REGEV 2008 Ḥanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon.pdf

7/24/2019 REGEV 2008 Ḥanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/regev-2008-anukkah-and-the-temple-of-the-maccabees-ritual-and-ideology-from 1/29

Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish Studies Quarterly

.

http://www.jstor.org

Ḥanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees: Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon

Author(s): Eyal RegevSource: Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), pp. 87-114Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KGStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753455Accessed: 05-11-2015 09:09 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 88.23.67.109 on Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:09:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siebeck

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753455

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753455

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siebeck

http://www.jstor.org/



Hanukkah nd

the

Temple

f the

Maccabees:

Ritual nd

deology

rom udas

Maccabeus o Simon

Eyal

Regev

Hanukkah s

Days of

Milluim

Shortly

fter udasMaccabeus's

defeat

f

theSeleucid

rmy

t

BethZur

and theretreat f

Lysias,

heMaccabeans ntered

erusalem

nd,

on 25

Kislev,

164

BCE,

purified

he

Temple.

This was

undoubtedly

crucial

turning oint

n

the

history

f the

Jews

n

general

nd of the

Temple

n

Jerusalem

n

particular.

udas

purified

he

Temple

n

themonth f Ki-

slev,

his

being

his first

pportunity

o do

so,

presumably

ecauseAnti-

ochus

Epiphanes

ad

beenkilled n the

East and the

Seleucidswere oo

busy oopposeJudas's apture fJerusalem.owever,he xactdate of

thefestival f Hanukkah

was not chosen t

random: t was the nniver-

sary

f thedesecration f

the

Temple

I

Mace.

4:46;

II

Mace.

10:5).

Hanukkahwas

originally

ritual

festival,

or

the Maccabees dedi-

cated the defiled

emple

for

eightdays;

it is

thereforeeferredo as

"the

days

of

the dedication

f

the

altar"

I

Mace.

4:48).

Judas nd his

men

purified

he

Temple,

uilt

new

ltar,

onsecrated

t,

nd

prepared

new

acred

essels;

hey

made

up

new

ncense,

itthe

amps

n

the

amp-

stand,

laced

the

howbread n the

able,

nd

rededicatedhe ltarwith

numerous

acrifices,

inging,

nd

prayer.

he

text tates

xplicitly

hat

1

For thehistorical

ackground

o

Judas's rrival

n

Jerusalemnd thededication

f

the

Temple

ee D.

Flusser,

The

Dedicationof the

Temple

by

Judas

Maccabaeus:

Story

and

History"

n: I. M.

Gafni et al.

(eds.),

The Jews n

the Hellenistic-oman

World.

Studies n

Memory f

Menahem

tern

Jerusalem,

996),

pp.

55-78

(Hebrew);

B. Bar

Kokhva,

JudasMaccabeus

Cambridge,

989),

pp.

276-82;

J.C.

VanderKam,

Hanuk-

kah: Its

Timing

and

Significance

ccording

o 1

and

2

Maccabees,"

Journal

or

the

Study f

the

Pseudepigrapha

(1987),

23^0

(VanderKam

dates the

dedication f the

Temple

o 165

BCE).

It

would

appear

that

Antiochus

piphanes

originally laced

the

"loathsome

tructure"

n

the

Temple

on Kislev

25,

that

being

the date of festivitiesn

honorof

Dionysus,

s well as

his own

birthday;

ee

VanderKam,

bid.,

pp.

34-36. Cf.

the iteratureited n

M.

Hengel,

Judaism nd

Hellenism

Philadelphia,

974),

I,

p.

201

n. 271,p. 203 n. 289.

Jewish tudies

Quarterly,

olume 15

(2008)

pp.

87-114

© Mohr Siebeck

ISSN 0944-5706






88

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

thededication f the ltar asted

ight ays,

nd that

Judas

nd

hismen

declared hat he

eight ays

shouldbe observed s a

festival

very ear,

beginning

n the 25th

day

of Kislev

I

Mace.

4:41-48).

The festivals

referredo

in I Mace. 1:18 and 2:16 as

celebrating

the

Purification

of

the

Temple)."

This

purificationlearly

nvolved ertain

acrifices,

or

hefunctionf

the

sin-offering

Hebrew

hattat-from root with

the connotation f

cleansing

r

purgation)

was

to

purify

he altar. t should be recalled

thatExod. 29 and Lev. 8-9, define hedaysof milluim s a seven- r

eight-dayeremony

nwhich he altarwas consecrated nd the

priests

ordained

the

term

milluims related o the erm sed n Exod. 29:9 for

the ordination f

the

priests),

o

that

hey

would

be able

to

discharge

their itual uties.2t would

ppear,

herefore,

hatwhat s

described

n

Maccabees s

essentially

milluim

eremony,

ut

no details re

given

there f the sacrifices

o be

offered,

or is it statedthat the

priests

were ordained.

Josephus,

ho relieson

I

Maccabees,

lso states hat

the festival as

established o commemoratehe renewal f the sacred

service,

dding

hat

t

was called

the

festival

f)

"Lights" (porca).3

ne

question, owever,s surprisinglyot answeredn I Maccabees, r,for

that

matter,

n

any

other ncient ource:

Why

id

therededication

f the

Temple

n

Judas

Maccabeus'stime ast

eight ays?

The rabbis'

nswer s well known.

They

ask,

"What s Hanukkah?"

and

go

on to

tell he

tory

f the

ar

of oil

that astedfor

ight ays

b.

Shabbat

1b),

butdo not

explainwhy

heoil

was neededfor

ight ays.

However,

Mss. Oxford

nd

Parma of the scholion o

Megillat

Taanit

preserve

lder

traditions.

e read

there

pecifically

hat t was on that

date

that he ltarwas

dedicated,

nd that

ight ays

were

ccupied

with

the

preparation

f the ltar nd of

"iron

pits"

the

ampstand).

What s

more ignificants that he cholion ompares hefestival f Hanukkah

to theduration

f the

nauguration

f the

Temple

n

the imes f Moses

and

Solomon,

which asted

ight ays.4

he answer houldnow

be clear:

Eight

days

was the ime hat

Moses

needed

o

inaugurate

he

Sanctuary,

2

For the

days

of milluim ee J.

Milgrom,

Leviticus -16

(Anchor

Bible

3;

New

York,

1991),

pp.

494 ff.On the

sin-offering

s a

purifying

acrifice

ee

ibid.,

pp.

253-

64. A

somewhat

imilar

eremony, urifying

he

Temple

n

eightdays,

s attributed

o

Hezekiah

II

Chron.

29:17-36).

3

See I Mace.

4:36-57;

Josephus,

nt.

XII

325.

The cultic

spect

of the festival

f

Hanukkah s clearly emonstratedy ts Greekname,svKaivia in John10:22,

nd

bythe referenceo it n connectionwithJesus'visit o the

Temple.

4

For Hanukkah

m Rabbinic iterature

ee Y.

Tabón,

Jewish estivals

n theTime

of

the

Mishnah nd Talmud

Jerusalem, 995),

pp.

268-90

(Hebrew).

For the traditions

n






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udas

Maccabeus o

Simon

89

and forthatreason the

dedication

eremony

nderJudasMaccabeus

took

eight ays.

The

purpose

f this rticle s

to examine he ritualisticharacter f

Hanukkah

with

articular

nterest

n II

Maccabees,

nd to uncover he

religious

nd

political deology

f the

Temple

nd

itscult

n

theMacca-

bean and

early

Hasmonean

eriod.

The first

art

of the rticle iscusses

the earliest eferenceo the nature nd

duration f the

festival,

n II

Maccabees,

where t s

strangely

eferred

o

as

"the festival f Taberna-

cles"-thefestival alled in Hebrew "Sukkot." This expressions ex-

plained

n

light

f the

association f Sukkotwith he

days

of milluim

in

several

ifferentources.

he second

part

of the

article

iscusses he

second etter t the

beginning

f II

Maccabees,

which s attributedo

JudasMaccabeus. The

letter's ultic

deology

s

analyzed

nd further

support

s

given

to the

authors' associationof Hanukkah with the

days

of

milluim

nd Sukkot.

ollowing

hese

onclusions,

also

propose

to

explain

why

ater

ources ailed o

preserve

he

memory

f Hanukkah

as the

eight ays

of a milluim

eremony.

inally,

he

political spect

of

the

Temple deology

f theMaccabees s examined

ccording

o 1

Mac-

cabees nd thewritingttributedoEupolemus, heddingmore ight n

the

pecial ignificance

f Hanukkah or he

Maccabees.

Hanukkah s the

"Festival

f

Tabernaclesin I

Maccabees

In

thefirstetter t the

beginning

f

I

Maccabees

1:9),

thewriterssk

theJews f

Egypt,

And now we

ask

you

to celebrate he

Days

of Ta-

bernacles

aynie

xàç r^spaa rfjç

ncn

otiti aç) [from

he

twenty-fifth]

in

the Month of Kislev."

The second etter

ibid.,

v.

18)

reads,

Inas-

much s we are aboutto celebrate,n thetwenty-fifthf Kislev, he

Purification

f

the

Temple

tòoo

Kadapiauòv

too

iepou),

we

thought

we

ought

o let

you

know,

o that

you,

too,

might

elebrate t as the

Days

of

Tabernacles nd the

Days

of the Fire

aynxe bç aicr| otiti íaç

Kai too

7tupòç),

s when

Nehemiah,

he builder

f the

temple

nd the

altar,

rought

acrifices."5he

first

etter,

ent o theJews f

Egypt

by

the cholion ee V.

Noam,

Megillat

Taanit:

Versions,

nterpretation,istory

Jerusalem

2003),

pp.

266-276

Hebrew);

dem,

The Miracleof the

Cruse Oil:

Questioning

ts Use

as a Source for

Assessing

the

Sages'

Attitude

owards the

Hasmoneans,"

Zion 67

(2002),

381-400

Hebrew).

5

Throughout his article all quotationsare fromJ.A. Goldstein,// Maccabees

(Anchor

Bible41

A;

Garden

City,

NY,

1983).

The Greek

original

s

quoted

from

ep-

tuaginta,

VetusTestamentum

raecumAuctoritate

cademiaeLitterarum

ottingensis

editum,

ol.

IX,

fase. I

(Göttingen,

967).

The

expression yr|T£ >ç

aKnvo7rr|YÍaç

II






90

EyalRegev JSQ

15

the

people

of

Jerusalem,

s

dated

to

124 BCE.6 The

second etters not

dated

later

shall

rely

n theview

hat,

f t s

authentic,

t

was written

in

163

BCE),

but the

opening

ines state hat he

people

of

Jerusalem

and Judas

Maccabeus)

ent

t to the

Jews f

Egypt.

hese re ouroldest

sources or he festival f

Hanukkah;

f

the second

etter s

authentic,

they

reflect he

views of the Maccabees

themselves.

urprisingly,

he

festival s referred

o

twice

n

these

etters,

ith

no

explanation,

s

"thefestival f Tabernacles." he

antiquity

f the ettersndicates

hat,

at the

time,

hefestival id not

yet

have ts own

name,

nd that

ppar-

ently

ukkotwas thefestivalmost

losely

esembling

t.

In

themain ext f

I

Maccabees

10:6-8),

perhaps

written

ater,

here

is a

long

xplanation

f the

ink

between anukkah nd

Sukkot,

hough

it

s

by

no

means lear:

Joyfullyhey

eld n

eight-day

elebration,

fter he

pattern

fTaberna-

cles

fiiiépaç

ktcò

GKrivcouáxcov),

emembering

ow a short imebefore

they

pent

he festival f Tabernaclesike wild

beasts,

n the mountains

and

n

the aves.

herefore,

olding

reathed ands nd

branches

earing

ripe

ruit,

nd

palm

fronds,

hey

ffered

ongs

f

praise

o Him

Who

had

victoriouslyrought

bout the

purification

f His Place.

By

vote of the

commonwealthhey ecreed rule or he ntire ation f theJews o ob-

serve hese

ays

nnually.

The newfestival

the

eight ays")

s nameless. he

relationship

etween

it and Sukkot s

anything

utclear

in

fact,

more han

one

explanation

Mace.

