The Hasmoneans and their Neighbors 9780567680822, 9780567680846, 9780567680839

Citation preview

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS IN CONTEXTS AND RELATED STUDIES

Executive Editor James H. Charlesworth

Editorial Board Motti Aviam, Michael Davis, Casey Elledge, Loren Johns, Amy-Jill Levine, Lee McDonald, Lidia Novakovic, Gerbern Oegema, Henry Rietz, Brent Strawn

THE HASMONEANS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS

New Historical Reconstructions from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Classical Sources

Kenneth Atkinson

T&T Clark Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2018 Copyright © Kenneth Atkinson, 2018 Kenneth Atkinson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. xi constitute an extension of this copyright page. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-5676-8082-2 978-0-5676-8083-9

Series: Jewish and Christian Texts, volume 27 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters

To the Graduate College of the University of Northern Iowa for their continued support of my scholarship, and for awarding me a Fall 2017 Professional Development Assignment for the completion of this book

C on t en t s

Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Introduction: The Sources and Their Limitations 1 The Beginning of the Hasmonean State 3 Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus 8 Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: The Dead Sea Scrolls 11 Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: Classical Texts, Numismatics, and Other Literature 16 Conclusion 19 Chapter 2 The Early Hasmonean Period: New Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls 20 The Origin of the Hasmonean Family’s Revolt 21 The Ptolemaic Rulers and the Hasmoneans 26 Conclusion 30 Chapter 3 Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion: Dangers from the Seleucid Empire 32 Excursus 1: Demetrius II and the Decline of the Seleucid Empire 33 The Mysterious Arrival of Antiochus VII Sidetes 36 Hyrcanus and Antiochus VII Sidetes Invade the Parthian Empire 39 How Did Hyrcanus Survive the Parthian Expedition of Sidetes? 42 An Unknown Parthian War of Sidetes: Hyrcanus the Conqueror of Hyrcania 45 Hyrcania and John Hyrcanus 47 Turmoil to the North 52 Hyrcanus as a Prophetic Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls 56 Conclusion 62

viii Contents

Chapter 4 The Creation of the Hasmonean Monarchy: Apocalyptic Expectations and the Dead Sea Scrolls Hasmonean Kings, High Priests, and the True Prophet The Deaths of Aristobulus and Antigonus

65 66 71

Chapter 5 Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State: Foreign Threats, Ptolemaic Messianism, and the True Prophet 73 Excursus 2: Numismatics and the Fratricidal Seleucid Wars in Antiquities 13.365-371 73 Egypt’s Political Situation and the Jews 79 Excursus 3: A Tarnished Reputation?: Ptolemy VII Physcon, His Wives, and a Ptolemaic Messiah 82 Excursus 4: Egyptian Messianism in the Third Sibylline Oracle 87 The Invasion of Demetrius III in the Dead Sea Scrolls 91 Excursus 5: Jewish Apocalyptic Expectations and the Invasion of Demetrius III 94 The Invasion of Antiochus XII Dionysus 98 Conclusion 100 Chapter 6 Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age: The End of Days in the Dead Sea Scrolls 102 Alexandra in the Qumran Pesharim and Calendrical Texts 102 The Importance of Alexandra in the Dead Sea Scrolls 107 Conclusion 112 Chapter 7 After the Loss of Sovereignty: New Light on Hasmonean and Roman History from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Classical Texts 113 Excursus 6: Hyrcanus II as the “Wicked Priest” of the Qumran Texts and Why He Attacked the Righteous Teacher 114 The Nabatean Threat to the Roman Occupation of the Former Hasmonean State 123 The Hasmonean State as Pompey’s Consolation Prize 125 The Psalms of Solomon and Pompey 126 The 63 B.C.E. Roman Conquest of Jerusalem in the Qumran Pesharim 129 The 63 B.C.E. Roman Conquest of Jerusalem in Other Dead Sea Scrolls 137 Conclusion 142

Contents

ix

Chapter 8 A Dream Shattered: The End of the Hasmonean State and the Demise of Its Neighbors 143 Roman and Hasmonean Intervention in Egypt 144 The Final Hasmonean Revolt against Roman Rule 151 The Roman Civil War and the Hasmonean Family 152 The End of the Roman Civil War Between Julius Caesar and Pompey 155 The Jews and the Roman Civil War 157 The Assassination of Pompey in Jewish and Classical Texts 159 Conclusion 171 Bibliography 173 Index of References 197 Index of Authors 208

A c k n owl ed g me nts

I am grateful to James H. Charlesworth for accepting this book for publication, and to Dominic Mattos of Bloomsbury T&T Clark, for guiding me through the publication process. I also thank Sarah Blake of Bloomsbury T&T Clark for her assistance in the final stages of publication. I am once again grateful to Duncan Burns for his preparation of the indices and his editorial assistance.

A b b rev i at i ons

Abbreviations for classical sources follow Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (2003), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ancient sources, both Jewish and Classical, generally follow the texts in the Loeb Classical Library series. Other critical editions are listed in the references section. Dead Sea Scrolls are cited according to the numbering and editions listed under references and the notes to the individual chapters. Unless indicated, all translations are mine. The abbreviations S.E./S.E.B. refer to the Seleucid Era/Seleucid Era Babylonian Calendars. The abbreviation S.E.M. refers to the Seleucid Era of the Macedonian calendar that begins on 6/7 October, 312 B.C.E. The abbreviation A.U.C. (Ab urbe condita, “from the founding of the City [of Rome]”) is the traditional date of the foundation of Rome, which the ancients believed was 753 B.C.E.

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on: T he S ou rces a n d T h ei r L i mi tat i ons

The remarkable nine decades from 152 to 63 B.C.E., when the Hasmonean family successfully fought the Seleucid Empire and other powers to create and preserve an independent state, was among the most important periods of classical history. They not only ruled a new nation, but the Hasmoneans changed the histories of their neighbors and the Roman Republic.1 All the surrounding nations affected the politics, development, and expansion of the Hasmonean state. The Roman Republic not only conquered the Middle Eastern kingdoms, but it played a positive and a negative role in Hasmonean history. After initially supporting the Hasmonean state, the Republic destroyed it in 63 B.C.E. Yet, the Romans underestimated the tenacity of the Hasmonean family and their desire to rule an independent nation. Despite their conquest of the Hasmonean state, the Republic proved unsuccessful in its efforts to suppress repeated rebellions by members of this family to regain power. The Republic’s replacement of the Hasmoneans with Herod the Great and his descendants failed to pacify the region as the men and women of this extraordinary

1.  The meaning of the name Hasmonean is unknown. Josephus claims that it derives from a family patriarch named Asamonaeus. The name is conspicuously absent from both 1 and 2 Maccabees, although Josephus and the rabbis use it frequently. See further Atkinson 2015b; Goldstein 1976: 17–20. It is possible that Hasmonean in Hebrew (‫)חשמון‬ is a nickname of unknown meaning, or a corruption of the name of Mattathias’s grandfather, Simeon (= Shim’on; ‫)שמעון‬, mentioned in 1 Macc. 2.1. Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:194; Sievers 1990: 28–9. The Hasmonean family is commonly known as the Maccabees, and their revolt against the Seleucid Empire as the Maccabean Revolt. Because the name Maccabee is actually the nickname given to the family’s most famous member, Judas (Judah), for his prowess in battle, the present study will use the name Hasmonean to refer to all members of this family who trace their descent to Mattathias. See further Atkinson 2015a; 2015b: 373–7; Bar-Kochva 1989: 147–8.

2

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

family continued to take up arms to regain their independence until the Romans nearly annihilated them. Yet, the Hasmonean family’s dream of restoring a Jewish state never died. Jews resented Roman occupation and longed for a restoration of a state like that once ruled by the Hasmonean family. This desire contributed to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt a century after the end of the Hasmonean state when Jews once again fought to regain their independence. The rebels of this conflict minted coins depicting the palm tree with dates, to imitate the currency of the Hasmonean rulers.2 Josephus, who fought in this rebellion against Roman rule, realized the connection between the Hasmonean family and this great war of his day, and consequently began his account of this conflict in his War with the history of the Hasmonean family, the state they created, and the repeated Roman efforts to subdue them. However, the remarkable tale of the Hasmoneans did not end with the Roman conquest of 63 B.C.E. and their termination of the Hasmonean monarchy. Unlike their contemporaries, whose deeds are largely forgotten, the Hasmoneans’ struggle for independence is still commemorated with its own holiday—Hanukkah. This extraordinary family and the state they created continues to influence our present world, for their deeds and the religious changes they brought about shaped the Judaism of Jesus’s day as well as nascent Christianity. My previous study, The History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond, used all extant data to reconstruct the history of the Hasmonean State as documented in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (37 B.C.E.–ca. 98 C.E.).3 It explored the accuracy of his accounts of the Hasmonean state with a particular focus on how his life and participation in the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70 C.E. affected his narratives of this earlier period.4 The present book goes beyond this earlier monograph to examine the Hasmonean state as part of classical history. It not only reveals how the Hasmonean state’s neighbors influenced its history, but it also explores the extent to which the Hasmonean family affected the Mediterranean region, the Middle East, and shaped the politics of the ancient world. It has three basic goals: • To show the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for reconstructing the history of the Hasmonean state, and the religious beliefs of its subjects. 2.  See further Hendin 2013: 281–8. 3.  Atkinson 2016b. 4.  See further Atkinson 2011b.

1. Introduction

3

• To reveal the political interconnectedness between the Hasmonean state, its neighbors, and the Roman Republic as documented in classical writings. • To uncover and reconstruct previously unknown historical events of the Hasmonean period. Six excurses in the present work will explore topics of relevance to the Hasmonean state: 1. Demetrius II and the decline of the Seleucid Empire. 2. Numismatics and the fratricidal Seleucid Empire’s civil wars in Ant. 13.365-71. 3. A tarnished reputation? Ptolemy VII Physcon, his wives, and a Ptolemaic messiah. 4. Egyptian messianism in the Third Sibylline Oracle. 5. Jewish apocalyptic expectations and the invasion of Demetrius III. 6. Hyrcanus II as the Wicked Priest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and why he attacked the Righteous Teacher. This study suggests that Jewish sectarianism and messianism played greater roles in the Hasmonean state than indicated in the writings of Josephus. It also proposes that the history and theological beliefs of Jews during the period of the Hasmonean state cannot be understood without a close investigation of the histories of the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires, as well as the Roman Republic. The Hasmonean state, moreover, was so influential that its rulers even shaped the political histories of the Empires of the Parthians and the Armenians, the kingdom of the Nabateans, the Iturean realm, and other nations. By bringing together evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and classical writings, this monograph offers a new reconstruction of the vital historical period, from the second to the first centuries B.C.E., when the Hasmonean family changed the fates of their neighbors, the Roman Republic, the religion of Judaism, and created the foundation for the development of the nascent Christian faith. The Beginning of the Hasmonean State Although the Hasmonean state was a relatively small nation located between the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires, it greatly shaped these kingdoms. It was created at a unique moment in Middle Eastern history. The Hasmonean state emerged largely because of the gradual disintegration of the Seleucid Empire during the first and the second centuries B.C.E.

4

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The exact date that marks the beginning of the Hasmonean state, and what constitutes a state, continue to be topics of scholarly debate.5 There are two important dates to consider; each represents a year when the Hasmonean family came to control lands that they, at the time, undoubtedly viewed as an independent state even if it was not yet fully free from the Seleucid Empire. The first is 153/152 B.C.E., when Alexander Balas recognized Jonathan as the Hasmonean high priest during the Festival of Tabernacles.6 When Balas sent Jonathan a purple cloak—the color of royalty in antiquity—and a crown as tokens of his new office, and enrolled him in prestigious order of the king’s “Friends,” the Hasmoneans effectively presided over an independent territorial entity.7 The other important date is 143/142 B.C.E., when, according to 1 Macc. 13.41-42, Demetrius II sent a letter to Simon granting the Jews independence: “In the year 170 (= 143/142 B.C.E.), the yoke of the gentiles was lifted from Israel and the people began to write as the dating formula in bills and contracts, ‘In the first year, under Simon, high priest, commander, and chief of the Jews.’ ” Although Demetrius II granted independence to the Jews, the Hasmonean family was never completely free of foreign influences. The Hasmonean family, like the rulers of other states in the region, had to make treaties with their neighbors: their survival was uncertain in this dangerous neighborhood. Consequently, the Hasmoneans often found themselves entangled in Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynastic feuds that frequently led to wars on their lands. This fighting forced the various members of the family to support one claimant for the throne of Syria over another. It also brought the Hasmoneans into contact with the Roman

5.  Dąbrowa’s (2010c) study focuses on ideology and institutions, particularly the priesthood, kingship, court, capital, finances, and the military, to understand Hasmonean state formation. Regev’s (2013) monograph likewise examines many of these institutions, while the work of H. Eshel (2009) explores the question of how the Dead Sea Scrolls contribute to our understanding of the political history of the Hasmonean state. The works of Seeman (2013) and Zollschan (2017) examine Roman-Hasmonean political relations, with a particular focus on treaties and institutions. Sharon (2017) highlights the period between 67–37 B.C.E. to understand how the Hasmonean state’s termination and early Roman rule contributed to the development of post-70 C.E. Judaism. However, none of these books includes the detailed examination of how the Hasmoneans interacted with other nations to shape affairs of the classical world that is the focus of the present study. 6.  1 Macc. 10.15-21; Ant. 13.43-46. 7.  1 Macc. 10.15-20. An invitation to become a “Friend” of the king was an important position in the political structure of the Seleucid Empire. It was a public recognition that the Seleucid monarchs favored the Hasmonean family. For this institution, see further Goldstein 1976: 232, 516; Orth 2011; Savalli-Lestrade 1998: 77–8.

