Alexandros Ianneos, Alexander Yannai, Alexandros Ionathan, Alexander Jannaeus, Alexander Jonathan, however you want to call him, he was one of the greatest kings of Israel. Why? Well, it was during his reign that Hasmonean Israel reached the maximum extent. (Hasmonean or Hashmonayim in Hebrew is the name given by the Talmud to the Macabee Kings, descendants of Mathew Maccabeus, who successfully rebelled against the Seleucid rule of his homeland Israel during the reign of Antiochos IV. Alexander Yannai is compared to Biblical Kings like David and Solomon. The Hasmoneans before him had to contend with the title of “Ethnarch” or “National Leader” of the Jews, with the Seleucid Rulers holding a void, yet titular sovereignty over Israel. Alexandros Ionathan was the first to not have that title even just in paper. He was from the beginning both King and High Priest. However, he isn’t above criticism. His sacrilege in the Temple led to 6.000 dead Israelites who rebelled, playing into his hands. During a civil war that followed he is said to have crucified 800 of his own countrymen, among the 50.000 dead in a civil war during 6 years of bloodshed, according to some historians’ views.
A brief synopsis of the Jewish world at the time.
Hasmonean Israel was divided, with a third side, the Essenes, much smaller in numbers. On one side were the Hellenized Jews who were -for all intent and purposes- at home either at Jerusalem or in Alexandria and any city of the Hellenistic orient and on the other side were the vast majority of the Rabbis who were conservatively adhering to the scriptures exactly as they had been given to them. To give the two side names the Sadducees were the Hellenized rich minority with the Rabbis and the vast majority of the lower temple priesthood being their conservative opposition. Those would be the Pharisees. Hashmonayim Kings tried to play each side against the other in order to acquire or retain the throne. However, the realities of their day and age meant that only the Sadducees could effectively govern the state, because the Hasmonean state was a Hellenistic one in exactly the same sense that Pontos was a Hellenistic state or other minor states at the time used the Hellenistic system of governance. The Maccabee revolt succeeded in thwarting for ever the effort made by Antiochos IV and some Jewish sympathizers of his to effectively destroy Israel, however maintaining an effective state meant that a big part of the Jewish Hellenized officials would retain their place, therefore to rule effectively a Hasmonean King would have to rely on the Saducees, or a big part thereof.
The Jewish diaspora, was very much Hellenized as well, even if they were staunch and unwavering in their support of Israel. A lot of the wealth of the Hasmonean state was attributed to the Diaspora Jewry sending money home, including the expenses the Diaspora Jews would pay following the tradition to visit the Temple thrice per year. The third side mentioned in Josephus, (even if much smaller in numbers than the other two) were the Essenes and other very religious groups who would later start a Rebellion against Roma. They were very difficult to work with, because of their single minded devotion to only serve the LORD, not a ruler of this world. Josephus writes that there were thousands of them living all over Israel. They lived an ascetic life and according to some ancient writers renounced marriage, while others deny that pointing to the graves of women and children in places where they resided. They are believed to have written the “Dead Sea Scrolls” discovered in 1946.
Alexandros Ionathan favored the Saducees over the Pharisees (who never forgave him), he did fight against every enemy that Israel had, conquering lands which were never again part of Israel until 1967. It was the drain from those wars that drove many of his subjects to revolt against him, as a small agrarian country like Hasmonean Israel couldn’t hope to support a large army. Especially an army with many mercs embedded within. It was also the fact that he was both King and Cohen Gadol (High Priest of the Temple) that was considered false. Not to mention the levirate marriage with his brother’s widow, Salome Alexandra or Shlomtzion.
Still, despite heavy criticism and a civil war waged against him, despite his viciousness (which was the norm in his time, if a king was to retain his crown), there was a limit to how far he could go, because of the looming presence of Roma, a power which was going to destroy the temple 146 years after the end of his reign. He could only go so far, before the Romani military machine fell upon him and his kingdom.
There are many actions he took, that we can’t truly explain. Still, we must take into account the time he lived in. He lived in a time when nothing was sacred. A time when kings looted temples at a whim, they were paranoid that they might lose their throne and relied heavily on personal alliances to retain them. Let’s try to look at the environment of the Hashmonayim kings and array that into a proper historical perspective. The rebellion started when Seleucid Antiochos IV tried to rededicate the Temple to worship of Zeus (I Makk. 1:54) and tried to steal money from the Temple (I Macc. 1:20-24). It is also mentioned that Antiochos issued an edict in which Jewish religious practices were forbidden (I Makk.1:41). Several stories about Syrian mismanagement in general are related in both Books of Maccabees. According to jewishmag.com, quoting II Makk. 4:7-8, the conservative Jewish population of the time was very shocked to see the rich Hellenized Jews of the time practicing naked in the Gymnasium (The word in ancient Greek means “where they are (training) naked” and that’s exactly how the athletes of antiquity trained). To add insult to injury the title of Cohen Gadol (High priest) of the time was bought and sold in the courts of the Syrian King (that’s how the Seleucids were known at the time) in a bidding contest between the richest Jewish families The clergy of the temple especially the lower clergy had little toleration for such acts. Their best (Judah Macabee and his followers) started the rebellion, in order to save Israel, not because they didn’t share in the wealth of the richest, as a certain historian perspective suggests. They kept on fighting and won despite the overwhelming numbers of the Seleucid war machine. If they had fought just for money, then the Seleucid Syrians would just buy them off. That would be cheaper. I am sure the Syrians tried to do just that.