1:18)

is

difficult;

t is not clear whether

icr| otiti íaç

is to be

understood

s

accusativeor

genitive.

ome commentators

ave

explained

t as

"make/celebrate

he

Days

of

Tabernacles;"

thers ranslatet

n

the ense

of

"celebrate

it)

after

hemanner

o/the

Days

of Tabernacles"or "... as the

Days

of Tabernacles."To the first

roup

belong

VanderKam,

Hanukkah,"

pp.

31-32;

A.

Kahana,

Ha-sefarim

a-hizonim

Ra-

mat-Gan,

1960),

II,

p.

180

(Hebrew);

E.

Nodet.

"La

Dédicace,

les Maccabees et le

Messie,"

RB

93

(1986),p.

334. The other

group

ncludes

Goldstein,

/

Maccabees,

pp.154, 171-172;D.R. Schwartz, heSecondBookofMaccabees,Yad Ben-Zvi Jerusalem,

2004),

p.

83

(Hebrew).

F. M.

Abel,

Les livresMaccabees

(Paris, 1949),

pp.

292-293,

translates

n accordance withthe first

lternative,

ut remarks

hat

bç cncnvoTCTiyiac

might

e a translation

f "likethe

days

of theFestival f Tabernacles."Goldstein

ibid.,

p.

153)

and VanderKam

ibid.,

p.

32)

note that

n

all three ccurrences f

<TKr|vo7rr|YÍaç

(Tabernacles)

he ext mits he

prefix poxfi meaning

festival"),

hich

lways

ccurs

in

the

Septuagint.

learly,

he association

of Hanukkah and Sukkot s

stronger

f the

first lternatives correct for

hen hefestivals

actually

alled Sukkot

However,

ven

assuming

he

econd,

ccording

o which

I

Mace.

1 9 and

1

call for he25th

of Kislev

to

be

celebrated

ike,

hat

s,

after

he manner

f,

Sukkot,

t is stillunclear how

one

festival an be celebrated

like" another.At

any

rate,

he verbal dentification

f the

festival

n

Kislev with ukkot

s

quite

clear n II Mace. 1:9

as

is evident

n

the

transla-

tionsof

Abel, Goldstein,

nd

Schwartz).6 II Mace. 1:9. As to the

authenticity

nd content f the first etter ee E. Bicker-

man,

"Ein

üdischer

estbrief

om

Jahre

24 v.

Chr.,"

ZA^32

(1933),

233-54,

repr.

n

idem,

Studies

n Jewish

nd

Christian

istory,

I

(Leiden,

1980),

pp.

136-58.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udas

Maccabeus o Simon 91

is

given.

Was Hanukkah ntended

o commemoratehe

festival f Ta-

bernacles elebrated

n

the

past,

when

the Jewswere

fugitives?

as

it

celebrated

ith

hree f the Four

Species"

of

Sukkot s an imitation f

Sukkot?

f

so,

why

ukkot nd

not some other estival?

as thereason

simply

hat ukkotwas the ast

festivalelebrated efore he

date of the

new festival? fter

ll,

the

"loathsome tructure"

ad been

standing

n

the

Temple

or hree

ears,

uring

which

many

ther estivals

nd rituals

had not been

celebrated here

Since he ext f I

Mace. 10:6-8 sprobablyater han he wo etterscited

bove,7

ts

description

houldnot be considered

ully

eliablewith-

out furtherxamination.

t

any

rate,

ven f

the text s taken t

face

value,

t is still

puzzling

why

both etters all

Hanukkah the

festival

of Tabernacles"

or

"the

Days

of Tabernacles

nd the

Days

of the

Fire"),

lthough hey

re

clearly

oncerned ith

different

ate;

more-

over,

he first

etterwas

clearly

written henthe festival

ad

already

been celebrated or ome

years,

nd

yet

the same

strange

esignation

is used.

An

understanding

f the

complex

relationship

etweenHanukkah

and Sukkotwill ontributeo a reconstructionftheorigin revolution

of the Maccabean

festival,

nd will also

help

to

explain

he

motivation

behind he

Maccabees'

establishmentf the

new

Temple

estival.

ince

very

ittle s knownof

the Maccabees'

ideology

nd

religious

ercep-

tions,

uch a

reconstructions of

considerable

ignificance

or

ny

stu-

dent f

ancient udaism.

shallfirst eview he

various

ttempts

ade to

resolve hese

difficulties,

ointing

ut the

problems

hey

themselves

raise;

ubsequently,

newsolutionwill

be

presented.

(1)

Geiger

nd

Leszynskyrgue

that he textmust

be

corrupt.8

he

evidence or

his

corruption,"

owever,

s

multiple.

(2) Rapoport,Krauss,Hochfeld,nd Zeitlin uggesthat heMacca-

bees celebrated he

festival f

Sukkotmore han

womonths

ater,

fter

the

Temple

had

been

purified.9

owever,

festival an be

celebrated

7

Even

Goldstein,

who considers he

econd etter

forgery

see

below),

agrees

hat

II Mace.

10:6-7 is based on

the same source as I

Mace. 4:56 but

adds the Sukkot

customs

Goldstein,

//

Maccabees,

pp. 380-1).

That

the

passage

is later s even

more

obvious

f

the second

etter s dated

around 163

BCE.

8

A.

Geiger,

Urschrift

nd

Übersetzungen

er

Bible

Frankfurt

/M,

1928),

227-228;

R.

Leszynsky,

Das

Laubhüttenfest

hanukka,"

MGWJ 45

(1911),

408

ff. or a

rejec-

tion of this

view ee also R.

Doran,

Temple

ropaganda:

The

Purpose

nd

Character

f

2

Maccabees

(Washington, 981),

p.

4.

9

S. Y. Rapoport,"simhatbeitha-shoeva e-hannukaH' Ha-Shahar 4 (1873), 434

(Hebrew);

S.

Hochfeld,

Die

Entstehung

es

Hanukkafestes,"

AW 22

(1902),

277;

S.

Zeitlin,

Hanukkah:

ts

Origin

nd

its

Significance,"

QR

29

(1938-39),

23 f. Cf.

S.

Krauss,

"La fête

de

Hanoucca,"

REJ 30

(1895),

29.






92

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

only

t its

ppointed

ime.

Moreover,

hy

was Sukkot

elebrated,

ather

thanPassover

r the

Day

of

Atonement,

hose acrifices

ad also not

been offered

n

the

Temple

or hree

ears?

(3)

Goldstein

onjectures

hatJudah

had extended he

Jewish

ear

with wo

intercalary

onths.

hus,

the month f

Kislev of the

year,

before

ntercalation,

as

actually

ishri

f the

ntercalaryear.10

ote,

however,

hat

Hanukkah

was notcelebrated

n

Tishri

the

moth f Suk-

kot)

but on

Kislev,

nd

not on the

15th f themonth

the

date of Suk-

kot)but on the

25th.

(4)

Doran, Nodet,

andVanderKam ollowedhereferenceo there-

bels' own

plight

t the

time f the

festival f

Sukkot,

when

hey

were

living

n caves

n themountains

II

Mace.

10:6),

maintaining

hat ele-

brants dentified

ith he

festival

s

symbolic

f the

sraelites'wander-

ing

n

the

desert,

when

hey

welled

n

tabernacles.11

t

seems,

owever,

that hereference

o therebels'

wandering

as meant o stress

he

very

achievement

f thereturn

o the

Temple,

ot to

explain

he

meaning

f

thefestival.

(5)

Abel,

Wacholder

nd others

maintain hat

Hanukkah

was cele-

brated fter hefashion f,or under he nfluencef,Sukkot, ointing

out several

ommon

features: reathed

wands,

branches

earing

ipe

fruit,

nd

palm

fronds

II

Mace.

10:7);

association

with

fire

recalling

the celebration

f

the

"water-drawing"),

nd

eight days

duration.12

Note,

however,

hat

fire nd

light

re

expressive

f

oy

in

any

context,

as are

palm

fronds,

hichwere

lso carried

o celebrate he

occupation

of theAcra

fortress

n the

23rdof Heshvan.13

urthermore,

hefestival

of

Sukkot s

actually

not

eight

but seven

days long.14

he wreathed

10

Goldstein's

uggestion

s related o

his

theory

f

the vents

rior

o thededication

of

the

Temple;

ee J.A.

Goldstein,

/ Maccabees

(Anchor

Bible

41;

Garden

City,

NY,

1976),

pp.

273-80. Cf. also Nodet, "La Dédicace,"pp. 333-5. VanderKam, Hanuk-

kah,"

p.

34,

rejects

his

view.

11

Doran,

Temple ropaganda,

.

13 n.

9; Nodet,

"La

Dédicace,"

p.

336;

Vander-

Kam,

"Hanukkah,"

pp.

31-34.

12

F. M.

Abel,

"La fête

de la

Hanoucca,"

RB 53

(1946),

538^6;

G.

Kitzis,

"bein

sukkot

e-hannukaK'

BisdehHemed

26/1-2

1983),

44-50

(Hebrew);

Wacholder,

Let-

ter,"

.

105,

112

n.

55.

Cf. also

Rapoport,

simhat eit

ha-shoeva" 34.

For a

survey

f

the imilarities

etween

hetwo festivals

ee O.

S.

Rankin,

The

Origins f

theFestival

f

Hanukkah

Edinburgh,

930),

pp.

91-102,

175-176.

Rankin,however,

oes

not believe

thatHanukkah

was established

ccording

o

the

pattern

f Sukkot.

13

For

light

s a manifestation

f

oy

see e.

g.,

Esther

8:16. On

the

capture

of the

Acra see

I Mace.

13:51. The

Gospels

(Matt.

21:8-9;

Mark

11:8;

John

12:13)

describes

Jesus' ntry

ntoJerusalem

on

"Palm

Sunday") accompaniedby people

withbranches

(John

xplicitly

entions

alm

branches).

14

Lev.

23:34^2;

I

Kgs.

8:65;

cf. I Chron.

7:9;

the

eighth

ay

constitutes

separate

festival.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o

Simon

93

wands

nd branches

earing

ipe

fruit

may

havebeen a

later,

nauthen-

tic,

xplanation y

the

uthor f

I

Mace,

(missing

n

the etter

ttrib-

uted to

Judas)

who tried o

explain

o his readers

he associationwith

Sukkot.

At

any

rate,

hey

annot solve the riddle

why

f

all festivals

Sukkotwas chosen s the

proto-type

f Hanukkah.

(6)

M. Liber

uggests

hat

I

Maccabees

ompares

Hanukkah o Suk-

kotbecausebothfestivalsnvolved

nauguration

eremonies

n

theTem-

ple.

The new festival stablished

y

Judas

Maccabeuswas made to re-

semble he losest estival, hichwas ndeed ukkot.15 hileLiberdoesnot define r describe hese

eremoniess

such,

he

actually

eferso

the

dedication

r

inauguration

f the

Sanctuary

nd

the

Temple,namely,

the

days

of milluim.

ubinstein nd Nodet offer

imilar

xplanations,

without

larifying

heritualisticr

"halakhic"

elationship

etween

a-

nukkah,

he

days

of

milluim,

nd Sukkot.16

The milluim

eremony

f

nauguration

f the

Temple

had

significant

importance

n the

Maccabean and

Hasmonean

periods.

The

Temple

Scroll

found t

Qumran,

nd

probably

lso the

Sadducees,

prescribed

celebration

f

the

days

of milluim s a

yearly

vent,

while hePharisees

opposedthisview.17ollowing he recent wareness f itssignificance

during

he

econd

Temple eriod,

would

ike o

develop

urtheriber's

proposal

nd to show

hat

he

days

ofmilluim re

ndeed hereasonfor

associating

anukkahwith ukkot.

There s

a

historicalssociation

etween he

days

of milluim nd

the

festival

f

Sukkot. he

eight ays

of milluim

hat

naugurated

he

Sanc-

tuary

n

the wilderness ook

place

in

the

beginning

f

the month f

Nissan.

According

o

II

Chron.29:17-36

Hezekiah also

performed

n

inauguration

nd

purification

eremony

n the

first

ight ays

of Nis-

san.18

evertheless,

everal imilar

eremonies

elebrating

he

dedication

15

M.