1. Introduction

5

Republic: several Hasmoneans made treaties with it to keep the monarchs of the adjacent Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires out of their affairs. These alliances firmly placed the Hasmonean family in the realm of international politics; their actions affected the surrounding nations of the classical world during the late Republic. Because the rulers of the Seleucid Empire were no longer reliable allies, the Hasmoneans were forced to seek some relationship with the Roman Republic to ward off Syrian incursions into their territory. Jonathan decided to follow the example of his late brother, Judas, and send a delegation to Rome to renew his family’s treaty with the Republic. Jonathan’s mission to Rome in 144 B.C.E. took place a year or two after the Republic’s victory in the Achaean war and the ascension of Demetrius II. The Romans at this time wanted to prevent Syria’s monarchs from expanding their territory, especially along the coast and in lands occupied by the Hasmoneans. Jonathan likely realized this and took advantage of the Seleucid Empire’s continuing civil wars to court the Roman Republic. Because the Romans had intervened to stop Antiochus IV Epiphanes’s second invasion of Egypt in 168 B.C.E., it was probable that they would return to the Middle East to interfere in the affairs of the Seleucid Empire.8 All subsequent rulers of the Seleucid Empire had to consider the possibility of a Roman invasion if they attacked the kingdoms along the shore of the Mediterranean. Several studies reject the view of the present book that Hasmonean diplomacy was largely driven by the need for protection from the Seleucid rulers. One interpretation proposes that the major reason the Hasmoneans made alliances with Rome was to protect their family and their supporters from their fellow Judeans, many of whom opposed them.9 This thesis ignores the overwhelming evidence that the Seleucid monarchs from the time of Jonathan tried to annex the Hasmonean state. A more cynical view proposes that Rome engaged in a fiction of an alliance of equals with the Hasmoneans. Sara Mandell believes Judas assumed the Romans made a formal treaty (foedus) either of alliance (foedus societatis) or of friendship (foedus amicitiae) with his family, but that no foedus had been struck and no oath had been given. Rome, Mandell argues, only granted the Hasmoneans a friendship pact (amicitia), as Josephus correctly states

8.  When Antiochus IV invaded Egypt in 168 B.C.E., the Roman legate G. Popilius Laenas met him and demanded that he leave or face the might of Rome. Antiochus returned to Syria in disgrace to avoid fighting the Romans. See further Polyb. 29.27.1-8; Diod. Sic. 31.2; Livy, History 45.12.1-8; App., Syr. 66.350-2; Just., Epit. 34.3.1-3. Cf. Dan. 11:29. 9.  Seeman 2013: esp. 10–12, 203–43.

6

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

(War 1.38), and not a treaty.10 Zollschan’s recent study of 1 Macc. 8.23-32 and related documents proposes that Roman–Jewish relations during the Maccabean revolt were motivated by the Roman concept of diplomatic friendship, or amicitia, and there was no formal treaty between them. She emphasizes that the Roman Republic, following the escape of Demetrius II from Rome, gave Judas the opportunity to request a treaty to help the Hasmoneans fight the Seleucid Empire. Because the Jews were still part of the Seleucid Empire, the Senate could not grant the Hasmoneans a treaty (foedus). Rather, the Jews sought amicitia from the Roman Senate, which was the first step before a treaty was considered. Once independent, the Roman Senate could make an official pact with the Hasmoneans.11 Samuel Rocca emphasizes that the Roman Republic’s alliance with the Hasmoneans focused on common adversaries. The Hasmoneans never opposed the interests of the Republic, but frequently fought against its enemies. This relationship lasted until the Hasmonean state became a local power and a potential threat to the Republic’s interests in the region during the time of Alexander Jannaeus.12 The Roman Republic had good reason to court the Hasmonean family beginning with the early years of their rebellion. During the century between 133 B.C.E. and 31 B.C.E., civil wars on the Italian peninsula killed nearly 300,000 Romans. At this time, its free population numbered some 4,500,000. This tumultuous era largely destroyed a system of government that had been in place for nearly 450 years.13 Hasmonean rule largely coincided with this particularly violent period for the Republic. Many of Italy’s most famous citizens fought one another during this time, most notably Pompey and Julius Caesar. Their struggles against one another were merely part of the Republic’s longstanding goal of conquering the Middle East, especially the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires. Located between these two great powers, it is not surprising that the Republic was interested in the affairs of the Hasmonean family and their small, but strategically located, state. The Republic tried to stop the expansion of the Seleucid Empire. Prior to 166 B.C.E., the Roman Republic wanted stability in the region. The Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires were allies (amici) of the Republic. Because events in Egypt did not affect the Romans as much, it tended to stay out of affairs there. After 166 B.C.E, the Republic became sporadic 10.  Mandell 1991. See further Badian 1958: 12, 39, 44, 60, 68–90, 74, 111; Zollschan

2004.

11.  See further Zollschan esp. 2017: 107–60. 12.  Rocca 2014. 13.  Crawford 1992: 1.

1. Introduction

7

and erratic in its involvement with the Seleucid Empire.14 Its alliance with the Hasmoneans should be viewed in this context. The Republic did not need to intervene in its affairs. Rather, the greatest enemy of the Hasmonean family was also one of Rome’s greatest adversaries, namely the Seleucid Empire. This is evident in their successful effort to halt the second Egyptian invasion of Antiochus IV Epiphanes that occurred in 168 B.C.E. The Republic preferred the status quo in which the Hasmonean state separated the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires. Although the Roman Republic may not have intervened to help the Hasmoneans oppose the Seleucid rulers, the likelihood that they could once again confront the Syrian monarchs made any form of relationship with Rome of vital importance to the Hasmonean state. An aggressive Jewish expansionist policy in the early days of Hasmonean rule, moreover, would have conflicted with the interests of the Roman Republic. This explains why only the early Hasmoneans, for whom the Seleucid rulers were the major threat to their survival, sought treaties with the Roman Republic. Rome also had an interest in making pacts with other eastern nations since by this time the Republic had adopted the ideology of universal rule, and such alliances would have been public statements in support of the widespread belief in Rome that the Republic’s influence reached everywhere.15 By the time of Alexander Jannaeus and his successors, the Hasmoneans appear to have no longer sought public alliances with the Roman Republic due to the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire.16 Understanding this complex period when the Hasmonean family used diplomatic alliances to preserve their state is often difficult due to our problematic sources. This is especially true regarding the treaty Judas made with the Roman Republic.17 The Jewish historian Eupolemus’s description of the early Jewish diplomatic mission to Rome (1 Macc. 8.17; 2 Macc. 4.11) suggests that the Hasmoneans and the Republic made an alliance shortly after Mattathias’s revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. G. Anthony Keddie dates his work to the time of John Hyrcanus, but suggests that it reflects events of 141 B.C.E.18 Although Eupolemus is commonly identified as the ambassador who undertook the embassy to Rome described in 1 Maccabees, the 14.  See further Gruen 1984: 644–71. 15.  Shatzman 1999. 16.  See also Polyb. 1.1.5; 3.1.4-5, 9; 3.4.2; Rhet. Her. 4.13. 17.  For the historicity of the treaties between Judas (ca. 162 B.C.E) and Jonathan (ca.

144/3 B.C.E.) with the Roman Republic, see the discussion of the debate and sources in Grabbe 1992: 259–63. 18.  Keddie 2013.

8

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

unusual syntax could indicate that his father John undertook this mission to Italy.19 If this thesis is correct, Eupolemus could have received much of his information about the early Hasmoneans and their relationship with Rome from his father. By examining the Hasmonean state in light of the historical events that occurred in the neighboring kingdoms of the classical world and the Roman Republic, this book also reveals the limitations of our written sources. It emphasizes that scholars must incorporate new materials, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, classical writers, numismatics, and material culture into their studies of the history and religious beliefs of the Second Temple Period to uncover and reconstruct previously unknown events. The ramifications of this study go beyond the Hasmonean state: this book also provides a witness of the great extent to which the Hasmoneans affected the history of the classical world, particularly in the Middle East and the Roman Republic. Their effect upon the latter is greater than realized, for this family played a major role in helping to bring about the end of the Roman Republic through their participation in its civil wars. Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus Josephus is the only historian whose extant works cover the entire history of the Hasmonean state.20 For this reason, all scholars must use his writings as the basis for their reconstructions of Hasmonean history. He documents this period in his two major books, the War and the Antiquities. The War is the earlier of his two.21 Book one and the first part of book two of this work recount the nearly 240 years that preceded the First Jewish Revolt, with a particular focus on the creation of the Hasmonean state. Josephus believed that his pagan readers could not understand contemporary events without knowing what had transpired during the Hasmonean period. If there was any doubt about the importance of the Hasmonean family, Josephus made it clear to his Roman readers that the deeds of the last rulers of the Hasmonean state had shaped the events of his era. He stresses this theme when he writes that the Jewish bondage of his day began when God abandoned this Jewish ruling family by allowing Pompey to besiege Jerusalem and terminate the Hasmonean state.22 19.  For this thesis, see Zollschan 2004. See also the testimony of Justin (Epit. 36.3.9) that the Roman Republic was the first country to recognize Jewish independence. 20.  For a detailed discussion of the history of scholarship on the Hasmoneans, Josephus, and other extant sources, see Atkinson 2016b: 1–22. 21.  See further Atkinson 2016b: esp. 4–17; Gruen 2016. 22.  War 5.395-96.

1. Introduction

9

Josephus’s second work, the Antiquities, contains a considerably expanded account of the history of the Hasmonean state. It summarizes the Hebrew Bible and subsequent Jewish history up to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt to educate gentiles about Jewish history and religion. One of his goals in writing the Antiquities was to remind Roman elites that the Jews—despite the events of 66–70 C.E.—had enjoyed a long and peaceful relationship with the Roman government since the era of the Republic.23 Although some scholars have challenged the accuracy of the Roman texts Josephus includes to support this claim, there is compelling evidence that he faithfully recorded the contents of actual Roman decrees.24 However, he misidentified the “Hyrcanus” in some of these records with Hyrcanus II when they actually documented events from the reign of John Hyrcanus.25 This shows that although Josephus is largely a trustworthy historian, he made some major chronological errors in recounting the history of the Hasmonean state. For this reason, numismatic, textual, archaeological and papyrological evidence must be used to correct the order of events in the Antiquities, and to uncover other mistakes in this book that, like the War, often interprets the Hasmonean period in light of events of the First Jewish Revolt.26 Josephus likely published the Antiquities in 93–94 C.E. during the thirteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Domitian.27 He continued to update it. This is most evident in his addition of a biography to the work, which is commonly known as Life. Josephus’s Life focuses on his tenure as the commander of the Galilee (ca. December 66 C.E. until May–July 67 C.E.). Since Josephus intended Life to be part of the Antiquities, the two works should be regarded as a single composition.28 The Life is important because it helps us to detect and understand later changes to the text of the Antiquities.29

23.  Mason 1998. 24.  Zollschan 2012. 25.  Atkinson 2016b: 59–62; Stern 1961. 26.  Atkinson 2011b. 27.  Ant. 20.267. See further Bilde 1988: 79, 103–4. 28.  Rodgers 2006: 169–92. 29.  The Life is generally dated to 94–95 C.E., but no later than 96 C.E. See Ant.

20.266-67; Life 430. In Life 359-60 Josephus appears to presuppose that King Agrippa II is dead. A brief comment by Photius (Bibliotheka, Codex 3) states that Agrippa II died after 100 C.E. in the third year of the Emperor Trajan. Although some, such as Laqueur (1920: 3–5), have used this reference to suggest a later date for the Life and the Antiquities, the earlier dating is preferred. See further Bilde 1988: 103–6.

10

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Josephus apparently intended Life to be a defense of his character and to demonstrate the truthfulness of his previous writings, especially the War.30 It is useful for the present study since Josephus introduces his Roman readers to Jewish sectarianism partly to enhance his own credentials. He claims to have been a Pharisee, a Sadducee, and an Essene during his youth.31 Josephus describes these three forms of Judaism as philosophical schools to imply that he was a lifelong seeker of Jewish wisdom, and to show that Judaism emphasized the pursuit of virtue like the Greco-Roman philosophical traditions.32 Most of the sources Josephus used to document Jewish beliefs, practices, and the history of the Hasmonean state are unknown. He may have acquired some of these through his patrons, and Rome’s extensive libraries.33 Fortunately, on occasion Josephus names the works he consulted. In the Antiquities he often quotes from or paraphrases some of them. The most prominent historians he mentions in this book include Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant. 13.250-51, 347), Strabo (Ant. 13.286-87, 319, 347), and Timagenes (Ant. 13.344). In one instance, Josephus merely refers to “some writers” (Ant. 13.337) he consulted for the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. It is probable that Josephus also had access to a Seleucid chronicle.34 Unfortunately, Josephus misunderstood some of the calendrical materials in the works he used. In Ant. 14.236, for example, he provides conflicting dates for the siege of John Hyrcanus in Jerusalem by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus VII Sidetes. His use of the Olympiad and consular datings in this book (Ant. 12.248, 321; 14.4, 66, 389, 487; 15.109; 16.136) show that he copied material from a source since in two instances (Ant. 14.4, 389) they contradict Josephus’s chronology of events.35 Josephus may have taken some of this information from a chronological handbook such as the work of Castor of Rhodes.36 Despite some problems with Josephus’s chronology, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that he has reliably preserved ancient materials from the Hasmonean period.

30.  See further S. Cohen 1979: 114, 126–8; Mason 1997. 31.  Life 10. See further Atkinson 2012b; Dąbrowa 2010b; Klawans 2012: esp. 44–91,

137–8.

