POLITICS AN DSOCIETY 33
The debate about the character of the revolt, which gradually coalesced
under the leadership of the Hasmonean family after the imposition of the
royal reforms, may be more easily resolved. A close reading of the sources
does not sustain Tcherikover’s view of the Maccabean revolt as a mass popular
uprising. 1–2 Maccabees consistently describe the rebel forces as being small,
enjoying only fluctuating popular support, and having enemies even apart
from the relatively small numbers of radical reformists. Indeed, the Hasmone-
ans’ initial military opposition to the Seleucids ended in failure with the death
of Judah and the routing of his army in 161; Jonathan emerged as a leading
figure in Judaea only in 152, under circumstances that cannot be recon-
structed due to the failure of 1 Maccabees to say anything at all about the
previous eight years. The dynasty was established only after having risen
through the ranks as Seleucid courtiers, and, once established, had to deal
not only with royal treachery but with unceasing domestic opposition. In sum,
Bickerman was surely right to argue that the revolt was the work of a commit-
ted minority, not the Jewish masses. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suppose,
following Joseph Sievers, that it succeeded, ultimately, by patching together
an inherently unstable coalition of different and competing interest groups.^35
It is, finally, clear that the eruption in 164 of a century-long war of succession
in Antioch was essential for Hasmonean success—a point made already by
Tacitus (Histories5.8.3) and obvious from even a cursory reading of 1 Macca-
bees: the constant warfare in Syria generated for the pretenders an enduring
need for vassals who disposed of manpower, apart from making them ever less
competent to press their proprietary claims over their subjects. Hasmonean
independence was always contingent on Seleucid weakness and came to an
end when the Seleucid empire expired in 63B.C.E.^36
Why the Hasmoneans FoughtScholars have occasionally doubted the Hasmoneans’ claim to have been
priests of the order of Yehoyarib—another unresolvable debate.^37 It seems cer-
tain, though, that the family resisted neither Jason’s reforms nor Antiochus’s,
at first. In fact, whatever their ancestry, their ties to Jerusalem seem initially
to have been weak; they were influential mainly in their native town, Modein,
in the western part of the border zone between Judaea and Samaria.^38 They
thus constituted another case of a peripheral but aggressive family exploiting
local disorder to seize power at the center, like the Tobiads earlier and the
(^35) The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters from Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1990).
(^36) See Gruen,Heritage and Hellenism, 18–22.
(^37) See M. Smith,Studies in the Cult of Yahweh(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:320–26.
(^38) See J. Schwartz and J. Spanier, “On Mattathias and the Desert of Samaria,”RB98 (1991):
252–71.