It is very easy to judge negatively Alexander Yannai after so much time has passed. Still, it must be done. I think that a valid criticism would be that he should have taken into account the religious obligation that his office required or even relinquish the High Priesthood. (David, nor Solomon, nor any other king of the united Kingdom or Judah had ever taken that title). To his defense what he did was common practice among the Hellenistic monarchies of the time, even in states that weren’t greek to begin with, only Hellenistic in the way of governance (like Pontos or Kappadokia or others). Some might even suggest that Hasmonean kings did that to stop the bribing process of the title of Cohen Gadol which was the norm and even to ensure that the title, even more prestigious than the King of Israel in the eyes of the vast majority of Israelis at the time, could not be used against them, for fear of a Cohen Gadol becoming a king maker, indirectly influencing who would rule Hasmonean Israel. Looking at the history of the Hashmonayim, when brother fought against brother, we must allow for some paranoid “they ‘re all out to get me” mentality. So far as Antiochos IV trying to confiscate all the wealth of the Temple is concerned, his father Antiochos III was killed trying to do the same in a pagan worship site in Media in order to pay for the reparations to the Romani after losing to them and the Pergamenes in Magnesia at 190 BCE. This was, according to the historians of that time the magnitude of opposition that the Jews were up against.
Therefore, knowledge of Alexandros Ionathans’ life and actions must be provided alongside that of his time and peers, in order to fully understand whether he was a great king who tried to keep his country united at any cost, (even if he could do better) within the limitations of the Hellenistic governing system he was born in, or a bloody power crazy tyrant who would slay his own people at a whim. Volumes could be written for any single incident of his rule, I only tried to provide a starting point based on my own knowledge of history, and the historical context he lived in.
However, Alexandros Ionathan’s (as he would probably be called in Greek) greatest failure was that he couldn’t unite his people. He managed to keep his country united at the cost of deepening the division within his people. Difficult as the effort might have been, this should have been his top priority. A united Israel could reach the historical boundaries of Davids’ Kingdom or expand even more. He could have united Israel if he had just retained his crown, focus on that area and instead of killing his own people, arm them and lead them against their enemies, exactly like David had done.
That may sound as an exercise in futility, knowing exactly what Roma could do or even worse what it was capable of (demonstrated with the destruction of the Temple, the enslavement and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Jews, the refoundation of Jerusalem with a different name, even the disappearance of the Biblical names of Judaea, Samaria and even Israel, for a term which was NEVER before used for the region, Palaestina.).
Even so, the only state in the region powerful enough in numbers and strong enough in morale to take on the might of the Romani were the Hasmonean Jews. Rabbis embedded into army units created a religious fervor which allowed the Israelites to fight with relentless rage and enthusiasm. It is worth remembering that during the Macabee revolt, Kohanim, priests in the Temple, led the revolt that created the Hasmonean state. Rabbis leading untrained troops against seasoned veterans under trained officers and the Rabbis won. Judah Macabee himself was a Kohen, and the third son of Rabbi Mattathias. Luke Ueda Sarson writes “Indeed, the 1st century BC historian Diodoros went so far as to say that such a combination of religious and secular offices in the same men that has made the Jewish state so “incredibly powerful”. Half of 600.000 residents of Alexandria at the time were Jews. A big number of Jews resided in almost all of the coastal cities of the Levant and Asia Minor’s southern coast. A lot were still living in Mesopotamia, those who didn’t return after Cyrus’ edict. Those would be readily available to join a conquering Hasmonean army. A Hasmonean king who could create a national army (not just a merc. force), could easily invade and occupy Egypt (Ptolemaic control at that point was nearly non existent – they existed only because of Roman intervention.). It is worth noting that Ptolemaic Egypt was twice defeated by Antiochos IV and once by Antiochos III. Hasmonayim Jews defeated the Seleucids. Therefore it can be easily suggested that had Alexandros Ionathan united his people, he could invade Ptolemaic Egypt at the risk, of course, of bringing down on him the Romani, exactly like Antiochos IV did. If he took that calculated risk then the Hashmonayim could use the riches of Egypt (and its 33.333 villages according to historians of the time) to create strong legions and fight Roma using Roman weapons and tactics (exactly what Josephus wanted to do during the revolt of 66 CE), with the added fervor that the Israelites demonstrated in both Jewish-Roman wars and Bar Kohba’s revolt. If the Jews were united, there is no telling what they could have achieved. If.
Can you go where Alexandros Ionathan didn’t? Can you unite your kingdom, conquer Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor? Will you be strong enough to face the Romani?