The Oxford History of the Biblical World (80 page)

By comparison, 1 Maccabees—although it covers a considerably longer period of time, concluding with the death of Simon and the imminent elevation to the throne of John Hyrcanus—is rhetorically inferior, though of great value as a historical source. Originally composed in Hebrew but preserved in Greek, 1 Maccabees glorifies the three sons of Mattathias who led their people and seeks to legitimate the powers exercised by John and his sons. As noted above, the work probably dates from the reign of his second son, Alexander Janneus. Overall, 1 Maccabees has the look of other biblical books of history, such as 1 and 2 Kings.

These two books of Maccabees cover much the same ground, but not always in the same way. Matters of fact and especially matters of emphasis and judgment differ. The same is true when Josephus adds his witness. Careful modern historians avoid reliance on blanket characterizations when assessing the historical validity or reliability of these three works, as well as others that provide occasional references to this period; every narrative section or list must be judged on its own merits. In the end, each of these works is a useful source that must be critically evaluated. Even when the contents of a given narrative are not historically valid, we can appreciate an author’s theological perspectives as evidence of patterns of belief or faith. Since no one, either in antiquity or in the modern world, writes history in a vacuum, such subjectivity even in the most reliable of historical witnesses is hardly surprising.

We now turn to several groups within the Jewish community already mentioned in passing. The first three of these, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, are generally considered together by modern scholars, as they also were by one of our
most important ancient sources, Josephus. But scholarly consensus is rare on almost all aspects of the history and development of these groups, in part because the best evidence either dates from a later period or is susceptible to different interpretations. To be sure, we are not dealing with movements that originated or developed in a vacuum, that were monolithic in character, or that regarded themselves or their opponents with calm detachment. The individuals who identified with these groups did so in a committed, even impassioned, way. So it is not surprising that both ancient writers and modern scholars have come up with widely divergent portrayals.

There is general agreement that all three of these groups or sects originated before or during the Maccabean revolt. According to one view, members of the group that became known as the Pharisees were earlier (originally?) called the
Hasidim,
from the Hebrew root meaning “pious” or “righteous.” Their primary concern was scrupulous observance of Mosaic law, and they willingly took up arms to defend it. When the course of the Maccabean revolt turned to more nationalistic goals, so the argument goes, these Hasidim separated themselves from its leaders and either failed to support or actively opposed later developments, until they gained a considerable degree of power, particularly under Queen Alexandra. The Hebrew word underlying
Pharisees
is generally understood to mean “to separate.” This term probably connotes physical as well as ritual and spiritual separation from other Jews; to put it another way, they distinguished themselves from other Jews by their style of life and system of beliefs. If we are correct in identifying the Pharisees as lay leaders and teachers of organizations similar to what we today would call synagogues, then we have a picture of a movement that actively sought to influence Jewish society at all levels.

For the Hellenistic period it is difficult to know exactly which beliefs or practices characterized the Pharisees. Not all Pharisees agreed on all matters. There was presumably a core of accepted rituals and beliefs by which the group achieved a sense of self-identity, as there was a core of practices and ideas that most, if not all, Pharisees opposed. Two of the former are resurrection and the oral law. We have already mentioned the belief in resurrection of the dead, along with the concept of postmortem judgment that resulted in reward or punishment. The fully elaborated view of the oral law held that God had revealed more to Moses at Sinai than had been committed to writing in the Torah. Knowledge of the oral law, passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, was necessary for proper interpretation and implementation of the written law. The Pharisees undoubtedly developed both pedagogical and judicial systems that centered on the law. The totality of their discussions and decisions could be incorporated in the term
halakah,
which encompassed a comprehensive way of life the Pharisees attempted both to exemplify and to promote. When they had the ear of the powerful, they exerted enormous influence. At other times, they had to content themselves with a more marginalized social status. It is unlikely, however, that they ever considered such marginalization as anything more than a passing phenomenon. In a sense they were correct, since there is a direct, but not unambiguous, line to be drawn from them to later rabbinic Judaism.

