The return of ‘the Hebrew’
How early Zionists used the Maccabean revolt and the festival of Hanukkah to create a national identity
August 21
th2014 Laurien Bus
Student number: 1794876
First supervisor: Dr. R. Nikolsky
Second supervisor: Prof. dr. W.J. van Bekkum
Tabel of contents
1. Introduction...4
2. Theories on national identity formation...8
2.1 Nations and nationalism...8
2.2 National identities...10
2.3 Collective memory and invented traditions...11
2.4 What type of nationalism is Zionism?...13
2.4.1 Is Zionism unique?...13
2.4.2 Ethnic or civic nationalism?...14
Conclusion...15
3. The festival of Hanukkah and the Maccabean revolt...17
3.1 The Maccabean revolt...17
3.2 Sources...18
3.2.1 1 Maccabees...18
3.2.2 2 Maccabees...18
3.2.3 The book of Daniel...19
3.2.4 Josephus...19
3.2.5 The Babylonian Talmud...20
3.2.6 Megillat Antiochus...21
3.3 The Maccabean revolt: the generally accepted view...21
3.4 Other perspectives on the Maccabean revolt...22
3.5 The festival of Hanukkah...23
3.5.1 The miracle of the oil cruse...25
Conclusion...26
4. Shaping a new national identity...27
4.1 The use of religion in a secular movement...27
4.2 The role of the past in the creation of the present and the future...28
4.3 Promoting and altering the story of the Maccabees...30
4.4 Reinventing Hanukkah...31
4.5 Poems and Songs...32
4.6 Places...35
Conclusion...36
Conclusion...36
Literature...39
Webistes...41
1. Introduction
“Study the past, if you would define the future.”
Confucius
History, or rather our perception and interpretation of it, is crucial in the way we define our lives, and shape our future. Even more so, it can be used as a tool to change our goals and ambitions, or in a broader sense, the goals and ambitions of a people. In this work we review this concept, by looking at the use of historical events to build a national identity and the desire to unify a people in an autonomous nation-state. Such knowledge is key to understanding contemporary processes of political propaganda and – in a more extreme variant – indoctrination to attain power. From a more positive point of view, it can also be used to unify people to set aside differences and work together to achieve goals of common interest.
In our example, we will be looking at the celebration of the Maccabean revolt during the festival of Hannukah in the early twentieth century. In this time, Zionist movements worked hard to create an official Jewish state. In order to obtain such a formal status, they first needed the support of their own. As we will find out in this work, this required a certain mind set, which we will refer to as nationalism. In order to fully understand and appreciate this process, we need to evaluate a number of important events and developments in Europe, starting from the mid- and late-eighteenth century.
In this period of time, it was customary that European citizens were loyal to their family, their town, their province or to one particular leader, yet in the years to come, the object of their loyalty changed. Many societies changed from agrarian to industrial which led to the creation of a common culture. People started to speak in the vernacular instead of in their own dialects and started to grow awareness to the world outside of their own local environment; a feeling of national consciousness emerged. People started to identify themselves with the country they lived in rather than only with their family or village and felt connected to others who shared their history, language, religion, culture and/or territory. The Europeans became acquainted with a new feeling; the feeling of nationalism, which led to the longing for independence and self-determination.
Nationalism also arose amongst the European Jews, although it emerged quite late in comparison to nationalism in other European ethnic groups. The most probable cause for the birth Jewish nationalism can be found in the growing anti-Semitism in Europe, which made the Jews an oppressed minority. Although still many Jews, especially those who were living in liberal societies with little anti- Semitism, grew to identify themselves with those nations, others were openly exposed to hatred and malcontent and thus longed towards living peacefully in a nation for themselves. In such a nation they would coexist with others who shared the same history and culture. Theodor Herzl was the pioneer of this so-called Zionism and started to promote the establishment of a Jewish state. Herzl was a secular and largely assimilated Jew from Hungary, who did not practice Jewish culture. In his
youth he had believed that Jewish emancipation and assimilation would lead to integration of and acceptable circumstances for Jewish, European citizens. However, when Herzl resided in Paris to report on the trial of the French Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, his views changed radically. In this trial, so he believed (and as was confirmed afterwards) Dreyfus was falsely convicted of providing confidential information to the Germans. During this trial, many non-Jewish Parisians gathered on the streets for anti-Semitic demonstrations, demanding ‘Death to the Jews!’. This incident led to Herzl’s opinion that the only viable solution for the Jews to live in peace was to leave Europe to create their own state. According to Herzl the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national and the Jews would never be treated equally in the world without being an independent nation with an own state. In 1896 he published his ideas in a pamphlet ‘Der Judenstaat’ which became the foundational text of political Zionism. In 1897 the First Zionist Congress, which was the official birth of political Zionism, took place. The term Zionism derives from the name ‘Zion’, which after the destruction of the First Temple became a synonym for Jerusalem.1 This name expressed the longing of the Jews to their homeland after they left in exile. The term Zionism was invented by the Austrian writer and journalist Nathan Birnbaum at the end of the nineteenth century. He used the term to denote the political movement with the aim of returning the Jewish people to their homeland Israel.
Although the first Zionist congress marked the beginning of political Zionism, it was predated many years by Zionism in general. An example of such Zionism can be found in the The Hibbat Zion movement, which was founded in the early 1880’s with the aim of promoting Jewish immigration to Palestine. They founded their first settlement in Palestine, Rishon LeZion, in 1882. The movement was supported by Jews throughout Europe, but especially popular in Eastern Europe. In contrast to Herzl’s philosophy, the ideas of the Hibbat Zion movement were based on traditional (religious) Judaism such as the longing for redemption and the spiritual attachment to the land of Israel. When the World Zionist Organization was founded during the First Zionist Congress, most Hibbat Zion members joined this organization, despite those differences.
Even after the introduction of Herzl’s political Zionism, other forms of Zionism still endured. Herzl tried to achieve his goals by diplomacy and negotiation with prominent political leaders. The practical Zionism of Hibbat Zion preferred to take matters into their own hands rather than waiting for others’
approval and started buying land and building settlements in Palestine. Religious Zionism stated that the establishment of a Jewish state was a religious duty and believed that redeeming the land of Israel would lead to the coming of the messiah. The most relevant form of Zionism that existed parallel to political Zionism was the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha’am. Cultural Zionists believed that the national revival of the Jewish people should be achieved by the creation of a cultural and educational center in Israel. The interactions and differences between political and cultural Zionism will be elaborated on in the second chapter of this work.
Already for generations Jews immigrated to Palestine, mostly motivated by religious reasons. Starting from 1882 the main reasons for immigrating to Palestine, or making Aliyah, were nationalist in nature and the aspiration to establish a state emerged. Between 1882 and 1948 around 550.000 Jews made Aliyah.
