MedLawPlus.com®
|
- From: Peter
State of residence: Not Given
Subject: Princes of Judah
Date: 4-30-2012
I think your theory that the Hasmoneans were involved with Qumran is right and that this condemnation of the "princes of Judah" is indeed an aspect of that likelihood. In the military, planners call something like the Damascus Document "intelligence preparation of the battlefield." Given the other clues that aim toward connecting the Maccabees to Qumran, this piece of propaganda should be seen as just that: clearing the way for a Levite king to take the throne. Discredting the tribe of David would make generating "legitimacy" easier. The community could point to history and say that Judah had been disqualified by impieties, at least for the time being. Taking it literally seems the right path.
- From: JJR
Subject: Reply
Date: 4-30-2012
Interesting take on the Damascus Document. I believe it is common for scholars to categorize 1 Maccabees as pro-Hasmonean propaganda aimed at internal enemies so I find it interesting that you place the Damascus Document in the same position. It certainly demonizes the opposition but that may just be for internal consumption within the sect. Think of the old drill sergeant cliches referencing the enemy with such epithets as "Luke the Gook" (might just be Marine Corp rhetoric, not sure). The Damascus Document could be more akin to internal indoctrination within the sect than broader domestic propaganda. My thoughts on the exact nature of that document are still in flux. As to the connection between the DSS and the Hasmoneans, one must acknowledge the strength of arguments that certain DSS texts are critical of the Hasmoneans. The most compelling passage I've come across so far is the so-called "Law of the King" found in the Temple Scroll (cols. 56–59). Scholars say it is a polemic against John Hyrcanus. If you read it closely though, the tone of the passage is quite different than those in opposition to the "sons of darkness" or "sons of the pit". The TS castigates the king but appears to invite him to once more embrace the path and, in return, the king shall "not be lacking one of his sons who sits on the throne of the kingdom of Israel forever." (Col. 59). If the DSS community is vehemently opposed to Hasmonean kingship, seems odd for their leader to be writing that the Hasmoneans can rule forever so long as they follow the rules of the community (i.e., the new covenant). As we discussed previously, I think the Hasmoneans broke from the DSS community some time after taking power (and coming into wealth). I draw support for that hypothesis from the above-referenced "Law of the King" in TS. I bring this up here because the Damascus Document does condemn those who leave the community. Assuming I am right that the Hasmonean movement rose out of the DSS community and later drifted away to some extent, was the Damascus Document written before or after the break? I haven't studied the various texts against the theory long enough to take a definitive stand but the Damascus Document seems to be one of the founding documents of the sect. I would think the Hasmoneans were still part of the community at this point (probably leading it). BTW, I think the scholars have identified the wrong Hasmonean "king" referenced in the TS. Josephus says Aristobulus I was the first Hasmonean king. Jewish Wars I 3:1. Aristobulus I was the son of John Hyrcanus.
The theory gets nuanced (read muddled) when civil war breaks out between the Hasmoneans and the Pharisees (and later a wing of the Hasmonean family joins the Pharisees against their own clan members). King Jannai came within a whisker of defeat at the hands the Pharisees and their Greek allies at the battle of Shechem but, after Jannai lost the battle to the Greek army and he fled to the mountains with the remnants of his army, "six thousand Jews gathered at his side". Antiquities XIII 14:2. Some translators have interpolated that these were 6000 Jewish defectors from the Greek army but I think they have it wrong. These were Jews new to the battle field, which caused the Greek commander to withdraw. Jannai then defeated the Pharisees and crucified 800 of them outside the walls of Jerusalem. Was it a band of peasants with staves who rescued Jannai? Or was it the military wing of the DSS community at legion strength riding to the rescue of their wayward son? I speculate a similar situation occurred in the case of Antigonus. Herod initially defeated the army of Antigonus in Galilee causing him to flee Israel to regroup. Yes, Antigonus later got Parthian support but he could not have prevailed without strong Jewish nationalist support as well IMHO. The Parthians were engaged against the Romans along a vast front so I doubt they were able to provide Antigonus with an overwhelming army to take the field against Herod. Antigonus needed the Jewish people to tip the scales against Herod. Again, my view is that only one Jewish group outside the party holding power in Jerusalem was capable of fielding a militarily significant army--the DSS community.
- From: Peter
State of residence: Not Given
Subject: Antigonus' army
Date: 5-1-2012
>>These were Jews new to the battle field, which caused the Greek commander to withdraw.<<
I need to read more about the wars of the Maccabees. My guess is that the 6000 was a disciplined group as you suggest; a mob of peasants, no matter how big, would be unlikely to scare away a well-armed, trained army.
>>Antigonus later got Parthian support but he could not have prevailed without strong Jewish nationalist support<<
Somewhere I read that the Parthians gave Antigonus Mattathais a mere 500 "special forces." In other words, what they provided to him was a battalion of guards and advisors. I need to look for the source and get back to you. He did indeed have a Jewish army, one apparently very capable force. What I always found odd about Herod's return was that he managed to beat Antigonus with very little help from his Roman friends.
| |
|
|
