In 3 Maccabees, kingship as a form of rule is addressed on two levels: On the political level the question about a good king is addressed against the background of Hellenistic understandings of kingship, using the example of Ptolemy IV Philopator. This king is portrayed at the beginning of 3 Maccabees as a successful, positive, Hellenistic ruler, but one whose good rule goes off the rails. This analysis of the ideal of Hellenistic rule (cf. 3 Macc. 3:12-29; 6:24-28; 7:1-9) is then taken to a theological level: the God of Israel is portrayed as the true good king, the Soter who saves his people in their time of greatest trial (6:29, 32; 7:16). By these means the many divine epithets that are a striking feature of 3 Maccabees are incorporated into the narrative (cf. 2:2-3). Thereby 3 Maccabees not only thematises the conflict with a Hellenistic king who exploits his power in diverse ways but also focuses in a concentrated way the notion of a good (Hellenistic) king into the notion of God as king and ruler.
The nucleus of statehood is situated at the local level: in the village, the neighborhood, the city district. This is where a community, beyond the level of the family, first develops collective rules that are intended to ensure its continued existence. But usually this is not the only level of governance at play. Above it, there are supralocal formations of power, varying in scope from regional networks to empires, which supplement the local orders or compete with them. The premise of this Research Unit is that local forms of self-governance are especially heterogeneous and prominent, wherever supralocal statehood exists in the mode of weak permeation. The central question of our approach is how local forms of self-governance work in this context. We will examine the relations to the state level as well as to other local groups as they develop over time; the scope and spatial contingency of forms of self-governance; their legitimization and the interdependency with the organization and collective identity of those groups which carry them out; finally, we will turn our attention to the significance of self-governance for the configuration of weak statehood. The empirical focus will be at the local level, which has so far been largely neglected in the research on governance beyond the state. In order to achieve this, we will work with case studies that are structured by categories and situated in geographical areas and time periods that lie outside of modern Europe with its particular development of statehood since the Late Middle Ages: in Antiquity, and in the Global South of the present. By incorporating these different time frames, we hope to contribute to overcoming the dichotomy between the modern and pre-modern era, which is often given canonical status. Our goal is to create a comparative analysis of different configurations of order as well as the development of a typology of patterns of local governance. The structure of the empirical comparison itself promises methodological insights, since it will entail recognizing, dealing with, and overcoming disciplinary limitations. Starting with the identification of typical patterns and processes, we hope to gain a better grasp of the mechanisms by which local configurations of order succeed, while at the same time advancing the theoretical debate. This will allow us to make an interdisciplinary contribution to the understanding of fundamental elements of statehood and local governance that are of central importance, especially in the context of weak statehood. The insights we hope to gain by adopting this historical perspective will contribute to understanding a present that is not based exclusively on its own, seemingly completely new preconditions, and will thus significantly sharpen the political analysis of various forms of governance.
