THE SACRAL KINGSHIP

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CENTRAL THEJ\IE

OF THE VIII th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

FOR THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

(ROME, APRIL 195 5)

Published with the help

of the Giunta Centrafe p er g fi St11di Storici, Rome

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL

1 959

\

LA REGALITA SACRA

CONTRIBUTI AL TEMA

DELL' VIII CONGRESSO INTERNAZIONALE

DI STORIA DELLE RELIGIONI

(ROMA, APRILE 195 5)

Pubblicati col concorso

della Giunta Centrale per gli Studi Storici, Roma

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL

1959

HASIDIC CONCEPTIONS OF KINGSHIP IN THE MACCABEAN PERIOD

BY

M.A. BEEK

Amsterdam

According to Josephus, the high-priest and Maccabean leader Aris-tobulus was the first of his line to adopt the royal title. He was also the first Judaean king who reigned in Jerusalem since the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, 48 r years ago. There is no further evidence to prove the truth of Josephus' statement, for Aristobulus' coins are inscribed in Hebrew with the words "Judah the high-priest and the congregation of the Jews". After a short reign of one year Aristobulus died, his widow married one of his brothers, Alexander Jannaeus and he became the successor on the throne of Jerusalem. He claimed the royal title as his brother did and tried to restore Davids kingdom. It is a remarkable fact, that Josephus does not criticize the kingship of the Maccabean rulers. It seems as if he takes it for granted that these high-pries ts and warfaring leaders claimed the honors and titles of kings within the Seleucian empire.

Martin Buber (Konigtwn Gottes, 19362, Berlin) taught us the ideas of theocracy in Israel and let us see the opposition of theocracy against the institute of kingship. He emphasized more than any Old Testament scholar did before him the importance of the word of Gideon to the men of Israel: "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; since the Lord rules over you" (Judges 8 :23). But Josephus did not pay so much attention to Gideon's refusal of kingship as Buber would. He tells only that Gideon would have retired from his leader-ship but the people over-persuaded him to stay at his post and that he led the affairs as a judge until he died forty years later. A comparison between Bubers thorough and deep commentary on Gideons story and J osephns' "mid rash" could give us the impression that the latter has had no feeling for the consequences. of theocracy. His only reproach

3 50 M. A . BEEK

against Ahimelech is that he behaved like a -rup~vvo~ and acted &v-rl -rc7iv vol0iv. According to Josephus the judge Samuel preferred the aristocracy to a monarchy because he hated kings, but there is no men-tion of any religious reason why he rejected the institute of kingship. Josephus cannot ignore the quotation of 1 Sam. 8 :7 "And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them". He does not emphasize this proclama-tion of theocracy against king-gods and is only accentuating how people will suffer under the yoke of the kings they have appointed.

Yet we cannot say that Josephus neglected the ideas of theocracy entirely. On the contrary he has been the first to speak about theocracy when he argues with Apion and defends the values of his religion. He says (Contra Ap., II, 16):

"Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be, what by a strained ex-pression may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to consider him as the author of all the good things . .. " (comp. Euseb. citation of it Praep. Evang. VIII, 8 and Antiq. III, 8, 9).

The idea of theocracy is here reduced to a paedagogical and ethical principle and so it is quite understandable that Wellhausen could write at the end of his Prolegomena the astonishing sentence "der grnsse Patholog des J udentums hat ganz Recht: in der mosaischen Theo-kratie ist der Cultus zu einem padagog ischen Z uchtmittel geworden". So Josephus' understatement of the implications of theocracy can oe a reason why he spent only a few although solemn words on Aristo-bulus' claims of the royal title. It cannot be the only reason. Josephus, as we know him from his autobiography, was proud of several qualities he possessed and especially of his kinship with the Hasmonaean house. He is not inclined to exaggerate the mistakes and sins of his an-cestors, although he is a matador in telling scandalous stories and gos-sip about kings and princes, which makes hi s books so attractive for the average reader since centuries. But this is not the main reason. That must have been the position of the Hasmonaeans, si.nce the Seleucian king Balas Alexander appointed Jonathan high-priest and sent him the

H r\SIDIC CONCEPTTONS OF KINGSHIP 351

regalia, a purple robe and a golden crown. At the Feast of T abernacles in I 5 3 Jonathan, clad in the sacred vestments, officiated as high-priest.