Liber,

Hanoucca et

Souccot,"

REJ 16

63)

(1912),

20-29. He relies n I

Kgs.

8:2,

65;

II

Chron.

7:8-10;

and Ezra

3:1-6,

which

mply

hat he

Temple

was

inaugurated

on

Sukkot

or around that

ime.

16

J. .

Rubinstein,

he

History f

Sukkot

n

the econd

Temple

nd

Rabbinic eriods

(Atlanta,

1995),

pp.

58-63. Nodet "La

Dédicace"

pp.

332-5,

who also mentioned

he

referenceo

the

nauguration

f the

Temple

on Kislev 24 in

Haggai

2:18. C. L.

Meyers

and E.

M.

Meyers,Haggai,

Zecharia 1-8

(Anchor

Bible

25B;

New

York, 19870,

pp.

63

f.,

who

conjecture

hat

Haggai

was

referring

o

some

symbolic

ct in the

Temple.

VanderKam,

Hanukkah,"

pp.

33-34 and

Goldstein, Maccabees,

pp.

279-280

pointed

out

a connection etweenHanukkah and

the

nauguration

f

temples

n

antiquity.

17

Temple

croll

XIV,

9

-

XVII, 4;

Y.

Yadin,

The

Temple

croll

Jerusalem,

977),

,

pp. 75-79, II, pp. 44-54 (Hebrew).For theSadduceesand Pharisees, ee below.18For the

nauguration

nthewilderness ee

Exod. 40:1. I have

followed hechron-

ology

of R.

Akiva

in

Sifri,

Num.

68

(Horovitz

d.,

p.

63),

but

many

of the

Sages

dis-

agreed.

The

Temple

croll lso dates

theceremonies o

the first

month;

ee

ibid.,

XV,

3






94

Eyal

Regev

JSQ

'5

or

nauguration

f the

Temple

were

heldon or around

ukkot,

hat

s,

n

themonth

f Tishri:

(1)

Solomon

elebrated he

nauguration

f the

Temple

at the

Feast,

in

the

month

of Ethanim

that

s,

the seventhmonth

sacrificing

sheep

and oxen

in such abundance

hat

they

ould

not be numbered

or counted."

Solomon

celebrated

or "seven

days

and

again

seven

days,

fourteen

ays

in all"

(1 Kings

8:65);

the seven

days

of

milluim

may

have been

celebrated

mmediately

fter he seven

days

of Sukkot

(orperhaps artly verlappinghem).19

(2)

The exiles

eturning

rom

abylon

nder erubbabel onof Sheal-

tiel and Joshua

on of

Jehozadak

built the new altar

in the seventh

month nd

immediately

elebrated

he festival

f Sukkot.

Whilethere

is no

specific

mention f the

consecration

f the ltaror the

ordination

of the

priests,

his

may

havebeen

thefunctionf

thefestivalf

Sukkot.20

(3)

Some

link

between

ukkot

nd the ordination

f the

priests

s

implied

y

the

unique

combination

f

narrative nd law

in

the Book

of Jubilees.

n

Jubilees,

robably

eflecting

he

beginning

r middleof

the second

century

CE,

the milluim

acrificesre

referredo

in con-

nectionwith hedateof thefestivalf Sukkot.As Schiffmanas shown,

the

description

f Jacob's

elebrationf Sukkot

n

Jubilees

resents

wo

lists f sacrifices

Jub. 2:4-7).

n

the

first,

henumber

f sacrifices

re-

scribed

or hefestival

s several

imes

reater

han hat f

Num. 29

(for

example,

nsteadof two

rams,

Jubilees

rescribes

wenty-eight

ams).

Schiffman

uggests

hat

these sacrifices

hould

actually

be associated

with

hemilluim.

f

so,

it

transpires

hat

he Book of Jubilees

lso

pre-

serves

he association

f the

days

of milluim

with he festival

f Suk-

-XVII, 5;

Yadin,

Temple

croll, ,

p.

78. Cf.

also

Josephus,

nt.

ll, 201,

206. Note that

Hezekiah'sceremonyn II Chron. s notmentionedn II Kingsand thusmayreflect

the view

of the

ater uthor

the

ate Persian

period?).

19

Kgs.

8,

2, 65;

II Chron. 7:8-10

(which

mplies

hat he altar

was

inaugurated

n

seven

days prior

to the

seven

days

of

Sukkot);

Josephus,

nt.

VIII,

123. On

the im-

portance

of

the seventhmonth

nd its

designation

ee

J.

Gray,

&

II

Kings OTL;

London,

19702),pp.

207-8. For the

chronological

elationship

etweenSukkot

and

the

inauguration

f the altar

and the related

problems

ee

M. J.

Mulder,

/

Kings,

(HCOT;

Leuven,

1998),

pp.

457-8.

For

attempts

o

explain

the

importance

f the

festival

n the

Temple

t that ime

f.

Rubinstein,

istory f

Sukkot,

p.

20-25.

20

Ezra

3:1-6.

It is

hardly

onceivable

hat

he ltar was erected

fter

o

manyyears

of devastation

nd exile

without

ome

special

ritual

eremony

o consecrate

he stones

and

the

priests.

Rubinstein,

istory

f

Sukkot,

p.

33,

concludes

from

he verse "fol-

lowed

by

the

regular

urnt

ffering

nd the

offerings

or

he newmoons

and for

ll the

sacredfixed imes f theLord,and whateverreewillfferingseremade to theLord"

(Ezra 3:5)

that he Sukkot

acrifices

naugurated

he altar.

The

Temple

tselfwas

dedi-

cated

years

ater,

round Passover

Ezra

6:16-20).






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o

Simon

95

kot.21 his

may

n

factbe

proved

n the basis of the

narrative rame-

work n which he

sacrifices re listed.The sacrifices

hat Schiffman

associateswith he

milluHm-thosQf the fifteenth

of Tishri)

fferedt

Bethel-areisted fter evi has been

ordained s

priest

n the

fourteenth

of themonth.After evi's ordination o

serve s

priest

n

the

temple

t

Bethel,

Jacob

accordingly rings

him

the

tithe,

lothes

him in

the

priestly

estmentsnd ordains im the erm

sed

n

Jub.

2:2-3,

filled

his

hands,"

s

precisely

he biblical

xpression

mille t

yado,

from he

same root s thewordmilluim. learly,he uthor f theBook ofJubi-lees associates he sacrifices f Sukkotwith he

days

of milluim. ince

thewholebook is concerned ith

hronology

nd

Halakhah,

he

asso-

ciation,

ttributed

o

Jacob,

was

clearly

ntentional.

(4)

Another itual vent hat ook

place

aroundthe time f

Sukkot

was

the onclusion f the covenant"

n

the ime f Ezra and

Nehemiah.

Whileno altarwas

erected nd therewas no

ordination

eremony,

he

occasiondeserves

mention,

mainly

ecausethe econd

etter

n II

Mac-

cabeesreferso it

ndirectly

n

the

context f the

days

of

milluim

n

the

timeof Moses and

Solomon. The authors f

the etter

oint

out the

similarity etweenHanukkah and that ceremony,writing: ... we

thought

t

necessary

o

notify

ou,

n

order hat

you

also

may

elebrate

thefestival f Tabernacles

nd thefestival f thefire

iven

whenNehe-

miah,

who

built he

temple

nd the

altar,

ffered

acrifices"

II

Mace.

1:18).

The

implication

s

that,

n

their

iew,

he ovenantwas

concluded

in

a ritual

eremonynvolving

he

onsecrationf the ltar.22 he

letter

devotes onsiderable

pace

to an

account of the

ceremony,

n

which

sacrifices ere fferednd

prayers

ecited

ibid.

vv.

21-36).

Nehemiah's

covenant as

signed

n

a

public

eremony

eld

mmediately

fter ukkot

(Neh.

7:72;

8:14-9:1),

and

its main

provision

oncerned

eforming

he

21

See L. H.

Schiffman,

The Sacrificial

ystem

f the

Temple

Scroll and the Book

of

Jubilees,"

ociety f

BiblicalLiterature eminar

Papers 1985),

p.

223. VanderKam

has

suggested

hat he additional

acrifices ere

lso Sukkot

offerings,

ut

admits hat

some of those isted eem to

contradict his

nterpretation;

ee J.C.

VanderKam,

The

Temple

Scroll

and

the Book of

Jubilees,"

emple

croll

Studies

ed.

G. J.

Brooke;

JSP

Sup

7; Sheffield,

989),

pp.

211-36. At

any

rate,

he

istof Sukkot acrificesn

Jubilees

16:22

is also inconsistent ith

the biblical

requirements.

ee

Schiffman,bid.,

p.

230;

VanderKam, bid.,

pp.

230-1. The Book

of Jubilees eems to

describe milluim

ere-

mony

oncurrent ith he

festival f

Sukkot,

asting nly

even

days.

22

Wacholder,

Letter,"

p.

117-20,

and

Goldstein,

I

Maccabees,

pp.

174-6,

think

that

the authorwas confused

nd

actually

meantthe

dedication f

the

Temple

n

the

Restoration eriod Ezra 3). Nevertheless,hecontinuation f thetext n II Maccabees

definitely

eems o refer t

length

o a

prayer

fferednNehemiah's

ime,

ased on the

prayer

ecited t thecovenant

eremony

Neh. 9).

Perhaps

Nehemiah'sreformseemed

to the authormore

ignificant

han the

dedication f the altar

of the Second

Temple.






96

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

sacrificial

ites n the

Temple.23

ere the uthors f the etter

hemselves

made the onnection etween heir wnfestivalnd a

Temple

vent hat

had occurred

mmediately

fter ukkot an event hat

hey

may

have

considered kindof consecration

r

ordination

eremony.

We

have,

herefore,

hree

ases of

days

of

milluim

or,

more

precisely,

ceremonies

n which

temple

was dedicated r

naugurated

nd an

altar

consecrated)

n or around

hefestival f

Sukkot,

lus

the

onclusion f

Nehemiah's

ovenant,

hich he uthors f the etter eem o have een

in

a

similar

ight.

hesecases add

up

to

evidence,

hich s

by

no means

accidental ut attests o a

ritual,

r

perhaps

ven

calendrical,

radition

neglected y

ater

enerations

we

shall

presently

xplain

his

neglect

s

well).

When I

Maccabees

and the etters t its

beginning

efer o the

Maccabeans' consecration

f

the altar as the festival

f

Tabernacles,

they

re

probably

eferring

o this ancient radition. think hat the

connection

ith ukkot s not

merely

ue to this

being

festival

uring

which eremonies ere

held

n

the

Temple.24

t seems hatSukkotwas

the

preferred

ime

for

he

nauguration

f a

temple

nd for rdination

ceremonies. hen

hree ifferentources mbedded

n I

Maccabees all

Hanukkah the festival fTabernacles,"hey re actually eferringo

the

ight ays

of ordination

r theconsecrationf the ltar.

This

strange

ame

may

be added to the ist of

designations

or he

newfestival

n and II

Maccabees,

ndicating

hat t first hefestival

id

notevenhave

definite,

niform ame. t is called

variously

he

days

of

thededication f the

ltar,

he

purification

f the

Temple,

hefestival f

purification

r of the

fire,

nd

thefestival f Tabernacles

in

themonth

of

Kislev] see above).

All these

designations

re concernedwith

the

same

thing:

he

ceremony

f the dedication f the

Temple

r the

eight

days

of

milluim. he non-uniform

esignations

or he festival

learly

reflecthefact hat heMaccabeans nd theirupportersad established

a new

festival,

nd

were ncertaint firsts to how to name t.

suggest

that hename

"festivalf

Tabernacles,

that

s,Sukkot,

was

given

o t n

three

ifferent

ources ecause

that

estival, y

dint

f

ts relation

o the

23

Neh. 10:33-40. For a detailed

ccount of the

revolutionaryhanges

n

ritual

due

to the covenant

ee,

e.g.,

Y.

Kaufmann,

Toledo

ha-Emunahha-Yisreelit

Tel

Aviv,

1956),

VIII,

pp.

331-62

(Hebrew).

For

the date of the

ceremony

ee

ibid.,

pp.

324-30;

Rubinstein, istory f Sukkot, p.