Besides convincing world leaders of the necessity of a Jewish State, the European Jews themselves had to be convinced. In order for those Jews who lived in different countries and spoke different 1 Kouts, Gideon a.o. ‘Zionism’ in Macmillan Reference USA, Encyclopedia Judaica, (Detroit 2007).
languages to live together in a new state, there was a need to create a unity out of this scattered people. A feeling of solidarity and belonging together had to be established: the Jews needed a new national identity. In this work the formation process of this new Jewish national identity will be analyzed.
The Jewish case is interesting as their situation was in certain ways unique. First of all, the Jews are an ethno-religious group, an ethnic group who’s member also share a common religious background. In nineteenth century Europe, ethno-religious groups where very exceptional. Furthermore, Zionism differs from other national movements in the aim of getting national sovereignty. Usually a national liberation movement arises amongst people who are oppressed in their own land and from resentment against a common foe. The Jewish people, however, were not oppressed in their own country, but instead lived as a minority in different countries under different circumstances. As a result, multiple nationalist movements emerged which had to cooperate with one another.
In this work we will be looking at the Zionists’ use of the Maccabean revolt and the festival of Hanukkah in recreating, or redefining, a Jewish national identity. The main question that runs throughout this work is therefore:
“How did the Zionists use the Maccabean revolt and the festival of Hanukkah for defining a new national identity for the European Jews?”
By asking ourselves this question we can visualize practical aspects of an otherwise rather theoretical concept. In order to obtain this combination of knowledge and its practical consequences, we will be mainly looking at the actions of pre-state Zionists, in other words, at the situation before 1948.
In the second chapter, an overview of theories on identity formation is given to get a better understanding of the processes involved. The third chapter will be dedicated to the Maccabean revolt and the festival of Hanukkah. Finally, in the last chapter, the ways in which Zionists tried to create a new Jewish identity will be discussed in order to understand their attempt to unify their people.
Before we will discuss the theories on national identity formation, some comments regarding the used terminology should be posed. First of all we will address the question whether we should use the term Hebrews, Israelites or Jews to refer to the people of Israel and their descendants. This question is difficult to answer because these three terms are close synonyms and are often used interchangeably. In Genesis 14:13 Abraham is called ‘the Hebrew’. The term Hebrew is used by biblical scholars to designate the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who was later called Israel. The term Hebrew is usually used in the Hebrew Bible as a name given to the Israelites by other peoples and is almost never used by the Israelites themselves. The origins of the term are not clear, but it can be explained as deriving from the Hebrew word for the ‘other side’ which refers to Abraham who crossed the Euphrates river to get into the land of Canaan. From the late 2nd millennium BCE on, after the conquest of the land of Canaan, the people are called Israelites.
Israelites are defined as the descendants of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, because he was renamed
‘Israel’ by God. After the Babylonian Exile, in the late 6th century, they were referred to as Jews. Like we will see later in this work, the term Hebrew was used by secular Zionists from the late 19th century on. In this context it is used to refer to the transformation of the Jews of the Diaspora into a strong and independent national group. The term was used to emphasize on the difference between Jews from the Diaspora and the ‘New Jews’. After the establishment of the state of Israel, this group
of Jews was no longer referred to as Hebrews but as Israelis.
Another comment should be made about the use of the broad concept of ‘Zionism’. Like already shortly mentioned in this introduction, there are many different forms of Zionism with different believes and methods. In this work however, when we use the term Zionism, we will refer to most influential form of Zionism, namely the pre-state political Zionism of Theodor Herzl that emerged in Eastern Europe.
2. Theories on national identity formation
2.1 Nations and nationalism
Before we can understand how Zionists tried to define a new national identity for the Eastern European Jews we need to clarify which definitions are used in describing this question. What do we mean by national identity and how can such an abstract entity be shaped or defined? Before we can elaborate on this complicated concept of national identity, we should take one step back and consider for a moment the underlying ideas of nations and nationalism. As there is no general agreement on what it is that defines a nation and the idea – or rather the feeling - of nationalism2, this first sub chapter is dedicated to the elucidation of those concepts.
First of all, it is important to make a clear differentiation between the state, which is an institute, and the nation, which is a perception, as they are often confused. This fundamental distinction between the nation and the state can be described as the difference between a people and a government. The state is generally seen as a legal and political organization with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens, whereas the nation tends more towards implying solidarity. 3 When a group of people shares a sense of unity based on (the belief of) a common heritage, they can be perceived as a nation. People in one nation can share history, language, religion, culture or territory, etc.
Obviously these are not hard and fast requirements; the people of a nation do not necessarily speak the same language or share the same religion.
Four different, yet important approaches towards the perception of nations and nationalism will be evaluated in this work: the nationalist, the perennialist, the modernist and the post-modernist views are examined. One of the main differences between these theories is the perception of the role of the past in the creation of the present and the future. Nationalists believe that nations have always existed and that human nature dictates us to try to establish and maintain them. For them the past is clear and unproblematic and is used to relive the history of a people. The Canadian author, historian and former politician Michael Ignatieff is a prominent advocate of this relatively uncommon view.4 The perennialists, or primordialists, believe that nationalism predates modernization and consider it as a primordial instinct that is embedded in human nature and history. The identity of a nation is unchanging even though national forms can change and certain nations can vanish. Perennialists argue that nations are derived directly from ethnic groups and that the feeling of nationalism is based on shared characteristics. From this feeling of nationalism the perception of a nation comes to exist which gives birth to the desire to form a state. In the eyes of the perennialists, the past is of great importance to nationalism. Anthony D. Smith, a renowned perennialist, states that the concepts of nation and nationalism should be treated as cultural phenomena which have historical depth, rather than just ideologies or a form of politics. Therefore he states that nationalism must be closely related to the concept of national identity.5 He regards the collection of myths, symbols, traditional practices
2 McCrone, David, The sociology of nationalism (London 1998) 3.
3 Morris, Nancy, Puerto Rico: Culture politics and identity (Greenwood 1995) 12.
4 Ignatieff, Michael, Blood and belonging. Journeys into the new Nationalism (New York 1995).
5 Smith, Anthony D, National Identity (London 1991) vii.
and other cultural heirlooms – which he refers to as ‘ethnie’ - as an essential fundament for any modern nation.
