The Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom

Combining Political and Religious Power

With the emergence of the Hasmonean state, the political circumstances of the Jewish people were radically altered. The power and trappings of a self-governing political entity were now introduced into Jewish society. Control of the various societal institutions carried with it enormous authority and influence. From the outset, the Hasmoneans defined themselves as the supreme leaders of the people, both in politics and religion. Having already been appointed to the high priesthood (Jonathan, as noted above, had been appointed high priest with Demetrius’s help in 152 BCE), they assumed two more titles in 141 BCE—leader of the people and commander of the army (strategos). A generation later, in 104 BCE, the title “king” was adopted and from that time several generations of Jewish kings ruled Judea.

Combining the political authority of a sovereign state with the highest religious title in the land (that is, high priest) was indeed an innovation in Jewish history. Earlier, in the First Temple period, the high priesthood stood beside the monarchy; priest and king functioned as two distinctly independent sources of authority.

Similarly, in the period following Hasmonean rule, Herod would clearly separate these two realms, reserving the political one exclusively for himself and relegating the religious one, with its decidedly secondary status, to others. The combining of these two realms by the Hasmoneans proved to be explosive, in both a positive and a negative sense, as it provided an ideological component that motivated and justified the most daring of political and military policies.

Expanding Hasmonean Rule

One of the most remarkable achievements of the Hasmoneans was their radical redrawing of the map of Judea. What had once been a small, isolated sub-province in the Persian period and in the early Hellenistic period (after Alexander’s conquest) became, by the end of the Hasmonean era, a major political entity embracing all of modern Israel (except for the southern Negev and the northern coastal area), parts of southern Lebanon and western Jordan. Simon, who ruled the new state from 142 to 134 BCE, made a major military push to the northwest, toward the sea. He conquered Gezer, expelled its Gentile inhabitants, purified the town and resettled it with observant Jews (1 Maccabees 13:43–48). From Gezer he proceeded to Joppa, which, once taken, served as the major seaport emporium for the Hasmonean state.

Simon’s son and successor, John Hyrcanus, ruled for 30 years (134–104 BCE) and, like his father, expanded the country’s borders dramatically. Broadening his hold along the coast and even establishing a presence east of the Jordan River, he devoted his major efforts to countering the various ethnic groups living in the hill country—the Idumeans in southern Judea and the northern Negev and the Samaritans to the north. Hyrcanus probably conquered the Galilee as well, although the composition of its population at the time is unknown.

Hyrcanus was succeeded by his son Aristobulus I, the first Hasmonean to adopt the title “king.” Although he ruled for only one year (104–103 BCE), he successfully annexed Iturean territory in southern Lebanon. Aristobulus was succeeded by his brother Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE), the last and perhaps greatest military leader of the Hasmonean dynasty. Jannaeus annexed new territories in almost every direction. In the northwest, he gained control of Strato’s Tower (later Caesarea) and Dor; in the southwest, he took the coastal district, including Gaza, one of the major Hellenistic cities of the time; in the northeast, he overran much of the Golan and Gilead (today’s northwestern Jordan); and to the southeast, he conquered large areas of Moab. The control of neighboring peoples, cities, important trade routes and major ports was an obvious motivation that directed the course and extent of these Hasmonean conquests. The religious-nationalist dimension, however, was no less significant a factor in Hasmonean policy. The Hasmoneans regarded themselves as the successors of the great leaders of the past—the judges and the kings of First Temple times. This is clearly, albeit subtly, reflected in 1 Maccabees, written under Hasmonean patronage toward the end of the second century BCE Both the overall language and the specific terms it uses are reminiscent of the books of Judges and Kings, consciously drawing an analogy between the Hasmoneans, on the one hand, and the development and institutionalization of Jewish political leadership in biblical times, on the other. The book culminates with Simon’s coronation, described in 1 Maccabees 14. The carefully crafted account frequently alludes to the glorious days of King Solomon. Another touch in the same vein: Hasmonean coins bore the ancient Hebrew script that was used in the First Temple period, rather than the square Aramaic script in use at the time. This was undoubtedly a conscious attempt by the Hasmoneans to identify their rule with the earlier Davidic monarchy.

Hasmonean generations

First Generation: Liberating the Country, Centralising Power

Judah Maccabee was one of the five sons of Mattathias and for a period of 30 years the brothers led the people against the oppressing invader. Judah Maccabee was followed by Jonathan who in turn was followed by Simeon. The leadership of the three brothers covers a period of 30 years during which much of the country was freed. Jonathan was appointed high priest about 8 years after taking over the leadership. Simeon was confirmed by the ‘Great Assembly’ as high priest, ethnarch (ruler) and commander of the Jewish people. Simeon’s positions were to be hereditary. It seems that the family was united and that the brother who was ruling at the time had the full support of the other brothers. What is known is that whenever the brother who was ruling at the time was either killed in battle or assassinated by the enemy, that one of the other brothers simply stepped into his place and provided the required leadership. In this way they struggled successfully.

Appointing Jonathan as high priest transferred religious authority and power to a secular leader. When the Great Assembly confirmed Simeon’s position, a few years after he had assumed the leadership, they confirmed that religious and secular as well as military authority and power had been vested in one person and were to be hereditary. What had happened was that able military and secular leadership absorbed religious authority and power. That this concentration of all authority and power in the hands of one person was to be permanent and later to be transferred to his descendants is an indication that the establishment of the day was already concerned with consolidating its own position.

We think that combining all power in the hands of a single ruler is against the spirit and intent of Jewish law as religious authority which should serve God and the people, which should indicate direction and provide drive, may then too readily be misused to serve the establishment of the day  instead of God and the people.

Second Generation: Power Centered on Ruler, Start of Discontent

Simeon was succeeded by John Hyrcanus I who ruled 30 years. He was very successful in consolidating gains which had been made and in expanding the area under his control. His conquests included the whole of Edom and he forcibly converted the Edomites to Judaism. Under his leadership the country gained what probably amounted to complete independence.

But the struggle was not just between the Jewish people and the Seleucid rule but also between the Jewish people and their own ruler. What we know is that during his reign opposition against the combination of religious and secular power, against the dominating role of the hereditary ruler and his establishment in all aspects of life, began to be felt.  It was a struggle against those rich and ‘high born’ who were in sympathy with and actively supported hellenic ideas and practices, it being the mass of the population who would not relinquish their beliefs, who could not and would not relax religious observance.  It seems that under the reign of John Hyrcanus I the opposing factions became known as pharisees and sadducees

Third Generation: Country Consolidated, Conflict Between Royal Brothers, Increased Conflict Between Opposing Factions

John Hyrcanus I was succeeded for about a year by his eldest son Judah Aristobulus I. The indications are that he supported hellenic ideas and it was either he, or his brother Alexander Yannai who succeeded him, who first adopted the title of ‘king’.

When Judah Aristobulus died his brother Alexander Yannai married the widow (as required by Jewish law) and ruled Judea for just under 30 years. He succeeded in expanding the area under his control which covered much if not all of the area settled originally by the tribes. When Alexander Yannai died the leadership passed to his wife, Salome Alexandra.

The indications are that Aristobulus I placed his personal power above family and that he attempted to impose his personal authority by eliminating opposition from his mother and brothers.  During Alexander Yannai’s reign the conflict between opposing factions deepened. It seems that he was ruthless and that secular and religious power were concentrated in his hands to a previously unknown extent.

Queen Salome Alexandra ruled for about nine years. She had two sons. The older son was Hyrcanus II, the younger son was Aristobulus II.  We saw that Alexander Yannai died and that his wife Salome Alexandra succeeded to the throne. By that time both secular and religious power and authority were centred on the person of the ruler and this was of course strictly against the spirit and intent of the original Hasmonean revolt, against the spirit and intent of the Torah.

It seems that Queen Salome Alexandra attempted to halt and reverse the trend of centralisation of power and consequent oppression and exploitation of the people, attempting to move the government towards greater observance of the Torah and its social legislation. The elder son, namely Hyrcanus II, was high priest and considered the heir to the throne. The younger brother, namely Aristobulus II, was the military commander. In this way the power to rule and oppress was less important than the authority of the ruler who was high priest and would thus be expected to place greater importance on the meaning and intent of the Torah rather than on exploiting the people for his own benefit.

It seems that civil war broke out while the Queen was still alive and that the younger brother who was the military commander (Aristobulus II) was able to defeat his elder brother who was high priest and heir to the throne (Hyrcanus II).

Fourth and Fifth Generation:

(a) Civil War by Aristobulus Against Hyrcanus -  When Queen Salome Alexandra died the younger brother (Aristobulus II) proclaimed himself king and high priest. The elder brother (Hyrcanus II) surrendered his power to the younger brother as he had been defeated in battle. The younger brother (Aristobulus II) ruled for about four years.  Hyrcanus then obtained the support of the Nabateans by promising to hand over to them some parts of Judea. He defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem.

But by this time the Romans had arrived in Syria which had become a Roman province. The Roman commander (Scaurus), apparently favouring Aristobulus in return for a large sum of money, told the Nabateans to withdraw from Jerusalem and this they did.  Shortly afterwards a new Roman commander, namely Pompey, took over the command. The dispute between the brothers was taken to him and it seems that he favoured Hyrcanus. Aristobulus surrendered to Pompey but managed to get away. The Roman army advanced on Jerusalem and while Hyrcanus’ followers opened the gate of the city to the Romans, it took the Romans three months to take the Temple Mount. It seems that thousands of its defenders were killed.

This was virtually the end of independence for the country as they were now subservient to the Roman governor of Syria. Judea was very much reduced in size and its rulers were not allowed to call themselves kings. Once again the Jews were obliged to pay taxes to a foreign government.

(b) Antipater and Herod – What had happened was that the two brothers, struggling against each other for the sake of personal power, had involved foreign powers. The brothers were seemingly more concerned with struggling against each other than with the future existence, welfare and strength of the people and the country as a whole.  It was Antipater II, one of the converted Edomites, whose advice Hyrcanus had followed when he made common cause with the Nabateans against Aristobulus.

Pompey had seemingly favoured Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus had apparently been taken to Rome. Julius Caesar defeated Pompey.

It seems that Aristobulus was poisoned in Rome supposedly by supporters of Pompey. Caesar had been helped in Egypt by Hyrcanus and Antipater and subsequently confirmed Hyrcanus as high priest and ethnarch. But Antipater and his two sons (Phasael and Herod) gained much power and influence.

The title ‘ethnarch’ means ‘head of the people’ and presumably indicates that the holder of that position represents his people in relation to the foreign ruling power, possibly taking his orders from the local Roman governor in Syria. Caesar was assassinated. Cassius who was apparently one of the conspirators gained control of Syria and Judea and tried to get as much money as he could out of the people of Judea. Antipater and his sons sided with him.

It seems to me that Antipater and his sons Phasael and Herod advised and acted throughout with complete disregard of the Jewish people, apparently concerned solely with gaining control over them, with their own personal power and influence.

(c) Civil War by Aristobulus’ Son Antigonus Against Hyrcanus. End of Dynasty: Herod. It was Aristobulus II who started the civil war which in the end resulted in the country being overrun, the country and its people losing their independence to the Romans. His youngest son was called Antigonus. When the Parthians invaded Rome’s eastern provinces, Antigonus allied himself with them so as to replace his uncle Hyrcanus, so as to rule himself.

When Hyrcanus and Phasael were negotiating with the Parthians they were taken prisoner. Apparently Hyrcanus was mutilated by having his ears cut off so as to disqualify him from the priesthood. Aided by the Parthians, Antigonus was thus able to make himself king of Judea.  But Herod was able to escape and made his way to Rome so as to obtain political backing and military assistance. He was given the title ‘king’ by the Romans. This was in 40 BCE. Herod returned to Israel with some Roman legions and started to take the country from Antigonus. After the Romans defeated the Parthian armies they were able to considerably reinforce the Roman legions which were fighting Antigonus. Jerusalem was taken by Herod and the Romans after a siege lasting five months and Antigonus was defeated. During the course of his campaign against Antigonus, Herod had also married Mariamne (6th generation), a granddaughter of Hyrcanus II. Antigonus was put to death by Herod and so Herod ruled Judea for Rome, an Edomite king over the Jewish people.

Once again the Jewish people had been divided against each other by behaviour contrary to basic Jewish law and in this case the result was the ending of the rule of the Maccabean dynasty, of the revolt for the application of Jewish law in everyday life. The people were ruled by an Edomite king who may have been regarded as Jewish by some but whose whole actions showed that Judaism and behaviour according to Jewish law were very far from his thoughts.

The End of Jewish Sovereignty

Jewish sovereignty was lost to the Romans when Pompey conquered Judea in 63 BCE Was this avoidable? Could the Hasmonean kingdom have averted the Roman conquest? Josephus answers in the affirmative, claiming that all was lost because of the internecine conflict between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. These warring brothers brought ruin to their kingdom through their failure to present a unified front against Rome. Josephus was certainly correct in his appraisal that Hasmonean weakness contributed heavily to the demise of their kingdom. There is no doubt that, had the brothers coordinated their efforts and jointly negotiated with Pompey, they could have avoided such serious losses. However, Josephus is certainly wrong in suggesting that even a unified stand would ultimately have made a difference. Rome was destined to conquer the East irrespective of internal Hasmonean politics. The Hasmoneans could only have hoped to mitigate the conditions of conquest. By demonstrating a unified stand and a willingness to cooperate, their kingdom might have survived much longer and suffered less damage than it in fact did. Their behavior in this regard was a major political failure, one that cost them their independence and hegemony over Jewish society.