34-44.

24

As Rubinstein

oints

ut,

especially

n

pp.

319-20.

Compare

also the

ignificance

of thefestival

n Zech.

14:16,18-19,

with ll thenations

oming p

to

the

Temple very

year.

The backround f themilluim itual n or close to Sukkot hould be understood

in

light

f the

continuity

f ritual raditions nd social

control n

general.Compare

C.

Bell,

Ritual

Theory,

itual Practice

New

York and

Oxford,

992)

118-125.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udas

Maccabeus o Simon

97

eight

aysof

milluim,

as the losest

estival

r

ceremonyor

theMacca-

beans' dedication

eremony,

n

respect f

both ts nature nd thetime

f

year.

Moreover,

hefact hat

hefestival as referredo as "the

festival f

Tabernacles"

n

thecontext f the

dedication f the altar s

highly ig-

nificant.

t indicates eliance

n

precedents,ccording

o which heTem-

ple

was dedicated

n

the

autumn,

nlikeMoses'

days

of milluim

n

the

month f

Nisan,

in

the

spring. propose

that the Maccabeans

were

saying, s it were:Just s Solomon nauguratedhe FirstTemple, he

returning

xiles consecrated he

altar,

nd Nehemiahconcludedthe

covenant JudasMaccabeus and his men reinstatedhe

Temple

rites;

and

ust

as

in

those

precedents,

heMaccabeansdid so around hetime

of Sukkot

instead

f the other

lternative,

t the

beginning

f

Nisan).

Such

self-justification

as in

order,

ince

the Maccabeans wished he

new festival o be celebrated

nnually,

oth n

the Land of Israel and

in

the

Diaspora;

to that

nd,

hey

ad to convince he

Jews hat

hey

ad

not

departed

rom raditionnd

merely

nvented

new

festival,

ut

they

were

elying

n

a

firmly

ased ritual nd

liturgical

radition.

This conclusion ollows xclusivelyrom he use of thedesignation

"the festival f Tabernacles."

However,

lear

corroboration omes

from he econd etter

n II

Maccabees.This etter

resents

he

days

of

milluim

n

the timesof Moses and

Solomon,

as

well

as Nehemiah's

covenant,

s

precedents

n which he Maccabeans relied n their all

to theJews f

Egypt

o

keep

thefestival f

Hanukkah.

Consecration

eremonies,

itual

Legends,

and

Templedeology

n the

econdLetter n

I

Maccabees

The

second

etter

II

Mace.

1:10-2:18)

was

sent,

s

stated

n

ts

opening

sentence,

y

the

people,

he

gerousia

nd JudasMaccabeusto Aristobu-

lus,

"tutor

f

King Ptolemy

nd member f the stock

of the anointed

priests,"

nd to the

Jews f

Egypt.

his

Aristobuluss identified ith he

author f an

exposition

f the Mosaic Law which

has survived

n

the

writings

f Clement f

Alexandria nd

Eusebius;

he is

known o have

lived round hetime f the

etter.25

25

Eusebius himselfdentified

ristobulus

with

he aforementionedewish

hiloso-

pher;

ee

Praep.

Ev.

VIII, 9,

38;

Y.

Gutman,

The

Beginningsf

Jewish-Christianitera-

ture, (Jerusalem, 969),pp. 186-8 (Hebrew),who also discussesAristobulus's ates.Since Aristobulus ddresses

King Ptolemy irectly

n

the text

e.g., Praep.

Ev., XIII,

11,

1),

he

may

haveconsidered

imself

or

other

persons

onsidered

im)

a tutor o the

king,

s

designated

n

the etter.






98

EyalRegev JSQÌ5

Since he

beginning

fthe esearch f he

booksofMaccabees cholars

havebeen divided s to the

authenticity

f this etter. he main reason

that ed

many

cholars o viewthis econd etter s a fabrications the

legendaryescription

fAntiochus's eath

n

Persia fter

aving

obbed

a

sanctuary

1:13-16)

that lso contradictshe

King's

death rom

pain-

ful

disease

II

Mace.

9:6-9;

cf.

Polybius

1:9).

Bickerman ound

hilolo-

gical

evidence or

upporting

his

view,

ommenting

hatthe

greeting

formula

n 1:10

resembles

ormulasn

papyri

ated no earlier han 60

BCE. Goldstein rgued hat he etterwas writtennEgyptn 103 BCEand considerst

part

f a

polemic gainst

he

emple

f Onias.He

argues

that he etterwas

forged,

hewriter

rying

o

present

t as

having

een

written

ust

before hededication f the

Temple.

n

his

view,

he

newsof

Antiochus's eathcould not have reached

Jerusalem eforeKislev

25,

and theMaccabees

urely

id

not

have ime o informheJews

n

Egypt

of their ntentiono celebrate hefestival efore hatdate.26

Notwithstanding

hese

facts,

more and more

scholarshave

recently

maintained

hat

he etter

may

be still

mostly)

uthentic. he

descrip-

tionof Antiochus's eath

may

be a result f a later

nterpolation

and

is

evenharder o explainwhy hesupposed ater uthor f the etter id

not use

reliable istorical vidence

egarding

he

king's

death);

he na-

chronism

f the

greeting

ormula

may

be

incidental,

incethe

greeting

formulas re an instable riterion or

dating

document;27

t is more

likely

hat he etter as sentbefore anukkah f 163

BCE,

a

year

fter

the ltarwas

purified.28

26

Bickerman,

Ein

üdischer

estbrief,"

p.

136-7;

Goldstein,

Maccabees,

pp.

157-

67;

C.

Habicht,

Makkabäerbuc

JSHRZ 1.3) (Gütersloher,

976),

pp

199-200.

For

a

further

urvey

f research

n

the

19th

nd

early

20th

enturies,

ee

Wacholder,

Letter"

90-91.

27

Doran, Temple ropaganda, -7; Schwartz,

econd

Book

of

Maccabees

20, 23, 78,80, 206,294-295. He believes hatthe

epistle

had an authentic

rigin

nd that t was

added to the book

in

Jerusalem.

28

Wacholder,

Letter." This

proposal

resolves

a

good many

of

the difficulties

pointed

out

by

the

opposing

camp

(such

as the reference o the

purification

f the

Temple

n the

past

tense,

I

Mace.

2:18).

Goldstein

rgued

that the letter ould not

have been sent a

year

ater,

ecause

Judea

was

under

siege.

This

argument,

owever,

whichderives rom

hypothetical

istorical

nterpretation

f

Daniel

12:11,

should

be

rejected,

ince

ccording

o I Mace. 6:18-21 Judas nd his men were hen

besieging

he

Acra

fortress.

lusser,

The Dedication of the

Temple" pp.

56-58,

suggests

hat the

newsof Antiochus's eath

cf.

I Mace.

1:13-16)

might

ave arrived efore hededica-

tion

of the

Temple;

he dates the letter o Kislev

164

BCE.

In

addition,

Wacholder,

Eupolemus:

A

Study f

Judaeo-Greek iterature

Cincinnati, 974),

p.

239 n.

66,

adds

that forger ould not have used the name of a relativelynknown erson

ike Aris-

tobulus.For further

rguments

n favor f

authenticity

ee J.

Bunge,

Untersuchungen

zum zweitenMakkabäerbuch

Diss.,

Bonn,

1971),

pp.

32-55

(unavailable

o

me);

Th.

Fischer,

eleukiden

ndMakkabäer

Bochum, 1980),

pp.

86-100.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o Simon

99

Those who believe hat he

etters a

forgery

ate t to the

ime

when

Hanukkahwas

already

n

established estival nd after

Hasmonean

n-

dependence

ad secured he

Temple

from

oreign

ntervention.

nder

these

ircumstances,

would

xpect

he uthorwhowished o

legitimize

the Hasmoneans nd the

Temple

o

emphasize

he Maccabean

victory,

the

priestly

evotion o the

Torah,

nd

God's

election

f the

Temple.

However,

s we shall

see,

theauthor ocused n

dedication

miluim)

i-

tualsof the altar nd the

holy

fire,

ntroducing

ritualisticnd

mythic

discourse atherwkwardly.s I will howbelow, he uthor s not nter-ested n

praising

he Maccabees for heir

chievements,

ut rather n a

religious

ustification

or he nvention

f Hanukkah. believe t more

suitably

eflectshe

days

of

Judas,

when itual xcitementnd

exultation

musthave eized heMaccabeeswhen

hey urified

he

Temple.

Authenticr

fabricated,

t

s still

ecessary

o ook for he

relationship

between ts contents nd the fact that Hanukkah

was a new milluim

festival. hose whoview he etter

s inauthentic

ay

onfine hefollow-

ing

onclusions o the

iterary

nd

theological

evels. hose who are now

convinced hat the letter s indeed

authentic written n the eve of

Hanukkah163BCE, that s,shortlyefore heanniversaryf theded-

ication f the ltar

may

view t as

attesting

o theMaccabean

percep-

tionof the

days

of

Milluim

nd the

Templemyth

s an

early

nd official

attempt

o

ustify

he nvention

f Hanukkah.

An

examination f the

content f the etterwill

now show that t

discusses he

relationship

etweenHanukkah nd

ancient eremonies

attached o the dedication f an altar

and

the

eschatological ope

for

return f "the

holy

fire"

which

ymbolized

heDivine

Presence f

God

in

the

Temple.

he first

iturgical

heme

will

be consistent ith

hedes-

ignation

f thefestival s "the

festival f Tabernacles"

nd

will

also be

associatedwith he econd schatologicalheme.

Previous

iscussions f the etter

avefocused n the

question

f

ts

authenticity.

he letterwas

clearly

meant as an

argument

or

divine

support

r

protection

f

the Second

Temple,

nd for ts

continuity

n

terms

f

sanctity

ith heFirst

Temple.29

owever,

he

manner

n

which

it

proclaims

he

sanctity

f

the

Temple

was

dismissed s an obscure

compilation

f

referenceso biblical

ources nd curious

egends per-

haps

because t is

fragmentary

nd

corrupt).

he fact

hat he authors

chose to

legitimize

he

Jerusalem

emple

n

this

peculiarway, nparal-

leled

n

other econd

Temple

ources,

equires

further

xamination

f

the etter's ontent.

29

E.

g.,

Schwartz,

econd Book

of

Maccabees,

294.






100

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

I

would iketo show

that,

espite

ome

difficulties,

hedetails f the

letter it nto a

consistent

deological

ontext,

nd

the authors' ntent

and

purpose

an be reconstructed:ne of their

major

concerns s the

days

of

milluim

that

s,

ceremonies or he

nauguration

r dedication

of a

temple)

nd the

history

f the onsecration

f the

ltar,

tradition

that he

authors

wish to

perpetuate.30

he

letter eveals

unique

reli-

gious

and

ritual

onception

f

Hanukkah,

eemingly

haracteristicf

the

Maccabees;

t

therefore

ugments

ur rather

meagerknowledge

f

theMaccabean

religiousdeology.The letter

pens

with n accountof thecircumstancesf Antiochus

Epiphanes's

eath nd

goes

on to call for he

elebration

f "the

festival

of

the

Purificationf the

Temple,"

hat

s,

Hanukkah

see above).

There

follow everal

engthy

ccountsof ceremonies

erformed

nd

prayers

offered

n

the

Sanctuary

n

Moses'

time,

n

the

Temple

n

Solomon's

and Nehemiah's imes.Also included re

legends

bout the fire n the

altar,

s well

as the

tent,

he Ark

of

the

Covenant),

nd the ncense

altar,

whichhad been

hiddenwhen the First

Temple

was

destroyed.

The letter nds with he observation hat he same

things

re

reported

in the records f Nehemiah,who collectedvarious books about the

kings

nd the

prophets,

nd that Judas

Maccabeus)

collected hese

books,

which ad

been ost because of thewar.

Finally,

hecall to cele-

brate hefestivals

repeated,

ith hanks o

God

and an

expression

f

hope

for he

ngathering

f the exiles.The structuref the etter atu-

rally

rovokes

he

question:Why

id the

uthor(s)

f the etter ee fit o

expand

t

great ength thirty-one

ut of

forty-five

erses

on various

ceremonies bserved

n

the

Temple,

s well as the secret

istory

f the

Temple

utensils?Would it not have been more natural o

report

he

Maccabees' heroicdeeds as an

explanation

or he

festival?

o answer

thesequestions,etus take a closer ook at the content f the etter's

component arts.