32.  Life 2. See further Mason 2009: 208–13. 33.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 19–21. 34.  See further Ant. 1.240; Apion 1.218; Sterling 1992: 263–84. 35.  Sievers 2013: 4–7. See also War 1.415; Apion 1.184; 2.17. 36.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 17.

1. Introduction

11

Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: The Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls constitute the largest collection of writings from the Second Temple Period that document the history of the Hasmonean state. These texts should be examined in conjunction with the archaeological site of Khirbet Qumran as historical witnesses to this period.37 There are eighteen identifiable persons mentioned by name in the entire Qumran corpus.38 The majority of these individuals lived from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus until shortly after the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey. Most of the earlier historical figures, such as “Antiochus” (IV Epiphanes) and “Demetrius” (III) of the Nahum Pesher, appear in a document that reflects back on the second century B.C.E. and which was written during the first century B.C.E.39 This time was also the greatest period of scribal activity at Qumran.40 The Dead Sea Scrolls provide a wealth of background material that supplements the writings of Josephus.41 The size of this collection is immense, and unprecedented in its scope and content. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of its preservation makes it difficult to use many of them. The total number of extant fragments is between 10,000 and 100,000, of which approximately 15,000 are believed to have come from Cave 4. If we assume that the average scroll consists of forty fragments, this gives us a figure of approximately 37,000 fragments that make up 931 manuscripts. However, this figure is not identical with the original number of compositions since many texts are represented in multiple copies. If we subtract duplicates, then there are approximately 350 works in the Dead Sea Scrolls.42 But there are some problems with these estimates for the number of scrolls once extant in the eleven caves within and surrounding the Qumran settlement.43 37.  For the importance of examining the scrolls as artifacts associated with the site of Khirbet Qumran, see further Atkinson and Magness 2010. 38.  Atkinson 2007. For a list of all names in the Qumran texts, see Abegg 2002: 234–5. 39.  For a similar observation, see Wise 2003: 82–3. 40.  See Lim 2002: 20–2; Webster 2002. 41.  See further Atkinson 2013b. 42.  Tov 2002; 2015, 267–88. H. Eshel (2016: 35) provides slightly different figures, and states that more than 16,000 fragments from some six hundred scrolls and three hundred literary works were found in Cave 4a. Because scholars classify fragments differently, and sometimes combine them, there is no consensus concerning the exact number of scrolls or fragments found in Cave 4 or the other Qumran caves. 43.  Caves 7, 8, and 8 are located inside the wall of Khirbet Qumran. Caves 4 (= 4a+4b), 5, and 6 are in close proximity to the site. See further Atkinson and Magness 2010: 325.

12

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The studies of the scroll fragments by Stephen Reed and Stephen Pfann reveal some problems with the presumed provenance of many Dead Sea Scrolls. Of the nearly 600 fragmentary manuscripts identified as having come from Cave 4, less than a quarter were found in an excavation and therefore can be definitively associated with this particular cave.44 The “Scrolls Ledger” of the original publication team, moreover, lists those fragments purchased during January–March 1953 as emanating from “unknown caves,” with a single exception. Yet, many of these fragments are now identified as having originated from Cave 4.45 We should be skeptical in accepting the traditional attribution of many Dead Sea Scrolls to a particular cave, especially Cave 4, unless scholars discovered them in a controlled excavation or unprovenanced fragments can be physically connected with materials excavated. Ada Yardeni’s innovative study of scribal hands reveals that only two of the 45 Cave 4 fragments she lists as produced by the same scribe were actually excavated.46 Of the 28 texts from Cave 4 she believes were “perhaps also copied by this scribe,” scholars uncovered only one (4Q525 Beatitudes) of them. This means that only three of the 45 texts she examined that were likely copied by the same scribe can be definitively connected with this cave: all the others are presumed, but not proven, to have come from Cave 4. These figures raise the possibility that a large number of the fragments believed to have originated from Cave 4 came from other known or unknown caves.47 Many of the fragments from the Judean Desert that

44.  Pfann 2007b; Reed 2007. Reed (2007: 206 n. 33) lists the following Cave 4 (4Q) documents in PAM 40.962-40.985 that were excavated, mainly in the recesses in the floor of Cave 4a, and can definitively be linked to Cave 4a+b: 1, 14, 22, 24, 26a, 30, 34, 37, 39, 51, 62, 63, 68, 72, 74, 80, 84, 94, 103, 109, 112, 115, 121, 127, 151, 163, 165, 179, 204, 217, 227, 248, 249, 249b, 249e, 249g, 249i, 249z, 255, 258, 261, 270, 276, 282e, 282g, 289, 321, 324d, 324e, 324g, 334, 364, 365, 367, 378, 381, 384, 385, 387, 387a, 387b, 391, 395, 412, 418, 422, 432, 433a, 440, 485, 487, 489, 491, 496, 497, 499, 502, 503, 506, 508, 509, 512, 519, 525, 529, 532, 545, 558, Mur 6. 45.  Fields 2009: 231. 46.  Yardeni 2007. 47.  Tov suggests that several Cave 4 texts came from other sites. He notes that the Cave 4 text 4QGenb, as suggested by its editor, J. R. Davila, is very close to the medieval Masoretic Text and most likely came from the Wadi Murabba’at. Tov agrees with those scholars who do not believe that the documentary texts 4Q342-348, 351-361 are from Qumran even though they are included among the Dead Sea Scrolls from Cave 4. He also notes that 4Q347 and XHev/Se 32 (papDeed F) are part of the same document, which suggests that texts from other sites were merged with the Qumran materials. See further Tov 2011: 9–10.

1. Introduction

13

have appeared during the last fifteen years, most of which were purchased by institutions or collectors, are of uncertain provenance although they are commonly labelled as from Cave 4. Only one of these (MS 5439/1, 4Q4364 8a) has been identified with a previously published Cave 4 manuscript, while the letter forms and scribal hands of the others are different than the majority of documents that came from this cave. This suggests that the Bedouin had discovered an unknown cave containing Dead Sea Scrolls.48 James Charlesworth, who perhaps has the most experience dealing with the Arabs involved in the antiquities markets, cautions that we should not readily assume that we have most of what was placed in the eleven Dead Sea Scroll caves. Rather, he estimates that “far less than 10%” of the Dead Sea Scrolls survive. Moreover, he also notes that we have numerous fragments of unknown documents from Cave 1, while other pieces of scrolls from Qumran caves are still in the hands of the Arabs.49 It is unlikely that so many caves containing copies of identical texts such as the Serek, as well as documents espousing a similar theology, were deposited at Qumran and its vicinity by chance. The paleographical dates and historical contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the first century B.C.E. was the formative period for the community described in these writings. The many Qumran texts found in different caves produced by one scribe suggest that the collection belonged to the same community. This finding challenges recent attempts to show that the contents of Caves 1 and 4 are older than documents purportedly found in the other scroll caves, as well as theories presupposing various dates for the deposition of the scrolls in the caves, since a single scribe produced texts found in

48.  Cave 8 contained scroll jars but no scrolls, indicative that it was likely robbed in modern times. Stegemann (1998: 67–79, esp. 78–9), based on the contents of the known Qumran caves, suggests that 120 scrolls were likely removed in antiquity from Caves 3, 7, 8, and 9. He nevertheless comments that a few of these fragments came from Caves 1 and 11 even though none were found by archaeologists and are therefore unprovenanced. For additional doubts concerning the Qumran provenance for some of the fragments that have appeared in recent years, and the possibility that some are forgeries, see further Davis et al. 2017; Justnes and Rasmussen 2017; Tigchelaar 2016a, 2016b, 2016c. 49.  Charlesworth 2016: 9. H. Eshel (2016: 41) lists the known Dead Sea Scrolls not in possession of the Rockefeller Museum. He offers the optimistic assessment that the curators of this institution managed to obtain more than 95% of the fragments from the Bedouin. H. Eshel (2016: 49) writes that as of 2009, more than forty Qumran texts remain in private hands, and that the Shrine of the Book turned down an offer to purchase sixteen fragments in 2007. See also Tigchelaar 2017b.

14

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

multiple caves.50 Because the archaeological evidence shows that there was no break in Qumran’s occupation between Periods I and II, the Dead Sea Scrolls should not be viewed as a random assortment of documents. Rather, they are a collection that was deliberately selected, copied, preserved, and brought over a period of time to Khirbet Qumran.51 But we cannot exclude the possibility that there were more than eleven Scroll caves containing texts of related communities that were located elsewhere. A team from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem led by archaeologists Oren Gutfeld and Ahiad Ovadia, with Randall Price, recently announced the discovery a cave (Cave 12) that apparently once had scrolls. It contained jars of the same type found in other caves that once held Dead Sea Scrolls. The archaeologists also found a scroll wrapping, a small uninscribed piece of parchment, a leather strap for binding a scroll, and iron pickaxe heads. Because some jars are broken, and there is evidence of looting, this cave was certainly robbed of its contents in modern times. It is very likely that much of its contents were later identified as having emanated from Cave 4 and possibly other known Dead Sea Scroll caves.52 The finding of this 50.  Stökl ben Ezra (2007; 2011) identifies Caves 1 and 4 as “old” caves whose texts have different dates than those from the “young” Caves 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11, arguing that scrolls were hidden at Qumran on more than one occasion. García-Martínez (2010: 8–10) notes that the radiocarbon dates of four Cave 1 texts, and the paleographical dates of several others from this cave, reveal that they postdate the supposed dates of their deposition proposed by Stökl ben Ezra. Pfann (2007a) distinguishes between caves with Yahad documents (1Q, 4Qa, 4Qb, 5Q, and 6Q) and “rebel caves” (2Q, 3Q, 11Q, Masada) that do not contain scrolls with Yahad theology. Doudna proposes that all the Dead Sea Scrolls were deposited in the caves before the end of the first century B.C.E. based on the absence of historical allusions to persons or events of the first century C.E., and his redating of the cylindrical jars to the first century B.C.E. See Doudna 1999; 2006; 2011a; 2011b. The paleographical and radiocarbon evidence makes this thesis untenable. See further Webster 2002. Cave 4 contained an unusually high number of paleographically older manuscripts produced before the Qumran settlement, many single copy texts, documents apparently written by apprentice scribes (4Q234, 341, 360), and the manuscripts were dispersed in every strata. This suggests the cave’s contents reflect a single deposition, although they were placed there over a considerable period. See White Crawford 2017. 51.  Mizzi and Magness 2016. Ownership, however, should not be equated with authorship. I accept that the Qumran community did not produce all the Scrolls, but that these texts are likely connected with the wider Essene movement that collected (but did not necessarily write) all these documents. I regard the following works as sectarian compositions: the editions of the Serek, the Damascus Document, the Thanksgiving Hymns, the Pesharim, 4QMMT, the War Scroll, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and possibly portions of the Temple Scroll. 52.  See Gutfeld and Price 2017. Stegemann (1998: 67–79) proposes that approximately 120 scrolls were removed from Caves 3, 7, 8, and 9 in antiquity.

1. Introduction

15

cave strongly suggests that there were more than eleven Dead Sea Scroll caves. Consequently, we should not accept the conventional attributions of the scrolls unless archeologists actually discovered them in the cave to which they have been assigned.53 The possible addition of new caves containing texts, possibly including different editions of the Serek, further supports the thesis that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from several communities and were brought to Khirbet Qumran for study, deposition, and/or hiding because of the sect’s association with these other like-minded groups. The presence of three scroll caves (7, 8, and 9) within the confines of Khirbet Qumran provides further evidence that the texts and the site are connected.54 Yet, there are problems with these documents. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls are often helpful for clarifying difficult passages in Josephus’s War, the Antiquities, and Life, they are very different types of literature. The Qumran texts lack the kind of sequential narrative found in works such as 1 and 2 Maccabees.55 Because of the difficulties involved in retrieving historical information from the Dead Sea Scrolls, many scholars prefer to focus on the literary character of these writings. Those who use the Dead Seas Scrolls for historical reconstruction are sometimes criticized for practicing a type of “naïve historicism.”56 This study sides with those who argue that the historical allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls can be used to reconstruct the events of the Hasmonean period.57 Although these texts contain valuable historical information, it is clear that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls are often quite polemical. They sometimes distorted their portrayals of the Hasmonean state. Yet, the same is true of Josephus and all our extant documents that recount the history of the Second Temple Period. The writers and collectors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Judaism they and Josephus practiced, however, were closely connected with the wider Hellenistic world and many of the

53.  See further Tigchelaar 2016a. 54.  Atkinson and Magness 2010: 323–5; White Crawford 2012. 55.  See further Brooke 2007. 56.  For this criticism, see further M. Collins 2009: 16–18. See also the work of

Grossman (2002), who emphasizes the historiographical study of the Qumran texts without searching for their original meaning. She instead focuses on how these documents present ideological constructions of history. For a view that rejects the present study’s use of the Qumran texts, especially the pesharim, for historical reconstruction, see Davies 2011: esp. 332. 57.  For recent supporters of this view, see Charlesworth 2002: 56; J. Collins 2011; Vermes 2007; Wise 2003.