Modernists see nations as modern, socially constructed entities which owe little to nothing to ethnic heritage. By using the term modern, we refer to the modern era which began approximately in the 16th century. In the modernist view, which is currently the most popular amongst scholars, the past is largely irrelevant for the present. Ernest Gellner, Anthony Smith’s former teacher and a leading modernist scholar, believes that nation and nationalism are modern phenomena which were created by the emergence of industrialization. He argues that the shift from agrarian to industrial society led to the formation of common culture that created unity amongst the people, which led to the feeling of nationalism.6 Eric Hobsbawm also shares the modernist view on nationalism. He states that the basic characteristic of the nation as we know it is its modernity and he agrees with Gellner’s definition of the term nationalism, namely ‘primarily a political principle which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent.’78 According to Hobsbawm and Gellner, nationalism existed before nations did: nationalism feeds on pre-existing cultures and transforms them into nations.9 The last approach we will evaluate is the post-modernist view. The post-modernists agree with modernists that nations are a modern and socially constructed phenomenon. The difference, however, lies with the post-modernists’ believe that the past is important and is employed by political or religious leaders as justification for their actions. These leaders select, blend and even invent traditions from their past to recreate it in their own image. Political and historical scientist Benedict Anderson regards the nation as a modern concept which emerged at the end of the 18th century in response to nationalism in the European diaspora in North and South America. The use of nationalism as an instrument for nation-state building, took root in America and France and is, according to Anderson, a product of modernity, or more specific, capitalism. He believes that a nation is a cultural artefact and defines it as an imagined political community. Anderson uses the term
‘imagined’ as the people living in this community will never know all the other members of that community, yet still feel connected to them.10 According to Anderson, an important development which led to the emergence of imagined communities, was the use of the vernacular language instead of Latin. By encouraging people to speak the vernacular, rather than their own dialect, a feeling of commitment to other people emerged. Anderson states that the first European nation- states which came to exist were founded based on language.11
After shedding some light on the different approaches towards nationalism, we can use this information in determining the definition of nationalism. Nationalism, when conceived in a narrow way, can be described as a bias in favor of one’s own nation. This bias can manifest itself in many different ways and on many levels, such as sentiments, social movements, or state policies. In a more broad view, nationalism can be described as a way of constructing large-scale, especially political, identities based on cultural, linguistic, territorial, historical, and/or racial claims. Nationalism does not presuppose an existing state, as we already observed above. Some scholars, like Ernest 6 Gellner, Ernest, Nations and nationalism (New York 1983).
7 Hobsbawm, Eric, Nations and nationalism since 1780 (New York 1990) 9.
8 Gellner, Nations and nationalism 1.
9 Idem, 14.
10 Anderson, Benedict, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (London 1991) 5-7.
11 Idem 36.
Gellner, even believe that a nation only emerges when the feeling of nationalism is pre-existing. 12 Nationalism thus can exist amongst many groups with an aim for independence and statehood.
After discussing the different perceptions on nationalism, we will take a look at an influential and useful theory on nationalism developed by the Jewish American philosopher and historian Hans Kohn, who is generally seen as the founding father of modern research on nationalism and was an active Zionist. Kohn conceived nationalism as complete loyalty of the individual to the nation-sate.13 According to Kohn, the concept and perception of nationalism are modern ideas which became widespread only as a consequence of the French Revolution. In his writings, he defines two types of nationalism: (1) good and political nationalism, typical for the Western world, and (2) bad and cultural nationalism, which he associated with the non-Western world. Western nationalism arose in countries like England, the Netherlands and the US as a response to the formation of modern states and was based on rational principles. The nature of this nationalism was essentially political and territorial. The cultural nation coincided with the political territory of the state. In Eastern Europa and Asia, nationalism usually came forth when triggered by external aggression and was therefore based on principles such as patriotism and historical memory. In these non-Western societies the nation almost never coincided with the state and nationalism was culturally determined.14 Nowadays, the distinction made by Kohn is still employed by scholars, yet the distinction is made without the ethical judgment of good versus bad, and is rather an objective differentiation between ethnic and civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism describes the nation in terms of common heritage and/or tradition and excludes anyone who does not fulfill this requirement. Civic nationalism disregards such traits and defines the nation based on geographical confinement. Now that we elucidated on the different approaches towards the perception of nations and nationalism, we can take a look at the concept of national identities.
2.2 National identities
One individual can be comprised of multiple ‘identities’ – i.e. cultural, political, emotional, professional etc. - which together form the ‘self’. Identities are usually defined in contrast to ‘others’.
This is done by identification of an ‘other’, after which the own identity is define relative to the
‘other’. As such, ‘identities’ can be regarded as character traits which define a person, specifically.
National identity is one of the contributors to the final ‘self’. This identity is usually stronger and more durable than other identities, as it is strongly influenced by stable, environmental stimuli, and has clear impact on a person’s other identities. For the purpose of this study, we assume that (national) identity is a matter of self-identification. Also in the words of Zygmunt Bauman: ‘identity, though ostensibly a noun, behaves like a verb, albeit a strange one to be sure: it appears only in the future tense.’15
In the previous section on nations and nationalism we observed that there are many views on and approaches towards a definition of these rather elusive entities. Likewise, the definition of national identity is subject to interpretation from different perspectives. Two major approaches are discussed in the context of this work: the perennialists or primordialists view and the constructivists or
12 Gellner, Nations and nationalism.
13 Kohn, Hans, The Idea of nationalism A study in its origins and background (New York 1944) 9.
14 McCrone, David, The sociology of nationalism (London 1998) 8.
15 Bauman, Zygmunt, From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity, in Hall, S and DuGay, P, Questions of cultural identity (London) 19.
modernists view. The primordialists believe that the existence of national identity is a consequence of cultural and/or historical ties that are fixed in the collective memory of the people. The modernists rather think of national identity as a socially constructed and negotiated reality which has a different meaning for each next individual. In very generalized definition of national identity, it is the individual’s sense of belonging to a collective, collectively called a nation.16 It is important to emphasize that national identity is not pre-disposed by country or culture, but self-defined. The perception of family ties and kinship, i.e. the psychological bond, is more important for the individual’s national identity than whether these ties truly exist or how their community is regarded by others. This makes the national identity also a form of ethnic identity.
Anthony Smith distinguishes between two different models which help in the understanding of national identity: the Western and the non-Western (Eastern Europe and Asia) model. Although these models use similar terminology as we saw in the differentiation by Kohn – civic versus ethnic - on different types of nationalism, they share little in content. In the Western (civic) model of national identity, nations are seen as communities whose members are united by a common national history, and local customs and traditions. This implies that the current residence and interaction with the direct environment are the main determinants in the formation of a national identity. Given the influence of the West in the modern world, concepts like history and tradition are also important in the non-Western (ethnic) model of national identity. However, the non-Western model did add some new elements to the concept, which Smith calls an ‘ethnic conception’ of the nation because it emphasizes on the concepts of native culture of a community and place of birth. According to the Western model, individuals have an active choice in deciding to which nation they belong (e.g. by emigration), but according to the non-Western model, the individual is bound to the community in which he was born, regardless of any current or future change in residential state.17 Smith also constructed a list of five fundamental features of national identity; (1) a historic territory, or homeland; (2) common myths and historical memories; (3) a common, mass public culture; (4) common legal rights and duties for all members; (5) a common economy with territorial mobility for members.18
This approach places the collective memories of a culture at the core of national identity. Many contemporary scholars agree that historical narratives are the main contributors in the process of shaping and negotiating national identity.