The Sadducees, whenever they developed as a distinctive movement, must be understood—and must have understood themselves—as preservers or carriers of a set of beliefs and practices associated with the biblical figure Zadok. During the reign of King David there were two high priests, presumably reflecting sectional differences
of the divided peoples whom David had succeeded in uniting. As David lay near death, both Solomon and one of his brothers claimed the throne, each supported by a high priest. Zadok’s support for Solomon ensured that he and his family would have the sole privilege of providing Israel’s high priests from then on. In theory, if not in practice, that was the case for many hundreds of years. With the end of the monarchy at the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judah or in the early years of the return—in any case sometime during the sixth century
BCE
—the office of the high priest assumed even greater importance. Throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic periods the high priest was the leader of the Jews not only in the sphere of religious ritual, but in every aspect of life. He was, in short, his people’s representative to the ruling powers, responsible for such matters as the maintenance of peace and the collection of taxes. Only with the capture of Syria-Palestine by the Seleucids did this change. It may be then that a distinct self-identity developed among the descendants of Zadok and their supporters.

In ancient Israel, as elsewhere in the Mediterranean world, priestly concerns revolved around the temple (or temples), at which sacrifices and other forms of communal worship took place. Maintenance of such rites was often considered crucial for the preservation of a positive relationship between humanity and the divine. Because all life depended on such a relationship, the priests could view themselves as the central players in their people’s national drama. Some priests from the line of Zadok undoubtedly followed Onias IV when he founded his temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. He may have intended this not as a rival to the Jerusalem Temple, but rather as its Diaspora counterpart. As we have observed, Onias’s sons gave considerable support to Hasmonean rulers contemporary with themselves, in spite of the Hasmonean claim to the high priesthood, although other descendants of Zadok may not have been so understanding.

In any event, a priestly tradition that could maintain its sense of integrity in dealing with alien occupation forces could probably accommodate itself to internal changes. Moreover, the Sadducees’ experience in dealing with foreign leaders would be valuable in protecting valid Temple interests against further incursions from competing or even hostile domestic forces. So it appears that many, if not most, Sadducean priests accepted their diminished status. In much of the modern literature the Sadducees are characterized as wealthy accommodationists who would do almost anything to maintain their privileged position. This characterization is unfair, reflecting as much as anything else the anticlerical bias of many scholars. There existed in Israel, as elsewhere in the ancient world, a temple theology or ideology that could be as sincerely articulated and defended as any other.

Likewise, the Sadducees are often criticized for having a narrow view of the law. Because they considered only the five books of the Torah as authoritative, they refused to support beliefs or rituals that in their opinion were not found there. Thus, to take the best-known example, Sadducean interpreters found no biblical support for the doctrine of resurrection, and therefore they found no place for that doctrine in their belief system. They viewed many Pharisaic interpretations, based on the oral law, as unwarranted innovations, but that is not to say that the Sadducees lacked their own interpretative devices or, for that matter, their own halakah. The Sadducees may not
have countenanced as much diversity of opinion and practice as did the Pharisees, but it is mistaken to assume that they were rigidly monolithic.

An even greater distaste for diversity probably characterized the third group of this triad, the Essenes. Josephus is virtually our only source for them. There is no generally agreed-upon etymology for the word
Essene,
nor are we sure what the underlying Semitic term was. More than the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essenes developed what we might today call a sectarian consciousness. Even when they dwelled among the general populace, they lived a life apart. According to Josephus, some Essenes married and had dealings with their fellow Jews, while others did not marry and cut themselves off from the mainstream. Although they accepted new members, they did not actively seek them nor did they welcome just anyone. An elaborate system of probation and initiation preceded full acceptance into their fellowship, an acceptance that could be revoked for failure to follow the distinctive system of beliefs and practices they constructed.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and read in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a consensus arose that the Qumran settlement responsible for these scrolls was an Essene community. Although the doctrines and rites outlined in the scrolls did not agree in every detail with Josephus (nor do the scrolls always agree with each other), the Essene hypothesis was attractive. Despite challenges to this consensus in recent years, the Essene hypothesis still retains its value as a reasonable interpretative tool.

