(This is a summary of a section of the book “The Hidden Bones Apocalypse”, which is nearing completion.)
We can identify the time period during which our scribe inserted the hidden bones marker phrase into the biblical text with a high degree of confidence. This is an outline of the process of identification.
First, we can establish the extreme parameters of the insertion timing as:
250 BCE = The Earliest Possible Date
111 BCE = The Latest Possible Date
The 250 BCE limit is based on the translation evidence of the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Torah. It is clear that the marker phrase was not in the version of the Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators had before them. That text was almost certainly an accurate copy of the text held in the Jerusalem temple of that time. Therefore, the insertion of the phrase into the Torah text occurred after the date of the LXX Torah translation, or about 250 BCE.
The 111 BCE latest possible date is based on the date of the destruction of the Samaritan temple. The marker phrase is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) in each location in which it is found in the Masoretic Text (MT). It is almost certain that no changes made in the proto-MT text would have also been made in the SP after the Judean and Samaritan communities had split. The latest date that can be reasonably assigned to that split is that of the Samaritan temple’s destruction by John Hyrcanus in 111 BCE. (Many sources date the destruction to 128 BCE, but more recent archeological evidence suggests the later date.)
After establishing the extreme parameters of the timeframe, we can then narrow that window in successive stages. We’ll first address the earliest date.
We can bring the earliest date forward from 250 BCE to about 200 BCE based on the LXX translations of Joshua and Ezekiel. The initial LXX translation project was of the five books of Moses, the other texts were translated later. Three of our marked verses are in Joshua and Ezekiel. Textual evidence and scholarly opinion suggest those texts might have been translated into Greek by about 200 BCE, and possibly later. The marker phrase is no more evident in the prophetic translations than in the Pentateuchal ones. Therefore, we can conclude that it was inserted into those texts – and into all – sometime after 200 BCE.
We can bring the earliest date further forward to 175 BCE based on two principal observations: 1) the Jerusalem temple, including its scribal activities and functions, was firmly in the control of the Oniad clan of Zadokite high priests until Onias III was replaced by Jason in 175 BCE. Modification to the biblical text, certainly of the temple’s text, which is the version that would have made its way ultimately into the MT, would have been a matter requiring discussion and agreement at the highest level. There is nothing in the historical record that would suggest Onias III would have sanctioned the edits made by our scribe. Their message would have been seen as subversive; and 2) prior to 175 BCE there was no serious external threat to the religious beliefs and practices of the Jews in Judea. The external masters to whom the Jews were beholden – whether Persian, Ptolemaic or Seleucid, are known to have explicitly sanctioned the practice of the Yahwist religion. So, there was neither internal sanction nor external cause for the embedding of a hidden message in the biblical text before 175 BCE.
In 175 BCE things changed. Antiochus IV became the Seleucid ruler. He essentially sold the high priestly office to Jason, and Onias III was forced out. Jason was a brother of Onias and, therefore, of the proper Zadokite lineage, but he was not the next-in-line for the hereditary office. He was not, then, seen as the legitimate successor. He would subsequently be essentially outbid for the office by the non-Zadokite Menelaus. Between 175 BCE and 167 BCE, neither Jason nor Menelaus after him seems to have given much, if any, attention to the actual management of the temple or its affairs. Both had the promotion of Hellenism and the payment of their pledges to Antiochus uppermost on their agendas. Many in the temple administration seem to have followed these illegitimate high priests into the Greek ways, abandoning their temple roles. But those that did not do that were those most attached to temple orthodoxy. They would be the least likely to condone the actions of our scribe. We can reasonably move our date, then, from 175 BCE to 167 BCE.
In 167 BCE, probably without realizing the true import of his actions, Antiochus IV published his now infamous edicts prohibiting the practice of the religion of the Jews. The edicts specifically called for all the books of the law to be destroyed and imposed the death penalty on anyone thereafter found in possession of any of the biblical texts. 1 Maccabees 1:56-57 reads ‘The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of anyone, or if anyone adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death’.
It appears that, at least initially, the edicts applied also and equally to the Samaritan temple and community. We have few details of the project of text destruction that then ensued, but it’s probably fair to say two things: it was substantial but it was not total. Clearly some texts survived. Maybe some were rescued from the temple before they were found by Antiochus’ men. But we know that there were some texts outside the temple at that time, in schools such as the one Ben Sira describes, and in private hands, and some of those might have survived.
The edicts were in force until 164 BCE when the temple was recaptured and rededicated by the Maccabees. Antiochus died in that year also and his successor rescinded the edicts. But Emil Shurer writes of the time the edicts were in force: ‘Once a month a rigorous search was instituted: if a copy of a book of the law were found in the possession of any one…he was put to death’.[1] Whether literally true or not, that conveys a sense of the danger involved in preservation of the texts. But in 164 BCE things did change. And one of the things that was required after the temple was back in Jewish hands was the replacement of the texts that had been destroyed.
