The Hasmonean High Priests and Their Priestly Descent Introduction The

Home , High priest, Jason (High Priest), Jehoiarib, Solomon

chapter ten

the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent

Introduction

The strong Hellenistic aspects of the high priesthood of both Jonathan and Simon have been discussed. Attention was paid to the supporters of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood as well as to those who opposed its realization. Hence, much space has been dedicated to the way the Hasmoneans defended the institutionalization of their high priesthood. They did it by using all available means: diplomatic, political, socio-economic, military, propagandistic, and more. But how did the Hasmonean high priests justify their high priesthood in religious/biblical terms? In this last chapter it is necessary to investigate the priestly descent of the Hasmoneans. The specific question that must be addressed is, why, according to 1 Macc 2:54, did the Hasmonean high priests claim Phinehas as their “father.” Why not Aaron or Zadok? Or, for example, why not an Israelite/Judean king? The present analysis is important for at least three reasons. First, it will help shape a deeper understanding of the relation of the Hasmonean (high) priestly family to other priestly families. Second, it will shed light on the literary (and ideological) traditions with regard to who could or could not occupy the high priestly office in Jerusalem in particular in the Hellenistic period. Third, it will help clarify further issues related to the Jewish groups who actively opposed the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

1. The Jehoiarib Priests in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Sources

According to 1 Macc 2:1, Mattathias—father of Jonathan—was [son] of John, [son] of Simeon “a priest of the sons of Joarib” (cf. 14:29). Morton Smith, among others, claimed the Hasmoneans were priests but probably not of “Aaronide family.” He further argued that the prominence of the J(eh)o(i)arib priestly course is a Hasmonean product.1 In the opinion of

1 “Maccabees,” 321–24. 270 chapter ten

Lawrence H. Schiffman, the “Zadokite priests, tracing their ancestry to Zadok, high priest in the time of Solomon, had occupied the high priesthood virtually without interruption up to the Maccabean revolt.” Jonathan, however, was “not of Zadokite line.”2 The author further asserts that Ben Sira “champions the priestly House of Zadok and its exclusive rights to the high priesthood.”3 For Deborah W. Rooke, it is Mattathias and his sons who were “of the line of Aaron in post-exilic terms, although they were not of the line of Zadok which had been the traditional line of descent for the high priests,” whose last representative was the Oniad Jason.4 A similar opinion was expressed by Hanan Eshel. The scholar added that Mene- laus was the first not from the Zadokite house to have assumed the high priesthood. Instead, the Teacher of Righteousness, who allegedly served as high priest between 159 and 152, was of Zadokite dynasty.5 Furthermore, in the view of Othmar Keel, the Hasmonean high priests appealed to Phinehas as their father because they were “Nicht-Zadokiden.”6 Yet Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam claim that the Hasmoneans were Zadokites and that “they probably were part of the considerable family that traced its heredity to Zadok.”7 This view had been earlier expressed also by Luc Dequeker.8 Therefore, it is necessary to examine to what extent one can affirm that the Hasmoneans were or were not Zadokites or Aaronides. Such assump- tions are often at the basis of another assumption; namely, that because of their descent the Hasmoneans encountered difficulties in being accepted as “legitimate” high priests. Therefore, one must first briefly investigate the origin of J(eh)o(i)arib in extant sources. :in Ezra 8:16 (LXX יויריב Jehoiarib appears in the Hebrew Bible as in 1 Chr 9:10 יהויריב Ιωαρίβ); Neh 11:10 (᾿Ιωαρίμ); 12:6, 19 (᾿Ιαρὶμ[?]), and as᾿ (//Neh 11:10); 24:7 (᾿Ιωαρίμ/᾿Ιαρὶβ). J(eh)o(i)arib is mentioned once in a story referring to the time of Ezra’s mission in Ezra 8:15–20.9 He appears

2 Reclaiming, 71. 3 Reclaiming, 75, 88, 95, 201; idem, Qumran, 82, 101–3. 4 Zadok’s Heirs, 281 and 275, 311. 5 Dead Sea Scrolls, 33, 55, 60. 6 “1 Makk 2,” 128. 7 “Hasmoneans,” 80. 8 “1 Chronicles XXIV,” 103. 9 Jehoiarib is not provided with any further genealogical note (“son of ”) in Ezra 8:16, which speaks in favour of him being inserted here; cf. Ezra 8:2–14, 18–19. The use of “and” in Neh 12:6, 9 was interpreted by some scholars to mean that Jehoiarib was added here. A similar problem is found in 1 Chr 9:10//Neh 11:10. See Gunneweg, Esra, 149; Böhler, Heilige Stadt, 358–59.