30

Contra

Wacholder, Letter,"

.

130,

who defines he theme f the etter s

"in-

debtedness o God or his miraculous

alvation,"

r

"ingathering

f exiles."

Goldstein,

II

Maccabees,

pp.

24-26, 160-161, 177,

nd

many

thers,

elieve hemain thrust f the

letter o be a

polemic

gainst upporters

f

the

emple

f Onias

(cf.

2:17,

wherewe read

that

God had restored

he

priesthood

o His

people),

claiming

hat he acred ervice

n

the

Temple

was

continuing espite

he bsenceof theOniads.

However,

fthe etterwas

indeed written

n or around 163

BCE,

Onias'

temple

was established

nly

ater.See

Josephus,

Ant.

XIII,

387

(which

states

that Onias fled to

Egypt

afterAlcimus

had

been

appointedhigh priest

that was

in

162

BCE);

E.

S.

Gruen,

"The

Origins

nd

Objectives

f Onias'

Temple," cripta

Classica Israelica 16

1997),

47-70. For the

pro-

ponents

nd

opponents

of

the anti-Oniad

theory

ee

ibid.,

p.

64 nn.

85,

87. Gruen

himself

ibid.,

pp.

64-66)

adduces

arguments

or ts

rejection.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udas

Maccabeus o

Simon

101

First,

he

days

of

milluim,

hough

evermentioned

y

name,

ccupy

a central

osition

n the etter. fter

ecounting

he

egend

hatJeremiah

concealed he altar

fire,

he text tates hat

n

the

future,

hen he fire

will

gain

be

revealed,

he

glory

f theLord

will

be revealed

s it was

in

the loud

to Moses and Solomon

2:8-13).

It then

goes

on to state hat

Solomon

brought

acrificesor

he

nauguration

f the

Temple

nd also

"kept

the

eight

days,"

and

that,

following

Moses's

and Solomon's

prayers,

ire ame down fromheaven

nd consumed he flesh f

the

sacrifices;hereferencesundoubtedlyo thedaysof milluimnMoses'

and Solomon's imes

cf.

he ccountof fire

escending

rom

eavenn

the

milluim eremonies

n Lev. 9:24 and II

Chron.

7:1).

Another efer-

enceto the

eremony

s made

n

the ontext

f the sraelites'

wandering

in the

desert,

n

a verse

attributing

o Moses the obscure

tatement,

"because

the

sin-offering

as

not eatenbut

consumed,"

pparently

e-

ferring

o

the

sin-offering

f the milluim?1

erhaps

he

original

etter

included

more

comprehensive

eference

o the laws of the milluim

ceremonies.

his

preoccupation

ithmilluim

upports

he

nterpretation

offered

reviously

f

thereasonfor

esignating

anukkah s

"thefesti-

val of Tabernacles."t is clear from he etter hatthe nspirationor

instituting

he new

festival ame from he tradition

f

Moses'

milluim

ceremonies

nd,

n

particular,

herites

erformed

y

Solomon nd Ne-

hemiah n or around ukkot.

Another

mportant

eature

f

the

etters the wo

egends

oncerning

sacred

bjects

whichwerehidden.

he first oncerns he oncealment

f

thefire f the altar

n a

dry

istern t thetime f the

Babylonian

xile,

31

I Mace. 2:11. For the

sin-offering

f the

milluim ee Lev.

8:17; 9:10-11;

Mil-

grom,

eviticus,

p.

80-81, 525,

635-40. Cf. Exod.

29:14;

Lev. 4:3-21. The above verse

from I Mace, is apparently paraphraseof the commandmentoncerninghe sin-

offering;

t

may

wellbe

onlypart

of a more

complete

ccount of the aws of

milluim,

the

original

wording

f the

etter

aving

een

corrupted

hen t was added to the

book,

or in the

process

of

copying.

Cf.

Goldstein,

I

Maccabees,

pp.

184-6,

who

argues

that

theverse s a

slightly

orrupted

ersion f theGreektranslation f

Lev.

10:17; however,

that

verse,

which oncernsAaron's

eating

of

the

sin-offering

fterhis sons'

death,

s

inconsistent ith he context

n the etter

nd

in

any

case has no

significance

or ater

generations.

o

my

mind, herefore,

his s not a

(corrupted) uotation

from

he

Bible

but

a

paraphrase

f

the relevant ommandment

oncerning

he

milluim;

fter

ll,

the

letter

haracteristically

oes

not

quote

biblicalverses

but rewrites iblical vents

such

as

Jeremiah's

etter,

oldstein, bid.,

pp.

181

ff;

cf.

especially

I

Mace.

11:2,

forwhich

there s no

parallel).

t is indeed

nteresting

hat hewriter aw fit o dwell n the aw of

the

in-offering,robably

ecause of his concernwith

he

acred ervice n the

days

of

milluim nd the pecial acrifices fferedhen.Perhapshe did so because the aw of the

sin-offering

n

the

milluim

eremony

s

unique

and involves ertain

nterpretive

iffi-

culties

cf.

Milgrom,

bid.,

pp.

581-9, 636-8;

cf.

Sifra,

Mekhilta e-milluim

:14

[Weiss

ed.,

41c-d];

Temple

Scroll

XVI, 10-14;

Milgrom,

bid.,

pp.

562

ff).






102

EyalRegev JSQ

15

and

subsequent

evelopments

n

Nehemiah's ime

II

Mace.

l:19ff.).

The

priests

id the fire t the

time,

nd

laterNehemiah

ent descen-

dant of the

priests

who

had

originally

idden t to retrieve

t; however,

the

priest

ound

nothing

ut water

n

the cistern.Nehemiah henor-

dered hat

waterbe

brought,

nd

thereupon great

ire lazed

up

on

the altar.At

this

point

the text

nterpolates

ehemiah's

prayer32

nd

then esumes

he

tory

f the

holy

fire,

mentionedbove.

The next

pisode

of

the etter escribes eremiah

nstructing

he

xiles

to hide the

tent,

he

ark,

nd the ncense ltar

n

a cave. He then

pro-

phesies

hat he acred

bjects

wouldbe rediscovered

nly

under

pecial

circumstances,

fter

which

God's

glory

would be revealed

n a

cloud

(interpolated

ere s a

fragmentary

ccount

of

the

days

of milluim

n

the times f Moses

and

Solomon,

s

already xplained). nterestingly,

this raditions echoed

n

other

works,

n

particular

hat f

Eupolemus

(of

whom we shall have more

to

say

below);

t was

presumably

ell

known

n

the Land of

Israel.33 ere the etter tates hat hese

hings

are

reported

n Nehemiah's

writings

nd

that

aterJudas ollected

he

books

the

author venoffers

is

correspondents

o send thebooks for

their erusal).

What s

the

onnection

etween ll these etails?While he etter as

survivedn a

fragmentary

nd

corrupt

ersion,

bscuring

he onnection

between ts

component arts,

t

seems

clear that t is

by

no means a

randomcollection f biblical

episodes

and

meaninglessegends:

one

32

As

explained by many

commentators,

ncluding

Goldstein,

//

Maccabees,

pp.

177-8;

Abel,

Les livres

Maccabees,

p.

294.

However,

ontrary

o these

verses,

t has

been

argued

that

1:22ff.

escribe

he

ceremony

n

Judas's time.

Kahana,

Ha-sefarim

ha-hizonim,

.

1

0,

in fact dentifieshe "Jonathan"

mentioned n v. 23 withJonathan

the Hasmonean.

However,

he

description

f the

prayer urely epresents

he mood of

the

authors.

33Eupolemus,n hiswork On theKingsofJudea,writes hatthe Ark of the Cove-

nant and the

tablets

kept

thereinwereremoved

y

Jeremiah. ee

Eusebius,

Praep.

Ev.

39:5;

C.

R.

Holladay, Fragments rom

HellenisticJewish

Authors,

ol.

I: Historians

(Chico, 1983),

pp.

93

ff.,

sp. pp.

134f. Some authors

have concludedthat

Eupolemus

and thewriter f the etter rew

n a

common

ource,

while

Wacholder

Eupolemus, p.

238-42)

suggests

hat

Eupolemus

himselfwrote his

passage,

f

not the entire

etter.

similar etters

cited t

greater

ength

n 2 Baruch

6:7-10,

whereJeremiah

romises

hat

the vesselswill be

preserved

ill the End of

Days.

Kahana,

Ha-sefarim

a-hizonim,

.

181,

rightly

ssociates this tradition

with the fact

that Jeremiah

52:17-23)

does not

report

heArk as

having

allen

nto

Babylonian

hands.Cf.

the

egends

bout the

hiding

of

the

Ark in the

Temple,

m.

Sheqalim

6:1-2,

and further

pocryphal

nd Rabbinic

sources ited

by

Wacholder,

bid.,

pp.

239-40. As

to the

holy

fire,Wacholder,

Letter,"

pp.

11

-20,points

ut that he ddressee f

the

etter,

he

Egyptian-JewishhilosopherAristobulus, as

particularly

nterestedn fire,

aving

devoteda

large

sectionof his

workto

the fire

escending

rom

eaven nd

its

presence

t Sinai as a

portent

f the

theophany

Eusebius,

Praep.

Ev.

VIII,

10,

13-17).






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udas

Maccabeus o

Simon 103

can discern

n

them ll a

common hrust. he

days

of

milluim re the

climaxof the

Temple

ritual,

s

implied y

the

biblical

descriptions

n

Exod.

29,

Lev.

8-9,

1

Kgs.

8,

and II

Chron.

7,

and

by

the

text

f the

lettertself. hat

ceremony

as intended o

purify

he

ltar nd

prepare

the

Temple

nd itsvessels or he

revelationf the

DivinePresence nd

the anctificationf the

place:

The

desired nd of the

eremony

as the

revelation f the Divine Presence n the

Sanctuary/Temple.34

he

fire,

the

Tent of

Meeting,

he Ark of

the Covenant nd the

ncense ltar

from heFirst

Temple

all

these

ymbolized channel f communica-tionbetween od and His

people,

neffect

ignaling

heDivinePresence

in

the

holyprecinct.

he Ark

nd the

holy

fire,

hichwere bsent

n

the

Second

Temple, ymbolized

n ideal

ritual.35 he

legends

oncerning

their oncealmentnd the

hopes

for heir

ediscoveryxpressed

scha-

tological ongings

nd

expectations

hat

the

Temple

rites

would ulti-

mately

chieve

erfection,

ignaling

od's infinite

ove forHis

people.36

The letter dds the

comment hat he written

radition f the

conceal-

ment f theutensils as

preserved

rom eremiah's

ime o

Nehemiah's,

and thereafter

y

Judas

Maccabeus.

Only

one

detail was

missing

o

makeJudas's chievementerfectnd complete: herediscoveryf the

holy

fire nd the

resultant

ppearance

of the Divine

Presence

n

the

Temple.37

I

therefore

uggest

hat he

etter eferso two evels

f ritual

anctity

in

the

Temple.

he firsts

thededication r

inauguration

f the

Temple

through

he milluim

eremony

this

evelwas indeed

chieved

n

the

Maccabees' time:The

Temple

was

purged,

he altar

rebuilt,

nd the

34

See also

Josephus,

nt.

ll,

202-3.

35

Compare

the

reaction f

those of the returneeso

Zion who had

seen both Tem-

ples (Ezra 3:12-13).

The Talmud

(bYoma 21b)

lists

five

things

n

which "the First

Templediffered rom he second: In theArk,theArk-cover,hecherubim, he

ire,

theDivine

Presence,

he

Holy Spirit,

nd the Urim

ve-tummim."

his

tradition,

ited

in

the

Talmud

n

the context f a

discussion f the

natureof the

fire n the

altar,

s

indicative f the central

ole of the

holy

fire,

manygenerations

fter he time of the

letterwith

whichwe are

dealing.