2.3 Collective memory and invented traditions
The construction of a national identity revolves around an imagined community, which is based on a series of characteristics that are believed to be shared by a certain group of people. These characteristics are derived from stories about the nation, which can be found or witnessed in history books, novels, plays, poems etc. Reports on the past of a people are important to the members and of interest in this context, because the feeling of continuity and connection with the past can be derived from them, which causes and preserves social unity and cohesion. Such stories ensure a feeling of solidarity and belonging by connecting the present of the people with their past.
David McCrone states that history is often redrawn according to the political and cultural needs of the 16 Morris, Puerto Rico: Culture politics and identity 15
17 Smith, National Identity 11.
18 Idem 14.
day.19 The narrative of the nation is told and retold through e.g. national history, literature and media. Through these stories national identity is presented as primordial, even though it can be recent.20 At this point it becomes important to underline that such stories are not necessarily true and sometimes they can even be completely invented. A mythical version of the past can be told;
heroes and dramatic events are employed to achieve political goals and to create a sense of shared historical heritage that transcends certain divisions within the community.21 This subject will be elaborated on later in this chapter.
Yael Zerubavel, who did some extensive research on collective memory and (Israeli) national identity, emphasizes the importance of the past in the process of developing a new national identity in her writings on the creation of a new, national, Israeli tradition and memory. Zerubavel evaluates how the meaning or an interpretation of the past is constructed and how this is modified over time. To understand how roots and memories can be recreated, we will look at the ideas of Maurice Halbwachs, the founding father of the theory of collective memory.
Collective memory can be seen as a tool to maintain the identity of a group and consists of for example stories, artefacts, traditions, symbols and music, which all serve as ties that bind the members of a group together. According to Halbwachs, memory is a social phenomenon which means that our individual memory only develops through communication with other people. He also acknowledges that every group develops especially the memory of those parts of the past, which highlight its unique identity in comparison to other groups.22 Halbwachs states that social construction of memory is influenced by the needs of the present. This means that in order to explain the present, leaders of a group reconstruct the past by choosing which events are remembered and which are eliminated. Furthermore, they change the recollection of events to fit the social narrative.
Pierre Nora built his own theory based on Halbwachs ideas and states that memory is suppressed by history. He argues that groups select certain events and people in history to commemorate or eliminate, and invent traditions to support the collective memory.23
Zerubavel points out that the concept of commemoration is of interest in the transformation of collective memory. She states that collective memory is strengthened by the celebration of a festival, the reading of a tale or the observance of a holiday. Zerubavel introduces the term commemorative narrative, which is different from the original narrative because it undergoes the process of narrativization.24 This means that all individual commemorations add up to form a master commemorative narrative, which is focused on the group’s distinct social identity and provides structure to the collective memory. History is prone to changes due to the passing of time and interpretation by many. Collective memory, however, tends to select particular events and portrays them as symbolic markers of change. This provides a better opportunity for ritualized remembrance, which is important for creating and retaining a national identity. The master commemorative narrative presents these events as turning points in the group’s history that have changed its course
19 McCrone, The sociology of nationalism 47.
20 McCrone, The sociology of nationalism 52.
21 Azaryahu, M and Kellerman A, Symbolic places of national history and revival: a study in Zionist mythical geography in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, 1 (1999) 111.
22 Zerubavel, Yael, Recovered roots, collective memory and the making of Israeli national tradition (Chicago 1995).
23 Nora, P, between memory and history: les lieux de memoires in Representations, 26 (1989), 7-24.
24 Zerubavel, Recovered roots, 6.
significantly. Parallel to the master commemorative narrative, an alternative commemorative narrative can exist, which constitutes a counter memory. This counter memory is not necessarily limited to the construction of just one past event; it can be part of a framework which adopts a different view of the past and opposes the current master commemorative narrative. The tension between the two views can eventually lead to alterations in the collective memory and the counter memory can even be assimilated into the collective memory.25
Azaryahu and Kellerman took a different perspective on the subject and focussed on the importance of collective memory with respect to space and territory in the becoming of a national identity. They state that the link between history and territory is of special importance in the case of a national revival. In such a situation, the conceptualization of a geographical area as national homeland is crucial and can only be achieved by building a strong case based on collective memory. Furthermore, historical places can visualize otherwise elusive concepts and therefore lead to a stronger collective memory.26
A different way of altering memory and history is described in the book The Invention of Tradition by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. They state that the changes that occurred due to modernization destroyed a number of traditions, thus creating a void. In order to fill this void, new traditions had to be established. Due to this development, many traditions encountered today appear or are claimed to be ancient, yet are often recently introduced and sometimes even invented.27 Hobsbawm also states that the seemingly clear distinction between tradition and modernity is in fact an invention by itself. Invented traditions are often used by the elite to manipulate the common folk, but they can be used as well by certain groups to maintain social unity and to prevent falling apart. One example of the latter is the invention of ceremonies and rituals to create a sense of social cohesion. Nowadays, the perception that history is not a product of the past, but rather a tool that is used in the present and for the future is generally accepted. David McCrone even states that all traditions are invented, because they are always constructed for political ends in some way.28
2.4 What type of nationalism is Zionism?
2.4.1 Is Zionism unique?
It is quite clear that Zionism can be described as a type of diaspora or long-distance nationalism. This type of nationalism refers to a nationalist feeling among a diaspora, a scattered people that might share very little, but originally hail from the same geographical area. According to Benedict Anderson, such individuals want to experience a national connection, without having the intention to return back to their homeland. Obviously the Zionists were an exception to this definition, as they did wish to return to their homeland.29 According to Anthony Smith, diaspora nationalism emerged at the end of the nineteenth century. In this, the success of nationalisms in e.g. Italy or Germany served as a stimulus. The diaspora nationalists learned strategies from those successful nationalists and found inspiration in their achievements. Other important stimuli were urbanization and secular education.30
25 Zerubavel, Recovered roots, 6.
26 Azaryahu and Kellerman Symbolic places of national history and revival.
27 Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge 1983).