The pos.ition of a high-priest in Jerusalem was not very different from that of a king . This must have been so since the Persian period. The task of a high-priest was not oniy cultic, he was the leader of the foreign affairs, he had to afford taxes and soldiers for the Upper-king and therefore his position depends more and more on the goodwill of the Upper-king. Bickermann demonstrated in his book "Der Gott der Makkabaer", how paradoxical the situation was while a heathen-king could appoint and dismiss the high-priest in Jerusalem. From his point of view Antioch us Epiphanes was in his right when he dismissed Onias and Jason and appointed Menelaos the fanatic leader of a Hellenistic and Phoenician movement for assimilation. This complicated problem was only halfway solved by the victory of the Hasmonaeans. They defeated the assimilation-party, but accepted in new circumstances the authority of the Seleucian king in appointing the high-priest. So we read I Mace. II :51-58 "Antiochos honeoteros wrote Jonathan saying : I confirm you in the highpriesthood, and appoint you over the four provinces, and you are to be one of the cp[:t..o~ 't'ou ~o:cr~Muic;". He sent him gold plate and service, and gave him permission to drink from gold goblets, to dress in purple and to wear a gold clasp". Jonathan accepted and the author of I Mace. proves to be a good court-historian of the Hasmonaean house by avoiding the slightest word of reproach. Here a decision is fallen. Jonathan is the representative of another party of the Jewish nation, perhaps more influential than Menelaos' party, but just a party, not identical with the whole Jewish nation -and at any rate not identical with a small group of Hasidim, pious men who were the real heirs of the theocratic conception.

The successor of Jonathan, Simon, received a letter from the Seleu-cian king Demetrius with this adress: "King Demetrius to Simon, &px.ie:pd x.o:t cp[:t..cp ~o:criMuiv" (I Mace. I 3 : 3 G). According to I Mace. I 3 :42 the people of Israel began to write in their documents and contracts; "Jn the first year of Simon, &px.ie:peuic; e:yiX.:t..ou xo:t ~youp .. evou 'Iouoo:luiv" CJ osephus has instead of "~youe:voc; ", "ethnarch", but that is a late-Roman title and therefore an anachronism). The star of Simon rose from year to year. When we may belief the course of events as described by I Mace. the people made Simon "~you1J.e:voc;" and "&px.ie:pe:uc;" and the Upper-king

35 2 M.A. BEEK

confirmed him in the high-priesthood and made him one of his cplAoi . The priests agreed that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever, until a true prophet should ari se. It was decided that it was hi s responsibility to take care of the sanctuary, that all contracts in the country should be written in his name and that he should be clothed in purple and wear gold . So the office was to be hereditary in his family and it is clear that the function of this high-pries t-leader in the holy community of Israel was closely familiar to that of a king or dynast or monarch. He has the right to make dies for coinage for his country, he can fabricate arms and construct fortifications. It seems as if this com-bination of high-priest and warfarer met no opposition anywhere in the whole Jewish nation. We ask: where is the voice of the theocratic antithesis against a high-priest who had actually the functions of a king?

At any rate we cannot hear this voice in the Books of Maccabees or in Josephus' Antiquities and in the Wisdom of Jesus Sirah neither. It is really worth while to have a look in that literature for it is chronologic-ally determined and is representative for the circle of conservative ha-khamiem in the znd century B.C. When Jesus Sirah is speaking about kings it is in the way that is known in wisdom-literature generally. For instance:

Do not ask the Lord for pre-eminence, Or the king for a seat of honor. Do not justify yourself in the sight of the Lord Or show off your wisdom before the king. ( 7 :4, 5)

An uneducated king ruins his people But a city becomes populous through the understanding of its rulers.

(10:3)

Many sovereigns (noAAoL .fupo:vvoi) have had to sit on the ground, While a man who was never thought of has assumed the diadem. Many rulers (ouvifo .. ro:i) have been utterly disgraced And men of renown have been delivered into the hands of others.

(rr :5) The "Sitz im Leben" of wisdom-literature is sociologically so deter-

mined that the hakhamim generall y are not expected to be the fanatic supporters of theocracy, for their wisdom is always flourishing in the

H ASIDIC CON CEPTIONS OF KI NGSHIP 353

shadow of a royal throne. Si rah particularly is not expected to give word to any critic in this respect, for he is the admirer of Simon, the high-priest . The epilogue of his book is the praise of the fathers ending with a hymn for Simon:

How glorious he was, surrounded by the people As he came out of the sanctuary ( 5 o : 5) .

I am fully aware that there is a g reat distance between this Simon the son of O nias in 199 B.C. and Simon the Maccabean (I41 B.C.) not only in time. Nevertheless we must not forget that the function of Simon the son of Onias is quite the same as that of Simon the Mac-cabean. He also received his dignity from the hands of a heathen-king, he also ruled as a warfaring king, fo rtifying his city with walls and buildings (50 :4) as only kings are entitled to do.

So it seems that in the md century B.C. a major trend of israelitic religion, the theocracy and its implications for earthy leadership, either has been lost or has flown as an invisible stream under the surface. Therefore it is useful to be aware that the literature we possess is one-sided and doesn' t do justice to the pluriformity of religious life in Israel during that fateful second century. It is the advantage of our days that there is more interest in the apocalyptic literature, a revival due to the sensational findings of manuscripts in the neighbourhood of the D ead Sea. I venture the thesis that the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Fragments of the Zadokites and many pseudepigraphic books preserved the under-tones of religious life, theocratic in its cultic and social aspects and suppressed by the official meanings of that time and of later periods. Hidden in the small circles of sects like that of the E ssenes, the pure theocratic idea was still living. It forms i:he missing link between Gideons statement about Gods kingship and early Christian statements about ~o:crLAeuc; and ~o:crLf-do: .

