November 26, 2010

  • Chanukah (Hanukah) and the history of the Maccabees

     

    SHABBAT SHALOM!  

    WISH YOU ALL JOYFUL SHABBAT SHALOM FELLOWSHIP WITH YHWH EVERLASTING FATHER!

     

    Hanukah (Festival of Lights) this year begins at sunset on December 1 and ends at sunset on December 9.　

    For more info about what Hanukah is all about, please see our short article:

    http://therefinersfire.org/hannukah.htm

     

    HalleluYAH!   I would like to share with you all deep about the history of the Maccabees:  

    The Seleucid Empire (323 - 64 B.C.) Antiochus IV was the king of the Seleucid Empire.   

     You can check Google about his background:    sacking of Jerusalem and persecution of Jews.

    Deep information:   His goal was having gymnasics - what was it?     Ancient Olympic Games.

    Pinpoint:   To curry Antiochus' support, these rival priests completely Hellenized Jerusalem, promoting Greek culture & building a gymnasium for Olympic sport.

    The temple in Jerusalem became the temple of Olympian Zeus.   

     

    http://virtualreligion.net/iho/antiochus_4.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games 

     

    The revolt of the Maccabees

    AS THE insurgency in Iraq continues and questions about its outcome surface, one might look for possible historical parallels--and one of the most successful insurgencies against a colonial power in the Middle East was the Jewish revolt, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, against Greek Seleucid overlords in the second century B.C.E. (1)

    The success of the revolt is still celebrated today by Jews as the Feast of Hannukah. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox know the story because their Bible contains the First and Second Books of the Maccabees. Protestants, on the other hand, are less familiar with this narrative, because these two books are not in their Bible but belong to what are called the apocryphal books.

    The story of the revolt is told in two versions, the First and the Second Books of the Maccabees (although the second is not a sequel to the first, but a completely different telling). While the First Book glorifies the deeds of the Hasmonean family "through whom deliverance was given to Israel", 2 Maccabees stresses God as the defender and protector of his people and their temple, if they obey his laws. These are differences in emphasis, however. Both versions hold that Jews must follow their ancestral laws, as religion and politics are inextricably entwined in their view. We are fortunate to have these two different versions, particularly as they describe the events from the perspective of the insurgents.

    AFTER THE death of Alexander the Great, three major powers emerged in the Eastern Mediterranean: the Macedonian Empire in Greece; the Ptolemaic Empire based in Egypt; and the Seleucid Empire, which stretched from present-day Turkey to present-day Afghanistan.

    The sheer size of the Seleucid Empire led to problems of control, and, during the third century B.C.E., it gradually shrunk, both in the western part of present-day Turkey and in the eastern side at Afghanistan and eastern Iran. While the Seleucids claimed sovereignty over this entire region, their core area comprised what is present-day Syria and Iraq.

    The Seleucids were in constant struggles with the Ptolemies of Egypt for control of the coastline from present-day Lebanon to the Red Sea, which had been in Egyptian hands since 301 B.C.E. However, following the battle of Panion (200 B.C.E.), this entire region--including Judea--became part of the Seleucid Empire.

    During the first twenty years of Seleucid hegemony over Judea there does not seem to have been any confrontation between the authorities in Judea and the Seleucid rulers. The Seleucid ruler had, in fact, generously allowed the Jews to be governed by their own ancestral laws in Jerusalem. The small state of Judea, with a radius of about twenty miles around its capital Jerusalem, was ruled by wealthy priestly and lay families. The situation is sometimes described as an idyllic one. However, there are indications of factional strife between and within the priestly families, and there was some friction between the rulers of Jerusalem and the Seleucid king. Lurking behind these frictions is the larger issue of what constitutes Jewish identity and who makes that definition. (2)

    Jason, the high-priest of Jerusalem, is said to have sent money for a sacrifice to Herakles, but those carrying the money thought it inappropriate. Less extreme assimilation would be education in a gymnasion, which clearly some Jerusalem Jews underwent, and the ability to write decent Greek, which the author of 2 Maccabees possessed. A low level of assimilation would be avoiding contact with Gentiles as much as possible. The author of 2 Maccabees thought Jason was really not a Jew, but Jason no doubt thought he was. These frictions, however, did not lead to any serious conflicts--until 167 B.C.E., when an insurgency arose.

    Scholars have given very different views for the cause of this revolt. The two greatest twentieth-century scholars of the Maccabean revolt, Elias Bickermann (3) and Victor Tcherikover (4), each placed the blame on the policies of the Jewish leaders and not on the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but for different reasons. Bickermann saw the origin of the problem in the attempt of "Hellenized" Jews to reform the "antiquated" and "outdated" religion practiced in Jerusalem, and to rid it of superstitious elements. They were the ones who egged on Antiochus IV and instituted the religious reform in Jerusalem. One suspects that he may have been influenced in his view by an antipathy to Reform Judaism in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Germany. Tcherikover, perhaps influenced by socialist concerns, saw the uprising as one of the rural peasants against the rich elite.