28 McCrone, Sociology of nationalism 44.
29 Gellner, Nations and nationalism 104.
30 Smith, Anthony D, Myths and memories of the nation (New York 1999).
In answering the question whether Zionism is unique or just another variant of nationalism, we can follow two approaches: the perennialist and the modernist approach. From a perennialist point of view, Zionism is a unique and perennial phenomenon, because the idea of returning to the homeland and Jewish nationalism exists already for a long time. Modernists, on the other hand, believe that Zionism is a modern creation and places Zionism within the European nationalism. Hobsbawm states that Zionist symbolism, history and mythology were the work of frustrated intellectuals.
Anthony Smith does not agree with any of these views and argues that Zionism is partly unique, but also shares certain features with other nationalist movements. In his eyes, the modernists do not pay proper attention to the unique features of each people, which leads to generalization. On the other hand, the perennialists mistook these features for the entire picture and overstate the identity of a Jewish nation. If we perceive Zionism as a unique movement that has existed for ages, we encounter the problem of diaspora that lasted for almost 2000 years. Why did the Jews not want to return to their homeland earlier and why did this change? And how can we speak of continuity between the Jews 2000 years ago and the Israeli Jews from the twenty-first century?31 Such problems set aside, this approach also yield some appealing statements. First of all, one unique Jewish feature is the rich variety of shared memories and traditions over many centuries, which can be found in many different sources and documents. Another unique characteristic of the Jewish nation is its gradual transposition from being situated in a state to a diaspora mode of existence. The result of living in diaspora is expressed in a rich variety of ethnic traditions. These traditions were formed by combining Jewish rituals and beliefs with the customs of the host land. Members of most nationalist movements did not live in exile and thus were not hoping to return to their original homeland. In the most cases nationalism arose as a consequence of suppression in their current homeland.
In conclusion, on one hand, Zionism can be perceived as a form of modern nationalism because it tries to mobilize a people and establish an independent homeland. In this process, as we will observe later, they used whatever cultural and historical materials were available to create a sense of continuity with the past. On the other hand, Zionism does go back to century old traditions and memories and reshapes them into a more secular message, which is quite unique.
2.4.2 Ethnic or civic nationalism?
The question whether Zionism is an ethnic or a civic form of nationalism is a complex one. Zionism was established as a political movement by Theodor Herzl who wanted to integrate the Jews as a nation into the Western culture, which would make it a form of civic nationalism. However, Zionism emerged from a cultural and historical basis and partly in reaction to the aggression to the Jews reflected in for example the pogroms, which sounds more like a form of ethnic nationalism. In order to answer this question, it is important to make the distinction between the two most influential forms of Zionism: the political or Western Zionism of Theodor Herzl and Ahad Ha’am’s cultural or Eastern Zionism.
Theodor Herzl considered the Jewish problem a political one and wanted to establish a sovereign nation under public law for the Jewish people. Ahad Ha’am on the other side believed that the revival of Jewish national culture and history was more important. He saw nationalism as a way to reconnect the Jews to Judaism, not necessarily in a religious way, but more in a cultural way. Establishing settlements in Palestine was sufficient for him; his aim was not to create a sovereign Jewish nation.
31 Smith, Myths and memories of the nation.
He criticized Herzl because, according to him, Herzl saw Zionism too much as a national movement and did not pay enough attention to the Jewish culture. Herzl criticized Ahad Ha’am because in his point of view Ahad Ha’am was not a Zionist and even opposed a Jewish state. Herzl stated that Ahad Ha’am wanted the Jews to unite in the diaspora and stay there.32
Like already shortly explained, according to Hans Kohn, who invented the distinction between the two forms of nationalism, Western nationalism was based on rational principles such as secularization, universal human fraternity and democratic rule. Eastern nationalism was a reaction to external aggression and was therefore based on it expressed principles of patriotism, historical memory, and nationalist mythology. Kohn stated that Hertzl’s nationalism was inspired by German ideas which had a focus on shared descent and race. Therefore Kohn saw Herzl’s Zionism as a form of Eastern nationalism, despite its liberal components. At the other hand, he described Ahad Ha’am’s Zionism as Western Zionism. This was probably because he was a student of Ahad Ha’am and he did not agree with Herzl. In his eyes, Herzl stood for the negative side of Zionism - Eastern nationalism – and Ahad Ha’am portrayed the good side of Zionism - Western nationalism.
This distinction by Hans Kohn is stated a bit too bluntly. First of all, it is quite clear that Ahad Ha’am’s Zionism was more ethnic than Herzl’s Zionism. Second of all, as already stated above, both Herzl and Ahad Ha’am’s Zionism stemmed from a cultural and historical basis and arose in reaction to aggression against the Jews, so it was not completely civic. However, Zionism is also not completely ethnic because it adopted a Western thought and the aim was to create a state which they tried to achieve mainly by political and diplomatic means.
Conclusion
In a really basic way we can explain national identity as an individual’s sense of belonging to a collectivity that calls itself a nation. The nation is an abstract concept but can be defined by a common sense of solidarity among a people. This feeling of solidarity is based on a belief in a common heritage that is shown by for example history, language, religion, culture and territory. There are different ways to create or reshape a collective national identity among a people, but believing in a common heritage and a feeling of shared kinship are of great interest for this process. Therefore history and memory are useful tools in forming a national identity. This can be done by for example changing the memory of a certain group of people and in addition to that, inventing traditions.
Zionism is a special case in the study of nationalism and national identities. At the one hand it is just another form of nationalism, but at the other hand Zionism is a unique phenomenon because, for example, the Jews have a rich variety of shared memories and traditions and the dreaming of returning to their homeland has always been an important part of the Jewish identity. Considering the different theories on nationalism we reviewed in this chapter we can classify Zionism as post- modern. First of all because Zionism only arose in the early twentieth century, even though the Jews had lived in diaspora for almost 2000 years. Would Zionism fit in the nationalistic or perennialistic view, by definition, Zionism should also be at least that old. Therefore we can conclude that it is a modern form of Zionism. Secondly because the past is of great importance in both their vision of the future and their approach towards the establishment of the Jewish state, which disqualifies modernism and leaves us with the post-modernistic view. In terms of national identity it is more 32 Conforti, Y, East and West in Jewish nationalism: conflicting types in the Zionist vision? in Nations and Nationalism 16, 2 (2010) 201–219.
difficult to classify the Zionist movement and the Jewish population. In a way it can be regarded as an adaptation of eastern or ethnic national identity because ethnicity and racial inheritance are a prerequisite for being part of the Jewish community. In the ethnic view one has to be born within a defined geographical confinement to be part of the identity; in Zionism one has to be born within the confinement of ethnicity. Although this is not a perfect match, the resemblance is greater than with the theory of civil national identity as the focus herein lies solely on residential confinement.
