Professional Documents
Culture Documents
War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF
War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF
War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christ PDF
Torleif Elgvin
1 Introduction
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.
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
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
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).
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
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).
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).
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.”
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
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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:
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.
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
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).
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.