    What follows is my own attempt to unravel what triggered the revolt, no doubt influenced by current events.

    1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees give different accounts of the origin of the revolt. 1 Maccabees blames Antiochus IV, the Seleucid ruler, for wanting to make all the people of his empire "one people, and that all should give up their particular customs." For the Jews, this would entail sacrificing to idols. Some Jews adopted these practices, but others, notably the Maccabees, did not. As those who adopted Greek ways are simply labeled as renegades, one cannot reconstruct what their views really were. According to 1 Maccabees, then, the king was attempting to hellenize the Jews, and this is how the Maccabean revolt is usually portrayed. From other sources on Antiochus IV, however, this view seems unlikely.

    As Otto Morkholm in (Antiochus IV of Syria) showed, while Antiochus IV was a great benefactor of the Greeks and generously endowed building projects in Greek cities, he also seems to have supported local cultures and traditions. What is fascinating is that, from the insurgents' point of view, the cause was the attempt to impose alien values--to homogenize all different cultures into one rather than respect the varied cultural and religious values of different groups.

    A different approach is taken by the author of 2 Maccabees. In this work, the author sees the germ of the problem much earlier, when the Jewish high-priest asks for and receives permission from Antiochus IV to build a gymnasion, part of the Greek educational system, in Jerusalem. The purpose of this primarily military education was to form good citizens, those who would perform and defend the traditions of the city. To change the educational system was thus to change the city's polity, as had happened not long before in 188 B.C.E. when the victorious Achaean leader, Philopoemen, had abolished the Spartan educational system. Although there is a period of almost seven years between permission being granted to build the gymnasion and the beginning of the uprising, a time not marked by any disturbance, the author of 2 Maccabees holds that this educational reform of the high-priest abrogated the Jewish polity: "[The high-priest] destroyed the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs contrary to the law." For the author of 2 Maccabees, the real cause of the revolt was the desire of the Jewish political elite to mimic the ways and education of the ruling superpower--and the match was applied to the kindling when, after Antiochus IV's unsuccessful invasion of Egypt in 168 B.C.E., he revoked the Jewish privileges of following their own customs and ancestral laws and imposed those found elsewhere in his realm. The temple in Jerusalem became the temple of Olympian Zeus, and the Jews were forced to celebrate festivals in honor of the Greek god Dionysos. Antiochus IV was quite ignorant about the group with whom he was dealing. He did not understand their own particular religious and cultural traditions, but proceeded to treat them like everybody else. It was this arrogance of ignorance that started the insurgency. Antiochus allowed local traditions to flourish as long as they were seen as not posing a threat to the kingdom. If a city revolted, however, the tolerance ended.

    Our sources thus provide three bases for the cause of the insurgency: the desire of the ruler to homogenize other people to his own lifestyle; the ignorance and insensitivity of the ruler towards the customs and cultural traditions of other peoples; and the longing of the wealthy elite to imitate the ways of the ruling group.

    THE INSURGENTS seem to have started in a small way. In 1 Maccabees, the insurgency begins in a small village, Modein, where a local leader, Mattathias of the Hasmonean family, was enraged when one of the people of the village stepped forward to offer sacrifice to idols. Mattathias is said to have struck the man down with his sword, as well as those who were forcing the Jews to sacrifice. He and his family took refuge in the hills, and began to go around tearing down altars and killing those who, in their eyes, were renegades and sinners. On Mattathias' death, his son Judas took over the leadership. In 2 Maccabees, there is no mention of Mattathias, but Judas is leader of the revolt right from the start. He would make night raids and ambushes on his opponents, and, without warning, set fires in towns and villages, no doubt attacking his opponents. The author does not elaborate as to why certain villages were attacked or who was ambushed, but only states that Judas acted in this manner. One might discern different attitudes in the two books towards tactics. The author of 1 Maccabees explicitly states that every male in a captured town was killed, and allows for defensive war on the Sabbath. The author of 2 Maccabees certainly details a lot of bloodshed, but does not state that every captured male was executed, and his emphasis on Judas' forces honoring the Sabbath might exclude defensive war on the Sabbath.

    Judas' numbers grew. When local Seleucid officials tried to squash the revolt, the insurgents' knowledge of the local terrain helped them put the local officials and their forces to flight as a result of these successful skirmishes, Judas and his brothers came to be feared, "and terror fell on the Gentiles all around them." (1 Macc. 3:25) Also, many more recruits joined the insurgents.

    Antiochus IV tried to negotiate with them but without success, as he still relied on the despised elite high priest to act as his interlocutor, assuming that as a fellow Jew he could reach common ground with the insurgents. While he was away campaigning in the eastern regions of his empire, the insurgents captured Jerusalem. They purified it from the ways of the Gentiles, and they began to follow their ancestral laws again. This re-dedication was celebrated by a new festival, the festival of Hannukah.

