Judas Maccabeus and the High Priesthood of Alcimus

chapter four

Introduction

The previous chapter treated the origin and the aim(s) of the Hasmonean revolt in order to understand its significance for the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood. This revolt succeeded in the removal of Menel- aus from the high priestly office. Yet it failed to uproot the Seleucid royal dominion from Jerusalem. This chapter will be concerned with the policy of the Hasmoneans in relation to the next high priest, Alcimus. The constant attention on the attitude of the Hasmoneans towards the Seleucid rule remains imperative. The period under study is between early 162 and 159, when Alcimus died. As it will be shown, when Alcimus came to power part of the allies of the Hasmoneans accepted his high priesthood. Judas himself died in the year 160 and Jonathan succeeded him. Three questions will guide this analysis: First, why did the Hasmoneans reject the high priesthood of Alcimus? Second, was Judas a high priest as stated by Josephus in Ant. 12.414, 419, 434, and as assumed by several mod- ern scholars? Third, what was the nature of the leadership that Jonathan inherited from his brother, Judas? This treatise is important for two reasons. First, it will address the important question of the alleged high priesthood of Judas. Second, as in previous chapters, it aims at showing how the circumstances and the events under discussion contributed to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

1. When and Why was Alcimus Appointed High Priest?

Both 2 Macc 14:1–11 and Ant. 12.385 state that Ἄλκιμος was already high priest by the time he made his first appeal to the new king, Demetrius I Soter (162–150).1 Bezalel Bar-Kochva instead argues that there is “insufficient

1 Several Mss (Lucianic recension) in both First and Second Maccabees refer to Alcimus by the name ιακιμος or similar. For Hanhart, Maccabaeorum II, 23, these Mss are influ enced by Josephus’ Ant. 12.385; cf. also Ant. 20.235, 237. 90 chapter four support for the view . . . that Alcimus already served as high priest in the reign of Antiochus Eupator.” Bar-Kochva thinks the author of First Mac- cabees “is certainly more competent than any other source to report on domestic events.” It seems that the assertion of Bar-Kochva is connected with his view that “[w]ith Lysias’ departure, control of Jerusalem returned to Judas.”2 One problem with this assertion is that First Maccabees is not directly interested in the history of the high priesthood of Alcimus. It refers to Alcimus only to show that he was a wicked (high) priest. Another problem is the meaning of the aorist verb ἔστησεν in 1 Macc 7:9. After the defeat of the rebels in the winter of 163/2, the temple was again put under the control of the Akra. According to Josephus, after the execution of Menelaus the high priestly office was given to Alcimus, also Ant. 12.385; cf. 12.391). The suggested historical ;יויקים/יקים) called Ἰάκιμος context makes it plausible that this appointment preceded the departure of Antiochus V–Lysias.3 Such an order is also implied in 2 Macc 14:3. It introduces Alcimus as the one who happened (previously) to be high priest (τις προγεγονὼς ἀρχιερεύς). After all, Bar-Kochva also admits that Alcimus may have been appointed high priest after the execution of Menelaus. However, he believes that “[i]t cannot be assumed that Alcimus actually served in the Temple before the reign of Demetrius I.”4 One notes that soon after, in 2 Macc 14:7, Alcimus complains about having been deprived (ἀφελόμενος) of the high priesthood.5 It follows then that the verb ἔστησεν in 1 Macc 7:9 should be understood in the sense that Demetrius I “confirmed” Alcimus in the high priesthood.6 The same meaning of the verb will reappear in 1 Macc 11:27 and 14:38. Besides, the (same) verb καθίστημι had been adopted in 2 Macc 13:3 in relation to the failed re-confirmation of Menelaus (see κατασταθήσεσθαι). Such a meaning is in no way contradicted by the statement made in 1 Macc 7:5, which depicts Alcimus desiring to act as (high) priest (βουλόμενος ἱερατεύειν). Similarly, Alcimus needed to be re-installed during the second expedition

2 Judas, 345. 3 Both Mölleken, “Geschichtsklitterung,” 227 and Bunge, “Geschichte,” 27, accepted this version but only after having made unnecessary rearrangements of the texts. See more recently also Parker, “Studien,” 159–60. 4 Judas, 346. 5 This participle aorist middle verb appears in 1 Macc 11:12, implying a similar meaning of “being taken away.” See also Grimm, Zweite Maccabäer, 193. 6 So also Abel, Maccabées, 131; VanderKam, From Joshua, 228; Scolnic, Alcimus, 147; Brutti, Development, 233.