Judah (Judaea) had suffered foreign rule for centuries. First they were conquered by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians and Persians. (But they praised Cyrus I for releasing those who had been marched off into the Babylonian Exile). Next came Alexander the Conqueror, whose empire reached from the eastern Mediterranean to the border of India. His Macedonian generals split up its domains between them, with the Ptolemaic dynasty taking Egypt (and for a brief time Judaea), while the Seleucids took Syria, Iraq, Iran, and then Judaea. 

Several generations of Seleucid kings ruled over Judaea, while allowing a degree of Jewish autonomy. During this period, the country underwent considerable hellenization. The situation changed dramatically under Antiochus IV, who gave himself the title Epiphanes (“god manifest”). His many detractors referred to him as Epimanes, “the mad.” Antiochus deposed the high priest at the Second Temple and installed his own man, amidst various briberies and thefts of sacred objects. causing considerable unrest. (There’s more to this, which we’ll come to in a later chapter.) Thwarted in his attempt to take Egypt, and humiliated by the Romans, Antiochus turned on Judaea:

Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery. [ 2 Maccabees 5:11–14, in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes ]

     Antiochus IV also outlawed and persecuted Jewish religious ceremonies and customs, and turned the Temple in Jerusalem over to the worship of Zeus. Diodorus Siculus described his deliberate desecrations, in which Antiochus “sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses [which never existed], and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books… should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine's flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine's flesh.”[ Diodorus, Bibliotheca historica 34:1.4, attalus.org/translate/diodorus34.html]

These outrages provoked an insurrection that eventually overthrew the Seleucid rule, though it also involved conflict between traditional and hellenized Jews. The Revolt of the Maccabees began when the Jewish priest Mattathias the Hasmonean refused to worship a Greek god, and killed a hellenized Jew who was about to do so in his place. He and his five sons fled into the wilderness and began a guerilla war, destroying pagan altars in the villages. Mattathias died, but his son Judah Maccabee was victorious and retook Jerusalem in 166 bce.

They purified the Temple and restored the ceremonies, installing one brother as the high priest. The feast of Hanukkah commemorates this victory and the miracle of the oil lamps, which continued burning for eight nights on one small jar of undefiled oil. Meanwhile, Antiochus died in the East while fighting the Persians, by some accounts after attacking the temple of the goddess Nanaia. [Kosmin 2016]

The Maccabees founded a new dynasty, the Hasmonean, and continued expanding the lands under their control, to Perea across the Jordan, then to the Mediterranean. They did not succeed in totally throwing off Seleucid rule until 129 bce. By that time they had massively expanded the lands under their rule. They conquered the desert region of Edom and forced the Idumaeans to convert to Judaism. (The Edomites were considered to be the descendants of Esau, as Israelites were of Jacob, in the biblical story.) We’ll forego details of the Hasmonean dynasty to look at a woman who survived its power struggles to become queen of Judaea.

Shlomtzion ha-Malkah

Queen Shlomtzion is usually referred to by her hellenized name Salome Alexandra. She was the sister of Simeon ben Shetach, a prominent Pharisee who served as head of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court. She married the Hasmonean prince Aristobulus I, and later, after rescuring him from prison, his brother Alexander Jannaeus. But this second husband, Alexander Jannaeus, was a violent tyrant. At one point Shlomtzion had to hide her brother, along wth other Pharisees, to protect his life. “The queen's accession brought freedom to hundreds whom Alexander had sent to languish in dungeons, and liberty to return home to thousandswhom the same cruel monarch had driven into exile.” [www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1167-alexandra]

Shlomtzion became the only Jewish queen regnant—ruling in her own right for nine  years—and the last independent ruler of her country. Coins were issued in her name. She successfully defended Judaea from attacks by Ptolemy Menneus, and in 70 bce, she warded off the Armenian king Tigranes, who controlled Syria at the time. Shlomtzion was the only woman out of only 18 people named in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [Atkinson, 133–34] Rabbinical legend recalls her reign as a golden age of peace and prosperity, a time when wheat, oats, and lentils grew to prodigious sizes. [Ta'anit, 23a; Sifra, ḤuḲḲat, i. 110, in www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1167-alexandra] But her path to the throne was difficult, best summarized by Sheila Michaels:



