New study of Hasmoneans by Eyal Regev

[ficino]

This new book on the Hasmoneans by Eyal Regev, archaeology prof at Bar Ilan U., is very favorably reviewed:

http://www.bmcreview.org/2015/02/20150248.html

Regev does not only talk about archaeology; he builds a synthesis using many sources. As one might guess of a major new work, this study calls into question the traditional Hellenizer vs. Judaizer breakdown. Regev does compare the Hasmonean royal ideology to that of the Macedonian monarchy, while he goes into the Hasmonean use of earlier biblical texts and symbols.

He emphasizes how the Temple was at the center of their ideology. Some motifs discussed are water and purity, national identity, and relation to the already existing Diaspora. He devotes chapters to coins, palaces, priesthood, temple, etc. Key symbols on coins are palm branch, anchor, star, helmet.

maryhelena, with you in mind I scanned the review for signs that Regev deals with the end of the Hasmonean monarchy and the fate of Antigonus/Mattathias, but the review doesn't make clear how much of the book is devoted to the end of the monarchy.

Anyway,

[maryhelena]

This new book on the Hasmoneans by Eyal Regev, archaeology prof at Bar Ilan U., is very favorably reviewed:

http://www.bmcreview.org/2015/02/20150248.html

Regev does not only talk about archaeology; he builds a synthesis using many sources. As one might guess of a major new work, this study calls into question the traditional Hellenizer vs. Judaizer breakdown. Regev does compare the Hasmonean royal ideology to that of the Macedonian monarchy, while he goes into the Hasmonean use of earlier biblical texts and symbols.

He emphasizes how the Temple was at the center of their ideology. Some motifs discussed are water and purity, national identity, and relation to the already existing Diaspora. He devotes chapters to coins, palaces, priesthood, temple, etc. Key symbols on coins are palm branch, anchor, star, helmet.

maryhelena, with you in mind I scanned the review for signs that Regev deals with the end of the Hasmonean monarchy and the fate of Antigonus/Mattathias, but the review doesn't make clear how much of the book is devoted to the end of the monarchy.

Anyway,

Thank you, ficino....

I had a look at the book on google books to see anything interesting re Antigonus. The search did not throw up anything re Cassius Dio and the manner of the death of Antigonus. There seems to be quite a bit about the coins of Antigonus - how he used both High Priest and King on his coins.

What I did notice is that the writer has turned to the Qumran texts and the Psalms of Solomon to support a theory of 'Moral Opposition to the Hasmonean Temple'. While, obviously, I can't read all of this on google books view, this does take a historical study way into speculation....The book has a few references to Kenneth Atkinson. Atkinson is known for his work on Psalms of Solomon - moved away from the conventional position then back again - but then seems to have wanted to uphold both positions. i.e. 63 b.c.e. and 37 b.c.e. Interesting of course but does demonstrate that the study of the Hasmoneans leads to all kinds of conjecture.

Anyway.....point of all this is that proposing what this book does, 'Moral opposition to the Hasmonean Temple' - is an interpretation of Qumran texts alongside an interpretation of Psalms of Solomon.....and in so doing sidelines the facts on the ground - the Hasmonean family conflict.....pro Hyrancus = anti Aristobulus......and vice versa of course....From the point of view of Aristobulus - if the Temple is in the hands of Hyrancus then the Temple is in the hands of Rome. One Hasmonean brother is a Roman puppet - the other Hasmonean brother is a 'zealot' against Rome. Rome is the issue - not a Hasmonean Temple.

The time-frame from 63 b.c.e. to 37 b.c.e. is important re the family conflict between Hyracanus and his brother Aristobulus. It is this conflict that is the setting for the Qumran 'sectarians'. i.e. not Jews against the Hasmoneans but Hasmoneans against Hasmoneans. (Greg Doudna doing some interesting research re this issue...) Post 37 b.c.e. with the Hasmonean conflict at an end - Herod, his Temple, and Rome would become the focus of any Qumran sectarians or Hasmonean zealots.

Anyway, would be an interesting book to read - but, methinks, one needs to keep in mind the writer of the book seems to be an archaeologist not a historian....

Wright, Robert B., ed.
The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text

The introduction provides the usual information concerning, historical backgrounds,
date, authorship, provenance, and language, but three points are worthy of note. First,
Wright agrees with Kenneth Atkinson’s assertions concerning the historical references
evident within the Psalms. In several early articles in the late 1990s and in the early part of
this decade Atkinson argued, against the consensus, that while Pss. Sol. 2 and 8 contained
historical allusions to Pompey, Ps. Sol. 17’s historical references were to Herod and the
Roman general Sosius and their siege of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. (“Herod the Great, Sosius,
and the Siege of Jerusalem [37 BCE] in Psalm of Solomon 17,” NovT 38 [1996]: 313–22;
“Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz
im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect,” in An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon:
Pseudepigrapha (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 49; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 2000]). Surprisingly, however, Atkinson has apparently reversed his position in his most recent publication (i]I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical
Background and Social Setting[/i] [JSJSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 2004]). Wright seems to be
unaware of Atkinson’s change of position—at least he does not mention it. Having
worked on this area for some years, I found Atkinson’s arguments convincing, as has
Wright, but I am perplexed as to why Atkinson has subsequently changed his mind and
disappointed that Wright neither took notice nor discussed the important issue in detail,
which, if correct, would place Psalms of Solomon in very close proximity historically to
the literature of the New Testament and perhaps open up new lines of interpretation. For
example, would the Herodian critique evident in Ps. Sol. 17 be echoed by Matthew’s
opening salvo, “An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the
son of Abraham,” and the early confrontations with the Herodian family?