Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

MACCABEAN PERIOD*

Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.

From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.

The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.

Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.

Before 200 BC, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.

By 175 BC, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.

The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.

It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s Antiquities 12.5.3).

Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.

The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).

In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 BC, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).

Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.

Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 BC, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.

The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s Antiquities 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.

Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s Antiquities 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s Antiquities 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s Antiquities 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.

Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.

While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s Antiquities 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.

From 152 BC, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.

As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 BC.

Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 BC, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.

There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 BC.

Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 BC.

At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.

In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.

During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.

As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.

The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.

After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 BC. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.

He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.

For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 BC, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s Antiquities 13.13.5).

Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s Antiquities 14.14.2).

The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s Antiquities 13.16.2).

Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.

The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 BC, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.

As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.

An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 BC, Pompey intervened personally.

Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.

The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.

In 57 BC Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.

Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 BC, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.

They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.

Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.

During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.