3. The festival of Hanukkah and the Maccabean revolt
The festival of Hanukkah originated during the Hellenistic period, in the second century B.C.E. A small group of Jews revolted against the Seleucid Empire that was ruling Judaea at that time. To celebrate their victory, the festival of Hanukah, which lasts eight days, was established and celebrated each year. This chapter is dedicated to the historical context in which the festival of Hanukkah originated and we will take a look at the Maccabean revolt that was to become the subject of celebrations during this festival. In the second part of the chapter, the festival itself, its meaning and its (changing) traditions will be covered.
3.1 The Maccabean revolt
The Maccabees was the name given to the family who led the revolt against the Seleucids in the second century B.C.E. This family consisted of priests from the village Modi’in, Mattathias, and his five sons. At first the name Maccabee was only given to one of the sons and the leader of the revolt, Judah, whose nickname was Judah the Maccabeus or Judah the Maccabee. Later this name was applied to the whole group of rebellions. The meaning and origin of the name is uncertain, but is probably derived from the Hebrew word for hammer. However, the Rabbis state that the name is an acronym for “Mi Chamocha Ba-elim, Adonai”, which means “who is like God among the gods?”
The Maccabees’ aim was to discredit the priestly line that had brought to power the High Priests who collaborated with the Greeks and were strongly Hellenized. They also fought against the Seleucid Empire that ruled over Judea and were known for their violent approach. Simon, one of Judah’s brothers, founded the Hasmonean dynasty after the revolt. This dynasty ruled over Judaea between 142 and 63 B.C.E. This is the reason the Maccabees are also known as the Hasmoneans.33 The Maccabees, or Hasmoneans, have different images, as well as in their time as today, some see them as national liberators and others see them as violent religious fanatics.
It is difficult to completely and truly reconstruct the story of the Maccabean revolt, for there are only few sources available which write about this event. Also, there are different views on what happened exactly during the revolt and what caused the Maccabees to revolt against the Seleucids. The different perspectives these sources offer on the event that would lead to the origination of the Hanukkah festival lead to differences in interpretation of the nature and customs of the festival.
Further complicating factors for the analysis of this part of history, is the fact that writings on (the history of) the Maccabees are solely available from Jewish authors, as Greek sources narrating on the subject are either lost or have never existed. Furthermore, the available sources were composed long after the described events. Due to this, it is plausible that legends are interwoven with the historical facts and for this reason, such sources are no fully reliable. In this first part of the chapter we review the different sources that give detail on the Maccabean revolt and try to analyze which parts could be fact and which are likely to be fiction. In doing so, we will try to reconstruct the story of the
33 Satlow, Michael, Creating Judaism. History, tradition, practice (New York 2006) 107.
Maccabean revolt in order to give the reader an idea of the events that led to the establishment of the festival of Hanukkah.
3.2 Sources
The Maccabean revolt and the establishment of the festival of Hanukkah are described in different sources. In this part of the chapter we will take look at the most important sources in an attempt to reconstruct the story as far as possible.
3.2.1 1 Maccabees
The first book of Maccabees is a book written by a Jewish author at the second part of the second century B.C.E. The book is considered the only existing historical source dealing with this period. The name of the author is unknown, but he was almost certainly an eyewitness of the described events.34 It is clear that the author was an admirer of the Maccabean dynasty. Even though the book is originally written in Hebrew, only the Greek translation still exists. The book is not part of the Tenach and has no official religious status in Judaism. It however does have a strong historical value.
The story of the book of 1 Maccabees covers the events from about 185 to 135 BC.E and tells the story of the Maccabee family. The first two chapters present an explanation of the history shortly before the revolt. They describe how some Jews adopted certain practices originating from the gentiles and how Mattathias and his sons fought against these Hellenized Jews. In later chapters, the military exploits of Judah the Maccabee are described as well as how he captured and rededicated the Temple. In the final chapters, after Judah’s death is described, the deeds of his brothers Jonathan and Simon are told. The book is written from a political perspective and the purpose of the book is probably to justify the military deeds of the Maccabees.35
3.2.2 2 Maccabees
The second book of Maccabees was composed in the same period as 1 Maccabees, but was written in Greek and not in Hebrew as 1 Maccabees. The book offers a different perspective on the same events and focusses mainly on the accomplishments of Judah Maccabee. The book starts off with two letters written by Jews from Jerusalem to Jews of Egypt in which they ask them to observe the festival of Hanukkah. The book covers a shorter period than 1 Maccabees, from 175 to 161 B.C.E. The author tries to provide a theological interpretation for the events. The text mainly revolves around the conception that the sin of the nation, e.g. serving alien forces, causes divine punishment. In 2 Maccabees the revolt is mainly described as a struggle between Judaism and Hellenism.36 Even though the author was probably a supporter of the Maccabean dynasty, he cannot be seen as hostile towards Hellenized Jews, because he himself writes in Greek. An interesting feature of 2 Maccabees is that the festival celebrated after the rededication of the Temple is called the festival of Tabernacles, or Sukkot, during which the 40 years of dwelling in the desert after the Jewish exodus from Egypt is commemorated.37 Some scholars argue that the festival of Hanukkah is actually a delayed celebration of the festival of Sukkot. We will elaborate on this subject later in this work.
34 Bickerman, The god of the Maccabees 95.
35 Bartlett, John R, 1 Maccabees (1998).
36 Satlow, Creating Judaism, 99.
37 Regev, Eyal, Hanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees: Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon in Jewish Studies Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), pp. 87-114.
There are many differences between 1 and 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees completely omits Mattathias and only focusses on the life of Judah. Also 2 Maccabees is inconsistent in the order of the events and vague about the geography. Furthermore, 2 Maccabees has a religious character while 1 Maccabees is more secular and political. Despite these differences and the fact that they have different aims, both writers appear to be supporters of the revolt. Furthermore the historical content of both stories seem in line with one another.38
3.2.3 The book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel is probably the latest composition in the Hebrew Bible and is placed among the Writings but in the Christian Bible the book is part of the Prophets. It is unlikely that the book is written by the prophet Daniel himself, who lived according to the Bible in the sixth century B.C.E. The book is probably written by anonymous authors in the middle of the second century B.C.E.39 The book, which is partly composed in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew, is divided into two parts: chapters 1-6 cover a set of stories about Daniel and his friends who lived in exile. These stories should not be interpreted as historical events but rather as exemplary stories which carry moral teachings.
Controversy exists on the question if the prophet Daniel has ever existed, or whether he was just used to serve as a model for Jews who lived in the Diaspora.40 Chapters 7–12 describe different visions that Daniel received, which are then explained to him by an angel. Unlike the first six chapters, these visions focus on events in Jerusalem. While there is no mention of any names, it is apparent that the visions reflect the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus and the Maccabean revolt. A general consensus exists that the book of Daniel has been written in support of the Maccabean revolt.41 The message which the authors of the book try to deliver is that the God of Israel saved Daniel and his friends from their enemies, and so would he save the whole people of Israel.42 As the book of Daniel is not written with the intent to give information about the Maccabean revolt and no mention of names or dates is given, it is challenging to get useful information about the Maccabean revolt from this source.