16

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

countries examined in this book.58 Consequently, the Qumran sectarians should be viewed as Hellenistic Jews, and their writings examined in light of contemporary Greco-Roman Hellenistic history. Sources for the History of the Hasmonean State: Classical Texts, Numismatics, and Other Literature The first-century B.C.E. historian Pompeius Trogus, a third-generation Roman of Gallic origin, provides what is perhaps the best example of the limitations scholars face in attempting to document events of the Hasmonean period. He wrote an extensive history of the Hellenistic period that included a lengthy section on the history of Parthia, which is of great importance for understanding the Hasmonean state. His book was quite influential: he, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus were regarded as the four great Latin historians.59 Yet, despite his prominence in antiquity, his work does not survive intact. A portion of the massive historical work of Pompeius Trogus is extant in an epitome by Justin that has been dated as early as 144 C.E. to as late as 395 C.E.60 Justin admits that he had no interest in the history of the Parthian Empire, and that he intentionally removed approximately thirty-five years of Parthian history between the reigns of Mithridates II (123–88 B.C.E.) and Orodes II (ca. 56–38 B.C.E.) from Trogus’s book. His deletion of this material deprives us of what was the greatest source of Parthian history for the Hasmonean period. Justin’s excision of this section has led to its being called the Parthian “Dark Age.” 61 Numismatic evidence used in this book helps to bridge the gap in Pompeius Trogus’s history to reveal new information about the Hasmoneans and their neighbors. Because the Parthians played a major and largely overlooked role in the history of the Hasmonean state, the present study devotes considerable space to reconstructing unknown events that took place in the Parthian Empire that involved the Hasmonean family. George Syncellus and Christian writers such as Jerome and Eusebius include important information about the Hasmonean state they likely obtained from Jewish and pagan historical works. Some of the sources 58.  Hartog and Jokiranta 2017; Mizzi 2017; Popović 2017; B. G. Wright 2017. 59.  See Hist. Aug. (Aurel. 2.1); (Probus 2.7). 60.  Yardley and Develin 1997: 1–10. 61.  Other lost histories of the Parthian Empire include Arrian, Asinius Quadratus,

Quintus Dellius, Apollodorus of Armetica, and Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis. See further Nikonorov 1998: 107, 119.

1. Introduction

17

Syncellus consulted likely predate the works of Josephus.62 His Chronicle may explain a later puzzling incident that Josephus omits from his books regarding a campaign of Alexander Jannaeus against Tyre; it also clarifies some chronological problems in the narratives of his reign.63 The Jewish pseudepigrapha contain an immense body of texts that are not only of great assistance in determining the accuracy of Josephus’s accounts of the Hasmonean state, but they shed much new light on the politics and religious beliefs of the Hasmonean rulers, their subjects, and their interactions with their neighbors. Like Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, these texts are often polemical. This is particularly true of the Psalms of Solomon, which is a collection of eighteen pseudonymous Jewish poems that document religious disputes of the first century B.C.E. and the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of the Hasmonean state.64 Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the authors of the Psalms of Solomon use fictive names for their opponents.65 Unfortunately, in many instances the persons alluded to in these poems are difficult, or sometimes impossible, for contemporary scholars to identify. The Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some precise historical allusions to the Hasmonean monarchs and the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest that allow us to identify many of their sobriquets with some degree of confidence. These poems also help us to understand Josephus’s descriptions of Jewish sectarianism, and how religious disagreements influenced the foreign policy of the Hasmonean state’s rulers. The Psalms of Solomon and the Qumran texts show that Josephus, despite his apologetic tendencies, produced fairly accurate descriptions of Jewish sectarianism during the Hasmonean period. But his accounts of these religious movements occasionally include anachronisms that reflect the conditions of these sects during the first century C.E.66

62.  S. Schwartz 1990a. 63.  For this incident, see Sync., Chron. 1.559. 64.  See further Atkinson 2004. See also Eckhardt 2009; Sharon 2017: 228–9. 65.  See further Atkinson 2015c. 66.  Popović (2011: 3) comments that it is often difficult to determine whether

Josephus’s accounts are proper historical sources for understanding pre-70 C.E. Judea or whether they are instead historical sources for understanding the historical context of Josephus in Flavian Rome. See also Regev 2013: 28–31. Josephus’s descriptions of the Essenes are so similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls that is has been proposed that he had access to an Essene rule book, and supplied the Hellenizing presentation himself. See further Atkinson 2012b: 8–17; J. Collins 2009: 67.

18

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Although rabbinic literature was written centuries after the Hasmonean state’s termination, it preserves some ancient traditions that shed some additional light on several stories about the Hasmonean rulers that Josephus preserved in his writings.67 In his Ant. 13.288-300, for example, Josephus preserves a tale about a disagreement between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees that has no parallel in his War. Because this story interrupts the flow of the material that he copied from the War, Josephus possibly transcribed it from a source. The Talmud likely preserves the same story, but places it in the reign of his son, Jannaeus (Yannai).68 These accounts share several elements: a banquet given by a high priest for the Pharisees, a request that John Hyrcanus/Jannaeus relinquish the office of high priest, and a remark that his mother had been a captive. The author of this story and Josephus appear to have copied an ancient negative tale about John Hyrcanus.69 Another example of an important late source, which contains significant new information about the Hasmonean state, is found in the medieval Jewish work commonly known as Josippon. This book includes a unique account of John Hyrcanus’s participation in the Parthian war of Antiochus VII Sidetes. David Flusser believes it preserves material from an ancient pagan source that contained information about this conflict.70 Numismatic evidence presented in this study provides further support for this section of Josippon, and sheds additional light on the chronology of the Seleucid Empire during the reigns of Demetrius II and Antiochus VII Sidetes. Numismatic and archaeological discoveries constitute valuable sources of information about the Hasmonean family and the state they created. Coins in particular show the political development and expansion of the Hasmonean state. They allow us to reconstruct a chronology of the Seleucid rulers and the cities they controlled.71 This material not only 67.  For the problems with using rabbinic literature, see Neusner 1971: 3:234–8. 68.  b. Qidd. 66a. See further Efron 1987: 161–89; Neusner 1971: 1:173–6; Noam

2014.

69.  See further Geller 1979: 210–11; Rooke 2000: 308–9; Sievers 1990: 147–9. 70.  Flusser 1957. Josippon also incorporates material from the Antiquities, War, and

Against Apion, the books of Maccabees, Orosius, and Pseudo-Hegesippus. See further Bowman 2008; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:117. Josippon was likely written sometime in the tenth century C.E. and was erroneously attributed to Josephus. See further Dönitz 2013; 2016: 283–9; Flusser 2009: 152–4. For the text, see Flusser 1978; Hominer 1967. 71.  See especially the following: Hoover 1994; 2007a; 2007b; 2009; 2011; Hoover, Houghton, and Vesely 2008; Houghton 1983; 1989; 1992; 1998; 1993; 2000; Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover 2008; Houghton and Le Rider 1988; Houghton and Müseler 1990; Houghton and Spaer 1990.

1. Introduction

19

helps correct errors in Josephus’s chronology, but it also provides much new information concerning the relationship between the Hasmoneans and the kings of the Seleucid Empire. It reveals that John Hyrcanus fought in a previously unknown war between the Seleucid and the Parthian Empires. A study of the numismatics from Syria also shows that the Hasmonean family played a greater role in the politics and history of the Seleucid Empire than previously recognized. This is particularly true for the period when Demetrius III invaded the Hasmonean state during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Conclusion The present study examines the extent to which the countries surrounding the Hasmonean state and the Roman Republic shaped Second Temple Period Jewish history, as well as how the Hasmonean family affected other nations. It includes new historical reconstructions based on textual sources, archaeology, epigraphical evidence, classical texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, numismatics, and later Jewish and Christian writings. Each chapter highlights the extent to which the Hasmonean state’s neighbors influenced its rulers, beginning with the family’s revolt against the Seleucid Empire to create an independent nation to the aftermath of the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Pompey and his termination of the Hasmonean state. What makes this volume unique is its reconstructions of historical events not documented in any extant source. Because so little evidence from written texts survives from the Hasmonean period, historians should not be reluctant to infer new reconstructions of events based on the extant data. However, this study seeks to avoid guesswork and speculation by providing substantial corroborating evidence from as many textual, archaeological, and numismatic sources as possible to support its reconstructions of unknown events in Hasmonean history. The first period in which this evidence sheds new light on the Hasmonean state concerns the origin of its ruling family, and why they took up arms against the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Chapter 2 T h e E a r ly H a s m on ean P e r i od: N e w E v i d en c e f rom t h e D ead S e a S cr olls

The Hasmonean family led a revolt against the Seleucid Empire during the mid-second century B.C.E., and created an independent state that lasted until the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Jerusalem.1 Scholars have devoted considerable attention to uncovering the events that led the priest Mattathias and his sons (Judas, Jonathan, Simon, Eleazar, and John) to defy the decree of the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes that banned the observance of Jewish law. Mattathias and his sons fought a nearly twenty-five-year rebellion against the Seleucid Empire to create an independent state. Judas is the most famous member of this family. The holiday of Hanukkah still commemorates his 164 B.C.E. restoration of the temple cult.2 Although the rabbinic tradition greatly exaggerated his political and military accomplishments, the ancient sources surprisingly record little information about the circumstances that led his father to revolt against Antiochus IV. The sequence of events that preceded Mattathias’s uprising is also uncertain, and the reason for Antiochus IV’s edict is unknown. The Dead Sea Scrolls and a recently discovered inscription may explain why Mattathias and his sons fought Antiochus IV and his successors. They also provide some new information about the relationships between the Jews and their neighbors during the early years of the Hasmonean family’s fight against the Seleucid Empire’s monarchs. The Origin of the Hasmonean Family’s Revolt Of all the rulers who affected the Hasmonean family, none was more important than the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.3 His harsh treatment of the Jewish community led the priest Mattathias and his 1.  See Atkinson 2015a; 2015b; Bar-Kochva 1989: 147–8; Sharon 2017: 53–117. 2.  1 Macc. 4:36-59; 2 Macc. 1:10–2.19; Ant. 12.316-26; Atkinson 2015a. 3.  His full name was Antiochus IV Theos Epiphanes Nikephoros. He was the son of

Antiochus III and Laodike. For his career, see Grainger 1997: 22–7; Ehling 2008: 111–21.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

21

sons to lead a revolt against him. Our conflicting sources regarding their uprising make it difficult to determine what Antiochus IV did that led some Jews to take up arms to oppose him. The crux of the debate is whether the chronology of 1 Maccabees or 2 Maccabees is correct. According to 1 Macc. 1:20, Antiochus IV came to Jerusalem in the Seleucid year 143 (= 170/169 B.C.E.) after his first invasion of Egypt. The author of 2 Macc. 5:1-21 places this event after his second attack upon that country. The majority of scholars accept the chronology of 1 Maccabees.4 However, this book and 2 Maccabees cite documents that sometimes contradict the narratives in which they are embedded.5 The author of Dan. 11:28-30 adds further confusion to the debate over what transpired at this time by claiming Antiochus IV actually visited and robbed Jerusalem twice. Josephus’s Antiquities provides some support for the chronology of Daniel. Yet, he states that Antiochus IV did not steal from the temple treasury on his first trip to Jerusalem, but only during his second.6 The differences between the extant accounts of Antiochus IV and his interactions with the Jews makes it difficult to use them to reconstruct the events that led to the creation of the Hasmonean state since they are largely theological writings that extol the deeds of the Hasmonean family. Because the historical sources used by the writers of 1 and 2 Maccabees are unknown, it is difficult to determine which of these two books is more reliable when their narratives differ.7 The Dead Sea Scroll 4QHistorical Text A (4Q248) contains valuable historical information that may settle the debate concerning when Antiochus IV began his anti-Jewish persecution. The partially preserved ten lines of this apocalyptic work appear to recount historical events that took place during his reign. Its paleographical date is approximately 30–1 B.C.E.8 However, this dating is not necessarily identical with the time 4.  See, for example, Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:151–3; Stern 1974–80: 2:115–16. 5.  See Bar-Kochva 1989: 516–42; Grabbe 1992: 247–93. For additional discussions

and the problems in reconciling the conflicting chronologies in 1 and 2 Maccabees, see D. Schwartz 2008: 38–56. 6.  Seleucid year 143 (= 170/69 B.C.E.) mentioned in Ant. 12.246-47 and Seleucid year 145 (= 168/67 B.C.E.) documented in Ant. 12.248-50. See further D. Schwartz 2001: 50. 7.  See further Goldstein 1976: 90–103, 175–86; Sievers 1990: 1–10. For the major theories of why the Hasmonean family fought Antiochus IV, see Grabbe 1992: 247–93; Sievers 1990: 15–26. 8.  For this text, see Broshi and Eshel 2000. The stitching holes show that this fragment was preceded by at least one other sheet. The editors identify the script as Herodian formal hand, which is dated between 30–1 B.C.E.

