John Ma deconstructs the Maccabean History

[Jim Webster]

Just came across this article, which I thought was interesting

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/re-examining-hanukkah/

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Tacitus is more succinct:

A great part of Judæa consists of scattered villages. They have also towns. Jerusalem is the capital. There stood a temple of immense wealth. First came the city with its fortifications, then the royal palace, then, within the innermost defences, the temple itself. Only the Jew might approach the gates; all but priests were forbidden to pass the threshold.

While the East was under the sway of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians, Jews were the most contemptible of the subject tribes.

When the Macedonians became supreme, King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition, and to introduce Greek civilization, but was prevented by his war with the Parthians from at all improving this vilest of nations; for at this time the revolt of Arsaces had taken place.

The Macedonian power was now weak, while the Parthian had not yet reached its full strength, and, as the Romans were still far off, the Jews chose kings for themselves. Expelled by the fickle populace, and regaining their throne by force of arms, these princes, while they ventured on the wholesale banishment of their subjects, on the destruction of cities, on the murder of brothers, wives, and parents, and the other usual atrocities of despots, fostered the national superstition by appropriating the dignity of the priesthood as the support of their political power. - Tacitus, Histories V.8

Tacitus naturally had his own cultural prejudices to express, but he seems quite certain that "King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition" as opposed to, say, administering administrative punishment for bad behaviour.

[Duncan Head]

Tacitus naturally had his own cultural prejudices to express, but he seems quite certain that "King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition" as opposed to, say, administering administrative punishment for bad behaviour.

The first that Rome knew of the Jews was the alliance with Jonathan Maccabeus recorded in I Mac.; subsequently the last Hasmoneans and other Judaean factionaries were competing for Roman favour. No doubt they all retailed the version of events that legitimised the revolt that created their state - whether it was objectively the truth or not - and that would be the version that came down to Tacitus. By contrast, who would there be to tell him the perspective of the administrators of the dissolved Seleucid state?

The disjunction between those who (no doubt genuinely) claim that someone in power is out to wage war against their religion, and those in power who (no doubt genuinely) claim entirely different motives, is not unknown today.

[Patrick Waterson]

We do in fact have another non-Maccabean source, who considers he is telling the story 'accurately'.  He is a Jew, but one who cast his lot in with the Romans.

His tale:

3. King Antiochus returning out of Egypt for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucids, he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal of money, he returned to Antioch.

4. Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive, together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced. But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also.

5. When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred, nor that the temple on Mount Gerizzim belonged to Almighty God. This was according to their nature, as we have already shown. And they now said that they were a colony of Medes and Persians; and indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle, whose contents are these: "To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues, and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sabbath.  And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerrizzim, though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now, upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews, those that manage their affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practiced as they do, make us liable to the same accusations, although we be originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and Savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation, and from their customs; but let our temple, which at present hath no name at all be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee." When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the king sent them back the following answer, in an epistle: "King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When therefore we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews, but choose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly, we declare them free from such accusations, and order that, agreeable to their petition, their temple be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius." He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country, in the forty-sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatorabeom - Josephus, Antiquities XII.3-5

Looks like a bit more than just 'administrative punishment' to me.  Whatever the truth of the motivations behind the matter, the Jews perceived it as an attack on their religion, a religion the Romans incidentally thoroughly despised.  Trying to maintain the revolt-is-justified-by-attack-on-our-religion angle would have cut absolutely no ice with the Romans of c.160 BC, whereas the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend basis on which the alliance was concluded had immediate appeal for both parties.  Even though Romans of this period picked whatever excuses suited them when selecting allies for harassing Hellenistic powers, I cannot see them paying serious attention to the concept of a revolt gaining legitimacy through defending religion.

[Duncan Head]

Looks like a bit more than just 'administrative punishment' to me.

But a lot less than an attempt "to destroy the national superstition" - after all, the Seleucids retained, almost until Maccabean autonomy was established, the loyalty of a large body of "Hellenising", "modernising", Jews who presumably did not feel that Antiochos was out to persecute and destroy their religion.

Josephus may merely be repeating the party line, anyway - his account does seem to draw on Maccabees quite heavily.

