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 Onias I. 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.
Popular Judaism
Only a small proportion of Jerusalem’s population belonged to organized sects in the Hasmonean period. Many Jews were indeed influenced in one way or another by these sects, yet only a few became full-fledged members, undertaking the full rigors of sectarian life. Most of the populace in this period belonged to that vague group referred to as ‘am ha-aretz (the country’s people), a term used in rabbinic literature to refer to all those who are not Pharisees. According to some scholars, rabbinic tradition as expressed in the sources following the destruction of the Second Temple reflects the way of life practiced by the majority of the people even in the pre-70 CE era. However, this perception is romanticized; a Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition became the norm among the people only hundreds of years later, and the process did not peak until the Middle Ages. What was the brand of Judaism that most of the populace followed in the Hasmonean period?
What religious concepts and beliefs did they ascribe to at the time? Little is known about the religious life of the masses in this period. Our sources focus almost entirely on the various sects, whose influence on the majority fluctuated with the changing political and social circumstances. Nevertheless, we shall try to sketch out a number of basic guidelines of Jewish life in Jerusalem in the Hasmonean period. The most important feature was the belief in one God who chose his people Israel and gave them the Torah. This revelation had a profound effect on the Jew as an individual and as part of a people. Accompanying the Sinaitic revelation was a covenant made between God and his people in which the former swore that Israel would be his chosen nation forever, and the Jews promised to do and to listen to all his precepts. Jews believed that observance of the Torah would bring reward while transgression would be punished. In addition, if the covenant was ever broken, it could be renewed through repentance (teshuvah). Based on a monotheistic tenet, Judaism accorded the highest significance to the sanctity of the Torah, the people and the Land, at the center of which stood the Temple and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Jewish observance focused primarily on three areas: (1) Torah commandments, such as laws about forbidden foods and Sabbath observance; (2) agricultural laws, such as first fruits, tithes, etc.; and (3) Temple worship. There can be little doubt that many people set aside offerings of terumah, tithes and first fruits (perhaps even observing the sabbatical year laws) and also observed the Sabbath and holidays, in whatever manner; all these stood at the very center of Jewish observance for the masses. Many of these commandments were observed within the confines of the Temple, entrance to which was restricted to those who hadpurified themselves. In addition, Jews were obligated to donate a half-shekel to the Temple and to make a pilgrimage to the Temple on the three festivals. Many Jews visited the Temple for other reasons, such as offering sacrifices to expiate sin, after giving birth and to fulfill Nazirite vows. Other norms observed by Jewish society at the time included the avoidance of any figural representation as well as the total prohibition of any form of idolatry.
Archaeological finds—especially from the last 30 years—point to other types of behavior that were also widespread in Jerusalem at this time. For example, the Rhodian amphora handles discussed above disappeared in the course of the Hasmonean period. As will be recalled, about a thousand such handles were discovered in Jerusalem primarily from the third and second centuries BCE But it appears that under the Hasmoneans, the prohibition of imported foreign wine was more strictly observed, and this development is reflected in the significant decline in the quantity of Rhodian handles from the late second and early first centuries BCE.
As already mentioned, ritual baths made their appearance in this period in Jerusalem as well as Judea. These baths were meant to help the public observe the purity laws. In biblical times, immersion was generally restricted to priests, as prescribed by the Torah. In the second century BCE, however, “purity (concerns) burst forth in Israel,” as an early rabbinic text tells us, and thus interest in purity struck root among the populace. As a consequence, ritual installations were in demand throughout the country. Evidence for the punctilious observance of these matters in the Hasmonean period may be found in many sources. The earliest Pharisees who flourished in this period discussed purity matters, and 1 Maccabees emphasizes the importance of purifying the land by eradicating idolatry (see the description of the purification of Gezer and the Akra [1 Maccabees 13:43–54]). Moreover, the Letter of Aristeas (305–306) mentions the custom of ablutions, and Jubilees traces the obligation of purification for a woman who has given birth to the days of Eve (Jubilees 3:9–11). However, the clearest evidence for the importance of purity in this period is the building of ritual baths beside agricultural installations (wine and olive presses) in both cities and villages. More than 300 such baths have been discovered throughout Judea, half of which were found in the Jerusalem area. Although most of these installations are dated to the Herodian and post-Herodian periods, this custom had already begun in Hasmonean times and spread gradually over the following generations, to the time of the destruction of the Temple. Hasmonean ritual baths have been discovered in Jericho, Qumran and Gezer, and, although we have no evidence, some of the Herodian ritual baths were undoubtedly in use earlier as well. There is much common ground among the various sectors of society regarding these customs. Nevertheless, there was often a lack of unanimity on how observances should be carried out, and not all precepts were observed by everyone. This is evident in the severe measures taken by John Hyrcanus in ensuring the giving of tithes. Moreover, the prozbol enacted by Hillel the Elder later on, in Herod’s day, was a measure taken to change the situation wherein many ignored the commandment to lend money to the poor close to a sabbatical year (when debts were considered canceled). This practice was thus an example of laws, even some derived from the Torah, that were changed over time. Changes were introduced in other areas as well; fighting a defensive war on the Sabbath was permissible, and, later, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai suspended the laws of the suspected adulteress (Numbers 5) and of the broken neck of the heifer (Deuteronomy 21). All these resulted from momentous social changes. Finally, in many cases customs differed from region to region within the country, as between the Galilee and Judea.
Despite all these differences, the Jews of the Hasmonean period were undoubtedly a unique and distinct people. What unified them was far greater than what divided them, especially when compared to the surrounding pagan cultures.
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.