22

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

of its composition since its historical contents suggest that it reflects the period of Antiochus IV. The writer of 4QHistorical Text A describes a king who ruled Egypt and Greece (‫ ;מצרים וביון‬4Q248 1) and besieged a city (4Q248 4) whose name is not preserved.9 Broshi and Eshel, the editors of this text, believe the partially preserved passage in lines 3-4 describes cannibalism in Alexandria, which they propose took place during Antiochus IV’s first invasion of Egypt.10 The subsequent line mentions how the Lord will send a spirit, which implies that the author believed that divine intervention ended the siege.11 In line 6 the text mentions the selling of land. Epigraphical finds support the statement of Porphyry (cited in Jerome’s commentary on Dan. 11:21) that Antiochus IV proclaimed himself king in Egypt, which makes it probable that he engaged in real estate transactions there. This was likely related to his looting of Egyptian temples to procure needed funds.12 Antiochus IV later used these spoils to pay for an extravagant victory celebration at Daphne.13 The most important part of 4QHistorical Text A is found in lines 6-7, which state that after the siege this monarch conquered Jerusalem (‫עיר‬ ‫)המקדש‬. In the following two lines, the writer mentions that he overthrew “the lands of nations” and then returned to Egypt. Broshi and Eshel propose this passage refers to Antiochus IV’s subjugation of Cyprus at the beginning of his second invasion of Egypt.14 The final portion of 4QHistorical Text A, lines 9-10, contains predictions of events that never occurred.15 This section is similar to Dan. 11:40-45, where the biblical writer also switches from the genre of ex eventu prophecy to predictions of actual events that are sometimes factually incorrect.16 Although this portion in 4QHistorical Text A is partially preserved, its extant content suggest that it describes the beginning of a new era of history. 9.  Broshi and Eshel (2000: 193–4) note that the juxtaposition of Egypt and Greece makes it clear that the reference is to the Seleucid Empire as in the Nahum Pesher (4QpNah 3-4 I 2, 3) and CD (VII 11 [MS A], XIX 24 [MS B]). 10.  Broshi and Eshel 2000: 193, 195, 197–8. The editors note this is a common theme in biblical literature, and there is no historical evidence that it actually occurred. 11.  Broshi and Eshel 2000: 195–8. 12.  FGrH 1980: no. 32; Broshi and Eshel 2000: 195, 198; H. Eshel 2008: 16. 13.  Polyb. 30.25.1–26.9. 14.  Broshi and Eshel 2000: 195, 199; Livy, History 45.11.9. 15.  See further Atkinson 2006: 463–4. 16.  See further J. Collins 1993: 388–9. The author of Daniel was unaware that Antiochus IV went to Persia; the book does not mention any event after his profanation of the temple.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

23

Daniel Schwartz proposes that 4QHistorical Text A supports the chronology of Josephus and shows that Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem twice.17 During the first attack he took money (4Q248 7). The apocalyptic scenario associated with the second visit (4Q248 9-10) is reminiscent of Daniel 11 and 12 and clearly describes a crisis of eschatological significance.18 Antiochus IV brought about this tribulation by his desecration of the temple, which the author alludes to in line 9. The Qumran text 4QHistorical Text A is unique because it makes no mention of any religious persecution. Rather, its author views the repentance of the children of Israel after the sacking of Jerusalem as a sign that marks the beginning of a new era of history that will favor them. Hanan Eshel suggests that the prophetic section of 4QHistorical Text A witnesses to messianic expectations in Judea in 168 B.C.E., at the time of Antiochus IV’s second Egyptian campaign, and a few months prior to the beginning of the Hasmonean revolt. He proposes that the rumors of Antiochus IV’s death during his second invasion of Egypt led to an increased interest in messianism among Judea’s population.19 The extant evidence suggests that it is more probable that a Jewish rebellion, in which the Maccabean family participated, took place in the context of the second invasion of Egypt by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.20 The content of 4QHistorical Text A raises the possibility that apocalyptic interpretations of recent events, likely coupled with messianic expectations, were responsible for Jewish armed opposition to Antiochus IV. Although 4QHistorical Text A provides some valuable new insight concerning the possible reason for Jewish resistance against Antiochus IV, it does not explain what he did that inflamed Jews such as Mattathias and his sons. Nowhere does the writer of 4QHistorical Text A suggest that Antiochus IV engaged in a religious persecution of Jews. There is, moreover, no evidence that any Hellenistic monarch attempted to eradicate 17.  D. Schwartz 2001; 2008: 533–6. This passage, as the editors (Broshi and Eshel 2000: 9–891) of 4Q248 note, appears to support the chronology of 1 Maccabees since it seems to place the capture and looting of the temple by Antiochus IV after his first invasion of Egypt. H. Eshel (2008: 17) believes that 4Q248 shows that Antiochus IV came to Jerusalem between his two invasions of Egypt. 18.  D. Schwartz 2001; 2008: 533–6. 19.  H. Eshel 2008: 19; 2 Macc. 5:1-5. I reject the proposal of Dimant (2001: 53–69) that 4Q386 describes Antiochus IV’s first invasion of Egypt for the reasons discussed in depth in Chapter 7. For additional texts that have been proposed as containing allusions to Antiochus IV, see further H. Eshel 2008: 19 n. 16. H. Eshel also raises the possibility that 4QHistorical Text A predates the final redaction of Daniel, and that the Qumran community may have possessed one of this biblical book’s sources. 20.  Honigman 2014: 82–6.

24

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

a “superstition” or a religion.21 This is particularly true of Antiochus IV. During his festival at Daphne in 166 B.C.E. he celebrated religious tolerance!22 Josephus may shed some additional light on the historical content of 4QHistorical Text A that could explain why Mattathias led a rebellion against Seleucid rule. He suggests that the origin of his revolt had its roots in an earlier historical event. According to Josephus, Antiochus III issued proclamations that confirmed the rights of the Jews to practice their traditional customs and religion.23 Bickerman comments that these edicts were not unique. Rather, they were minor measures that Antiochus III thought would help him secure the loyalty and assistance of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. He needed the cooperation of all his subjects to help him recover from the economic effects caused by his 190 B.C.E. military loss to the Roman Republic at the Battle of Magnesia.24 Antiochus III and his sons and successors, Seleucus IV (187–185 B.C.E.) and Antiochus IV (175–164 B.C.E.), were under great pressure to locate new revenues to pay the required money the Seleucid Empire owed to the Republic as a result of this defeat.25 There is no evidence that any of these kings treated Judea differently than other parts of the Seleucid Empire. Rather, the recently discovered Heliodorus Stele shows that the Seleucid rulers were merely trying to exercise the same control over the Jerusalem temple and the royal administration in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia they had accomplished elsewhere. This inscription documents Seleucus IV’s appointment of Olympiodorus as overseer of the sanctuaries of these regions, which included the Jerusalem temple.26 This action was merely part of the Seleucid Empire’s administration of its territory: it was never intended to harm the Jewish faith. The Seleucid rulers viewed all temples and cities in their Empire under their direct control. They were not out to persecute Judaism, but expected the Jews to comply with their religious edicts like other subjects within the Seleucid Empire. However, the Jewish population 21.  J. Collins 1993: 63–4; Gruen 2016: 21–2. Cf. Diod. Sic. 34–5; Tac., Hist. 5.8.2. Gruen (1998a: 238) calls the 167 B.C.E. reversal of the earlier policies of tolerance by Antiochus IV “baffling.” 22.  Polyb. 30.26. 23.  Ant. 12.138-46. These privileges are similar to those mentioned in the Hefziba Stele, which contains decrees issued by Antiochus III from 202–195 B.C.E. See Honigman 2014: 400–441. 24.  See Livy, History 37, 40–41; Bickerman 1979: 33. See also Grainger 1997: 15–22. 25.  See further Portier-Young 2011: 49–80. 26.  Atkinson 2013b: 8–16; Cotton and Gera 2009; Cotton and Wörrle 2007; Gera 2009. Cf. 2 Macc. 3:1–4:6. The Heliodorus Stele reveals it was Olympiodorus, and not Heliodorus, who was appointed to this position. Cf. 2 Macc. 3; Mendels 2011.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

25

apparently regarded the appointment of a Seleucid official as high priest of the satrapy that included Judea, with power over the high priest in Jerusalem, as an infringement of their religious autonomy. It also raised the possibility that the Seleucid rulers had the right to appoint a person of non-priestly descent to oversee the temple and its sacrifices. Because the temple’s purity depended on the ritual cleanliness of the high priest, an illegitimate holder of this office, in the minds of many Jews, would have polluted the temple compound and rendered the sacrificial system ineffective. Antiochus IV was merely following the example of his predecessor and overseeing the temples under his jurisdiction. His attempts to do so apparently led some Jews to resort to apocalyptic rhetoric and messianism to urge armed opposition to Seleucid rule and foreign interference in the operation of the Jerusalem temple.27 The events that led to the Hasmonean rebellion did not occur suddenly in reaction to the decrees of Antiochus IV. Rather, this insurrection was part of a longstanding Jewish frustration with the policies of the Seleucid Empire’s rulers. The toppling of the Oniad dynasty by Jason and Menelaus apparently brought additional political destabilization to Judea, and increased taxes that likely led some Jews to revolt against the Seleucid officials.28 The persecution of Antiochus IV was likely the consequence of previous unrest in Jerusalem, which later caused the family of the Hasmoneans to rebel. The descendants of Mattathias eventually broke free of the Syrian Empire to create an independent state that was largely secular in its political policies since the Hasmonean family quickly made treaties with various Seleucid rulers to stay in power. This suggests that the rebellion of Mattathias was not unique. Rather, it was like other uprisings: it was a combination of brutality and religious fanaticism.29 Antiochus IV is explicitly mentioned in the Nahum Pesher (4Q169 3-4 I 3). This document is among the few Dead Sea Scrolls that contain names of known persons. It states that “[God did not deliver Jerusalem] into the power of the kings of Greece from Antiochus (‫ביד מלכי יון‬ ‫ )מאנתיכוס‬until the reign of the rulers of the Kittim; but afterwards [the city] will be trampled” (4Q169 3-4 I 3). The author of the Nahum Pesher 27.  For recent defenses of the traditional view that Antiochus IV persecuted Judaism, which rejects the view put forth here that the Heliodorus Stele reveals that a re-structuring of the tax system in the province led to the Maccabean revolt, and an upsurge in messianism, see J. Collins 2016: 189–201; Doran 2016; Gruen 2016: 20–7. 28.  For the high priests Onias III, Jason, and Menelaus, see Brutti 2006: 86–90; VanderKam 2004: 188–226. The Seleucid Empire, which had supported Jewish privileges, became unpredictably antagonistic after 198 B.C.E. See Regev 2013: 15–18. 29.  Tcherikover 1959: 248–9.

26

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

names Antiochus (‫ )אנתיכוס‬to make certain the reader understands that this passage describes Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem. The writer viewed the reign of Antiochus IV as the beginning of a new era that was marked by continual foreign invasions that ended with Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. termination of the Hasmonean state.30 The author compares Pompey to Antiochus IV because this Seleucid ruler not only conquered Jerusalem, but he desecrated the temple as well.31 The Nahum Pesher shows that the Qumran community regarded the events that took place during the reign of Antiochus IV as unique in Jewish history. However, the Seleucid monarchs were not the only rulers to have affected the early Hasmoneans. The kings of the Ptolemaic Empire, some of whom were related to Syria’s monarchs, played important roles in shaping the history of the Hasmonean state. A Dead Sea Scroll likely provides some evidence of the relationship between the Hasmoneans and the Ptolemaic Dynasty during the early years of the family’s struggle to create an independent Jewish state. The Ptolemaic Rulers and the Hasmoneans The Qumran text 4QHistorical Text B (4Q578) may provide some unique insight concerning Jewish perceptions of the Ptolemaic Empire during the period the Hasmonean family opposed the Seleucid monarchs. This document contains three occurrences of the name Ptolemy (‫( )פתלמיס‬4Q578 2 2, 3, 4).32 Émile Puech, the editor of this small fragment, comments that it is more probable these names refer to the Ptolemaic rulers rather than the city of Ptolemais. Although paleographical analysis is somewhat imprecise, it is nevertheless a useful tool for providing an approximate date when a Qumran text was produced. The paleographical date of this document is approximately 125 B.C.E., which makes it the earliest Dead Sea Scroll to contain names.33 Since none of the identifiable persons in the Dead Sea Scrolls is found in texts that predate 4QHistorical Text B, it is likely that the paleographical date of this text is close to the time of its composition. 30.  War 5.395-96. See further Berrin 2004a: 100. 31.  Although Josephus (Ant. 14.72; War 1.152) writes that the Romans did not steal

from the temple in 63 B.C.E., he mentions that Pompey went inside the Holy of Holies. Cf. Cicero, Flac. 28.670. 32.  For the text, see Puech 1997: 205–8. The sole fragment of this text contains only the three occurrences of this name. 33.  Puech 1997: 205 (“semi-cursive semi-formelle hasmonéene”). See further Atkinson 2007.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

27

Because other Dead Sea Scrolls list names in an annalistic manner, it is probable that the three references to Ptolemy in 4QHistorical Text B refer to different persons with this name rather than one or two figures. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls comprise the collection of a Jewish sect, it is more likely that 4QHistorical Text B mentions individuals of interest to this group. If so, then the most probable identifications, based on the paleographical dating and their influence on Jewish history, are Ptolemy VI Philometor and his brother Ptolemy VIII Physcon.34 These are the only Pharaohs who bore this name and affected Jewish history and the Hasmonean family prior to the production or copying of 4QHistorical Text B. The third ruler is likely one of their sons named Ptolemy. Philometor and his co-ruler, his sister-wife Cleopatra II, indirectly played a role in the development of Jewish sectarianism during the second century B.C.E. Both were friendly to the Jews.35 They welcomed Onias IV after he left Judea following the murder of his father, the high priest Onias III. The royal couple allowed Onias IV and his supporters to settle in Egypt and construct a Jewish temple in the town of Leontopolis.36 During his reign, Jonathan attempted to retain power through diplomacy with several Seleucid rulers. Nevertheless, he did not entirely trust them; he realized that he also needed to appease the pharaohs of the Ptolemaic Empire adjacent to his border for his fledgling kingdom to survive. When Philometor betrothed his daughter, Cleopatra Thea, to the new ruler of Syria, Alexander Balas (150–46 B.C.E.), Jonathan attended the wedding. The Hasmonean ruler even sat on the royal dais between Philometor and Balas as their honored guest.37 Jonathan gave the couple lavish gifts of gold. Nevertheless, this overture was not a sign of his strength or wealth. Rather, he did it to show in public that he was an ally of the Seleucid Empire and its Ptolemaic backers.38 Peace with both kingdoms

34.  For their reigns, see Hölbl 2000: 181–204; Huß 2001: 537–625. See further Puech 1997: 207. For these rulers and their effect on the Hasmonean state, see further Chapter 5. 35.  For these Egyptian rulers, see Hölbl 2000: 127–52. Philometor ruled from 181– 145 B.C.E. and Physcon reigned from 145–116 B.C.E. Both were married to their sister, Cleopatra II, who reigned as co-ruler or sole monarch several times from ca. 170–116/115 B.C.E. 36.  Ant. 13.62-73; War 7.426-31. For this temple and its Jewish community, see further J. Collins 1999: 69–72; Bohak 2010; Huß 2001: 590; Taylor 1998; Whitehorne 1994: 101–3. Hata (2011) places it at Tel Basta. 37.  Alexander I Balas of Smyrna was the husband of Cleopatra Thea. He was the first successful usurper in Seleucid history. For his reign, see Grainger 1997: 6–7. 38.  For these events, see further 1 Macc. 10:51-58; Ant. 13.80-83; Atkinson 2012c: 103–16; Bevan 1927: 94–5; Gruen 1984: 666–7.

