The Oxford History of the Biblical World (79 page)

Although from Janneus’s perspective the ensuing record of military engagements was largely positive, these victories cost his nation many lives and cost him personally much of the goodwill he had built up. Accusations spread that Janneus was unfit to be high priest, and these ill feelings spilled over into hostile acts on more than one occasion. In response, Janneus brought in mercenaries to first bully and then kill thousands of those Jews who protested. The sense that God had abandoned this Jewish king grew all the more intense when Janneus’s army suffered a major reversal in Transjordan. So repugnant had Janneus become in the eyes of some Jews that they invited the Seleucid monarch Demetrius III to deliver a crushing blow against their own ruler. Although without precedent, this request did conform in general to the biblical teaching, supported by narrative accounts, that God could use foreign rulers to punish Israel—or in this case its king. In the struggle that followed Demetrius succeeded in striking the first blow, and it was heavy. But Janneus managed to rally his troops. Faced with the prospect of a protracted Judean campaign and the reality of further losses, Demetrius withdrew his forces. From his perspective, this was only a sideshow; the main event was the threat posed by rival claimants to his throne.

Janneus ordered the crucifixion of almost a thousand Jewish men who had fought against him alongside Demetrius. We are told that the king compelled these men, even as they were suffering a long and painful death, to endure further anguish: to witness the massacre of their own wives and children. Not surprisingly, a considerable number of Jews went into exile, and Janneus was the recipient of hateful epithets that rivaled those given to Antiochus IV. These events occurred midway through the quarter century of Janneus’s rule (103–76
BCE
). He faced no further internal threats for the remainder of his reign, but it is doubtful that things were so tranquil below the surface.

Janneus did continue to pursue his policy of territorial conquest and expansion, with mixed results. Faced with an increasingly aggressive challenge from the Nabatean Arab king Aretas III, Janneus constructed and fortified several sites, probably including Masada of later fame. To Janneus’s reign can also be dated several important literary works, including 1 Maccabees (discussed below) and the expanded Greek version of Esther that is canonical for Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

We will shortly discuss in detail the origins and early history of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. Josephus is our chief source for these “sects,” and he wrote many years after the events we are now narrating. Rabbinic materials in their written forms also date from a much later period. And it must be admitted that the Dead Sea Scrolls are often difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, judicious use of these several sources leads to one conclusion: at one time or another members of all of these groups opposed, often with great vehemence, Alexander Janneus and his policies.
Presumably such hostility mirrored in general the stance of the vast majority of Jews who identified with no specific group. Especially dramatic is a scene set by Josephus. Bedridden, chronically ill, and near death, the king summoned his wife Alexandra and pleaded with her to listen to the Pharisees. He had not treated them with respect, but now repented of his actions against them. Whether or not this story is historically reliable, the incident points to the reality of Hasmonean-Pharisaic opposition during Janneus’s reign.

As queen, Alexandra appears to have followed her husband’s advice with respect to the Pharisees. The Sadducees also seem to have given her their support during the nine years of her rule. In foreign affairs, the reign of Alexandra was likewise tranquil, with only a handful of military engagements, for the most part successful. Janneus and Alexandra had two sons: John Hyrcanus II and Judas Aristobulus II. Hyrcanus, the elder, succeeded his father as high priest, while Alexandra maintained royal power and prerogatives for herself. This unusual arrangement sufficed so long as the queen remained in good health. Only near the time of her death in 67
BCE
did fraternal rivalry threaten to tear apart the Jewish kingdom. From the perspective of the Hasmonean dynasty it was unfortunate indeed that this threat became a reality only four years after Alexandra’s death.

While the queen was still alive, but noticeably weakened, Aristobulus took aggressive steps to ensure that he, and not his elder brother Hyrcanus, would succeed their mother as king. Shortly after Alexandra’s death, armed forces loyal to the two brothers clashed. Aristobulus had the military advantage, and Hyrcanus, bowing to reality, proposed a face-saving compromise compatible with his own chief interests: Aristobulus would be both king and high priest; Hyrcanus would retire from public life, but retain considerable prestige and wealth. Aristobulus instantly accepted.