The Qumran community seems to have been founded sometime in the Maccabean or Hasmonean period. Because the community styles itself the “sons of Zadok,” its founders felt some connection or kinship with the priestly group out of which the Sadducees also arose. These “sons of Zadok” were unwilling or unable to make their peace with the authorities in Jerusalem and therefore effected a physical separation into the remote area just west of the Dead Sea. From there they waged a prolonged and often impassioned campaign against those in power in Jerusalem, whom they regarded as unworthy of such offices and influence. Although they rarely named names, preferring instead code terms like “Wicked Priest” and “Teacher of Righteousness,” much of their hatred was clearly directed at the Hasmonean dynasty and its supporters. In fact, the Qumran community implacably opposed not only foreign countries, but also all Jews outside their group. They identified themselves as the “sons of light,” destined by God to be victorious in apocalyptic battle against the “sons of darkness.” They considered that even the angelic hosts were entering the battle on their side. Human beings had to make a choice between light and darkness, and that choice led directly to eternal reward or its opposite.

The community at Qumran was tightly structured, dedicated to the study and interpretation of Mosaic law, and stood poised to take over the now debased organization of the Temple when the Messiah (or Messiahs) should appear to lead them. Their criticisms of the Temple were not aimed at the authentic Temple of the past or future, but only at the present structure and its unclean priesthood. According to their literature, they believed that Jerusalem worship was further invalidated because it relied on a faulty calendar and a false calculation for the observance of festivals and holidays. Josephus does not mention this calendrical dispute, but its existence
would have been crucially important for two groups, both of which claimed to be the true Israel.

Because they designated themselves as the “sons of Zadok” and had unmistakable ties with priestly concerns and practices, it has been proposed that the Qumran community’s members were Sadducees. But the Qumran group’s belief in resurrection stands in stark contrast with everything known of Sadducean beliefs on this subject. The founders of the Qumran community may, however, have been closer to Sadducean belief and practice than later generations of their followers. It may also be that Sadducean tenets in these matters become normative only in the later period that we know from Josephus and other sources. In any case, Josephus did not intend to present an exhaustive listing and discussion of all the sectarian groups that he knew.

In the Samaritans we encounter a group that had similarities with—but also more significant differences from—the triad discussed above. Like the Sadducees, the Samaritans accepted as authoritative only (a form of) the Torah, or five books of Moses. They shared with both the Sadducees and the Essenes of Qumran a conviction that there was only one temple at which communal worship should be centralized. Unlike the Sadducees, but again in common with the Essenes, the Samaritans did not consider the Jerusalem Temple as valid. And perhaps of greatest significance, their claim to be the true Israel, aimed primarily against the Jerusalem leadership, parallels the self-identity of the Qumran community.

But the differences are striking. The Essenes’ hatred for Jerusalem and its Temple was limited to the present. As in the past, in the messianic future Jerusalem would be the site for the true priesthood and the authentic sacrificial worship of Israel. For the Samaritans, on the other hand, the Jerusalem Temple was not and never could be that sacred place ordained by God for his worship. Instead, the territory of Samaria, with its capital at Shechem and its temple on Mount Gerizim, was the intended focus for priest, cult, and worship. The Samaritans traced their lineage back to the same twelve tribes as the Judeans or Jews. While the Davidic monarchy and Jerusalem as the city of David were crucial for Judean self-understanding, the Samaritans could point to other ancient traditions associating Shechem and other Samaritan sites with centralized and sacrificial worship of God. In effect, supporters of the Samaritan claim to be the true Israel were drawing from the same traditional sources as the Judeans, but with vastly different interpretations and consequences.