28

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

was necessary for the Hasmonean family to retain power over their small territory. In exchange for his support, Balas recognized Jonathan as the rightful Hasmonean high priest. It is probable that Jonathan chose the timing of his installation ceremony, which occurred during the Festival of Tabernacles in 153/152 B.C.E.39 His brother Judas had apparently rededicated the temple during this holiday. The Hasmonean family subsequently appropriated it to celebrate their right to rule.40 Jonathan intended to use this occasion to show the Jews that he was his late brother’s rightful heir and the lawful political ruler and religious leader. Jonathan became the first member of his family to hold the office of high priest. The author of 4QHistorical Text B was likely interested in Philometor because of his importance for helping the Hasmoneans gain foreign recognition as high priests. After Philometor withdrew his support of Balas, he returned to Ptolemais to annul the marriage of Cleopatra Thea. Philometor forced her to wed Demetrius II (145–38, 129–25 B.C.E.).41 Jonathan was compelled to abandon Balas. This shows how weak Jonathan was at this time since Balas had given him a purple cloak, a crown, and had made him a member of order of the king’s “Friends.”42 Jonathan now risked war with Balas; however, he could not trust Philometor. For a time it appeared that Philometor was preparing to annex Jonathan’s territory. When Philometor passed through it on his way to Syria to annul his daughter’s marriage, he placed garrisons in many of Jonathan’s towns.43 It was chance that likely saved Jonathan and his state from Egyptian annexation. Both Philometor and Balas died fighting one another. From this time until Pompey’s conquest, all Hasmonean rulers had to make accommodations with the kings of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires to survive.

39.  1 Macc. 10:15-21; Ant. 13.43-6. 40.  1 Macc. 10:21; Ant. 13.46. For the Hasmonean appropriation of Tabernacles, see

further Rajak 2001: 39–60. The book of 2 Maccabees contains a theological interpretation of the cleansing of the temple by Judas. See Wheaton 2012. The disagreements between 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees makes it difficult to determine the exact sequence of events associated with this holiday, particularly whether Antiochus IV died before or after Judas rededicated the temple. They also give different explanations why the festival continued for eight days, why it began on the 25th of Kislev, and why it was associated with the Festival of Tabernacles. See Atkinson 2015a; VanderKam 2004: 23–40. 41.  Demetrius II Nikator was the son of Demetrius I and possibly Laodice V. For his reign, see Grainger 1997: 42–4. 42.  1 Macc. 10:15-20. For this institution, see Orth 2011; Savalli-Lestrade 1998: 77–8. 43.  1 Macc. 10–11; Ant. 13.86-115; Diod. Sic. 32.9; App., Syr. 67; Just., Epit. 35.2.1-4.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

29

The Ptolemaic rulers not only quarreled with the Seleucid monarchs, but also with their own family. Philometor spent much of his reign fighting with his brother, Ptolemy VIII Physcon.44 Physcon attempted to control the Seleucid Empire when he placed an Egyptian merchant named Alexander (128–123 B.C.E.) as its king. Alexander’s enemies called him Zabinas (“the bought one”) to emphasize that he lacked the proper pedigree to rule.45 Philometor and Physcon eventually reconciled with their sister, Cleopatra II, and formed a triple monarchy. It was so unusual that it caught the attention of the author of the biblical book of Daniel, who predicted its demise.46 Josephus claims that Physcon persecuted the Jews. However, contemporary documentation suggests otherwise.47 A collection of papyri from Heraklepolis, which date from the twenty-seventh year (144/3 B.C.E.) to the thirty-sixth year (133/2 B.C.E.) of his reign, show that there was a Jewish politeuma in Egypt. This community existed as a military colony since the time of Philometor; there is no evidence Physcon harmed it in any way.48 Josephus even claims that Physcon visited Jerusalem.49 The literary evidence and Jewish honorary inscriptions from Egypt suggest that Physcon and his wives (Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III) favored Egypt’s Jewish community.50 There is no historical evidence that any of the rulers of the Ptolemaic Empire at this time harmed Jews in any manner. 51 The third mention of Ptolemy in this text (4Q578 2), assuming that it lists rulers in chronological order, likely refers to a son of Philometor (…[‫)פתל]מיס בנו‬. Philometor and Cleopatra II had two sons. Both were named Ptolemy. The oldest, Ptolemy Eupator, was born around 166 B.C.E.

44.  Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Tryphon was commonly known as Physcon. See Ant. 12.235. For this period and Physcon’s relationship with his family, see further Hölbl 2000: 194–214; Huß 2001: 597–608. 45.  Grainger 1997: 7; Ant. 13.267-68; Just., Epit. 39.1.4-8. 46.  Dan. 7:8, 20, 24; Porphyry, Adversus Christianos, cited in Jerome’s commentary on Dan. 7:9 (in Stern 1974–80: 1:460). See further Blasius 2006. 47.  Apion 2.53-55. Josephus’s story is also paralleled by the later Roman-period novel known as 3 Maccabees that records persecutions of the Jews during the reign of Philopator. Because of their similarities, many experts believe that the events of 3 Maccabees actually took place during Physcon’s reign. See further J. Collins 1999: 122–31. 48.  Cowey and Maresch 2001: 3–4, 35–154. 49.  Apion 2.48-55. For the historical inaccuracy of Josephus’s account, see Barclay 2007: 198–200. 50.  See Runesson, Binder, and Olsson 2008: 216–27; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 3.1:49. 51.  See further the discussion of this issue in Chapter 5.

30

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

He was proclaimed co-regent in 152 B.C.E and apparently died the same year.52 The younger son, also named Ptolemy, is mentioned in a text dated August 28, 143 B.C.E. and in an inscription of the following year.53 It is also plausible that this Ptolemy is to be identified Ptolemy Memphites, the son of Physcon and his stepdaughter and wife, Cleopatra III. He was likely born around 144/3 B.C.E. and died shortly afterwards.54 4QHistorical Text B was likely written before the death of one of these three children. 4QHistorical Text B shows Jewish interest in the Ptolemaic Empire during the early Hasmonean period. Its paleographical date of composition suggests that it came from some location other than Qumran since it likely predates the construction of this settlement.55 Nevertheless, it was important to the occupants of the site who preserved or copied it alongside several works that name persons or record historical events.56 If the identifications of the first two Ptolemies with Philometor and Physcon are correct, it is possible that the author was interested in their reigns because of their favorable treatment of the Jews. However, because Jonathan’s relationship with the Ptolemaic rulers did not bring peace to the Hasmonean state, it is perhaps more probable that the Qumran community preserved this text alongside their other writings to show the negative impact the Hasmoneans had upon Jewish history, which they may have blamed on their alliances with foreign rulers. Conclusion Although the interpretation of fragmentary texts such as 4QHistorical Text A and 4QHistorical Text B is somewhat speculative, the presence of these writings at Qumran alongside other historical documents suggest 52.  P.Köln 8.350. For this text, see Chauveau 2000; Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14549; Schubert 1992. The date of his death is inferred from the surviving dating formula in the papyri. See further Huß 2001: 576–8; Van’t Dack 1983: 103. His passing may also be referred to in an epigram of Antiochus of Sidon recorded in the Anthologia Palatina 7.241. 53.  P.Köln 8.350. The text P.dem Rylands 3.16 also mentions that Ptolemy Eupator was the eldest son. For these texts, see further Chauveau 1990: 157; Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14552; Whitehorne 1994: 206. 54.  Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14552; Whitehorne 1994: 206. Physcon murdered Ptolemy Memphites in 118 B.C.E.; the boy was later deified under the name Ptolemy Neos Philopator (“New, Father-Loving”). See further Chauveau 2000: 259–60; Heinen 1997; Huß 2001: 608–11, 624; Lanciers 1995. See also Cauville and Devauchelle 1984. For a detailed discussion of this evidence, see further Chapter 5. 55.  The recent revised dating for the Qumran settlement places its establishment sometime in 100–31 B.C.E. See Magness 2002: 63–9. 56.  See further Atkinson 2007.

2. The Early Hasmonean Period

31

that the community that produced, collected, and preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls had an interest in recording contemporary events in adjacent countries. We have ample evidence of this for the period of John Hyrcanus, whose activities in neighboring lands marked the actual beginning of an independent Hasmonean state. His reign is among the most difficult to reconstruct, for Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls omit many of the events that took place during his time in power. The most notable of these was his involvement in a war against the Parthian Empire that is not documented in any extant source. Numismatics and other evidence allow us to reconstruct this campaign, understand its influence on the subsequent history of the Seleucid Empire, and uncover how the Hasmonean family used prophetic messianism to expand their state.

Chapter 3 P r op he t ic M es s i a n i s m a n d H asmone an S tate E xpa nsi on : D a n g ers f rom t he S e le uci d E m p i re

Simon managed to create an independent nation largely because of events to his north.1 He took advantage of the turmoil caused by the civil war between Demetrius II and Tryphon, which greatly weakened the Seleucid Empire, to increase his power in Judea.2 This conflict began during the reign of Hyrcanus’s brother, Jonathan, and shaped the subsequent historical development of the Hasmonean state. According to tradition, Simon gained independence for Judea in the Seleucid year 170 (= 143/42 B.C.E.).3 Hyrcanus played a pivotal role in preserving his father’s state through his military service. Hyrcanus began his career as a commander in his father’s army just prior to Simon’s establishment of the Hasmonean state. This militarily experience allowed him to create the conditions that eventually led to the transformation of his small nation into a monarchy under the leadership of his son, Aristobulus. Because Tryphon was powerful enough to invade Judea, Simon appointed Hyrcanus to a position in his army to prevent hostile incursions from the Seleucid Empire. 4 According to 1 Macc. 13:53, Simon stationed Hyrcanus at Gazara (= Gezer), where he served as commander of a military unit, and resettled the city with observant Jews. His expulsion of gentiles began a new policy among the Hasmoneans of evicting foreigners from territories they considered part of their state.5 1.  For Simon’s creation of the Hasmonean state, see further Atkinson 2016b: 23–46. 2.  His actual name was Diodotus, but he is commonly known as Tryphon. See Diod.

Sic. 33.4a; Strab., Geogr. 16.2.10; Ant. 13.131. For the events of his reign, see Atkinson 2016b: 30–44; Ehling 2008: 164–89; Grainger 1997: 69–70. For Demetrius II, see further Ehling 2008: 164–78; Grainger 1997: 42–4. 3.  1 Macc. 13.33-42; Ant. 13.213. This event may be documented in the Megillat Ta‘anit under the year 27 Iyyar or 3 Tishri. See further Atkinson 2016b: 32–44. 4.  Hyrcanus was approximately nineteen years old at this time. See further Atkinson 2016b: 48–9; Klausner 1972a. 5.  Dąbrowa 2010c: 167–8.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

33

During his time in Simon’s army, Hyrcanus mastered many of the Hellenistic tactics that his father and late uncles had introduced into the Hasmonean military. These included cavalry maneuvers, siege warfare, and the use of Hellenistic weaponry.6 The presence of siege equipment in the Hasmonean army shows that four years after the beginning of the revolt against the Seleucid rulers, the army of Judas was able to use this form of Hellenistic warfare. This suggests that the Hasmoneans, from the early days of their rebellion against the Seleucid kings, adopted Hellenistic weaponry and tactics.7 Simon used his military to undertake a successful siege of the Akra fortress in Jerusalem; he forced its inhabitants to surrender.8 Numerous mikvaot found in regions under Hasmonean control at this time, such as Jericho, suggest that Simon sought to increase Jewish presence throughout his territories. Then, unexpected events in the Seleucid Empire changed everything when the Parthians captured Demetrius III and his brother, Antiochus VII Sidetes, purportedly set out to free him. Hyrcanus was forced to participate in this campaign; he and his men were among the few survivors. Excursus 1: Demetrius II and the Decline of the Seleucid Empire The invasion of Parthia by Sidetes, in which Hyrcanus participated, was one of many battles the Parthian monarchs and the Seleucid rulers waged to control Hyrcania, Mesopotamia, Syria, and adjacent lands. This lengthy conflict began when the founder of the Arsacid monarchy, Arsaces I (247–211 B.C.E.), defeated the Seleucid Empire’s army in 247 B.C.E. He annexed Hyrcania around 230 B.C.E. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.E.) invaded Parthia in the spring of 165 B.C.E. The Parthian king Phraates I died at this time. His younger brother, Mithridates I (= Arsaces VI; 165–132 B.C.E.), succeeded him. Antiochus IV Epiphanes appears to have wanted to 6.  The author of 1 Macc. 13:43 mentions that Simon constructed a large shooting tower and breaching device known as a helepolis, which contained catapults, battering rams, and was manned by over two hundred soldiers. See Diod. Sic. 20.92.1-2; Plut., Vit. Demetr. 21; Sievers 1990: 112 n. 39. 7.  Judas appears to have used artillery machines during his unsuccessful attempt to take the Akra. See 1 Macc. 6:20; Ant. 12.363. See further Shatzman 1991: 24. The discovery of a Hellenistic gladius in Jericho may provide additional evidence that the Hasmoneans were not only trained in Greek military tactics, but that they also had adopted Hellenistic weapons. See Stiebel 2004. Bar-Kochva (1989: 78–9) notes that Simon was proficient in cavalry tactics when he was quite young. 8.  The traditional date of the siege of the Akra is from 143 to 141 B.C.E. Simon expelled its occupants and instituted an annual celebration of this event (1 Macc. 13:4952; 14:7, 36), which is also mentioned in the Megillat Ta’anit (23 Iyyar). Sievers 1990: 113–15; Goldstein 1976: 483.

