Abstract
In spite of its undeniable impact on Jewish, Hellenistic and Roman history, the rise and fall of the Hasmonean state often takes a backseat to the more richly documented eras that preceded and followed it. Although the First Book of Maccabees recounts the initial steps the Hasmoneans took to establish themselves as Judea’s rulers, it abruptly prescinds from chronicling the family’s subsequent career. From 135 bce on, we have only Josephus to provide us with a connected narrative.
Recognizing that Josephus’ writings do not always suffice for establishing Hasmonean chronology or for interpreting some of its most consequential events, Kenneth Atkinson offers a fresh appraisal of Josephus in light of recent numismatic, archaeological, and papyrological discoveries. The result is a timely and accessible prolegomenon that should be required reading for anyone researching late Hellenistic Judea.
This book might more accurately be dubbed a history of the Hasmonean dynasty, as it focuses more on the individual actors than on the enduring structures or institutions they created. That is dictated in part by the emphasis of Josephus’ historiography, but also by the irreducibly personal basis of monarchic rule. The same applies to the Hellenistic regimes with whom the Hasmoneans interacted and whose coinage and papyri remain our bedrock for dating their exploits. Much of the book is therefore taken up with detailed discussion of this kind of data.
A broader issue raised – but not always clearly articulated—by Atkinson’s analysis is just what constitutes a state. The fact that Atkinson pinpoints the Judean decree of 140 bce, which granted dictatorial and sacral powers to Simon, as the inception of Hasmonean statehood suggests that political autonomy (or at least the pretense of it) should be considered the decisive variable. Yet he follows Josephus in equating the death of the dynasty’s prospects with Pompey’s subjugation of Jerusalem in 63 bce, even though the Hasmonean, Hyrcanus II, came to enjoy a great deal of autonomy—in some respects greater than Simon’s—as a result of Rome’s civil wars. In the end, of course, the family did fail to maintain its power, but whether this outcome was inevitable remains open to question. Atkinson’s masterful reexamination of the Hasmonean achievement provides us with much new food for thought.