With this agreement in place, it was possible to envision continued peace and prosperity for the Jewish state. But such was not to be. The irritant was the Idumean leader Antipater (Herod the Great’s father). Antipater’s father had for many years served Hyrcanus’s parents, and Antipater himself threw his support behind Hyrcanus. Perhaps he thought him easier to manipulate than his younger brother Aristobulus, or perhaps he feared for his life if Aristobulus gained too much power. In any event, Antipater persuaded Hyrcanus to break his fraternal pact and seek support from the Nabatean monarch Aretas III, whom Janneus had earlier opposed. Encouraged by Antipater, Aretas raised a huge army and marched against Aristobulus. Hyrcanus joined in this effort, which resulted in a massive defeat for his younger brother. Aristobulus and his supporters retreated to the Jerusalem Temple and maintained the traditional rituals of sacrifice while staving off the attacks of their opponents.

Both brothers sought the advantage by appealing to the Roman leader Pompey, who was then in Asia Minor. At first, one of Pompey’s aides declared in favor of Aristobulus. This was enough for the Nabateans, who had no desire to challenge Roman power. Aristobulus now had the upper hand and rapidly took advantage of his vastly improved circumstances. Pompey decided to look into these matters himself and summoned both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus to Damascus. A third party to this
dispute was also given the chance to make its case. This third party consisted of a delegation from the general populace of Judea. Pompey listened to all sides, but adjourned the session without announcing his final disposition of the matter.

In the interim Aristobulus acted in what Pompey interpreted as a hostile manner. As a result, Pompey attacked Aristobulus’s forces, predictably compelling the Jewish leader to surrender. It must have occasioned surprise on Pompey’s part when he learned that Aristobulus’s supporters, still in control of the Jerusalem Temple, desired to keep up the struggle. Hyrcanus’s group gave its full support to Pompey’s continued efforts, but only after a protracted and bloody siege did the Romans succeeded in capturing the heavily fortified Temple Mount. As victorious general, Pompey had no scruples against entering the Temple’s innermost chamber, the holy of holies, but he was well advised not to steal anything from the Temple’s great store of wealth. This occurred in 63
BCE
.

The Romans were now firmly in charge. This was obvious to all through the imposition of tribute and the submission of Judea to the direct control of the Roman governor of Syria. Aristobulus and his family were taken to Rome as captives. Jewish freedom was a thing of the past. In these circumstances it is difficult to imagine that most Jews took much solace in Pompey’s reinstatement of Hyrcanus as high priest.

For over a century prior to Pompey’s triumph, Hasmoneans had dominated Jewish religious, cultural, and political life. Individual Hasmoneans varied greatly in terms of personal characteristics and fitness to lead the Jewish people. On the whole, members of that dynasty were probably more willing to reach compromises with the forces of Hellenism than was the general populace. But it is not clear that they consciously courted foreign favor at the expense of Judaism as they understood it, or that they consistently promoted policies that favored Hellenizers over more traditional Jews. In this regard, it is instructive to point out that the last Hasmonean defenders of the Temple, Aristobulus’s supporters, refused to fight against the Romans on the Sabbath, and many Jews were slaughtered by the Romans in the very midst of their performance of Temple ritual.

In our discussion of the third century
BCE
, we explored the nature and extent of evidence provided by three biblical books: Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Likewise there are three biblical books among our sources for the second and first centuries: Daniel, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. In considering the term
biblical,
we observed that only one of the earlier three, Esther, belongs to the Hebrew canon that constitutes the Jewish Bible and the Protestant Old Testament. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, the Old Testament also encompasses Judith, Tobit, and an expanded form of Esther that has been preserved in Greek. Exactly the same configuration holds true for the three biblical books we are now discussing. Daniel is found in all canons, whereas 1 and 2 Maccabees are canonical for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but apocryphal in the Jewish and Protestant traditions. Moreover, the Hebrew text of Daniel, preserved or translated as part of Jewish and Protestant Bibles, was augmented in Greek and in this form was taken up by Catholics and the Orthodox. In terms of genre there is an important difference: Esther, Judith, and Tobit are novels; of the latter triad, only Daniel can be so designated.