34

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

take advantage of this change in rulers to push the Parthian kings from western Iran to recover lost Seleucid territory. He reclaimed part of Armenia, set out for the Persian Gulf, and reached Elymais in Persia. He attempted to take money from the temple of Nanaia there. Local opposition forced him to retreat. Antiochus IV died in November/ December 164 B.C.E. at Tabae in Paraetacene.9 The Seleucid Empire underwent a lengthy period of civil war following the death of Antiochus IV. Mithridates I took advantage of this turmoil. In 149 B.C.E., he successfully campaigned in Ecbatana. He expanded his realm when he captured Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon in 141 B.C.E.10 Mithridates I then travelled to Hyrcania to defend his frontier from invaders.11 Afterwards, he extended his campaigns into Elymais and annexed much of the region.12 According to 1 Macc. 14:1, Demetrius II undertook his Parthian campaign in the Seleucid year 172 (= 141–140 B.C.E.). This was nearly three years after Tryphon killed Jonathan and Demetrius II made his concessions to Simon.13 The exact sequence of events for the Parthian war of Demetrius II is uncertain. His capture and exile is often dated to 140/139 B.C.E. under the assumption that he was seized soon after he left Syria for Parthia.14 Justin states that Demetrius II was compelled to invade the Parthian Empire because many cities there had rebelled against his rule.15 This shows that the kings of the Seleucid Empire still regarded the territory annexed by the Parthian rulers as part of their nation; many of its inhabitants had remained loyal to the Seleucid Empire. According to 1 Macc. 14:1, Demetrius II marched into Media where he intended to gain reinforcements for his war against Tryphon. It is plausible that some cities there, which may have included Macedonian or Greek colonists, backed Tryphon. Demetrius II lost much support when he dissolved the Royal Guard and mistreated Greeks. Some of his citizens apparently abandoned him and looked to Tryphon to protect them. This forced Demetrius II to prepare to fight Tryphon and Mithridates I. According to Josephus and Justin, Demetrius II decided to invade Parthia to stop the advance of Mithridates I.16 An entry in a Babylonian astronomical text dated to 171 S.E.B. (= June/July, 141 B.C.E.) records the victory of Demetrius II in Mesopotamia, and his capture of Seleucia on the Tigris.17 It then lists his occupation of Babylon in

9.  For the date of his death, see Ehling 2008: 111–21; Sachs and Wiseman 1954: 204,

208.

10.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 134–5, no. 140A. See further Bivar 1983: 32–8; Wolski 1999: 104–11. 11.  Cf. Strab., Geogr. 11.9.2. 12.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 150–3. nos. 140C, rev. 29-34; 152–3, no. 140D, obv. 11; 168–71, no. 137D obv. 8-14 and rev. 1-3. 13.  Atkinson 2016b: 32–44. 14.  Bivar (1983: 35) dates his capture to 139 B.C.E. 15.  Just., Epit. 36.1.1-3. 16.  Just., Epit. 36.1.1-6; Ant. 13.184-86. 17.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 134–5, no. 140A.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

35

171 S.E.B. (= 3/4 Dececember, 141 B.C.E.–1/2 January, 140 B.C.E.).18 According to Justin, Demetrius II afterwards defeated the Parthians in a series of battles.19 He then managed to gather reinforcements from the Persians, the Elymaeans, and the Bactrians. Many of the citizens of these regions were unhappy with Parthian rule and chose to back the Seleucid Empire. Numismatic evidence may support the claim of Justin that Demetrius II formed a coalition of local leaders, and defeated the Parthians in several encounters. He minted four coins in Seleucia on the Tigris. These were followed by an unbroken sequence of coins issued by Mithridates I that begin in the Seleucid year 173 (140/39 B.C.E.). This suggests that Demetrius II for a time was able to secure recognition of his rule at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris.20 This also shows that the Parthian campaign of Demetrius II was not confined to Hyrcania, but likely reached Media.21 This expedition had important ramifications for the subsequent history of the Seleucid Empire because it took place at the same time as the death of Tryphon.22 Orosius provides some information that supplements Justin’s greatly condensed account of the Parthian war of Demetrius II.23 He briefly mentions that Mithridates I fought Demetrius II a second time, defeated him in battle, and captured him.24 Unfortunately, there is little information from Parthian or Seleucid sources about the first encounter between these two monarchs. An Astronomical Diary from Babylon dates the capture of Demetrius II in S.E. IV.174 (= 7/8 July–4/5 August, 138 B.C.E.).25 It was about this time that Tryphon died. His last coins were minted in S.E. 174 (= 139–138 B.C.E.), which places his death no earlier than 138 B.C.E., and most likely in 137 B.C.E. This evidence supports the chronology of 1 Maccabees, which dates the capture and exile of Demetrius II to 138 B.C.E. after Tryphon murdered Jonathan, and before the assassination of Antiochus VI.26 The Roman sources also provide some chronological information of these events; they place Tryphon’s rebellion in the consular year 138 B.C.E. Strabo mentions that he committed suicide either in late

18.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 134–5, no. 140A. 19.  Just., Epit. 36.1.4. 20.  His minting of coins shows that he stabilized the area and established a rudimen-

tary government for a time in the region. See further Bivar 1983: 34; Le Rider 1965: 150. 21.  See further Dąbrowa 2004b: 9–16. For the capture and exile of Demetrius II, see Dąbrowa 1992; Ehling 2008: 185–6. See further Assar 2005: 43–4. 22.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 32–44. 23.  See further Crommelin 1998: 263–6. 24.  Oros. 5.5.17. Justin (Epit. 36.1.4-6) writes that the Parthians captured Demetrius II and exiled him to Hyrcania. The cuneiform record (in Sachs and Hunger 1996: 160–1, no. 137A) contradicts this claim and shows that he was imprisoned in Media. See further Assar 2005: 43–4. 25.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 160–1, no. 137A. The Armenian version of the Chronicle of Eusebius (in Aucher 1818: 349) records that Demetrius II marched against Arsaces (=Mithridates I) in the Olympic Year 160.2 (= July 139–June 138 B.C.E.) and was captured the following year (138–137 B.C.E.). 26.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 32–44.

36

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

138 B.C.E., or more likely in 137 B.C.E.27 According to the author of 1 Maccabees, the Parthian campaign of Demetrius II played no role in the creation of Simon’s state. This conflicts with the claim of Josephus that the capture of Demetrius II by the Parthians allowed Tryphon to seize power and murder Jonathan, thereby allowing Simon to take his place and declare an independent Hasmonean state.28 In this instance, the numismatic and Babylonian evidence is to be preferred over Josephus’s accounts. It shows that the author of 1 Maccabees preserves the correct sequence of events. The extant historical evidence shows that Demetrius II departed in 140 B.C.E. for Parthia. This was the same year he recognized Simon as high priest for the second time.29 Tryphon was still alive. Demetrius II must have considered Mithridates I the greatest threat to his kingdom to have left Syria while Tryphon was still waging his revolt. Demetrius II likely undertook this dangerous expedition because of his treaty with Simon.30 With the Hasmoneans now his allies, he apparently trusted them to fight Tryphon while he invaded Parthia. However, there is a potential problem with the chronology of our extant sources for the reign of Demetrius II.

The Mysterious Arrival of Antiochus VII Sidetes According to the traditional reconstruction of the history of the Seleucid Empire for this period, Sidetes left Rhodes, where he resided at the time, after he was informed the Parthians had captured his brother, Demetrius II.31 He immediately travelled to Syria and took power. Sidetes then began his pursuit of Tryphon and besieged him at Dor. According to 1 Macc. 15:10, Sidetes arrived in Syria in the Seleucid year 174 (= October 15, 139 B.C.E. to October 4, 138 B.C.E.). This occurred shortly after the Parthians had captured Demetrius II in 140 B.C.E. 32 Coins of Sidetes minted from October 139–September 138 B.C.E. provide us with the first year of his reign as Syria’s monarch.33 Although these dates appear to coincide, there is a problem. 27.  Strab., Geogr. 16.2.10. For the consular year, see Livy, Per. 55. Tryphon’s coins date up to year 4 of his regnal era (174 S.E.= October 139/38 B.C.E.), but no coin for year 5 exists. Houghton 1983: 800. 28.  Ant. 13.184-209. 29.  For the evidence that there was considerable Jewish opposition to Simon taking power, and that various groups recognized him as their leader over an extended period of time, see Atkinson 2016b: 32–44. 30.  See further 1 Macc. 13:36-41; War 1.53; Ant. 13.213-14; Atkinson 2016b: 38–44; Dąbrowa 2010c: 57. 31.  App., Syr. 68. Sidetes was approximately twenty years of age. 32.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 63–7. 33.  See Ehling 2008: 188–90; Hoover 2007a: 102–15; 2009: 211–21.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

37

According to Appian, Sidetes left Rhodes and travelled to Syria after he was informed the Parthians had exiled his brother to Media. To increase his political support, Sidetes married Cleopatra Thea. She was not only the former wife of the late Alexander I Balas and the mother of the murdered Antiochus VI, but she was still married to Demetrius II. Sidetes and Thea considered her union with Demetrius II over because of his exile to Media. According to the extant accounts, Sidetes wed Thea in 137 B.C.E., which is approximately one year after he arrived in Syria and became king. Sidetes died in 129 B.C.E. in Parthia. Cleopatra Thea remarried Demetrius II after the Parthians released him.34 The sequence of events that transpired after the capture of Demetrius II suggests that none of our sources from this period contains an accurate account of events of this period. The Babylonian records show that the Parthians defeated him in the month IV of 174 S.E.B. (= 7/8 July– 4/5 August, 138 B.C.E.). We must allow some time for news of his capture to have reached Sidetes in Rhodes. According to the extant historical accounts, Sidetes travelled to Syria after he was told the Parthians had captured his brother. He then married Cleopatra Thea, gathered an army to fight Tryphon, and negotiated with Simon.35 He also wrote a letter to Simon in which he agreed to maintain an alliance with the Jews. In this document, Sidetes confirmed the privileges the former Seleucid kings had granted to the Hasmonean rulers.36 Because Tryphon likely died in 138/37 B.C.E., this leaves less than one year for Sidetes to have accomplished all of these tasks. The dates provided by the Babylonian records and the numismatic evidence suggest that Josephus, Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus, and Appian used biased and inaccurate sources that likely were written by supporters of Sidetes. Although these authors emphasize that Sidetes merely asserted his family’s right to the throne against the illegitimate ruler Tryphon, the Babylonian records and the numismatic evidence suggest he was a usurper.37 It is doubtful that Sidetes had sufficient time to reach Syria, marry his brother’s wife, gather an army, negotiate with Simon, and fight 34.  Ant. 13.220-1; 1 Macc. 15:10; Just., Epit. 38.10; Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:255); Porphyry, FHG 3:712-33. Josephus in Ant. 13.222 mistakenly identifies Antiochus VII Sidetes as “Soter.” In Ant. 7.393 and 13.244 he refers to him as Eusebes. Neither name is attested for Antiochus VII, whose official surname was Euergetes and whose popular name was Sidetes. 35.  See further Bevan 1902: 236–46; Dąbrowa 1992; Macurdy 1932: 93–100; Whitehorne 1994: 154–7. 36.  1 Macc. 15:2-9. 37.  For additional evidence in support of thesis, see Passehl 2005.