She survived two murderous husbands, the elder of whom [Aristobulus I] starved his mother to death in his dungeons. The second husband was forever grateful to her for freeing him from said dungeon, when she had to choose one of her late husband’s brothers for a levirate marriage. Her husbands crucified hundreds of opponents and converted nations by the sword. When the second husband died, he named her as his successor, knowing that no one else could make peace. It was she who instituted universal elementary education in Judaea. Unfortunately, at her death, girls’ education was eliminated. It was also she who fostered peace with the Pharisees and became an advocated for their much more democratic religious outlook. Her reign was the only time there was peace in the Jewish commonwealth. [“Re: Hidden Women,” Sept 8, 1999, [email protected], ANAHITA listserv, University of Kentucky]

Until recently, most references to this piece of women’s history (with the exception of little-known pasages in the Talmud) go by the misogynist accounts of Flavius Josephus. Against all evidence that her reign was the most peaceful and successful in centuries, he blamed Salome Alexandra for “a vast number of hazards and misfortunes, and this out of a desire of what does not belong to a woman… and by leaving the administration destitute of a proper support of great men….” Josephus even condemned Shlomtzion for the disorder caused by her son, Aristobulus II, who declared himself king as she near death. The queen had tried to keep her two sons from battling over the throne, and Hyrcanus II did what he could to placate his brother, but this fell apart. The two princes wound up appealing to Rome, giving an opening to general Pompey to take over the country, which he promptly did.

Into the breach came Antipater the Idumaean, who had allied with Hyrcanus II, and was married to a Nabataean noblewoman, Cypros. In 41 bce, Julius Caesar appointed him as procurator of Judaea. Antipater appointed his own sons as regional governors. His son Herod married Mariamne, who was Hasmonean royalty on both sides, and the great-grand-daughter of Salome Alexandra. Herod seized control, becoming a Roman puppet king, and got the Senate to designate him “king of the Jews.” Herod I began a new dynasty, marred by even more bloodshed, betrayal and intrigue than his predecessors. Much has been made of the enmity between Salome I, sister of Herod, and Mariamne, who taunted her about her non-royal Idumaean and Nabataean ancestry, which she deemed ignoble. Salome was not one to put up with the insults, and retaliated by falsely accusing her of adultery, causing the wildly jealous Herod to execute her. [See Mowczko (2015) on the verbal abuse of Salome and her revenge.]

None of this behavior is praiseworthy; but what historians have done, then and since, is to emphasize the conflict between the court women over the far more violent deeds of Herod. Many have  blamed Salome for the king’s crimes, attempting to “prove” that power in the hands of women is disastrous. But the power of Herodian women depended on the whims of men. Salome had to marry the men chosen by her brother, twice, and saved the life of her second husband from him. She later divorced him (scandalizing Josephus); but Herod prevented her from marrying the man she loved. Instead he  compelled her to a third marriage, to Alexas, based on his own political interests. These royal women did not control their own lives, or bodies. Instead they found ways to subvert or defy men who held lordship over them.

Herod had imprisoned some Jewish aristocrats and given orders for them to be executed if he died. Salome and Alexas instead released these political prisoners, saving their lives. (Notoriously, Herod twice ordered, purely out of jealousy, that his wife Mariamne be put to death if he died during his dangerous diplomatic journeys.) [Mowczko (2015) gives an overview—but reproduces the misogynist bias of Josephus, starting with her header “Salome’s Part in Herod’s Domestic Troubles.”] Marg Mowczko quotes the lament of Josephus that poor Herod (cruel as he was) could not enjoy any comfort from his relatives, not even his sister. Only in the footnotes do we learn that “Salome’s prominence in the histories concerning Herod may be an attempt to make her the scapegoat of Herod’s wicked deeds.” Among those crimes are his murders of his own relatives, and of all the surviving Hasmoneans. [See Mowczko (2015), note 40] But in a later footnote she quotes Tal Ilan, who gives the real context:

“For this period, Josephus relied heavily on the works of Herod’s court historian Nicolaus of Damascus, and our picture of Salome is marred by the latter’s personal feud with her. Herod’s personal life was full of intrigue and violence. Nicolaus used Salome as a decoy, to divert the reader’s wrath at these deeds away from her brother. Thus she is described as being the instigator of all the ‘tragedies’ that befell Herod.” Later, Ilan continues, Salome’s attempt to marry the man she love was thwarted “simply because the decision was not hers to make, even though she was twice a widow and her father long dead; her brother Herod was the one with the authority to decide, and he ruled against the match.” Jewish Women, 80. [“Salome.” In Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia, 20 March 2009. Jewish Women’s Archive. http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/salome]

The writings of Josephus are rife with woman-hating comments, so it is unsurprising to learn that his own marriages turned out badly. His first wife divorced him, and he divorced his second wife as well. Josephus condemned Salome I for initiating divorce to her second husband, disregarding Jewish law in favor of “the law of her authority.” [Mowczko (2015), notes 28 and 31] God’s law upheld the authority of men, which women ought to obey withoout question.

