392 Review of Books / Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012) 380-444

The Hasmoneans and Their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions. By Edward Dąbrowa. (Electrum 16). Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press, 2010. Pp. 239, plates. Paperback. 35 PLN (approx. €6.00). ISBN 978-83-233-2837-7.

Dąbrowa’s book is a welcome monograph on the Hasmonean state. Though there are scholarly books both on specific topics relating to the Hasmoneans as well as parts of a comprehensive series on Jewish history of the Second Temple period (see, e.g., J. Klosner, S. Zeitlin, V. Tcherikover, or the New Schürer; on specific topics see, e.g., B. bar-Kochva, J. Sievers, and I. Shatzman), the singularity of Dąbrowa’s book is its focusing on the Hasmonean state as a whole and not on a single aspect, be it the Maccabean revolt, army, culture, leadership, or impact on the development of Jewish history in the Hellenistic-Roman era. Dąbrowa wisely balanced the various aspects of the Hasmonean state in a way that shows it in its multi-dimensional perspective. The book is divided into three parts: 1. Historical narrative; 2. The state’s institutions (ca. 60 pages [Priesthood, Kingship, Court, Propaganda etc.]); 3. Survey of Judean society under the Hasmoneans. The book ends with conclusions, bibliography, indexes, and a colored map. The author, professor at the Jagiellonian University of Kraków and an expert on Hellenistic and Roman history, is aware of the intrinsic relations between the external circumstances and the internal development of the Hasmonean state (187). The book is up-to-date as long as non-Hebrew scholarly literature is con- cerned and the argumentation is cautious and reasonable. Along with my high appreciation of Dąbrowa’s book I will note several differ- ences of opinion between my approach and Dąbrowa’s: (1) The military success of Judas owed to various resources as Dąbrowa rightly records (35-36 and passim) but the military experience of Jewish mercenaries who served in Hellenistic armies that could contribute to the performance of Judas’ fighting force should have been considered too. A horseman from the land of Tobias is mentioned in 2 Macc 12:35 but is considered as an episode (35, n. 95). Yet who were “Dositheus and Sosipater Maccabaeus’s generals” who were fighting in Transjordan (cf. also 2 Macc 12:19; 24), where a military colony that included Jewish soldiers was settled and existed till the time of Hyrkanus the Tobiad (ca. 175 b.c.e.)? Some kind of cooperation with Jewish warriors from Egypt and army veterans settled in Judea is also not a wild hypothesis (Cf. B. bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids[Cambridge 1989], 82-88). (2) The inception of the institutions of the Hasmonean state should not be dated to Judas’ days. Dąbrowa’s discussion about the institutions that were func- tioning in Judas’ days (38-39, 186) opens the issue of Judas’ position within Judean society and vis-à-vis various components of it (the Gerusia, the people of Israel, the temple’s priesthood). Nevertheless I doubt Dąbrowa’s conception of Hasmonean constitution as evolutionary. As Dąbrowa rightly stressed the decision

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/157006312X644218 Review of Books / Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012) 380-444 393 of the “Great Assembly” (hereafter GA) was of great importance but according to my understanding it was a reversal of the situation under Jonathan or Judas. It laid foundations for a sovereign Jewish rule instead of a people led by a rebel (Judas) or a royal officer (Jonathan) appointed by a pagan king. The GA’s decision was the watershed line of the constitutional history of the Hasmonean state and the pivot around which the inner tension turned. The kingship that came afterwards did not spring from the GA’s decision but was intended to replace it by a Hellenistic βασιλεία. Dąbrowa’s discussion of Hel- lenization (188) is challenging and undoubtedly he is right in insisting that the Hasmonean state was different from a Hellenistic state in various respects such as being national, religiously unique, and differently motivated (recovering historical territories). Yet though the Hellenization of the Hasmonean state was limited and to some degree unconscious (188) it does not mean that the adoption of king- ship was an adoption of a traditional Jewish monarchy. It was a Hellenistic βασι- λεία, which made the ruler equal to his neighboring kings as a sole ruler. If I am right the constitutional process was rather revolutionary than evolutionary. Firstly the decision of the GA turned upside down the former situation and then the βασιλεία cancelled the GA’s decision. (3) The first Hasmonean to put a crown on his head was in my opinion Jan- neus, despite the general agreement, pursued by Dąbrowa that follows Josephus’ statement that it was Aristobulus I. Had it been Aristobulus his successor Janneus’ first coins should have been royal coins, but in fact they were not. Janneus’ coinage begun with coins similar to those of his brother and father and his royal coins were struck later on (cf. D. Hendin and I. Shachar, “The Identity of YNTN on Has- monean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types,” INR 3 [2008]: 87-94). Following Hendin and Shachar it is impossible to defend Josephus’ statement and the first Hasmonean king must be Janneus and his coin- age does not seem to be at the outset of his reign. (4) 1 Maccabees is an extremely biased source in favor of Simon, the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty and his house. There are good reasons to doubt the soli- darity between Simon and Jonathan and the sincerity of Simon’s efforts to free Jonathan from Tryphon’s hands (See 1 Macc 13:17-19. Already A. Geiger doubted Simon’s integrity in this affair in his 1857’s bookUrschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums [Breslau]. See also my commentary on 1 Maccabees [295-297]). Mattathias’ last words are even more biased. The priority granted there to Simon (1 Macc 2:65) is pure liter- ary fiction that does not deserve the subtle considerations Dąbrowa elaborates concerning Simon’s position at the beginning of the revolt (20, 117). My guess is that Judas was the right man at the beginning of the revolt and Jonathan as well after Judas’ death. They were more suitable at this stage for military command than Simon and post factum it was proven by their success on the battle fields.