36

The

relationship

etween hese

ritual lements nd the

relations etween he na-

tion and its God is

expressed

n

the

letter

2:7)

in

Jeremiah's nnouncement

o his

companions

hat

he

hiding lace

would not be

revealed untilGod

gathers

His

people

together gain

and shows

His

mercy"

eXoq).

The

eschatological

one of the

etter s

implied

t its

conclusion,

where he

authorsdeclare that

"God

gave

all of us

His

in-

heritance,

he

kingdom,

he

priesthood

nd the

Temple"

II

Mace.

2:17).

The millenar-

ian

character f the

hope

to

rediscovery

f the

Temple

utensils s attested o in

the

Samaritan pisode nAnt. 18.85-87.37 t hasbeen

suggested

hat here s an allusionto this nthe

etter,

hich fcourse

would

greatly

nhancethe ritual

ignificance

f

Judas's

actions and of the festival f

Hanukkah. Cf.

Wacholder,

Letter,"

.

111-112,

nd

literatureitedthere.






104

EyalRegev JSQ

15

eight-day

ites

erformed.

he

other,

igher,

evelof

sanctity

the re-

storation f the

original emple

essels nd the

holy

fire

had not

yet

been achieved nd was still

xpected.

he letter

resents

udasMacca-

beus as thebearer f these

xpectations,

he

rightful

uccessor o Nehe-

miah.

We have till o determine

hy

hewriters f the etter

hought

it o

expand

on these hemes.

udging

rom he ontext t the

beginning

nd

end ofthe

etter,

t seems lear hat hese raditions ere ited

n

order o

encourage

heJews

f

Egypt

o

observe, robably nnually,

hefestival

of "thePurificationfthe

Temple"

II

Mace.

1:18).

But howcould these

disparate

lementschieve uch

goal?

What

s the

relationship

etween

these itual raditionsnd theMaccabeanfestival? anukkah ontinues

the tradition f

dedicating

he

Sanctuary

r the

Temple

n

the

days

of

milluim^

tradition hich s recounted

n

detail

n

the etter nd is

in

fact

mplied

n the

designation

the

Days

of

Tabernacles/theestival

f

thePurificationf the

Temple

n

theMonthof Kislev."The

writer(s)

f

the etter ad to

ustify

revolutionary

nnovation:

hey

ad

dedicated,

or

purified,

he

Temple

n an unusual

date;

moreover,

heyhoped

that

thisTemplefestival ould be observed in contrast o othermilluim

ceremonies

Solomon,

Nehemiah,

tc.)

-

annually,

n

factoutside he

Temple

nd even

n

the

Diaspora. Perhaps

he authors ven

portrayed

Hanukkah s a festival f

eschatological opes,

s attested

n

their

ope

for he

ngathering

f the exiles

2:

18).

They

the

so-calledJudas nd

the

gerousid)

herefore

ndertook

o

persuade

heJews f the

Diaspora

that he elebration

f thisnew

festival,

arking

he

purification

f

the

Temple

n the

nniversary

f that

vent,

was

religiouslyegitimate.38

To that

nd,

they

trove o

explain

he

mportance

f

milluim ere-

monies nd to

prove

hat

hey

were

merely

pholding

ritual radition

dating o thetimes fMoses, Solomon, ndNehemiah,ntheongoing

quest

to achieve

upreme anctity.

heir

orrespondents

ouldthusun-

derstand,

hey oped,

he normous

ignificance

fthe

religious

chieve-

ment

mplied y

the

purification

f the

Temple

n a milluim

eremony,

restoring

he

Temple

to the

glorious

imesof Nehemiah.The letter

aimed

to

shape

the festival

s an

expression

f identification

ith his

Temple deology,

hich

n turn orethe eedsofmessianic

opes

for he

restoration

f the

holy

fire,

n event hat would

signify

he

ultimate

return f the

Divine Presence o the

Temple.

38

Just

s

Mordechai

and Estherwrote everal

etters

rging

he Jews f

the Dia-

spora

to celebrate

he festival f Purim

Esther9:20-32).






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus

o

Simon

105

This attitude

eemsmore uccessful

nd

sophisticated

han

call to

recognize

he success of

the Maccabees'

"secular"

military truggle.

Their

heroism nd

military-political

chievements

ere

surely

known

in

Egypt,

nd it s

evident rom he

opening

nd conclusion f

the etter

that

he

correspondents

ere

xpected

o be awareof this

spect

of the

salvation

chieved

y

theJews f theLand

of srael.39

owever,

e have

no other

ocumentaryxplanation

f the ource

f

religiousegitimiza-

tion

for he

Maccabean

precedent,

stablishing

festival

hrough

hich

all future enerations ould celebrate hepurificationf theTemple.

Here

lies the

novelty

f the

letter,

hichwas

highly

elevant

round

the ime he

Hanukkah estival as

first

nstituted,

lthough

somewhat

later

ate,

when heHasmoneans

ulewas well-established

s also

possi-

ble

(cf.

Simon's

ndependence

n I Mace.

13:36-40;

14-4-15,

27-49).

However,

ad the etter

een

pseudonymously

ritten

ears

ater,

he

religious

nthusiasm

elated o the restoration

f the

Temple

ult

may

have been

relativelyxtinguished,

nd

therewould have been

no such

need for

he tone of

pathos

nd

self-justification,

s the festival

ould

have

lready ained

cceptance.

The lettereems ll themorepowerfulor ts failure o state ts real

aims

explicitly.

f

the

original

extwas similar o

whatwe have

now,

he

authors

were ontent o outline

heir

eligiousdeology,

nly mplicitly

indicating

hat

hey

were

pholding

he

radition f milluim

eremonies

and

the

quest

for he

holy

fire.Nowhere

do

they xplicitly

laim

that

Judas

nd his men

took a

significanttep

toward

e-establishing

hat

supreme

anctity;

hereferenceo the

purification

f the

Temple

t

the

letter's nd

2:36)

was deemed

ufficiento remind heir

orrespondents

that uch was indeed

he case. Their voidance

f

self-aggrandizement

may

lso have

been a

sophisticated

hetorical evice:

he uthor

possi-

blyJudas nd thegerousia)werethus ntensifyingheEgyptianJews'

identification

ith hose itual

alues,

n

such

way

hat he

Maccabees

and

theJews f

Egypt

ould share common oncern or he

anctity

f

the

Temple

nd the Divine Presence

s

supreme

alues.

Similarly,

he

very esignation

festival f Tabernacles"

epresented

hedesire o con-

tinue he radition

f milluim eremoniesround he

festival f

Sukkot,

as

Solomon,

he

returning

xiles

not

mentioned

n

the

etter),

nd Ne-

hemiah

had done. We

may

assume that

the

designation receded

his

attempt

o

persuade

he

Jews

f

Egypt

o celebrate he

festival,

hough

it

surely elped

o

legitimize

heradical nnovation hat t

conveyed.

39

See

Wacholder, Letter,"

p.

97,

100. Years

later,

fter he etter ad

been ncor-

porated

n II Maccabees as it is

today,

he heroism f JudasMaccabeus

and his men

was in

any

case described

n

detail

n

the text.






106

Eyal Regev JSQX5

The writers'

resentation

f

Hanukkah,

n

fact,

heir

esignation

f

thefestival

s "the festival

f

Tabernacles,"

s an

example

f whatEric

Hobsbawm as called

"inventedradition."nvented raditions a setof

repeated ractices

hich

eek o inculcate ertain alues nd

norms,

nd

are intended o establish

ontinuity

ith he

past.

t is a

response

o a

novel

ituation,

hich akesthe

form f referenceo an old

situation,

such s

in

the ase of

establishing

r

legitimizing

nstitutionsr author-

ity.40

A. I. Baumgartenaspointed ut that heMaccabeesneededways oreinforcehe

legitimacy

f their ule. He

argued

that the Maccabees

initiated

wo

ritual

nd

liturgical

nnovations,

amely,

he annual

pay-

ment f the

half-shekel

o

the

Temple

nd therecitationf Shema

n

the

Temple

ervice,

nd that these

were

essentially

invented

raditions,"

attributedo Moses

in orderto

strengthen

he faith f Torah obser-

vance.41

aumgarten

mentions he festival

f Hanukkah nd the two

letters t the

beginning

f

I

Maccabees

n

this

ontext,42

nd indeed

t

can nowbe shown

ust

howthe econd etter

resented

anukkah

s the

continuation

f an

ancient,

allowed,

itual

radition. his

attempted

legitimizationttests o the Maccabees'beliefs,which hey onsidered

sufficiently

idespread

o serve s a basis

for he

ustification

f their

actions.

While the letter

ocuses n

religious

hemes,

t is of course also a

political

ocument.

f it is

authentic,

t follows

hat he

festival

f Ha-

nukkah

rovided

basis for he

egitimacy

f Judas nd the

gerousia

s

the eaders f theJewish

eople.

ndeed,

positive esponse

o the

Mac-

cabees'

ppeal

to celebrate

he Purification

f the

Temple"

s an annual

festival43 as tantamount

o

accepting

he

Maccabean

leadership

nd

40E.

Hobsbawm,

"Introduction,"n The nvention

f

Tradition,d. E. Hobsbawm

and T.

Ranger

Cambridge,

983),

pp.

2,

9.

41

A. I.

Baumgarten,

InventedTraditions f the

Maccabean

Era,"

in

Geschichte-

Tradition-

eflexion.

estschriftür

Martin

Hengel

zum 70.

Geburtstag, (Tübingen,

1996),

pp.

197-210.

42

Ibid.,

p.

201. E.

Bickerman,

rom

Ezra to theLast

of

theMaccabees

(New

York

1962),

p.

121 commented

hat

n

decreeing

commemorative

estival udaswas follow-

ing

a Greek

practice,

ut at

the same time

ncorporated

t nto Judaism. udas'

ware-

ness for he Greek

cultural

heritage

f his act can

only

be

speculated.

43

As

mentioned

bove,

Wacholder

"Letter," .

107)

suggests

hat Hanukkah

was

established fter

hededication f

the

Temple

n

164,

nd that he etter irst

resents

t

as

an annual festival elebrated

by

all

the

Jews,

robably

ess

than a

year

after

he

purificationf theTemple, s partof thepreparationsor heanniversaryf

the ded-

ication n 163 BCE. In his

view,

t was due to

telescoping

hatJudas's stablishmentf

the festival

s a

permanent

eature

I

Mace.

4:48)

was

placed

in the context

f the

events f 164 BCE.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o

Simon

1 7

agreeing

hat heMaccabeanrevolution as a historical

r

even soter-

iological

event.The Hasmoneans

had

indeed

evicted he Hellenizers

from

he

Temple,

ut

they

lso

seized the

highpriesthood, isplacing

theOniad

high

prieststhough

ot

officially,

ince

hey

werenot

recog-

nized

by

the

Seleucids).

ven

f

the etters

pseudonymously

ttributed

to Judas

Maccabeus,

ts

object

was no doubt to

legitimize

he Hasmo-

neans,

while t the same time

ustifying

he nnovationnherent

n

the

festival f

Hanukkah.

Whatever he

case,

the etter oes not

try

o achieve uch

political

legitimization

n a

direct,

xplicit

manner.

urprisingly,

udashimself

is mentioned

nly

nce n the

body

of

the

ext,

s

having

ollected ooks

thatdocument

he

quest

for he

holy

fire nd chronicle he actionsof

kings

nd

prophets,

s

well

as the

writings

f David

(2:14).

The heroic

commanders

portrayed

eremoreas a kind of librarian

r,

at

most,

religious unctionary,harged

with

ransmitting

he

religious

radition

of the Jewish

eople.

This

portrayal

eeds

explanation.

n

fact,

while

none of

his

contemporaries

oubtedhis

military owers,

whenJudas

assumed he cloak of the Oniad

priests

albeit

onlypartially

nd tem-

porarily), e presumablyelt he need to ustify isposition s a reli-

gious

eader.

Quite

possibly,

he uthors f the etter ecount hatNehe-

miahwrote nd

kept

books,

nd thatJudas ontinued

n that

role,

ol-

lecting

he

books,

n order o demonstratehatJudaswas Nehemiah's

rightful

uccessor.44 later uthorwould not have been contentwith

such ubtle

llusions,

hichwere

hardly dequate

once theHasmoneans

had

become

recognized ynasty;

e would

urely

avetaken hetrou-

ble to devise more

pecific olitical egitimization.

