ a b c Harrington 1988, p. 17–35
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 258–262
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 41
- ^ ISBN 978-90-04-33017-7.
- ^ Harrington 1988, p. 114–119
- ^ Harrington 1988, p. 110–114
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 391
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 317–319
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 314–345
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 346–352. Portier-Young suggests 165–160 BCE for a more specific guess as to the date of authorship of the Book of Dreams on p. 388, but the matter is disputed.
- ISBN 9780802862853.
Appointed high priest in 152 BCE, he [Jonathan] was probably the figure designated by the Qumran authors as 'the wicked priest.'
- ^ Harrington 1988, p. 119–123
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 302
- ^ Hengel 1973, p. 290
- ISBN 0-8386-1707-7.
- ^ Honigman 2014, p. 383–385
- ^ Scolnic 2004, p. 2
- ISBN 0-674-99577-5.
For Lysias had advised the king to slay Menelaus, if he wished the Jews to remain quiet and not give him any trouble; it was this man, he said, who had been the cause of the mischief by persuading the king's father to compel the Jews to abandon their father's religion.
- ^ Mendels 1997, p. 4
- ^ Linda Zollschan, "Review of Sylvie Honigman, 'Tales of High Priests and Taxes'", in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2015.08.07
- ^ Hongiman 2014, p. 3–4; 20–21; 91–93; 227
- ISBN 978-0-19-068966-7. Mendels also cites:
JSTOR 24904720. - ^ Barkat, Amiram (May 8, 2007). "Ancient Greek Inscription, Dating to 178 B.C.E., Goes on Display at Israel Museum". Haaretz. Retrieved February 3, 2022.
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, p. 80–82
- ^ Lawler, Andrew (April 22, 2016). "Jerusalem Dig Uncovers Ancient Greek Citadel". National Geographic. Archived from the original on May 13, 2021. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
- ISBN 978-0884145042.
- ^ Farmer 1956, p. 132–145
- ^ Regev 2013, p. 50–57
- ^ Schwartz 2008, p. 37, 87
- ^ Regev 2013, p. 278–279
- ^ a b Harrington 1988, p. 131
- ^ Bar-Kochva 1989, p. 372
- ^ Farmer 1956, p. 145–155
- ^ Portier-Young 2011, xxi–xxiii; 3–5
- ^ a b Hengel 1973, p. 306
- ^ Cohen 1988, p. 105–108
- ^ Grabbe 2010, p. 94
- ISBN 9781501136757.
- ^ Farmer 1956, p. 175–179; 203
- ^ Mendels 1997, p. 371–376
- ^ Stemberger, Günter (1992). "The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition". The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. E. J. Brill. p. 192–203.
- ^ Bickerman 1937, p. 100
- ^ Farmer 1956, p. 126–128
- ISBN 978-0-19-881138-1.
- ISBN 978-90-04-21104-9.
- .
- The Jewish Review of Books. New York. Retrieved November 1, 2021.
- ^ Skolnik, Fred, ed. (2007). "Maccabi World Union; Order of Ancient Maccabaeans". Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 13 (Second ed.). Macmillan Reference USA.
Bibliography
- ISBN 0521323525.
- ISBN 90-04-05947-4.
- ISBN 978-0-664-23904-6.
- LCCN 56-7364.
- ISBN 978-0-567-03396-3.
- ISBN 9780567552488.
- ISBN 978-0-5676-9294-8.
- Grainger, John D. (2012). The Wars of the Maccabees. Casemate Publishers. ISBN 9781781599464.
- ISBN 978-1-60899-113-6.
- ISBN 0334007887.
- ISBN 9780520958180.
- ISBN 0-8028-4329-8.
- Portier-Young, Anathea (2011). Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 9780802870834.
- Regev, Eyal (2013). The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-55043-4.
- ISBN 1565630491. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
- ISBN 978-3-11-019118-9.
- ISBN 0-7618-3044-8.
- ISBN 3-16-145617-3.
- Tcherikover, Victor (1959). Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by Applebaum, S. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.
External links
- Texts on Wikisource:
- Book XII of the Antiquities of the Jews
- Book XIII of the Antiquities of the Jews
- The Wars of the Jews
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees