Hasmonean Religious Ideology

In the religious sphere, the Hasmoneans were committed to ridding their territories of all idolatrous practices. Religious purification of the land became a basic policy. Sometimes this meant driving out pagan inhabitants altogether and then purifying the site; at other times, conversion of the populace was required. Entire populations, both urban and rural, were thus brought into the Jewish fold. The two outstanding examples of this policy were the conversion of the Idumeans by John Hyrcanus and the conversion of the Itureans by Aristobulus I. How smoothly this policy was effected is difficult to determine. No mention of resistance is made in our sources, although undoubtedly some, either active or passive, must have occurred. It is hard to imagine, for example, that the ultimatum of conversion or death offered to the inhabitants of the Hellenistic city of Pella in the c did not meet with outright hostility and derision.

The ideological component that accompanied the Hasmonean successes was a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it undoubtedly provided a significant additional impetus and motivation for the Hasmoneans’ conquests, as well as a transcendent cause firmly rooted in a biblical faith that overshadowed ordinary political concerns. On the other hand, such an anti-pagan attitude was bound to stir up animosity. Hasmonean zealousness might easily be interpreted, perhaps correctly, as an onslaught against gentile values and the pagan way of life. Some of the earliest evidence of pagan anti-Semitism—such as the negative description of Jews and Judaism by Antiochus VII’s advisors (as preserved by the Greek historian Diodorus) and the hostility of Posidonius of Syria (as noted by other early writers)—was in large part a reaction to Hasmonean anti-pagan drives.

By the first century BCE various anti-Jewish accusations were circulating widely: The Jews were misanthropes, Jewish religious precepts were engendering social animosity and moral perversion, Jewish worship in the Jerusalem Temple was primitive and barbaric, etc. Much of this anti-Jewish hostility seems to have been triggered by political and religious opposition to the Hasmoneans. That many pagans and Jews viewed the Hasmonean conquests as part of a struggle for ultimate control of the country, a struggle in which each side claimed possession of the land, no doubt further exacerbated pagan sentiments.

The Hasmonean combination of political power and religious ideology was equally problematic on the domestic front. Instead of being the art of the possible, politics was fraught with the tensions and passions born of ideological inflexibility. Indeed, the Hasmonean model of combining political and religious leadership was adopted by other elements in their society, particularly by religious groups. In contrast to the later Second Temple period, when the religious character of the various Jewish sects predominated, during the Hasmonean era the political involvement of such groups was preponderant. For example, we find leaders of both major sects, the Sadducees and the Sadducees, holding seats in the ruler’s inner cabinet. Toward the end of the second century BCE, the Sadducees worked hand in glove with John Hyrcanus, who favored the priestly aristocratic classes: The joint political machinations of the Sadducees and the followers of John Hyrcanus finally forced the Pharisees out of government. The Pharisees, however, quickly became an active opposition; in fact, much of the unrest that occurred during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus was supported, encouraged and led by the Pharisees. Open Pharisaic hostility and, at times, insulting behavior toward Jannaeus finally led to severe countermeasures—including exile, persecution and even mass crucifixion. The opposition, for its part, went to the extreme of inviting the Syrian king Demetrius VI to attack Jerusalem. When the battle was finally joined, the Seleucid side was bolstered by Jewish dissidents and the Hasmonean side was reinforced by pagan mercenaries!

Later, Jannaeus’s wife and successor, Salome Alexandra (76–67 BCE), reinstated the Pharisees and gave them complete control over the country’s internal affairs. They lost little time in avenging themselves against the Sadducees and the wealthy aristocrats who had persecuted them earlier.

The most extreme reaction to this situation was taken by members of another Jewish sect—the Essenes, or Dead Sea sect (?). In protest against the political and religious leadership of the Hasmoneans, the Essenes left Jerusalem and settled in a remote region of the Judean wilderness, where they awaited the removal of the Hasmonean leadership as part of the messianic drama that, in their opinion, was imminent.Thus, the political involvement of religious sects in Hasmonean society was endemic. All groups—Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes—were now organized politically. This injected into the political arena a passion and ideological rigidity that only increased tensions.

The Temple and the Priests Under Hasmonean Rule

The creation of the Hasmonean kingdom had a revolutionary effect on Jerusalem, its capital city. Since the beginning of the Second Temple period in the sixth century BCE, Jerusalem had occupied a small area that included only the ancient City of David and the area of the Temple Mount. Altogether, the city encompassed some 30 acres; its population numbered only about 5,000 or 6,000. This situation had prevailed for nearly 400 years (c. 540–140 BCE). Then, suddenly, in the short period of Hasmonean rule, Jerusalem expanded more than fivefold, stretching over more than 160 acres and numbering approximately 30,000 inhabitants. It encompassed the entire western hill (Mt. Zion) as far as today’s Citadel of David (adjacent to the Jaffa Gate). Remains of the Hasmonean city wall have been discovered in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, in the Citadel itself and on the slopes of Mt. Zion. In many places this wall followed the same course as the Israelite one of First Temple times; in fact, Hasmonean builders were not only aware of this earlier enceinte, but they even integrated parts of it into their later fortifications.

A precise dating for this wall is almost impossible. Although the literary sources are replete with references to construction of the city’s fortifications under various Hasmonean rulers, none ever explicitly mentions any large-scale expansion of the city limits. Moreover, archaeological evidence for dating the wall is scant and inconclusive. Since there were several stages to the Hasmonean wall (as seen most clearly in the Citadel area), it would appear that it was first built in the second century BCE, probably under Jonathan or Simon, and subsequently repaired and reinforced periodically.  Jerusalem’s population during this period was overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Jewish: The priests were the leading class within Judean society; they not only controlled the most important institution within the city (the Temple), but they were also an integral part of the local aristocracy. With the rise of the Hasmonean state, priests played a leading role in its religious, political, diplomatic and military affairs. For example, the names of emissaries sent to Rome, Sparta and elsewhere indicate that they were almost always of priestly stock.

Evidence of priestly prominence has also been found in the aforementioned tomb of Jason (almost certainly a priest) and that of the Bnei Hezir family (also of priestly origin; see 1 Chronicles 24:15), and in the above mentioned Additions to Esther, written by a Jerusalem priest. The priestly caste was undoubtedly a varied group. Some were Hellenistic enthusiasts, such as Jason, Menelaus and others who reportedly flocked to the gymnasium instead of performing their Temple duties. On the other hand, Josephus recounts the heroic efforts of the Jerusalem priests during the siege of the city by the Roman general Pompey in 63 BCE. Despite near starvation, they faithfully continued to perform their cultic obligations. Some were even massacred by the Romans while fulfilling their priestly duties.

Although the geographical focal point of Jerusalem had been the Temple and the Temple Mount in the First Temple period, power and prestige were nevertheless divided among three different types of leaders—the king, the high priest and the prophets. Each had his sphere of influence and each operated in a different setting: the king from his palace and through his bureaucracy, the high priest in the Temple and the prophet in the marketplace. By the early Second Temple period this power structure had been dramatically altered. Kingship and prophecy had disappeared and were replaced by the wealthy aristocracy (for example, Nehemiah) and the scholar-scribes (such as Ezra). From then until the destruction of the Temple almost six centuries later (in 70 CE), the priesthood—with but few exceptions—reigned supreme; the high priest became the religious and political leader of the people, both internally and vis-à-vis the ruling authorities.

In the early Hellenistic period, at the time of Ptolemy I (323–285 BCE), the high priest Hezekiah is mentioned as a leader of the people. As noted, in the third century BCE, Sparta communicated for diplomatic purposes with the high priest c The high priest Onias II served as representative of the people before the Ptolemaic court in Alexandria. Another high priest, Simon the Just, was praised by Ben Sira as a leader of his people in the late third century BCE. The high priest Jason radically altered the political and cultural institutions of Jerusalem in 175 BCE. So the stage was set for the Hasmoneans to culminate this process by combining the high priesthood with the most extensive temporal power enjoyed by a Jewish ruler since 586 BCE—political sovereignty and command of the army.

The importance and prestige of the Temple increased under Hasmonean rule as a result of the enhanced political status of the Hasmonean state. The sanctity of  the Temple as the quintessence of Judaism is reflected in a particularly interesting way in 2 Maccabees, which was produced under Hasmonean auspices for political and religious purposes. This book is a summary of a larger, now lost, five-volume work written in the mid-second century (c. 150 BCE) by Jason the Cyrene. It summarizes the events that took place in Jerusalem and Judea between 175 and 160 BCE (until the death of Judah Maccabee). The book was written, however, in the early years of John Hyrcanus’s reign (about 120 BCE) to impress the Jews of Alexandria with early Hasmonean military and religious achievements—their triumph over the Seleucids, their purification of the Temple and the celebration of Hanukkah. Aside from the obvious historical value of 2 Maccabees, it is an important statement of Hasmonean propaganda. The sanctity of the Temple is its central theme. The book begins and ends with the preservation of the Temple’s purity, focusing on the purification of the Temple in 164 BCE. The political message of 2 Maccabees is clear. It was the Hasmoneans who fought and shed their blood for the sake of preserving the sanctity of the Temple, and this fact grants them legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the people.

A number of practices emphasizing the centrality of the Temple had already developed by the first century BCE. These practices, which appear to have originated in the Hasmonean period, became widespread and normative in the late Second Temple period. Large-scale pilgrimages to Jerusalem by Jews of the Diaspora, Judea and the Galilee, as well as the half-shekel annual contribution, were nurtured and encouraged by Hasmonean leaders.

These practices not only enhanced the political and religious status of the Hasmoneans but also emphasized that Jerusalem—with its Temple—was the spiritual center of world Jewry.  Finally, the most prominent institutions of the period were located in the Temple precincts or on the Temple Mount. It served as the ritual center for the nation’s many varied celebrations over the course of the year; it was also the meeting place of the highest courts of the land, and possibly of the hever ha-yehudim (the governing body of the high council of the Jews), apparently a representative body mentioned on Hasmonean coins. One of the important city markets that served

Temple needs operated there, and leaders of the different sects taught their disciples in these precincts.  No other institution in Jewish society rivaled the Temple in its sanctity and importance. Despite the absence of explicit references to the presence of a synagogue in Judea proper, there can be little doubt that this institution had already begun to evolve by the Hasmonean era. Nevertheless, although the synagogue appears to have had a distinctly communal nature with a number of religious functions (such as reading Scriptures, translating them into Aramaic, and giving sermons), is in no way challenged the supremacy of the Temple. This remained true throughout the Second Temple period; only after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE did the synagogue develop its own unique religious profile.

In the Hasmonean period, the religion of the ordinary Jew focused to a large extent on the Temple, its rituals and requirements. Aside from making offerings to priests and Levites, a Jew was obligated to bring the first fruits (bikkurim), as well as the first produce of his flocks, to Jerusalem. Moreover, four times every seven years he was to spend a tithe of his earnings within the bounds of Jerusalem. These obligations were in addition to the half-shekel contribution and the requirement (often unobserved by those living at a distance) to be present in the Holy City on each of the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Sukkot and Shavuot). As the occasion arose, individual Jews would go to the Temple to offer sacrifices for personal reasons—a sin or guilt offering, a free will offering, an offering in fulfillment of a vow or following childbirth.