The last important piece has to do with the Pharisees. Shlomtzion had close family ties with the head of the Sanhedrin, and she protected the Pharisees from her husband’s persecution as best she could. Yet some sources paint the dying king advising her to ally with them, as if this was not her natural inclination. [See for example this article, which makes it look like the alliance with Pharisees was her husband’s idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees] Shlomtzion knew they would help her  navigate a court riven with intrigue and backbiting.

The new widow knew she was in danger of being forced to marry an ambitious power-seeker, as happened to many widowed queens in the region for thousands of years. For example, after the death of Tutankhamun, Ankhenesamun wrote letters to the Hittite king offering marriage to one of his sons. He couldn't believe it, and the high priest Ay, who was an old man, was able to make himself pharaoh by forcing the queen to marry him.

Shlomtzion’s initiation of universal education was actively aligned with the democratic objectives of the Pharisees. But wait: weren’t the Pharisees tyrannical authoritarians? Christian scriptures would have us think so, castigating them as haughty, obsessed with outward appearances and insisting on the letter of the law. In the book of Matthew, Yeshua calls them “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “snakes” and “a brood of vipers,” among other insults. [Matthew 23: 13-33] Well, they did call him demon-possessed, so he had reasons to denounce them. But the larger historical context is left out of the accounts in the gospels.

The Pharisees were one of two religious parties, with the political dimensions that word suggests, that dominated Jewish religion. The Sadducees (Tzedukim) were an aristocratic and priestly sect, said to be named after Zadok, the high priest in Solomon’s time. They maintained the Temple and performed the sacrifices. The Pharisees (Perushim, “separated ones”) prioritized the study and interpretation of Jewish law. Josephus summed up their differences: “... the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.” [Antiquities of the Jews 13.298. It’s been suggested that Joseph was himself a Pharisee.]

While the Sadducees recognized only the five books of Torah, the Pharisees included books of the Prophets (Nevi’im) and Writings (Ketuvim). The rabbinical movement grew out of their study and interpretation of these texts and religious observances. After destruction of the temple, this learning was codified in the Mishnah, around 200 CE. Also called the oral Torah, these were the first books of the Talmud. The Pharisees are first mentioned in the Christian gospels, and then by Josphus, who lists them among four Jewish sects, the others being the Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots (who were dedicated to overthrowing Roman rule).

Even within the Pharisees, there existed different schools of thought, exemplified by Shammai and Hillel the Elder. When a gentile told Shammai that he would convert if he could teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot, he turned him away. But when he asked Hillel the same question, he answered simply, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary—now go and study.” [Talmud, Shabbat 31a. Shammai was a builder, showing his working class origin.] The famous “golden rule” saying of Yeshua (“Do unto others…”) has been compared to this older tradition, although most Christians remain unaware of the Judaic precedent.

The grandson of Hillel was Gamaliel. Christian gospels refer to him several times, as a member of the Sanhedrin and as the teacher of Paul of Tarsus. [Acts 5; 22:3] He dissuaded members of the Sanhedrin who wanted to execute Yeshua’s disciples for defying their order to stop preaching: “I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” [Acts 5:34-40]

Gamaliel is also known for curbing husbands’ unilateral right to divorce, by imposing economic conditions on them, and for easing the obstacles to a woman’s remarriage by requiring only one witness to her husband’s death. [Yevamot 16:7. These are mitigations of a law code that remained deeply patriarchal.]

The reputation of the Pharisees as sticklers about the law may be somewhat unwarranted, since it was the Sadducees who were strict literalists. One illustration of this is the famous dictum, “An eye for an eye.” The Sadducee position was to put out the offender’s own eye; but the Pharisees reasoned that he  must instead compensate the injured person with the value of an eye (determined judicially).

A last intriguing piece about Gamaliel and the Pharisees is very far from the stereotype of dry legalisms, is their ecstatic worship, with dancing, clapping, singing, moaning, and sometimes calisthenic or even acrobatic movements. [Chilton 2004: 36. But Bruce Chilton is the only source I’ve found that mentions it.]