TheControversyverMillu'im n theHasmonean eriod;

Suppressionf

the

dentity

f

Hanukkah s

Days ofmillu'im

The

nature nd

celebrationf the

days

oïmilluimbecame

major

bone

of contention

mong

the sects of the Second

Templeperiod.

For

the

most

part,

he

disagreement

as over the

question

f whether uch a

ceremony

as an isolated vent

that

s,

to be

observed

nly

when he

Temple

was

being

edicated)

r an

annualone.

According

o the

Temple

Scroll

-

probably omposed

some time

during

he

early

Hasmonean

period

the

days

of milluimwere o

be celebrated nce a

year

n

the

44

Thus

Nodet,

"La

Dédicace,"

pp.

336-7,

explains

the

preservation

f the

holy

books as a

sequel

to the books written nd

keptby

Nehemiah.






108

Eyal Regev JSQX5

beginning

f

Nisan;

the scroll

n

fact

provides lengthy

nd detailed

account

of the rites nd the ordination f

the

priests.

s

we

know,

he

Sages rejected

his

dea,

and laterRabbinicHalakhahdoes not

prescribe

any

uch annual vent.45

The Sadducean

position

n this

regard

may

be deduced from he

scholion

o

Megillat

Taanit.

n

the

opening

ection f the

Megillah,

t

lists he

days

between hefirst nd

eighth ays

of Nisan as

the

days

on

which

he

Tamid,

.

e.,

the

dailyburnt-offering,

as

instituted,

nd

on

which, herefore,astingndmourningre forbidden. he scholion s-sociates hese

days

with he

Sages' victory

ver the Boethusians

thus

Ms.

Oxford,

ut the

parallel

n

b. Menahot 68b reads

"Sadducees"),

replacing

he

financing

f the

dailyburnt-offering

rom

rivate

ontri-

butions

with he nstitutionf the

half-shekel,

hich inanced he acri-

ficial ites

ypublic unding.46

t shouldbe

noted,

owever,

hat

n those

first

ays

of Nisan

commemorating

he Pharisaic

victory,

he

Temple

Scrollrules hatthe

days

of milluim re to be celebrated

nnually.

n

addition,

t s

R. Akiva'sview hat hesewere

precisely

he

days

of

mill-

uim observed

n thedesert s an isolated ccasion.47

Some scholarshavearguedthatthe scholion ctuallydisputes he

position

of the

Temple

Scroll

tself;48

hat

argument,

owever,

aises

two

difficulties.

irst,

he scholion

nd its

parallels

n the

Babylonian

Talmudrefer o Boethusians

r

Sadducees,

resumablypeaking

f the

45

See

Yadin as cited

bove,

n.

17;

L. H.

Schiffman,

The Milluim

Ceremony

n the

Temple

Scroll,"

n

New

Qumran

Texts

nd

Studies,

d. G. J.Brooke

Leiden, 1994),

pp.

241-54

and

see ibid, on the

mportance

f

the

eighth

ay

of milluim

n the

croll).

For

the Rabbinic

position

f.b. Sukkah

43a;

j.

Yoma 1:5

38a);

Sifra,

Mekhilta

e-Milluim

1: 37

(Weiss

ed.,

p.

43a-b);

b. Yoma

2a; Yadin,

Temple

croll,

p.

77,

n. 4. See also

Y

Knohl and S.

Naeh,

"milluim

e-kippurim"

Tarbiz 2

(1993),

pp.

17^4

(Hebrew).

46

See

Noam,MegillatTa'anit, p.

163-173.

A

manuscript

f

Megillat

Taanit found

in theCairo Genizahrefers o theSadducees.For a historical iscussion fthis

passage

see also

H.

Lichtenstein,

Die Fastenrolle:

ine

Untersuchung

ur Jüdisch-Hellenis-

tischen

Geschichte,"

UCA 8

(1931-32),

291-3.

47

Sifri,

Num. 64

(Horovitz

ed.,

p.

63);

cf.

Josephus,

nt.

II,

201,

206.

However,

many

ages

disagreed, rguing

hat hemilluim eremonies

f

Moses'

and Aaron's

time

took

place

betweenAdar 23 and

the

beginning

f Nisan:

Sifra,

Mekhiltade-Milluim

1:36

Weiss

ed.,

p.

42d^3a);

Seder Olam

Rabba 1

(Ratner

d.,

pp.

31-32).

48

See

Y

Erder,

The First Date in

Megillat

Ta'anit

n

Light

of the

Karaite Com-

mentary

n

the Tabernacle

Dedication,"

JQR

82

(1992),

263-83. Cf.

Yadin,

Temple

Scroll, ,

pp.

110-112.

Wacholder,

Letter,"

p.

114-5,

rejects

he thesis

hat

Megillat

Ta'anitrefers

o a milluim

eremony

n the first

ightdays

of

Nisan,

reconstructing

instead

"festival f fire"

s mentioned n

II

Mace.

1:18 forNehemiah's

ime. n his

view, he author f the etter rought p thisobscurefestival o ustify

he celebration

of Hanukkah. To

my

mind,

nstead of a

hypothetical

estival f which

nothing

s

known,

t s

surely referable

o

identify

he "festival f fire"

with

Sukkot

or the

days

of milluim.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o

Simon 109

Jerusalem

ect nd

not that f

Qumran.

econd,

he cholion eferso a

victory

ver a rival

group;

but the

Qumran

sect did not

control he

Temple

nd was not nvolvedn

its

rites,

resenting

o

problem

or he

Pharisees. thereforeonclude hat

Sadducean

Halakhah,

ike thatof

theDead Sea

Sect,

provided

or n annualmilluim

eremony,

elebrated

during

hefirst

ight ays

of themonth

f Nisan.49

Against

he

background

f the

controversy

ver he

days

of milluim

in

the Hasmonean

period,

we

may

now examinehow the festival f

Hanukkah s describedn the differentraditions,nd theconsistency

of those raditions ith he

conclusions f our

analysis

f the

relation-

ship

between anukkah nd themilluim

eremonies

n I

Maccabees. t

was

observed t the

beginning

f this

paper

hatnone of

our

sources,

n

particular,

hose f Rabbinic

iterature,

ssociate he

ight-dayength

f

Hanukkah

with

henumber f

days

of milluim r the

dedication f the

altar,

lthough

he

cholion

mplies

uch an association.50

ow,

n

light

of the

suggested ffinity

f Hanukkah nd the

eightdays

of

milluim,

why

s it not mentioned

n

any

other ource?

I

suggest

hat

ven

f

ertain ircles id know f

suchtraditionalon-

nection etweenHanukkah nd thedaysofmillu'im,51nydeclaration

to

the ffect

hatHanukkah

ssentially

ommemorateshe

ight ays

of

milluim elebrated

y

theMaccabees

would ater aisehalakhic ifficul-

ties,

s it clashedwith

arious raditions

egarding

hose

ight ays.

On

the one

hand,

the Pharisees

and

later

on,

the

rabbis)

might

onsider

such a declaration s

confirming

he

view that

hey pposed,

thatthe

days

of milluim houldbe observed

nnually.

n the other

hand,

the

49

For an

analysis

f the Sadducean

position,

with

discussion f how the Saddu-

cees concluded that thedays of milluim hould be celebrated nnually nd of the

possible

differencesetween he Sadducean and

Qumranite

positions,

ee E.

Regev,

The Sadducees and theirHalakhah:

Religion

nd

Society

n the

Second

Temple

eriod

(Jerusalem, 005),

pp.

139-147

Hebrew).

See

also

ibid.,

for he nature nd

history

f

themilluim

eremony.

or the

relationship

etween he

Sadducees

and

theBoethusians

see

ibid.,

Chapter

1.

50

The author f the cholion o

Megillat

Ta'anit

Ms. Parma)

does not

consider

he

referenceo themilluim f

Moses

and

Solomon a

convincing xplanation

or he

ength

of

Hanukkah,

ince

n

his view

they

asted

only

seven

days:

"For the

dedication

per-

formed

y

Moses was

only

even

And

that

dedication

erformedy

Solomon

s

only

seven"

Noam,

Megillat

Ta'anit,

.

266; idem,

The Miracle of the

Cruse

Oil",

p.

385).

The

parallel

n

Ms. Oxford s

badly damaged,

but t

may

have associated

the

ength

f

the

festival

with

olomon's milluim

eremony

idem,

Megillat

Ta'anit,

. 273).

51

Although he historicalknowledge f the rabbis was limited, ne may expect

them to

preserve

(pharisaic)

more

realistic

understanding

f the

liturgical spect

Hannukah,

specially

n

the

Scholion.

My argument

s thateven

f

they

were

capable

of such

a

historical

utlook,

n

this ase

they

werenot nterestedn it.






110

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

Sadducees

and the

Qumran

sectarians,

ho did favor

elebrating

he

eightdays

of milluim s a

yearly

vent,

would have

objected

forthe

reasonthat

heirmilluim eremonies ereto take

place

in

Nisan,

not

around hetime f Sukkot.

According

o

the

presentnterpretation,

ll

three

roups

had

strong

motives or

uppressing

his

spect

of

thefesti-

val of

Hanukkah; nstead,

hey

nvestedt with ther

ontent,

amely,

themotive f

fire,

s we read

n

Josephus's

ccount

and

to someextent

in

thetraditions

ited

n

the scholion o

MegillatTa'anit).52

owever,

suggesthat he ource f the ightmotives infact hefire n the ltar,or the

hope

for estorationf the

holy

fire.

It seems hat

despite

hehistorical

recedents

Solomon,

heRestora-

tion,

Nehemiah's

Covenant,

he

days

of

milluim f Jacob nd Levi as

recounted

n

the Book of

Jubilees,),

one of the Halakhic schoolswas

willing

o ascribehalakhic

ignificance

o the

tradition hat

he

Temple

had been

rededicated,

nd

eightdays

of milluim

elebrated,

round

Sukkot.

suggest

hatthe Maccabees had relied n thistradition ot

only

because t was known nd

accepted,

ut

because,

wing

o

military

and

politicaldevelopments,

t was

in

Kislev that he

Temple

ould be

purified,nd the25thdayof Kislevwas theanniversaryf ts desecra-

tion

by

Antiochus.

owever,

he varioushalakhic

pproaches

volved

independently.

he festivalf Hanukkahwas neverthelessot

bolished;

it

only hanged

ts

character,

o that he

Temple

radition f themilluim

ceremonies

n

Sukkotwas almost

forgotten.

The Maccabees

Templedeology

according

o Maccabees nd

Eupolemus

The Maccabees lso utilized heTemple olegitimizeheir ule na later

period.

While he

Temple

was a central lement

n

Antiochusll's char-

ter f

rights

nd

n

the

view f Ben

Sira,53

nder imeon heHasmonean

52

As

Noam comments

Megillat

Taanit,

p.

275):

"The reasonthat he

ength

f

the

festivalwas

fixed s

eightdays

was

apparently

bscure ven

n

antiquity.

ach of the

traditions

ncorporates

rtificialexcuses' for he number

ight."

Cf.

dem,

The Mira-

cle of the Cruse

Oil",

pp.

399^00.

Interestingly,

ochfeld

"Die

Entstehung...,"

pp.

264-84)

attributeshe transformation

f Hanukkahfrom

Temple

festival

o a festival

of

ight

o thePharisees' nti-Hasmonean

deology.

or the ffect f different

deologies

upon

historical

memory

ee,

e.

g.,

various

hypotheses

nd controversies

bout the Rab-

binic ttitude

o theHasmoneans

n

G.

Alon,

Studies n Jewish

istory

Tel

Aviv

1957),

I, pp. 15-25 Hebrew);cf.J.Ephron, The Hasmonean Revolt nModernHistoriogra-

phy,"

tudies n theHasmoneanPeiod

Leiden, 1987),

pp.

1-32.