3.2.4 Josephus
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, based his recollection of the Maccabean revolt on 1 Maccabees, supplemented by material from 2 Maccabees.43 In book 12, chapter 5 through book 13, chapter 7 of his book Jewish Antiquities44, which he completed in 93 AD, he describes the origins of the festival of Hanukkah. He also shortly describes the events in book 1, chapters 3-6 of his book The Jewish War which he wrote around 75 AD. It is unlikely that he used any other sources than the books of Maccabees. The differences between 1 Maccabees and Josephus’ writings are thus due to changes which he applied himself. For example, he altered the content of speeches by Mattathias and Judah so that they would fit better in Josephus’ own view on wars. Another difference between the texts by Josephus and the books of the Maccabees is that Josephus calls the festival of Hanukkah the festival of lights, whereas this term is never used in the books of the Maccabees. Apparently, the festival of 38 Bartlett, John R, 1 Maccabees.
39 Goldingay, John E, World Biblical Commentary. Daniel (1989).
40 Collins, A short introduction, 278-292.
41 Ferch, Arthur, J, The book of Daniel and the Maccabean thesis in Andrews university seminary studies 1983, Vol. 21, No. 2, 129-141.
42 Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha (1999) 109.
43 Gafni, Isaia, M. Jospehus and 1 Maccabees in Josephus, the Bible and history edited by Feldman, L and Hata Gohei (1988 Detroit) 116.
44 English translation online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=J.+AJ+12.287&redirect=true.
Hanukkah was known as the festival of lights in Josephus’ time. He believed that the festival is called Lights, because the Maccabees were content upon winning their liberty.
"Now Judah celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices;
and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival.”45
We will go into further detail on the discussion about the name of the festival later in this chapter.
3.2.5 The Babylonian Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and consist of two parts. The first part is the Mishna, which does not mention the story of Hanukkah at all. This work, which was the first major work of Rabbinic literature and consists of legal opinions and debate, was compiled around 220 CE by Rabbi Yehuda NaHasi. The Mishna was probably written because of the violent attitude towards the Jews at that time. This violence gave rise to the fear of forgetting details about the traditions that were orally transmitted until that time. A possible explanation as of why the story of the Maccabean revolt and the festival of Hanukkah are not mentioned in the Mishna is that many of the laws connected to Hanukkah were so well know at that time that the writer deemed it redundant to write them down and provide an explanation. It can also be hypothesized that the Romans, under whose rule the Jews lived at that time, did not tolerate such a strong manifestation of nationalism and that the authors feared repercussions.
The second part of the Talmud , the Gemara, is written around 500 AD and consists of rabbinical analysis of and commentaries on the Mishna. The Gemara does mention the festival of Hanukkah in the tractate that discusses the lighting of the candles on Shabbat.
“What is 'Hanukah? The rabbis taught: "On the twenty-fifth day of Kislev 'Hanukah commences and lasts eight days, on which lamenting (in commemoration of the dead) and fasting are prohibited.
When the Hellenists entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oil that was found there. When the government of the House of Hasmoneans prevailed and conquered them, oil was sought (to feed the holy lamp in the sanctuary) and only one vial was found with the seal of the high priest intact. The vial contained sufficient oil for one day only, but a miracle occurred, and it fed the holy lamp eight days in succession. These eight days were the following year established as days of good cheer, on which psalms of praise and acknowledgment (of God's wonders) were to be recited.”46
This is the first appearance in any source of the miracle with the oil that was only enough to sustain the flame for one day, yet turned out to be sufficient to keep the lamp fed for eight days. The Talmud only briefly refers to the festival and solely mentions the miracle and the need to light candles, without explaining why. The fact that the story about the miracle of the oil is mentioned for the first
45 Jospehus, Jewish Antiquities xii. 7, § 7.
46 Tractate Shabbat chapter 2.
time in this source, indicates that this story was a rabbinic invention. This subject will be touched upon later in this chapter.
3.2.6 Megillat Antiochus
The scroll of Antiochus recounts the wars of the Hasmoneans and of the origin of Hanukkah. It is probably written at the end of the Talmudic period, between the second and the fifth century CE. It is written in Aramaic and later translated into Hebrew and also in Arabic. The identity of the author is unknown, but from the content of the scroll it is obvious that he had no idea of what actually happened during the Maccabean revolt. It is also clear that he did not use any historical sources for his texts. Most likely, the scroll is written to be recited at the Hanukkah festival.47 The scroll states that King Antiochus wanted to destroy the Jewish people, because they adhered to another law and other customs than his and because he believed that they wanted to dominate the world. Antiochus sends his chief commander to Jerusalem to defile the temple and he orders him to kill the Jews. Jonathan, son of the high priest Mattathias, kills this man and attacks his army in response.
Antiochus sends yet another man to Jerusalem with the same objective but this man is also defeated by Jonathan and his brothers. Later on, the same man returns with a new army and at that point Judah Maccabee makes his appearance in the story. He defeats the army and captures Antiochus’
man, but dies during the fight. The Jews are consecrating the Temple and Antiochus throws himself in the sea after he heard that his man was captured by Mattathias and his men. After the Maccabees regained control over the Temple, they wanted to burn ritual oil to purify it but they found only enough oil for one day. They lit the menorah and it miraculously burned for eight days in a row.
3.3 The Maccabean revolt: the generally accepted view
In 175 B.C.E Anthiochus IV became king of the Seleucid Empire, which was in control of Judea at that time. Jason, brother to the High Priest, went to the Anthiochus and requested him to promote him to high priest of Jerusalem in exchange for a large sum of money. Since the time of king David, the high priesthood was passed on from father to son, but with this violation of successive rights, this tradition died.48 Jason transformed Judea from an autonomous and traditional Jewish city into a Greek city- state implementing some radical reforms. These reforms where unacceptable for a number of Jews, because they did not want to adopt the Greek culture and religion, which was fundamentally different from their own. After a few years Jason was replaced by Menelaus, who was not part of the priestly family at all and even more Hellenized than Jason. It is unsure whether the Jews started to rebel in this early stage already. In 169 B.C.E, when Antiochus came back from his travels to Egypt, he plundered the Temple, ordered it to be dedicated to Zeus, forbade Jewish practice and punished those who would not obey severely. It is not clear why Antiochus started to persecute the Jews, given that religious persecution was extremely rare in Greco-Roman antiquity and the Hellenistic culture was highly tolerant towards local religions.49 The reaction to the reforms among the Judeans was not uniform. Many amongst them accepted the reforms and adopted the Greek culture, some fled to Egypt and some resisted. A resistance movement arose, led by a man named Mattathias, a priest from the village of Modi’in. The resisters began a violent guerrilla war against the Jewish collaborators by destroying pagan altars and involuntarily circumcising boys. After Mattathias died, 47 Bickerman, Elias, The God of the Maccabees: studies on the meaning an origin of the Maccabean revolt (Leiden 1979) 100.
