historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

52 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ
reference to Jerusalem, the city in which the Temple is found. This,
indeed, is a widely held position. Lately, however, the argument has
reopened, due to the evidence of MMT. 11 However, I would sidestep
that argument, for the term does not appear in MMT
(as we have it); rather, that document is relevant only due to conclusions
that might be drawn from its discussion of the identification
of in Jerusalem—a somewhat dim and only indirectly relevant
issue, best left aside. Rather, I would return to our discussion of
Antiochus Epiphanes, in connection with 4Q248, where the term
does indeed appear.
Schiffman, in his most recent discussion of the term, argues that
4Q248 supports the view that I have rejected, namely, that
denotes the Temple precincts, the temenos. He takes this position
because 4Q248 refers to pillage in the after Antiochus'
first Egyptian campaign, the time when 1 Maccabees says that he
robbed the Temple itself. However, it should be clear that, instead,
I would view 4Q248 as support for the view that, as Josephus makes
clear, the first pillage was limited to the city itself and left the Temple
untouched.
In particular, I submit that it would be out of character for a
Qumran writer, or any apocalyptic writer, to speak only of
"treasures" or the like when referring to Temple vessels and appurtenances.
Whether the vessels are enumerated, as in 1 Macc. 1:21-23,
or merely summarized as "holy vessels," as in 2 Macc. 5:16, 12 4Q248's
"treasures" are from a completely different world view. Apocalyptic
writers are not supposed to be upset over the theft of money and,
indeed, the author of 4Q248 doesn't get very upset at the end of
line 7; the crisis begins only in line 9, after the king returns to Egypt
the second time. This corresponds with Daniel 11, which summarizes
the first Jerusalem visit briefly (ll:28b) and places the beginning
of the crisis, with the long account and the apocalyptic vision,
11 See Schiffman, "Ir Ha-Miqdash" also D. Henshke, "The Sanctity of Jerusalem:
The Sages and Sectarian Halakhah," Tarbiz 67 (1997/98): esp. 17-27 (Hebrew).
I would also call attention to an unpublished Hebrew University M.A. thesis by
H. Birnbaum: "The Status of Jerusalem in the Halakhah of the Dead Sea Sect"
(in Hebrew, 1999).
12 This contrast between Palestinian interest in the Temple cult and lack of it
in the Diaspora is the first discussed in my "From the Maccabees to Masada:
On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period," in Judische Geschichte
in hellenistisch-romischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schurer, ed.
A. Oppenheimer (Munchen: Oldenbourg, 1999), 29-40.