Simon Maccabee being made high priest (colorized). Die Bibel in Bildern 1860.
The Hasmonean Calendar Begins with the Rule of Simon the High Priest, 142 B.C.E.
Chanukah commemorates the rededication of the Temple by Judah Maccabee in 164 B.C.E. But the war continued for another 22 years until the Seleucid King Demetrius appointed Simon as High Priest of Judea. To mark their new autonomy, the Judeans use the high priest’s regnal years, like that of a biblical king, to date their documents.
Published: December 19, 2022
|
Last Updated: September 7, 2026
He ruled 145–138 B.C.E., and then again from 129–125, B.C.E.
On Seleucid time see Paul J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018). On Jewish conceptions of time and methods of time keeping, see Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE - 10th Century CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
This letter, which the author of 1 Maccabees presents as a direct quote, as well as the other documents discussed here are regarded as authentic (or at least based on originals probably found in the Hasmonean archives) by the majority of scholars. See the discussion in John Ma, “Seleukids and Speech-Acts: Performative Utterances, Legitimacy and Negotiation in the World of the Maccabees,” Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (2000): 71–112.
Translation is mine. The letter continues:
1 Macc 13:38 What was already established before you stands, and the fortresses that you built, you [shall] possess. 13:39 And we forgive the oversights and errors up to this very day and the crown [payment], that you are due, and if something else was tolled in Jerusalem, it will no longer be tolled. 13:40 And if someone is suitable to be registered to those surrounding us, let him be registered, and let there be peace in our midst.”
Whether or not it meant that Judea gained formal independence from the Seleucids, this new custom inaugurated a “Simonide” era with a new system of time reckoning. See, e.g., Benedikt Eckhardt, “The Seleucid Administration of Judea, the High Priesthood and the Rise of the Hasmoneans,” Journal of Ancient History 4, no. 1 (2016): 57–87.
On Megillat Taanit, see Vered Noam, “Megillat Taanit: The Scroll of Fasting,” in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 3: The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum; Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism; Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science; and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al., CRINT 2/3/2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 339–362; eadem, “Megillat Ta’anit and Its Scholion (Commentary),” TheTorah (2015).
Megillat Taʿanit says nothing about Tzom Gedaliah, which, in contemporary rabbinic practice, takes place on this date. Whether this fast was not observed in the author’s time/community, or whether it was commemorated on a different day (perhaps the 2nd of Tishrei, since Rosh Hashanah was only one day in that period?) is unknown.
The text here follows MS British Museum 400 of b. Rosh Hashanah. The two independent versions of the scholion, Oxford or Parma, offer similar interpretations but Vered Noam argues that, in this case, the version found in the Talmud reflects a better form of the text than those in the manuscripts, since each of these contains serious scribal errors. See discussion in Vered Noam, מגילת תענית: הנוסחים, פשרם, תולדותיהם, בצירוף מהדורה ביקורתית [Megillat Taʿanit: Versions, Interpretation, History, with a Critical Edition], בין מקרא למשנה [Between Bible and Mishnah] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003), 235–238.
See discussion in Noam, Megillat Taʿanit, 235–238.
Editor’s note: For the latter, see Zev Farber, “The Ancient Judean Holiday: Yom Nicanor - 13th of Adar,” TheTorah (2014).
This is the third month of the season of Peret (Emergence), following the Nile flooding. In the later Egyptian/Coptic calendar, Phamenoth is the seventh month (roughly equivalent to March).
Aramaic from Betzalel Porton and Ada Yardeni, 'מִמּגְדֹּל סְוֵנֵה': תעודות לתולדות היהודים במצרים בתקופת פרס [From Migdol to Syene: Documents Pertaining to Jews in Egypt in the Persian Period], ספריית האנציקלופדיה המקראות [The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library] 37 (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2020), 73–74. English translation from Betzalel Porten, “Testamentary Manumission,” in The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), §3.74, 3.178–180 [p. 179].
This form of embedded time naturally resulted in the periods being characterized as either good or bad based on the evaluation of their eponyms. On the embedded nature of time, its ethical and moral characteristics, and the differences between cyclical and continuous times, in the ancient world and the Seleucid Empire in particular, see Paul J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).