48 Coogan, Micheal D, The Old Testament. A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew scriptures (New York 2006) 507.
49 DeLange Nicholas, The illustrated history of the Jewish people (Boston 1997) 25.
his son Judah, known as Judah the Maccabee, took over the leadership of the resistance. The king sent his minister Lysias to end the revolt, but Judah and his troops consistently defeated their enemies. In 164 B.C.E, without a clear reason, Lysias cancelled the persecution of the Jews and offered amnesty to rebels who stopped fighting. Later that year, Judah and his men seized the Temple Mount, expelled the Hellenized Jews and purified the Temple. The Temple was rededicated to the God of Israel on the 25th day of the month of Kislev, which is around November/December on the Gregorian calendar. The feast after this rededication lasted eight days. It was decided that the festival would be established as an annual holiday and was called the festival of Hanukkah, the Hebrew word for dedication.
Several inhabitants went to Lysias, who had gained more power after Antiochus IV died, to complain about Judah’s behaviour. Upon receiving the complaints, Lysias returned to Jerusalem and defeated Judah. At the moment he wanted to seize the Temple Mount, Jerusalem was taken over by another minister, Philip, and Lysias was compelled to abandon his siege. Lysias restored the Jews’ right to live according to the Torah and let the Jews worship their God again in the Temple. Judah, however, continued his war. Up until that moment Judah and his followers received quite a lot of support as they claimed they were fighting for the Judean nation and the Temple and the Torah. However, they lost a lot of support when they continued fighting after Lysias restored the Jews’ rights and left Jerusalem. A possible explanation for Judah and his men continuing their war is that they wanted to make Judea an independent state, which at that time was not a popular idea among the Judeans.
Judah the Maccabee was killed by the Seleucids in 160 B.C.E and leadership over the dynasty was passed to his brother Jonathan.
3.4 Other perspectives on the Maccabean revolt
Several historians tried to give an explanation for the persecution of the Jews and the outbreak of the revolt. Historian John Ma states that the Jews were not persecuted at all, but that the Seleucids just took some administrative measures as punishment for the rebellion. As a result of these measures, the Jews did lose some of their civil and religious rights, even their Temple, but there was no actual persecution. Using this theory, Ma solves the problem that it was very unusual for the Greeks to persecute a people because of their religious beliefs. The Temple was probably used by the Greeks for their own religious practice, built on the cult of Zeus, and hosted festivals and sacrifices for the king.
Ma states that upon the death of Antiochus IV the Jews presented a petition to the governor of the Seleucids after which all punishments of the Jews were reversed. He believes that the group of Jews who presented the governor with this petition were not the Maccabees, but were Jews under leadership of the Hellenised high priest Menelaus. This means that not the Maccabees, but Menelaus played the main role in regaining the Temple. Ma thinks that the story of the Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Temple by Judah is a fictional story promoted by the Hasmonean dynasty. He states that although the group was successful, they could have been only one among many actors in processes of unrest or negotiation.50
Steven L. Derfler states that there were several major events which led to the break out of the revolt.
He does believe that a persecution did occur, and tries to solve the problem of why Anthiochus persecuted the Jews by changing the order of the events. The first reason for the revolt to start were internal conflicts between the Jews. On one hand, the Hellenised Jews and on the other hand the 50 Ma, John, Re-examining Hanukkah (2013) online article: http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/re-
examining-hanukkah/.
Jews that did not accept the changes and did not want to adjust to the new culture. The second event was Antiochus’ journey to Egypt to strengthen the southern part of his kingdom, which failed because the Romans provided support for Egypt. After Antiochus travelled to Egypt he returned to Jerusalem and executed many Jews, probably to set an example for the rest of his empire. After the military intervention by Antiochus, some Jews started a rebellion after which Antiochus persecuted the Jews and forbade them to practice their religion. The Jews who didn’t agree with Antiochus’ measures finally started the revolt. In short, Derfler states that Antiochus attacked the Jews to set an example and only started to persecute them after they began to revolt.51
Ellias Bickerman also believes that the persecution took place, but questions the nature of and the reasons for the persecution. He does not believe that the persecution was an idea of Antiochus himself, but that it was initiated after being pressured by Hellenized Jews who wanted to integrate and to eliminate the differences between Jews and non-Jews. According to Bickerman, they requested Antiochus to forbid their people to live according to the Jewish law and to perform their religious actions.52
John J. Collins states that the reason why Antiochus started to suppress the Jewish religion remains unclear until this day. However, he does give a reason for Antiochus’ attack on Jerusalem. Collins derived from the book of Daniel that, while Antiochus was in Egypt, the former high priest Jason and the current high priest Menelaus started a civil war in Jerusalem. Antiochus was ordered to withdraw from Egypt by the Romans and he obeyed reluctantly. He thought that the civil war in Jerusalem was a revolt and he send in his troops to take out his frustrations about the failed mission in Egypt on the Judeans.53
3.5 The festival of Hanukkah
The festival of Hanukkah is celebrated every year on the 25th of the month Kislev and lasts for eight days. There are different explanations for this duration of the festival. In the Mishna it is written that the purification of the Temple after the victory of the Hasmoneans took eight days and that this is the reason why they celebrated for eight days afterwards. Another explanation can be that the festival was modeled after the festival of Sukkot. Some people even believe that Hanukkah was actually a deferred celebration of Sukkot, which could not be celebrated before the rededication of the Temple.54
Over the course of the ages, the festival of Hanukkah has also been referred to as the Festival of Lights. The difference in name is reflected by the different functions the festival fulfilled. The name Hanukkah has a religious meaning and focusses on dedication of the Temple while the name Festival of Lights refers also to national liberty. However, after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the Jews lost their state, the focus on national liberty disappeared and the name Hanukkah remained.55
The kindling of the lights of a special menorah with 8 candles, or hanukiah, is an important part of the celebration of the festival of Hanukkah. Each night this hanukiah is lit and on each night, while singing 51 Derfler, S, The Hasmonean revolt, Rebellion or revolution (New York 1989).
52 Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees.
53 Collins, John J, A short introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis 2007) 286.
54 Rocca, Samuel, Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World (2008) 190.
55 Zeitlin, Solomon, Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance in The Jewish Quarterly Review 29,1 (1938) 1-36.