The Hebrew form of Daniel neatly divides into two parts: chapters 1 through 6 consist of a collection of tales, in which Daniel and his companions demonstrate the superiority of their God and those who obediently follow him over the worshipers of false, empty, and powerless deities. Set loosely in the period of the Babylonian exile, most of these stories appear to have circulated independently in oral form before being committed to writing. As with Esther, Judith, and Tobit, there are several deviations from the historical record as known elsewhere. Their utilization in a fully ironic, even mocking, manner makes it unnecessary to charge either ancient author or modern reader with ignorance or carelessness. The author and his initially intended audience fully understood and appreciated Daniel’s novelistic context. What was most important was Daniel’s steadfast loyalty to God in the face of imminent disgrace and death. The same held true for his three colleagues. The reversal of fortune, whereby they were all rewarded for refusal to obey royal command, was fully prepared for by the knowledge that such commands stood diametrically opposed to the will of God, the ultimate king and lawgiver. The sudden changes of heart, through which foreign rulers acknowledged the sovereignty of God, did not really happen, but exemplify what should be the reaction of all people when confronted by the monotheistic faith of Israel.

These exemplary tales are augmented by three others in the Greek version of Daniel. The first deals with Susanna, a Jewish woman of flawless virtue, who is the victim of base and groundless accusations by two elders. Young Daniel leads the judicial charge to free her and remove these blotches from the blameless maiden’s reputation. Of course, virtue—in the form of God’s justice, its pleader (Daniel), and its exemplar (Susanna)—triumphs at tale’s end. Susanna’s relatively brief role parallels the more extensive treatment lavished on Esther, Judith, and other female characters in Jewish literature of the Hellenistic period. In Bel and the Dragon, Daniel steps forward to expose the utterly foolish trappings that underpinned much pagan worship. For all but the most credulous there ought to be no contest in the struggle between God and other deities.

But there was a struggle, a crucial one, between the followers of God and those, including some of the Jews, who worshiped many gods. The apocalyptic nature of this struggle, which dominated the world scene and involved angelic hosts as well as human enemies, is the subject of the series of visions that make up chapters 7 through 12 of the book of Daniel. All but the most conservative interpreters agree that these chapters date from the time of the Maccabean revolt, specifically to the period between Antiochus’s decrees of 167
BCE
and Judah’s cleansing of the Temple at the end of 163. The visions contain many veiled allusions to Jewish history, and these allusions are often attributed to the visionary Daniel. Traditionally, these visions and their interpretation have been understood as prophecies or predictions of the future and dated to the Babylonian exile. Today we understand them as prophecies after the fact, a characterization often troubling to Bible readers until they realize that this is exactly what the author or compiler of Daniel intended. God has not lost control of history, and the victory of the forces of evil over the supporters of good is more illusory than real, temporary and not permanent. The final chapter of this part of Daniel,
Chapter 12
, contains the Hebrew Bible’s first and only unequivocal statement concerning reward and punishment after death. The postresurrection rewards of
those Jews who die in obedience to God’s commands are as sure as the eternal punishment of those who achieve earthly success at the expense of their fellow Jews.

With respect to the books of Maccabees, we will discuss 2 Maccabees first because its genre and teachings are closer to Daniel’s. We designate 2 Maccabees as a historical novel because its author, while making effective use of many techniques in common with Daniel, Esther, Tobit, and Judith, fully intended his audience to understand his narration as based on events that actually occurred and on people who really lived. Composed in Greek, 2 Maccabees is an unnamed writer’s effort to summarize a longer history by the otherwise unknown Jason of Gyrene. This abridgment covers the decade and a half from approximately 175
BCE
to 160, when Judah Maccabee successfully faced the Syrian commander Nicanor. Judah, a fully realized character like Judith or Daniel (especially in the longer, Greek version), is clearly the hero of the story. Appeal to the emotions is a prominent feature of the author’s style, nowhere more evident than in his narration of martyred Jews, who willingly chose death rather than profaning divine command. Whether these individuals are the first martyrs known from history, their memorable portrayal served as a paradigm for other Jews and later for Christians who undoubtedly did choose death at human hands rather than disobey the Lord God. Also instructive in these portrayals is the characters’ insistence that the pain they have chosen to endure on earth is as nothing when compared with the rewards they will enjoy for all eternity after death. By extension, the price of earthly rewards is frequently eternal damnation. These are themes that receive full, if distinctive, development in later Jewish and early Christian literature.