See Joseph Naveh, “Dated Coins of Alexander Janneus,” Israel Exploration Journal 18, no. 1 (1968): 20–26; A. Kindler, “Addendum to the Dated Coins of Alexander Janneus,” Israel Exploration Journal 18, no. 3 (1968): 188–91; David B. Hendin, “Hasmonean Coins: Update and Observations,” Israel Numismatic Research 15, no. 89–110 (2020): 89–110 [p. 105]. This refutes the theses put forth by some scholars who argue that the Hasmoneans emulated their Seleucid predecessors and began their own continuous time with Simon’s investiture, like other autonomous cities in the region. See, e.g., Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 479–80; Émile Puech, “Inscriptions funéraires palestiniennes: tombeau de Jason et ossuaires,” Revue biblique 90.4 (1983): 481–533 [494–495]. On continuous eras in the post-Seleucid world see Elias Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, 2nd ed., Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), 72–73. E.g.: KAI 18: “in year 180 of the master of kings, year 143 of the people of Tyre”. See also, Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 246–253.
Some scholars see the adoption of an eponymous dating practice based on the reigning Hasmonean high priest as signaling the coming Hellenization of the Hasmoneans. While the Hasmonean revolt began as a way to protect Jewish customs from Seleucid persecution under Antiochus IV, after the dynasty established itself, its rulers began to resemble the other princes of the region. The later Hasmonean high priests became Hellenized and secular, modelling their rule after foreign kings while departing from the traditional role of the Jewish high priest. (See, e.g., Daniel R. Schwartz, 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible 41B [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022], 63.) Yet even if this is how the dynasty developed, this was not the case for Simon and John Hyrcanus, for whom a more traditional precedent would make more sense.
Another text in the Torah makes reference to a priestly hierarchy, using comparative language, in the context of the laws of mourning:
ויקרא כא:י וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם.
Lev 21:10 The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments.
Of course, elsewhere in the Bible, we do find this term, whether describing the high priest in First Temple Times (2 Kgs 12:11, 22:4, 8, 23:4; 2 Chron 34:9) or the Second Temple Period (Hag 1:1, 12, 14, 2:4; Zech 3:8, 6:11; Neh 3:1, 20, 13:28). We also find the parallel term הכהן הראש, “the chief priest” in Ezra 7:5, and in the Persian Period book of Chronicles (2 Chron 31:10), in the latter to describe a First Temple period position.
This rule is repeated in the book of Joshua:
יהושע כ:ו וְיָשַׁב בָּעִיר הַהִיא עַד עָמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אָז יָשׁוּב הָרוֹצֵחַ וּבָא אֶל עִירוֹ וְאֶל בֵּיתוֹ אֶל הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר נָס מִשָּׁם.
Josh 20:6 [The slayer] shall remain in that city until there is a trial before the congregation, until the death of the one who is high priest at the time; then the slayer may return home, to the town in which the deed was done.
See Christian Frevel, Desert Transformations, FAT 137 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 507–508.
Judas, of course, was the first choice as leader, followed by Jonathan, but 1 Maccabees includes a deathbed statement by Mattathias to Judas that is meant to foreground Simon’s claim as something beyond just last man standing:
1 Macc 2:65 Simon your brother, I know that he is a man of counsel, listen to him all the days. He shall be as a father to you.
On this, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Mattathias’ Final Speech (1 Maccabees 2): From Religious Zeal to Simonide Propaganda,” in “Go out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSJSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 213–24; Tobias Funke, “Phinehas and the Other Priests in Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Daniel Vikander Edelman, JSOTSup 456 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 257–76; Yonatan S. Miller, “Phinehas’ Priestly Zeal and the Violence of Contested Identities,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2019): 117–145.
See also discussion in, Thomas Hieke, “The Role of ‘Scripture’ in the Eulogy of Simon (1Macc 14:4–15),” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology; Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9-11 June, 2005, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 61–74.
My translation.
Importantly, as is the case with Phineas’ zeal, reliance on Numbers’ high priestly time is not evidence for the Hasmoneans enacting policy based on so-called biblical prescripts. It is the active employment of local traditions by Judean elites in order to naturalize forms of leadership and status supported by the empire, and in particular the courtly models that are signified by Simon’s local privileges and his relationship with the Seleucid king Demetrius II. The high priestly eponym was a discursive instrument, like the literary use of violence in Numbers 25 and 1 and 2 Maccabees, meant to reinforce Hasmonean imperial mediation by localizing it.