Even though Romans of this period picked whatever excuses suited them when selecting allies for harassing Hellenistic powers, I cannot see them paying serious attention to the concept of a revolt gaining legitimacy through defending religion.

I didn't suggest that the story would have the slightest influence on Roman behaviour, merely that the "revolt against persecution" was the self-image that successive generations of Jewish leaders would have put across, to the Romans and others.

[Patrick Waterson]

But a lot less than an attempt "to destroy the national superstition" - after all, the Seleucids retained, almost until Maccabean autonomy was established, the loyalty of a large body of "Hellenising", "modernising", Jews who presumably did not feel that Antiochos was out to persecute and destroy their religion.

Here we need to distinguish religion and ethnicity, which in the eyes of the traditional Jews were felt to be one and the same, at least until the later Hasmoneans began converting Edomites wholesale.  Naturally the Hellenised Jews would not feel that Antiochus was attempting to destroy Hellenism.  Whether they, like the traditional Jews, felt he was out to destroy Judaism, seems answerable in the affirmative because they soon found themselves having to choose sides - some retained Hellenism and called on the king's officers to protect them while some reverted to Judaism and waged out-and-out war against the Syrians and Hellenised Jews alike.

Josephus may merely be repeating the party line, anyway - his account does seem to draw on Maccabees quite heavily.

His general approach to things suggests a man who prefers to distinguish and describe party lines rather than repeat them.  We might however wish to remind ourselves that the Maccabean account could be substantially true (though whether one believes the Archangel Michael turned up to cheer them on is strictly optional).

I didn't suggest that the story would have the slightest influence on Roman behaviour, merely that the "revolt against persecution" was the self-image that successive generations of Jewish leaders would have put across, to the Romans and others.

Indeed; I find no fault with that.  What seems to be at issue, at least in the Ma paper, is whether they had actually been persecuted or had merely invented a whole slew of atrocity stories to justify a revolt because they were locked out of the temple.

[Jim Webster]

Just looking at Romans and Jew which have been  mentioned

We have to remember that the Romans didn't have a lot of problems with the Jewish religion, from their point of view Jews were relatively orderly, and better still their religion was immensely old and they were loyally following the faith of their ancestors. Big things in Roman eyes. They accepted that the Jews would pray to their God for the emperor, rather than pray too the Emperor.

They went out of their way to pacify them, not carrying in military standards and that sort of thing

Things started to unravel during the Early Empire, and Caligula certainly didn't help.
A series of really bad local governors and local politics (which the Life of Brian probably depicts as accurately as anybody) caused trouble but even after 70AD the Romans seem to have been able to draw a line between Jews and the inhabitants of a rebellious province. It was the Bar Kochba revolt that seems to have caused a serious breakdown

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

At the same time we have Tacitus reflecting what seems to be the general Roman perception of the Jewish religion:

This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. - Tacitus, Histories V.5

Jim is basically right: the Jews were certainly orderly until after their docile response to Caligula's attempt to impose his own worship, though certain fringe elements were a bit of a nuisance.  Once the Messianic thing came to prominence it was just a matter of time before sustained trouble (as opposed to the occasional stint of banditry) erupted and it became kill or be killed.  The AD66 revolt originated in a rising against Gessius Florus' criminal activity and developed into a more-or-less religious rising on the basis of Messianic prophecies.  The Bar Kochba revolt had as its trigger and focus Hadrian's intention to rebuild Jerusalem - as a Roman city (Aelia Capitolina) - and moved into Messianic mode more or less from the start.  Turning Jerusalem into a Roman colony was seen as an attack on the Jewish religion whereas the persistent peculation of a provocative procurator was not.

[dwkay57]

I had a quick read through this thread as I'm undertaking some research into the Army of Herod (which might become another discussion...).

One of the books I used as research was Israel Shatzman's "Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod". A conclusion Shatzman seems to reach (or at least one I interpreted) seemed to mimic the quote from Tacitus in that there was a lot of internal strife and - as we see even today - only a strong leader could hold a large territory together. Herod seemed to manage balancing the various fractions and even got out of couple tight points with Roman emperors, but on his death it all fell to bits requiring direct Roman intervention.