53

For the entral

osition

f the

Temple

n

Antiochus ll's letters

Ant. 12:128-146)

to the Jews ee

E. J.

Bickerman,

La Charte

éleucidede

Jérusalem,"

nd

"Un

proda-






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o Simon 111

it became

a sourceof

political uthority.

udas nd Jonathaned the

Maccabees

as

charismatic

ommanders. fter he assassination f Jo-

nathan, owever,

nd

Simeon's

first

uccesses,

he atter's ulewas offi-

cially

ndorsed

t an

assembly

n

whichhe was

appointed

eaderof the

dynasty,

chief nd

high priestperpetuity

ntil a true

prophet

hall

arise"

(I

Mace.

14:41).

The

assembly

was

probably

onvened

n

the

"GreatCourt"

of the

Temple.54

he official

ppointment

as inscribed

on

tablets,

hichwere henmounted

n

a

specialplace

n

"the

precincts

of theSanctuary"I Mac 14:48).These actions mply hat Simeon's

authority

erived,

t least

symbolically,

rom he

Temple.

At first

ight

this houldnot seem

surprising,

inceSimeoncombined

n his

person

religious uthority

as

high

priest)

with

ecular;

utthiswas

already

he

case under

Jonathan. he new element t this

point

was the need for

legitimization,

s

firm

s

possible,

or heestablishmentf the Hasmo-

nean

dynasty.

The

Temple

was themost

profound

ource f

nspiration

r

legitimi-

zationnot

only

because

the ssue at stakewas the

high

priesthood

nd

the

political

uthority

f a

priestlyamily,

ut lso

because,

ccording

o

I Maccabees, t was the Maccabees who had rescued heTemplefrom

the Seleucids

nd theHellenizers. f

course,

he

process

whichhad be-

gun

n Kislev 164

BCE,

when he

pagan

cultwas

removed,

ontinued

n

the

truggles agedby

Jonathan nd

Simeon:

Jonathan,

hefirstMac-

cabean

highpriest, urely

modified he

Temple

ites

n

some

way

after

years

f

Hellenizing

nfluence,

nd

in

addition ried o

capture

he

Acra,

a serious

hindrance o those

visiting

he

Temple

I

Mace.

11:20;

cf.

12:36;

14:36).

It was Simeon who

finally aptured

nd

purified

he

Acra

13:49-52),

fortifiedhe

Temple

13:53),

nd beautifiedhe

Temple

and added

holy

vessels

I

Mace.

14:15).

AntiochusVII

Sidetes

n

fact

recognizedimeon's bsolute ndependencenregard o Jerusalemnd

the

Temple,

nd

honored heJews nd the

Temple

15:7-8).

The Jewish

letter

f

appointment

f

Simon tated

xplicitly

hat Simeon

..

and his

mation éleucide

relative u

temple

de

Jérusalem," tudies, I,

pp.

44-85, 86-104;

see

also Ben Sira

35;

50;

51:12.

54

Mace.

14:28. Abel and Schalit assert that the

expression

co

aGaç>a'izk

is

a

corruption

f a

phrasereferring

o the

Temple

Court or the

"Great

Court";

see

Abel,

Les livres

Maccabees,

p.

256;

A.

Schalit,

König

Herodes

Berlin

1969), pp.

781-787.

Note that

although

Simon's nomination esulted from he will

of 'the

people'

(I

Mace.

13:1-8; 14:35,

46),

in

the

public assembly

he

priests

werementioned

eparately

from hepeopleseveral imesI Mace. 14:28, 1,44,47). The authorprobablyimedtoshow thatSimon

represented

oth. For a critical ssessment f the

assembly's

ecision

as well s Simon's

priestly

upport,

ee

J.

ievers,

he

Hasmoneans nd Their

upporters

(Atlanta, 1990),

pp.

120-127.






112

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

brothers

xposed

hemselves

o

danger

nd resisted

heir

ation's oes

n

order

hat heir

anctuarymight

urvive,

nd the

Torah"

I

Mac

14:29).

The

assembly

lso confirmedare forthe

Temple

s

one of Simeon's

taskswas

(I

Mac

14:42-43).

The

Temple

was of

supreme

alue

in

the

religious deology

f the

Maccabees not

only

t the

time f ts

capture

nd liberation

y

Judas,

but also at least three ecades

ater.

Judas' etter onsidered

reviously

ends with he

words, God,

who has saved His entire

eople,

nd re-

stored heheritage o us all .. also thekingdom nd thepriesthoodand the sanctification"

II

Mac.

2:17;

thetext hen

goes

on to

express

hopes

for he

ngathering

f

the

exiles,

n event

xpected

o

take

place

after

urification

f the

Temple ).

When Simeon

musters

n

army

o

fight

rypho,

who has

captured

Jonathan,

e triesto

inspire

hem,

pointing

ut that You know

that

and

my

family

ave done

forthe

sake

of

our laws and

our

sanctuary"

I

Mace.

13:3).55

inally,

n the

letter o the

people

of

Sparta,

Jonathan'smenassure he

Spartans

hat

they

emember

hem

onstantly

in

connection ith he sacrificeshat

we

offer s well s

in

our

prayers,

s

it s

right

nd

proper

hus o make

mention fbrothers"I Mac 12:11).

It is

clear, herefore,

rom he econd etter

n I

Maccabees,

imeon's

letter f

appointment,

s well as

many

ther

passages

n I

Maccabees,

that he Hasmoneansderived heir

pecial

uthority

rom heir

emple

ideology,

rom hefact

hat,

hanks

o their

fforts,

he

acred ervice

n

the

Temple

had been

restored rom he bomination f desolation:

he

Temple

was once

again

thebanner

f

Judaism,

fobservance f

theLaw.

Their

deology

volved

n

consequence

f

-

and

in

parallel

o

-

their

military

nd

diplomatic

chievements.56

erhaps

n theview

f the

Mac-

cabees,

hiswas the lternative

hey roposed

n

reaction o

the

deology

they scribed o theHellenizers, ho are portrayeds preferringo

minimize he role of the

Temple

n their

agerness

o

curry

avor

with

theSeleucids

cf.

I Mace.

4:11-15;

Mace.

1:11).

55

n this

passage,

as well as

in I Mace. 14:29 cited

above,

the

Temple

s the main

Jewish

dentity

marker,

ogether

ith he Law/Torah

see

also

I

Mace. 14:14-15:

"He

(Simon) sought

o fullfil heTorah

.. He

glorified

he

Temple"). Although

he entral-

ity

f

Temple

nd Torah

s

self-explained,

he

fact hat

he

Temple

hares

qual

status

withthe Torah attests o its

prominence

n

thesedocuments.

ompare,

for

example,

Antiochus ll's

charter,

here

he

Temple

eemsto be

only

the

major

temwithin he

Jewish ioX,iT8D8ai>û)aavnd

rcaipopíouçvóuooç

(Ant. 12:137-144).

n Ben Sira

the

Temple

nd

the sacrificial

ystem

re subordinate

o

wisdom

nd law

(24:24:10;

35:2-

41).56

Doran,

Temple

ropaganda,

7-76 ascribes imilarmotives o the authorof II

Maccabees.

Schwartz,

econd

Book

of

Maccabees,

36,

on the other

hand,

concludes

that he

book is

mostly iminishing

he

significance

f the

Temple

nd sacrifices.






(2008)

Ritual nd

deologyrom

udasMaccabeus o Simon 113

Further vidence

or he

centrality

f the

temple

n

the Maccabean

ideology

omes from

upolemus's

work On the

Kings of

Judea.The

author hould

be identified ith

JudasMaccabeus's

emissary

o

Rome,

Eupolemus

on of

John,

priest

f the Hakkoz

division

Clement

f

Alexandria atesthework o a short ime fter udas's

death).57

rag-

ments f theworkhave survived s

quotes

n

theworks f

Clement

f

Alexandria

nd Eusebius.

Most

of

themdwellon the

sanctity

f the

Temple

nd

the

manner f its construction

y

Solomon. For

example,

he attributesheplan for theTempleto theprophetNathan,58hus

explaining

ow was the Tent of

Meeting

ransformednto a

temple.

Eupolemus

tresses he

magnificence

f the

Temple, uoting imaginary)

letters rom he

kings

f

Tyre

nd

Egypt

xtolling

he

Temple.59

uite

possibly,

upolemus

himself

hought

hese etters

uthentic,

nd

surely

relied n the biblical ccounts f Solomon's

good

relations

with

Tyre

and

Egypt.

More than one

quarter

f the

surviving ragments

re de-

voted o a

minutely

etailed

escription

f Solomon's

Temple,

which e

describes

s

being

more

magnificent

han t

was,

stressing

he

ink

with

the

Sanctuary

t Shiloh

nd the accountof theTabernacle nd its fur-

nishingsn thebook ofExodus.60

The

emphasis

n the

Temple

s not

merely

reaction o ts onversion

to

paganism

nder

Antiochus

piphanes.61

iven

Eupolemus's

ole s a

wandering iplomat

nd the

unique

content

f thework

among

other

things,

e

reports

hat Moses invented he

alphabet,

whichwas then

copied by

the

Phoenicians,

nd thus

reached he

Greeks),

he undoubt-

edly

ntended o describe heJews

n

a

positive

ight,

s

having

ontrib-

uted o world ivilizationnd earned niversal

ecognition.

o

my

mind,

Eupolemus

wished to

present

his

own

nation to the

representatives

57

Mace. 8:17; Wacholder, upolemus, p. 5-7. Eupolemus's fatherJohnnego-

tiated

with he

Seleucidsbefore he Hellenistic eform

II

Mace.

4:11).

In

Wacholder's

opinion,

hework hould

be dated to ca. 158 BCE. For

conjectures

s to the

history

f

this work see

Gutman,

Beginnings,

I,

pp.

77-78. The

work's title s mentioned

y

Clement f

Alexandria,

tromata, , 153,

3.

Wacholder

"Letter,"

.

122;

Eupolemus,

pp.

39-40,

239-41)

ascribes he second etter n II

Maccabees to

Eupolemus,

ince

his

work and the letter hare

several

elements,

uch as the

relationship

o the

Temple

vessels

nd

the

tory

f Jeremiah'soncealment

f the

Ark.

t would ndeedbe natural

forJudas o enlist

Eupolemus'shelp

in

composing

uch

a

diplomatic

etter

n

Greek.

Wacholderbelieves that the

author of

I

Maccabees also made

use of

Eupolemus's

writings

Eupolemus, p.

31-37).

Goldstein,

I

Maccabees,

p.

48,

suggests

hat

Eupole-

mus

perhaps

wrote he source

common o

I

and II Maccabees.

58

Wacholder,

upolemus,

p.

142^.

According

o II

Chron. 28:11-19 David him-

selfhandeddown theplan to Solomon.59

Ibid.,

pp.

155-70.

60

Ibid.,

pp.

173-201.

61

As

supposed by

Wacholder,

bid.,

pp.

140-1.






114

Eyal Regev JSQ

15

whomhe

met

n

his

diplomatic

ravels,

verthe

Aegean

Sea to Rome.

However,

he ccount f

the

Temple

id not

directly

erve his

purpose,

and

in

any

case,

such

descriptions

ereunusual n the

Greco-Roman

world.

PerhapsEupolemus imply

ould not refrain

romhis

lengthy

account

f the

Temple,

ince t was the entral lement fhisown

Jewish

heritage

nd worldview.He

presumably

hought

he

Temple

he

most

important

haracteristicf the Jewish

eople

and their

dentity;

ne

could not tell Greeks

nd

Romans

about the Jewswithout

xpanding

at length n that heme.The

affinity

etween hefestival f Hanukkah nd the ritual radi-

tionsof the

days

of

milluim,

edication nd

inauguration

f

temples,

and

the

hopes

for restoration f the

Divine Presence o the

Temple,

now seems

uite

lear nd

logical.They

were

ntegral arts

f theMac-

cabees'

Temple deology,

ttested o also in I

Maccabees and

Eupole-

mus,

deology

hatwas

also used to

legitimize

heir

ule s the

Temple's

advocates nd

savers.

As it

turned

ut,

however,

he

affinity

etween

Hanukkah nd the

days

of milluim

roved

o be

particularlyroble-

matic rom

halakhic

oint

f view.To

explain

he

ssue,

we must on-

sider he ttitude o thedaysof milluimntheHasmoneanperiod.

Documents

REGEV 2008 Ḥanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon.pdf