There is a general agreement among the scholars who are devoted to the study of Dead Sea Scrolls that the Fragments of the Zadokites and the Manual of Discipline, the Commentary on Habakkuk and the War of the Children of the Light are closely connected. The Frag-ments of the Zadokites are dated. We read I,5 "And in the period of the wrath three hundred and ninety years after He had given them into the hand of Nebuchadneszar, the K ing of Babylon, He visited them and He made to spring forth from Israel and Aaron a root of His

NU! E:>: , Su ppl. IV 23

3 54 JII. A . BEEK

planting to inherit this land and to grow fat through the goodness of His earth".

There is no convincing argument against this self-dating in the beginning of the rnd century B.C. The sect of the Zadokites, fami liar if not identical with the Essenes and the Children of the Light, arose in 196 B.C. and 20 years later a mysterious "moreh zedek", a teacher of righteousness played an important part. According to the commentary on Habakkuk (1 :4b) this teacher of righteousness is the adversary of the "kohen ra' " the wicked priest. This opposition between the teacher of righteousness and the wicked priest is a leading motive in the Fragments and in the Commentary. I cannot deny that there are still many difficulties in the text of Habakkuk and the Fragments, but in my opinion the problems of the details which we do not understand, are to be solved with the help of the main trend which we are able to understand reasonably well. There is no sense in trying to identify the wicked priest with one of the Maccabean or pre-Maccabean leaders we know. Io my opinion many scholars are wasting their time with this impossible task, arguing against scholar A. who says it must have been Menelaos and producing arguments for another thesis that it must have been Alexander Jaonai or Herod. Apocalyptic literature is vague, veiled and unclear when it is speaking about events and persons. This is irritating, but we must accept the difficulty and must not endeavour to let the apocalyptics say more than they are willing to say. It is a mat-ter of fact that the Fragments or the Commentator are speaking about the wicked priest generally and avoid mentioning even one name. Thi s is the secret of their everlasting relevance. High-pries ts and kings arise and fall, but the function of high-priest and king always remains and represents the Power, a ~ixcrt/..do: that is of this world . So I cannot afford to speak otherwise than in general terms, as the very nature of apocalyptic literature doesn't allow me to explain its aims with names and dates. The background is always the scrupulous and rigorous con-viction of a small group of Hasidim. This thesis doesn't involve a dating of the manuscripts. I only believe that it is most likely to date the historical situation that gave way to that remarkable sectarian life of the true and devoted heirs of an old theocracy. The climate was favourab le for these sectarians in the pre-Hasmonaean time. It is remarkable that the late professor Sukeoik (Meg . Geo. 1948, p. r8 n) held it that the rerm "kohen-ha-rosh'', which stands in the war of the Soos of Light,

H i\SIDIC CONCEPTION S OF KI NG SH IP 3 5 5

was an indication of pre-Hasmonaean days and Black CJ. J. S., 1949 p. 199) supported him. During a short time there could be a unity between Jews of the most different spiritual orientation. The struggle of the Maccabean war bound them together with strong forces, but when the war was over the old controversies came to light. In my opinion the text of D an. l l : 3 4 formulates the view of the small group of H asidim: "When they fall, they shall receive a li ttle help ( eser-me'-at). And many shall join themselves to them with fl attery ... " The little help is that of the Maccabean leaders and their army. From a his-torical point of view it is almost rid iculous to minimise that heroic struggle for J ewish nationalism to a "little help''. The course of events proved the author of D an. l l to be right. When Simon the high-pries t ruled and tried to restore the glory of Davids kingdom, actually nothing had been altered. The Maccabean leaders could satisfy the nationalists, eventuall y they could force an agreement with Pharisees and Sadducees, a small group waited stubborn - as stubborn as only religious people can be - the fullness of time and the coming of the .r. p ~cr't'6 c; K up[ou. Their thoughts and beliefs are wrapped in the many-coloured garments of apocalyptic literature and therefore often un-understandable. This literature shared the fate of books which do not fit the main stream of the religion from which they originated. The hidden places of the rocks in the D ead Sea area are symbolic fo r the apocalyptic mind, that couldn't find a home in the spirit of their age.

I h old it to be important that we can discern the trends of J ewish religion in the znd century B. C. T he world of the Near East is static, immutable and traditional. It is allowed to draw conclusions for earlier and later times . It is obvious that there is in the znd century not the slightest symptom of a cultic pattern in the conception of kingship. That a high-priest took the place of a king cannot be explained by a cultic conception of kingship. His function has been depending on the character ot Jerusalem as a holy city and of Judah as a temple-state. The head of such a state had two tasks and the accent on one of his tasks depended on opportunity and ability. After the Maccabean war the high-priests had a chance to undertake warfare and they used it. So most of the bellicose Maccabean high-priests fell on the battle-field. It is quite understandable that the H asidim, not sati sfied with the triumph of nationalism only, retired more and more from a society whe-re kingship, high-priesthood and nationalism perverted the theocracy.