Katell Bertholet investigates the bases for the claim by many twentieth-century scholars that the Hasmoneans had intended to reclaim the land promised by God to Israel or to reinstate the kingdom of David and Solomon. In her introductory chapter, Berthelot provides a succinct overview of historical scholarship on the Hasmonean period from 1850 to 1950, which supported the view that the Hasmoneans had set out to reclaim the Promised Land of Israel. She notes the dissident voices that have downplayed the biblical models for Hasmonean action and preferred a more “secular” model for the dynasty's aims. The author points to problems in seeking biblical models to explain the Hasmonean policies: (a) there are several borders given in the Bible for the Promised Land; (b) it was not clear how long the commandment to conquer the Promised Land was to endure; (c) there is no biblical precedent for the forced conversion of non-Jews. She emphasizes that one must be cautious in speaking of the Hasmoneans as a whole, and that each ruler must be studied separately.

After this introductory chapter, the work is divided into three parts. Part 1 concentrates on the account of the actions of Judas, Jonathan, and Simon in 1 Maccabees. The author first provides an analysis of 1 Maccabees, and looks at 2 Maccabees and the parallel accounts in Josephus's War and Antiquities. She finds that: “1) the author of 1 Maccabees could have made the land (even if only the Judean territory) into a much more explicit motivation for the Maccabean revolt, but he did not do so; 2) the reconquest of the promised land is not listed among the objectives of the revolt in either 2 Maccabees or the writings of Josephus” (91). She further concludes that “the conquest of parcels of land within and outside Judea did however constitute a major economic, demographic, political and military incentive for the Hasmoneans” (93). As for biblical models, she finds that Joshua and the war against the nations of Canaan do not play a major role in 1 Maccabees, but rather that the primary biblical touchstones are royal figures—David, Solomon—who provide legitimation for the rule of the Hasmoneans. She finds no mention of the purification of the land as a goal. Her analysis of the response of Simon to the threat of Antiochus VII at 1 Maccabees 15:33—“We have neither taken foreign land nor seized foreign property, but only the inheritance of our ancestors, which at one time had been unjustly taken by our enemies”—shows how Simon here does not base his answer on the notion that the land had been given to Israel as a divine gift, but grounds it on the juridical category of ancestral ownership, an argument found in other territorial disputes in the Hellenistic world.

In part 2, Berthelot examines the Judean territorial expansion from John Hyrcanus to Aristobulus II. She shows by her analysis of the sources that the territorial expansion from Simon on was made possible by a specific set of historical and political circumstances: the Seleucid Empire was becoming weaker, and the Romans did not interfere until the reigns of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. “Besides these historical circumstances and geopolitical factors, the sources suggest that the Hasmonean wars were motivated by questions of strategy and national security, as well as by political and economic concerns. Demographic issues may also have played a role” (282). She discusses the role of “forced conversions” (283–324) and sees this policy as a means not only to exclude idolatrous practices but also to consolidate Hasmonean power through the fiscal demands of the temple in Jerusalem. These “conversions,” therefore, were linked to the political and economic interests of the Hasmoneans and considerably enriched Judea. As for the use of mercenaries, “their presence on the Judean soil under John Hyrcanus makes it impossible to interpret his policy towards the Idumeans as an attempt to ‘de-gentilize’ the Holy Land, banishing all idol worshippers from Judea” (340).

In part 3, Berthelot discusses the polemic against the Hasmoneans in the Qumran manuscripts, and the discussion of the Hasmonean expansion found in rabbinic literature. She finds that the Qumran scrolls say virtually nothing about Mattathias and his sons, unless one identifies “the wicked priest” with Jonathan. While acknowledging the difficulty in interpreting the scrolls, she finds evidence of a strong critique aimed at John Hyrcanus and his sons, and Alexander Jannaeus and his sons. She sees the scrolls as denying them any claim to the title of prophet and to combining in themselves the offices of priest and king. Some of the Qumran texts see the Hasmoneans as led by their greed to wage war. She argues that Psalm of Solomon 17 opposes the Hasmonean dynasty to the expected Davidic king. In her masterful discussion of rabbinic literature, she finds that “the rabbinic texts often celebrate Mattathias and his sons for liberating Israel from the ‘yoke of the Greeks.’ Moreover,… the rabbinic texts never explicitly criticize [the military campaigns of Hyrcanus I or Jannaeus]” (425). The Babylonian Talmud contains the most negative views of the Hasmoneans because of the conflict between Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees, and the internecine feud between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Bertholet also includes an excursus on the reigns of David and Solomon in Eupolemus.

Berthelot has provided us with a thorough and convincing case against an ideological reading of the wars of the Hasmoneans. She has also nuanced our sense of the Hellenization of the Hasmonean dynasty. The Hasmoneans saw the relationship of Israel to the land in juridical terms, as in cases of territorial conflict found elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. Berthelot displays a mastery of the texts she discusses; her work is required reading for those studying the Hasmonean period.