(2) The Maccabean conflict (165 B.C.) tended to accentuate the national sentiment of antagonism to Hellenic influence.
7), suggest the troublous time of the later Greek and the Maccabean rulers, of which the history of Josephus gives a good picture.
The Maccabean dynasty had now reached the zenith of its prosperity, and in its reigning representative, who alone in the history of Judaism possessed the triple offices of prophet, priest and king, the Pharisaic party had come to recognize the actual Messiah.
This second writer singles out three of the Maccabean priest kings for attack, the first of whom he charges with every abomination; the people itself, he declares, is apostate, and chastisement will follow speedily - the temple will be laid waste, the nation carried afresh into captivity, whence, on their repentance, God will restore them again to their own land, where they shall enjoy the blessedness of God's presence and be ruled by a Messiah sprung from Judah.
Such a combination of offices naturally makes us think of the Maccabean priest-kings of the 2nd century B.C. The possibility of doubting this reference is excluded by the words that immediately follow: - cal 7rpovhuv77vars Tb alrip,LCa mirth; 13TL inrip UoWY airoBavEirac iv 7roXE,uoLS 6paroLS Kai aoparocs' Kal iv u 7 tiv g o rat lavtXEUS aid,vcos.
That the Maccabean high-priests are here designed cannot be reasonably doubted.
Now the Maccabean high-priests were the first to assume the title ` priests of the Most High God ' - the title anciently borne by Melchizedek.
But the praises accorded in this book could not apply to all the Maccabean priest-kings of the nation.
To one member of the Maccabean dynasty are the prophetic gifts assigned in our text (T.
This period was about 70-40 B.C., and the object of the additions was the overthrow of the Maccabean high-priesthood, which in the 1st century B.C. had become guilty of every lewdness.
Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion, he looked for the immediate advent of the Messianic kingdom.
This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung not from Judah but from Levi, that is, from the reigning Maccabean family.
Of the remaining passages and books Daniel belongs unquestionably to the Maccabean period, and the rest possibly to the same period.
14-26 is assigned by Marti to Maccabean times, but this is highly questionable.
Throughout the history of the Maccabean wars Gezer or Gazara plays the part of an important frontier post.
7, which suggests the Maccabean age).
5 The same date may be assigned to (2), where the traffickers in the sheep may be regarded as the Seleucid rulers, and the shepherds as the Jewish high priests and ethnarchs; the prelude to the Maccabean revolt largely consisted of the rapid and violent changes here figured.
On the other hand, Marti assigns the whole to 160 B.C. (Maccabean period; a little later than Wellhausen) and sees a number of references to historical personages of that age.
There is no doubt but that in the Maccabean times and onward 218 was the shekel; but the use of the word darkemon by Ezra and Nehemiah, and the probabilities of their case, point to the daragmaneh, 1/60 maneh or shekel of Assyria; and the mention of 1/3 shekel by Nehemiah as poll tax nearly proves that the 129 and not 218 grains is intended, as 218 is not divisible by 3.
But the Maccabean use of 218 may have been a reversion to the older shekel; and this is strongly shown by the fraction 1/4 shekel (1 Sam.
Later Jewish doctrine of the last things and in the official exegesis of the Targums. In the very developed eschatology of Daniel they are, as we have seen, altogether wanting, and in the Apocrypha, both before and after the Maccabean revival, the everlasting throne of David's house is a mere historical reminiscence (Ecclus.
In a word, the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah marks the fusion of Pharisaism with the national religious feeling of the Maccabean revival.
If, as seems probable, the earlier Greek version of the Book of Esther was made about 179 B.C. (Swete, Introduction of the Old Testament in Greek, p. 25), this suggestion of the connexion of Purim with the Maccabean period made by Haupt and, before him, by Willrich, falls to the ground.
Arguments for a preMaccabean date may be derived (a) from the fact that the book contains apparently no reference to the Maccabean struggles, (b) from the eulogy of the priestly house of Zadok which fell into disrepute during these wars for independence.
Its origin is to be sought in the first place in the prophecy of Daniel, written at the beginning of the Maccabean period.
The reference here must be to the numerous non-Jewish kings of the Greek period, and perhaps also to the Maccabean princes; the manners of the time are set forth in Josephus's account of Ptolemy's dinner, at which the Jew Hyrcanus was a guest (Ant.
In Maccabean times Joseph and Azarias attacked it unsuccessfully (1 Macc. v.
The most striking feature in this work is the writer's scathing condemnation of the priesthood before, during, and after the Maccabean period, and an unsparing depreciation of the Temple services.
He was clearly a Pharisaic Quietist, a Pharisee of a fast disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid of the early Maccabean times, and upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation.
Now the only high priests who bore this title were the Maccabean, who appear to have assumed it as reviving the order of Melchizedek when they displaced the Zadokite order of Aaron.
(2) It was written before 96 B.C. or some years earlier in the reign of John Hyrcanus; for since our author is of the strictest sect a Pharisee and at the same time an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate, Jubilees cannot have been written after 96 when the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus came to open strife.
We may, however, observe that our book points to the period already past - of stress and persecution that preceded the recovery of national independence under the Maccabees, and presupposes as its historical background the most flourishing period of the Maccabean hegemony.
In the next place he was an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate.
He glorifies Levi's successors as high-priests and civil rulers, and applies to them the title assumed by the Maccabean princes, though he does not, like the author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, expect the Messiah to come forth from among them.
Which are Maccabean) belong to the Greek period, forming a collection of sixteen psalms composed for public use by the choirs, especially at the great feasts.
Such a reference coming from a Maccabean author can only allude to the deposition by Antiochus IV.
They were written before 64 B.C., for Rome was not yet known to the writer, and after 95 B.C., for the slaying of the righteous, of which the writer complains, was not perpetrated by the Maccabean princes before that date.
As regards the date, Fritzsche, Ball and Ryssel agree in assigning this psalm to the Maccabean period.
The most probable of the above dates appears to be that maintained by Fritzsche, that is, if we understand by the Maccabean times the early decades of the 2nd cent.
B.C. For during the palmy days of the Maccabean dynasty the Twelve tribes were supposed to be in Palestine.
With the downfall of; the Maccabean dynasty, however, the older idea revived in the 1st cent.