We know as little about that process as we do about the destruction, but the book of 2 Maccabees includes a reference to the activities of Judah Maccabee after the recapture of the Jerusalem temple. Here Judah’s actions are compared to those of Nehemiah’s in the post-exilic construction of a library: ‘…he (Nehemiah) founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings. In the same way Judas (Judah) also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war which had come upon us, and that are in our possession. So if you have need of them, send people to get them for you’. (2 Macc 2:13-15) The reference to sending people for the books is thought to be an offer to allow the use of the texts collected by Judah for copying or correction.
It is likely that our scribe was a part of – or perhaps even led – this process of the restoration and recreation of the texts destroyed during the time the edicts were in force. We conclude that 164 BCE is the most likely early limit of the period of our scribe’s work. It is not the earliest possible time, but it is the most likely early limit.
We can also tighten the time window by adjusting the later limit. While the destruction of the Samaritan temple would have certainly ended cooperation between the temple communities of Jerusalem and Mt. Gerezim, there was an earlier event that would have produced a tremendous animosity on the part of the Samaritan community against the Jerusalem one. It would have likely been severe enough to cause ties to be severed.
Jonathan Maccabee became high priest in 152 BCE, ending a period of seven years during which the office had been vacant. The Seleucid king Demetrios II, seeking to align Judea with him and against the Ptolemies, offered Jonathan a package of substantial territorial, economic and religious incentives. Jonathan did not initially accept the offer, but he did accept later, perhaps by the middle of the following decade, or about 145 BCE. The offer included possession of three districts from the land held by Samaria including the revenue from them. Demetrios also exempted all offerings made at the Jerusalem temple from taxation, which would have put the temple at Mt. Gerezim at a significant disadvantage. And, most consequential in religious terms (if of possibly questionable accuracy) Josephus reports in Antiquities 13.2 that ‘it shall be in the power of the high priest to take care that no one Jew shall have any other temple for worship but only that in Jerusalem’. Since the Jews and the Samaritans were considered by the Seleucids as a single people, this would have the effect of prohibiting worship at the Samaritan temple. Only the temple’s destruction would have had a more severe religious impact.
The timing of Jonathan’s acceptance of the offer by Demetrios is uncertain but assuming it occurred in the middle years of his reign seems reasonable. The year 145 BCE would not be off by much. We’ve now narrowed our window from roughly a century and a half to roughly two decades. We can take one more step.
Menelaus remained in the high priestly office until he was executed on the order of Antiochus V in 162 BCE. He exercised little control over temple matters prior to 164 BCE and that would not have changed after the Maccabean recapture of the temple. Menelaus was succeeded by Alcimus, who was appointed by Demetrios in 162 BCE and served, in name at least, until 159 BCE.
Alcimus was of a priestly family although not a Zadokite. It appears that his entire term of office, until just before its end, was occupied in attempts to take up his post in Jerusalem. Demetrios sent three expeditions to Jerusalem to secure the city and the temple. Alcimus was one of those sent by the king to help negotiate with the Jews. It is interesting, by the way, that it was a delegation of scribes – not priests or soldiers – that was sent out to meet the Seleucids. The first two expeditions were unsuccessful. The third managed to break through the city’s defenses and Alcimus made his way to the temple. There he attempted to tear down a wall and during that attempt, we are told, he was gravely stricken – presumably by an avenging heavenly power – and died. Alcimus, then, while titular high priest for three years, never really assumed the role and had no effect on the activities of the temple.
After the death of Alcimus in 159 BCE the high priestly office was vacant until filled by Jonathan in 152 BCE. It might be tempting to propose that the vacancy in 159 BCE creates an additional opportunity to advance the earliest date of our scribe’s work but there is nothing in the latter years of Menelaus’ reign, and certainly nothing in Alcimus’ brief tenure, that could be pointed to as affecting either the early or the later date of our scribe’s work. They simply did not have the level of involvement in or control over the temple activities to affect the project of reconstructing the temple texts. But Jonathan did.
Jonathan was a very able leader, an accomplished general and administrator as well as an effective political actor. He was not a religious person – the record does not contain any specific acts that he took as high priest – but he was a commander and a disciplinarian. Jonathan would have taken control of the temple and would have been an active and interested administrator, even if at a remove from the day-to-day operation. And Jonathan was a proud man; proud of his own achievements and proud of his family’s role in the rebellion against Antiochus IV, its victory over him and its consolidation of power.
Jonathan would certainly have installed loyalists in all important administrative posts in the temple, including those in the scribal apparatus. Those loyalists would not have allowed the editing of the biblical texts in such a way as to subvert the Hasmonean authority. Therefore, the accession of Jonathan to the high priesthood in 152 BCE may safely be proposed as the latest likely date of the insertion of the marker phrases.
We conclude that the marker phrase was inserted into the biblical text between the years 164 BCE and 152 BCE, and most likely during the early years of that period.
© Charles R. Lightner
[1] Shurer, E. ‘A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ’. Capella Press. 2017 (First published by T & T Clark in 1890) Kindle Edition Loc 608