    Immediately after the death of Antiochus IV,, his successor appears to have ratified the insurgents' control of Jerusalem, as laid out in a letter he wrote to the Jews soon after his accession. But the insurgency expanded; both 1 and 2 Maccabees begin to tell of raids outside Judea: to the south, in Idumea; to the north, in Galilee; and in the Transjordan area--either to repel attacks originating from these areas or to help Jews who were suffering persecution in these neighboring cities. Judea thus became a base for the expansion of the insurgency against Seleucid authority. The Maccabees became a force to be reckoned with in the local arena--but, when confronted by the full weight of the Seleucid army, they could not withstand it, and were defeated. This happened when Antiochus V Eupator invaded the country in 162 B.C.E. Judas lost control of the temple mount and the wall around Mt. Zion was destroyed; the following year, Judas was killed and the victorious Seleucid commander took vengeance on Judas' friends and allies.

    The Seleucids thought they had turned a corner. The insurgents, now led by Judas' brother Jonathan, were on the run; the country was apparently being pacified, as a series of towns were fortified and garrisons deployed. But, when the Seleucid commander Bacchides felt the situation stable enough to leave Judea in the hands of Alcimus, the high priest, Jonathan came out of hiding, set up his own fortified encampment, and again made hit-and-run attacks. When the Seleucid commander returned because of Jonathan's disruption of the peace and tried, with local allies, to capture Jonathan in his fortified city, he was unable to. A standoff resulted, with the Seleucid commander promising not to harm Jonathan. We have little to no information about the following five-year period. Our one source, 1 Maccabees, portrays Jonathan as setting up an alternative government at Michmash, about seven miles north of Jerusalem, where King Saul had settled. Jonathan's rule is described idyllically in terms reminiscent of the ancient judges of Israel: "The sword ceased from Israel. Jonathan settled in Michmash and began to judge the people and he rooted out the godless in Israel." Well, not exactly. The Seleucid garrisons still controlled the main cities, and in particular Jerusalem.

    However, now external factors played into the insurgents' hands. After reigning for almost ten years, in 152 B.C.E., Demetrius I faced a usurper in Alexander Balas who claimed to be a son of Antiochus IV. From this point on, the Seleucid empire now became weakened through internal divisions, as first one and then another usurper of the throne emerged and fought for control of the empire. In the various confrontations between the claimants to the throne, Jonathan and his group gained further recognition and even positions of honor within the Seleucid Empire, as each claimant vied for help from the battle-hardened forces of Jonathan. The insurgents had attained respectability.

    They would not attain complete independence until 143/142 B.C.E. "when the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel", that is, when Demetrius II sent a letter saying that the Jews no longer had to pay tribute. The Hasmonean leader who had replaced Jonathan, his brother Simon, gained full control of Jerusalem and expelled the Seleucid garrisons from the country. He was acclaimed as leader and high-priest of Judea in 140 B.C.E., and recognized as such by the Roman Senate in 139 B.C.E.

    The resistance had taken around 24 years to be successful. It had harried the Seleucid forces all this time, and, through the internal weakness of the kingdom, had attained their goal.

    WHAT HAD begun as a protest against the removal of the ancestral traditional laws, customs and religion of this small city-state ended in the formation of a geographically larger, independent kingdom. After gaining independence, the battle training and tactics learned in the resistance were turned outwards to the larger region. This small kingdom could not threaten the existence of the larger empires, but it could be a nuisance.

    Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are not analyses of an insurgency in the modern sense, but are encomiastic. We do not learn much about their opponents, except that they are renegades, i.e. they have a different view of what Jewish identity entailed. We can tease out of these books that there were moments when the insurgency could have ended but did not. Antiochus IV tried to reinstate the ancestral laws but his overtures were rejected. We do not know why. Was it because, to Judas and his followers, Menelaus was not really a Jew? Judas was settling into married life in Jerusalem and was great friends with the Seleucid governor, Nicanor, but the king listened to the slander of Judas's opponent and those in the king's own court who did not want peace with Judas. One gets the sense that once violence has begun, it is hard to restrain the impulse to unleash it and to negotiate.

    A close reading of the tale of the Maccabees might lead strategists of great powers to formulate three "don'ts." First, don't remain ignorant of the customs, cultures and religious sensibilities of smaller communities with whom they come into contact. Second, do not use insufficient forces to quell small disturbances lest they escalate into larger problems over time. Finally, don't listen only to those members of the community who have already assimilated themselves to the values and mores of the larger power. Whatever its good intentions, the superpower's efforts will be seen by the local population as an attempt to force its notions of proper polity, to impose its ideas, on an unwilling populace who will rejoice at any discomfit of the larger power, and cheer when it leaves.

     

    HalleluYAH!  Excellent articles.   May YHWH bless you all seek and take heed His Set-Apart Torah in Yeshua's Mighty Name.  

    So be it!

    Malachi 3:16