I’ve had this question since last year, but had no one to ask.
Hanukkah is a major Jewish celebration. The event it commemorates is described in 1 Maccabees. Now, the Catholic Church (I’m Catholic, FWIW) includes 1 Maccabees in the Old Testament as a deuterocanonical book. However, it is my understanding that the book is not included in the Jewish Scriptures, and the Protestant faiths include it only as apocrypha.
So, here’s my question–why did Hanukkah catch on so big in Judaism, while 1 Maccabees itself is not recognized as inspired?
Hanukkah “caught on big” early on, and was a very popular holiday as far back as 50 BC. However, it was primarily a celebration of military victory, and the Book(s) of Maccabees read almost like history texts (of the time), describing battles and military campaigns.
The rabbis who codified the Bible therefore reacted unfavorably to Hanukkah and to the Book of Maccabees. They didn’t like the idea of a holiday that was founded on military victory, so they transformed it into a holiday based on rededication of the Temple. However, they excluded the Book from the Jewish canonical texts.
The cannonical books of the bible are based upon a time frame of when there were prophets. Malachi was the last of the prophets (at the start of the Second Temple era). Since the miracle of Channukah occured well after prophecy ceased, it was not considered cannonical.
Zev - how about the Book of Esther? Considering the fact the Ahashverus was a descendent of Cyrus, wouldn’t the events described have taken place after Malachi?
Frankly, I find it odd that Esther was included, and Maccabaes wasn’t. While they are both very secular tales, Mac at least has some overt divine intervention (while Esther doesn’t even mention God). And C K, as for violence - the Tanach doesn’t really lack that. Take The books of Samuel and Kings.
I have a theory, but perhaps it’s based on my own ignorance. Was the Bible codified after the Romans siezed control over Judaea? If so, wouldn’t politics have been a factor in the codifiers decision - an unwillingness to glorify the deposed Hashmonaeins? And if not, perhaps the scholars didn’t want to be seen to be sucking up to the Powers that Be.
No. Esther took place between the two temples. That was before Malachi
**
There’s a reason for that. The story of Channukah is a story about the Jews’ spiritual survival. The Syrian-Greeks weren’t trying to exterminate the Jews, they were trying to exterminate Judaism.
Purim (the holiday that originates with the story of Esther), however, is the story of our physical survival. Haman (much like Hitler later) wanted us physically destroyed. He didn’t care if were practicing Judaism or not.
Well, according to Jewish tradition, the canon was already closed by the time the miracle of Channukah occured (which is well before the Romans arrived on the scene). That answers the question of why Maccabees and the other books of the Apocrypha are not included in the Jewish Bible.
As for your theory, I don’t think that would be the case. The leading Jewish sages were certainly not fond of the later Hasmonean rulers, but they certainly didn’t have anything against the Maccabees… if they did, they wouldn’t have instituted the holiday of Channukah to begin with.
Alessan: << And C K, as for violence - the Tanach doesn’t really lack that. Take The books of Samuel and Kings. >>
I didn’t say nothin’ about violence. I said the rabbis were uncomfortable with a holiday and a book that celebrated a military event, rather than a religious event. Yes, there are plenty of wars and battles in the Bible, but there are no holidays to commemorate them. The only holiday related (indirectly) to victory is Passover, but that’s not a military victory, that’s the triumph of God (good) over Pharoah (evil).
IIRC, the book of Maccabees treats the victories as resulting from shrewd tactics, bravery, courageousness, etc. – that is, human rather than divine in origin. Hence, the story of Hanukkah was not favored by the rabbis.
Zev, my understanding is that Hanukkah was NOT instituted by the sages. It was a popular holiday, celebrating the military revolt. The rabbis and sages transformed it into a spiritual holiday, by adding stories and interpretations about the rededication of the Temple (oil lasting eight days, etc), to make it more acceptable philosophically and spiritually. But the holiday was an extremely popular one.
I think the rabbis would not have made Hanukkah into a holiday, but they did not want to stand against overwhelming popular opinion. Or so I recollect being taught.
Well, actually, it isn’t. The holiday was a very minor celebration and pretty much had died out by the end of the 19th century, except in the most Orthodox of homes. It wasn’t until after WWII that it began to be celebrated by most Jews, mostly as a reaction against the celebration (and commercialization) of Christmas. Jewish Americans needed something equivalent so they didn’t have to explain to the kids why no Christmas gifts. Before that, the traditional Chanukah (I prefer that spelling) consisted of lighting the candles and giving a few coins as gelt.
This was outlined in an article in this month’s American Heritage The author makes the point that Chanukah isn’t the Jewish Christmas – it’s the Jewish Kwaanza
I have to disagree with you on both of the above points.
There was disagreement as to what books should be put in the canon all the way until Mishnaic times (100-200 CE). I don’t have a source here, but there were debates about whether Song of Songs, Esther and Ecclesiateces (sp?) should have been put in the canon. And if I remember correctly, Ben Sira almost made it in.
I think the Rabbis had problems with the Hasmoneans not only because of the Sadducean trends of the later leaders, but simply becaused they usurped the Davidic line. Remember, Hillel, Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, and other Mishnaic sages came from the line of David. This can help to explain why there is no tractate of Channuka, and also can help to explain why the miracle of the oil does not appear in the “Al HaNisim” prayer (as well as in the Book of Macabees).
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that Rabbi Akiva was the main driving force for including the Song of Songs, and was arguing for it in 150CE or so. (ie the Council of Jamnia.) Could someone clarify this?
These books were all composed before the close of prophecy. That’s what made them eligible to get in. Not all books composed before the cutoff point made it in, of course, and some were excluded. However, none that were composed afterwards were eligible.
I don’t remember coming across anywhere where Ben Sira (or any of the other apocraphyl books had even a chance of being included in the canon.
Again, you are correct, but…
Rabbi Yehuda (the redactor of the Mishna) did have a personal grudge against the Hashmonean dynasty because he, himself, was from the Davidic line. I don’t think he ever wanted to be the king, but he sure didn’t want the Hasmoneans to be kings either. That is the traditional answer as to why there is no mention of Channukah in the Mishna. (It is, however, mentioned in the Gemara).
As for the rest of the Rabbinic population, I think the matter was primarily their Sauducean leanings. Had they followed their own party line, while they wouldn’t have been happy with a Hashmoenan dynasty, they would have grudgingly accepted it.
As for the miracle non-mention in Al Hanimism, I always felt that the real miracle of Channukah was the battle and the military victory. Had the miracle with the oil never occured, we would still have a holiday today(albeit without the menorah).
No, I believe that Hillel (and thereby, of course, his descendants) was descended by David only in the female line. The Resh Galut (Exilarch), who was descended in the male line from David, was considered the superior of the Nasi (patriarch) of the House of Hillel.