38

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Tryphon within the span of a year. The extant evidence suggests that Sidetes was not interested in freeing his sibling from his Parthian captivity and return him to power. If Sidetes became king in 139/138 B.C.E. as suggested by the coin evidence, he spent nearly eight years on the throne before he left for Parthia in 130 B.C.E. During that time, he not only married his brother’s wife, but he also had at least three children with her. He also wasted valuable time besieging Hyrcanus in Jerusalem for at last one year, which would have depleted his resources.38 Sidetes did not attack the Parthian Empire until it posed a threat to his reign. He not only had no desire to give up power, but he likely ruled the Seleucid Empire longer than has been recognized. The extent of the territories under the control of Sidetes, as indicated by the coins he minted, suggests that he arrived in Syria much earlier than indicated in any of our extant sources. The numismatic evidence shows that in S.E. 174 (= 139–138 B.C.E.) Sidetes held Syria Seleucus and Phoenicia while Tryphon governed most of the western part of the Seleucid kingdom. Part of northern Phoenicia, including Byblus and possibly Ptolemais and Ascalon, remained loyal to Tryphon for at least part of S.E. 174 (= 7/8 July–4/5 August, 138 B.C.E.).39 It would have taken some time for Sidetes to travel to these regions, take control of them, seize the royal mints, then design and circulate his own currency. Because the minting of coins implies the previous recognition of his rule by the military and the local population, we must assume that Sidetes began his campaign to control western Syria much earlier than the dates indicated by the written sources or coins. Sidetes appears to have taken advantage of Syria’s political trouble to seize his brother’s crown. He likely did so before Demetrius II invaded the Parthian Empire. This would explain the puzzling decision of the Parthians to release Demetrius II after Sidetes had invaded their kingdom. The sources indicate that they did so because they were convinced Demetrius II would wage a war against his sibling that would destabilize the Seleucid Empire. The best explanation for the behavior of the Parthians is that Sidetes was a usurper, one who successfully took advantage of the fighting between the Seleucid and the Parthian Empires to take his brother’s kingdom. Cleopatra Thea likely abandoned her husband, Demetrius II, to support her brother-in-law, Sidetes. She was later compelled to remarry Demetrius II after the death of Sidetes. She subsequently murdered him to rule the Seleucid Empire alone.40 38.  See further Atkinson 2012c: 103–16; 2016b: 62–7. 39.  See further Houghton 1992: 138. 40.  Just., Epit. 39.1.9; Livy, Per. 60; App., Syr. 69.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

39

The arrival of Sidetes undoubtedly complicated matters for Simon since no one could have predicted the Parthians would capture Demetrius II. Both Josephus and 1 Maccabees indicate that Simon quickly sought to make an alliance with Sidetes. Given the previously discussed evidence that Sidetes arrived in Syria much earlier than the sources indicate, it is probable that Simon supported his plan to seize the throne from his brother. The Hasmoneans likely played a major and unrecognized role in the history of the Seleucid Empire by helping to bring Sidetes to power. His reign led to decades of civil war in Syria that destabilized the country, which allowed Hyrcanus to expand the Hasmonean state with no opposition from his neighbors. Hyrcanus and Antiochus VII Sidetes Invade the Parthian Empire None of the extant sources mention why Sidetes, in 131 B.C.E., chose to invade Parthia.41 It is possible that he had no choice. The Parthian monarch Mithridates I died of an illness in 132 B.C.E. His son, Phraates II (= Arsaces VII 132–127 B.C.E.), succeeded him to the throne.42 Phraates II appears to have followed his father’s policy of attacking the Seleucid Empire. It is probable that he decided to take advantage of the potentially unstable political situation in Syria that followed the capture of Demetrius II: some of his supporters may have vacillated in their support for Sidetes until they became certain their former monarch would never return from Parthia. It is probable that Sidetes feared a Parthian invasion of his homeland, and decided to launch a preemptive strike. However, he could not risk leaving Syria if Hyrcanus posed a danger to his realm. Sidetes likely did not worry that the Roman Republic would take advantage of his absence to seize his territory. It appears that the Romans earlier had threatened Sidetes if he annexed the Hasmonean state, which would have put him in the perfect position to attack Egypt.43 Since the Romans wanted to annex both the Seleucid and the Parthia Empires, it was to their advantage not to interfere with Sidetes’s campaign since it would weaken both nations. 41.  Josephus and Diodorus Siculus are our major witnesses for this war. The following texts contain brief accounts of the Parthian campaign of Sidetes: Ael., NA 10.34; App., Syr. 59, 68; B Civ. 11.68; Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:255–6); Ioannes Antiochenus, “Excerpta de insidiis,” in FHG 4:561; Livy, Per. 59.13; Oros. 5.190.310. 42.  The last dated reference to Mithridates I is contained in an astronomical diary dated to 132 B.C.E. See Sachs and Hunger 1996: 220–34, no. 132C+D1+D2+E. Justin (Epit. 41.6.9) mentions that he died of old age. 43.  This is based on the senatus consultum Josephus recorded in Ant. 14.145-48, which he misdated to the time of Julius Caesar and Hyrcanus II, that apparently forced

40

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

According to Diodorus Siculus, Sidetes waited until the snow began to melt in the spring to set out for Parthia. Sidetes was apparently so overconfident of success that he took an excessive number of noncombatants with him to Parthia, including a son and a daughter.44 Despite the extremely large size of the invading force and its sizable contingent of accompanying laypersons, many of whom undoubtedly carried weapons, Diodorus Siculus claims the companions of Sidetes were afraid he had insufficient armed men to counter the threat of Parthian cavalry.45 They urged him to be cautious and march through the mountains to stay out of the reach of mounted enemy troops. Phraates II supposedly sent envoys to discuss terms of peace. The negotiations failed and Sidetes continued towards Parthia. According to Justin, he won three battles and forced the Parthians to flee towards Iran.46 The Parthian monarch Phraates II unexpectedly released Demetrius II with an escort to help him safely reach Syria. Phraates thought he would return home, regain the throne, and force Sidetes to abandon his campaign.47 This provides additional evidence in support of the thesis that Sidetes tried to stage a coup before the capture of his brother since Demetrius II, once free, should have opposed the Parthians rather than his sibling. Cuneiform documents and coins show that Sidetes reached Babylon before late summer in S.E.B. 182 (= July/August 130 B.C.E.).48 Coins minted in Seleucia on the Tigris contain the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (right obverse) and ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ (left obverse) with the date S.E.M. 182 (= 130 B.C.E.). A bronze coin minted in S.E.M. 183 (= 129 B.C.E.) also celebrates his victory over the Parthians. This numismatic evidence shows that Sidetes was in the region of Babylonia from approximately July 130 B.C.E. to October 129 B.C.E.49

Sidetes to end his siege of Hyrcanus in Jerusalem. For this evidence, see Atkinson 2016b: 56–62. Sidetes sent presents to Scipio Aemilianus while he was besieging Numantia in 134 B.C.E. Scipio may have warned the Syrian ambassadors at that time to stay out of Hasmonean affairs. See Livy, Per. 57. 44.  See further Just., Epit. 38.10; Bevan 1902: 245; Dąbrowa 1992: 49–50; Grainger 1997: 47–8; Whitehorne 1994: 157. 45.  Diod. Sic. 34/35.15-16. 46.  Just., Epit. 38.10.6. 47.  Just., Epit. 38.10.7. 48.  See Assar 2006b: 10–13. 49.  A dozen undated silver tetradrachms also likely commemorate his initial victory over the Parthians. See Assar 2006b: 13–14.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

41

Justin mentions that Sidetes quartered his troops throughout Parthia for the winter, and forced the local population to furnish them with supplies. He likely expected friendly residents to help him and his forces because of their shared ethnicity. In addition to military politeumata, there were politeumata of non-Greek civilians in the region. Evidence from Seleucia on the Tigris shows that this community had a council that likely began in a colony Seleucus I had founded, which Macedonians likely populated.50 Sidetes may have compelled the region’s Greek population to help him. There was also politeia of Jews in several Syrian cities such as Antioch. The Seleucid government regarded the Jews as a self-administered unit within their realm. However, their place of origin was legally Judea and they were expected to worship the God of the Jews. It is possible that Sidetes expected Hyrcanus to win over the region’s Jewish population and convince some of them to join the Syrian army and fight the Parthians.51 According to Josephus, the offensive behavior of Sidetes’s soldiers caused the locals to revolt against him. Now unable to obtain provisions, Sidetes had to disperse his troops, making communications between his units nearly impossible. The Parthians apparently took advantage of his increasingly desperate situation and launched their final assault. Justin writes that Sidetes’s troops abandoned him in the battle. The Parthians killed him, along with 300,000 of his men.52 The numismatic evidence suggests that Sidetes perished in the autumn of 129 B.C.E.53 Justin provides some overlooked information that may shed additional light on Josephus’s account of Sidetes’s invasion of Parthia. He mentions that Phraates II captured some Seleucid soldiers and forced them to serve as conscripts in his army. He claims that Phraates II later perished during a fight against hostile tribes because some of these Greeks defected during

50.  See further G. M. Cohen 1978: 74–81. 51.  See further Bickerman 1988: 81–129. The Jews of Alexandria and Berenice also

constituted a politeuma. 52.  Just., Epit. 38.10.9-10; Diod. Sic. 37.17.1. 53.  Just., Epit. 38.10.8-9. Coins of Sidetes were minted Syria in 184 S.E.M. (= 128 B.C.E.). Because it took time for news of his death to reach Syria, he was presumably killed in the autumn of 129 B.C.E. Eusebius (Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:255) apparently confused the dates of the death of Sidetes with his siege of Jerusalem and states that he subdued the Jews in the third year of the 162nd Olympiad (= 129/129 B.C.E.). Appian (B Civ. 11.68) claims that Sidetes committed suicide after the Parthians defeated him in battle. Julius Obsequens (in Ksapp 1772: 101–2) dates the death of Sidetes to A.U.C. 624 (= 130 B.C.E.). The prologue to ch. 36 of Justin mistakenly claims that Sidetes killed Hyrcanus. Because this contradicts the content of Justin’s book, this error should be attributed to the anonymous writer of the prologue.

42

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

the battle when enemy soldiers breached the Persian formation.54 Coins of the Parthian monarch Artabanus I (= Arsaces IX; 127–123 B.C.E.) minted in the northeastern Iranian city of Merv (ancient Mergiana) with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ may have been produced for these survivors.55 These Greeks were likely the surviving soldiers of Sidetes’s army that Phraates II had captured. Their exile to such a remote location, and their likely harsh treatment, apparently led them to rebel against Phraates II. Mithridates II subsequently had to campaign in Syria and the western portion of his Empire, particularly Babylon, when Arabs took advantage of the insurrections of these Greek conscripts to wage their own revolt against Parthian rule.56 But there was one other group of survivors of Sidetes’s failed invasion of Parthia— Hyrcanus and his Jewish legion. How Did Hyrcanus Survive the Parthian Expedition of Sidetes? The story of the Parthian expedition of Sidetes is among the most puzzling sections of the Antiquities. Josephus was apparently so concerned his readers would doubt its accuracy that he prefixed the following statement to his account of it: “We have the testimony of these things, also of Nicolaus of Damascus” (μάρτυς δέ τούτων ήμῖν έστιν καὶ Νικόλαος ὀ Δαμασκηνός).57 This passage suggests that Josephus consulted other unnamed books about this period that documented the participation of Hyrcanus in this war. According to Josephus, Nicolaus wrote: “After defeating Indates, the Parthian general, and setting up a victory monument at the Lycus River, Antiochus remained there two days at the request of the Jew Hyrcanus because of a festival of his ancestors during which Jews are forbidden to travel.” He does not speak falsely in saying this; the Festival of Pentecost had come round, after the Sabbath, and we are not permitted to travel on the Sabbath or a festival.58 54.  Just., Epit. 42.4-5. See also, Diod. Sic. 42.1.1-5. Phraates died in autumn 127 B.C.E., sometime in October/November. See Assar 2006b: 16–20; Wolski 1977: 402–3. 55.  Loginov and Nikitin (1996: 42–3 no. 5) believe that Mithridates II (= Arsaces XI; 123–87 B.C.E.) also minted coins for them. 56.  See further Olbrych 2010: 146–7. 57.  Ant. 13.250. I follow the translation of this passage suggested by Miriam Pucci (1983: 16), who comments that the position of the word καὶ is significant and should be translated as “also.” 58.  Ant. 13.250-52. The brief passage is reminiscent of Josephus’s claim that Sidetes ended his siege of Jerusalem because the Festival of Tabernacles had arrived. See further Atkinson 2016b: 57–8.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

43

Josephus then mentions that the Parthians killed Sidetes and Demetrius II returned home. He does not provide a detailed account of what happened since he states that he has described these “events elsewhere in our writings.”59 Because no other account of this incident is found in his books, Josephus presumably copied this statement from one of his sources. The original passage likely referred to the works of other historians. One neglected account of the Parthian expedition of Sidetes may help us understand why Josephus apparently chose not to present a more detailed account of the role Hyrcanus played in this invasion, and how he survived it. The tenth-century C.E. book known as Jossipon, which was erroneously attributed to Josephus, provides some valuable information about Hyrcanus at this time. Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev proposes that its author not only used a Byzantine chronicle that had been translated into Hebrew, but that the work also preserves material from a lost ancient pagan source that contained information about Sidetes’s invasion of Parthia.60 It provides two different explanations as to how Hyrcanus survived the expedition. One version of Josippon agrees with the Antiquities that Sidetes halted the campaign so the Jews could celebrate a religious holiday. According to another edition, Hyrcanus betrayed Sidetes.61 According to this account, Phraates II sent a secret message to Hyrcanus encouraging him to form an alliance and betray Sidetes. Hyrcanus agreed to help the Parthians and concocted a stratagem to defeat Sidetes’s army that would avoid Jewish losses. He urged Sidetes to advance and attack the Parthians while he waited in the rear. The Parthians complied and slaughtered Sidetes and his entire army; the Jews apparently did not join the fight. Hyrcanus then made a peace treaty with Phraates II and returned home.62 Josephus does not mention any Jewish–Parthian alliance at this time. If one did exist, he may have had a good reason for omitting it from his books. Any possible deal with the Parthians that had allowed Hyrcanus to escape could have raised doubts about the loyalty of the Jews as Roman 59.  Ant. 13.253. Following the variant reading in Niese 1892: 198. 60.  Pucci Ben Zeev 1983: 16. Flusser (1957) believes the book incorporates much

ancient material from pagan sources. 61.  This section (in Hominer 1967: 107) was added to the third version (“long one”) of Josippon that dates sometime before 1160/1161 C.E. See Pucci Ben Zeev 1981: 333–4; 1983; Dönitz 2013: 91–102; 2016; Flusser 1978: 1:115–17. 62.  For additional evidence about the reliability of this information from Jossipon that Hyrcanus made a treaty with the Parthians, see further Puci Ben Zeev 1981: 333–7; Zollschan 2017: 259–64. In her examination of this story, Zollschan suggests that Hyrcanus kept his treaty with the Parthians secret to maintain his family’s alliance with the Romans.

44

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

allies during Josephus’s day. This was a particularly sensitive topic during the reign of Domitian.63 Some critics of his War may have known that the Parthians had destroyed Sidetes’s army, but that only Hyrcanus and the Jewish force had survived the massacre. It also may have raised rumors about Jewish loyalty to Rome in the past and the present. It is more probable that Josephus may not have wanted to acknowledge any relationship between the Jews and the Parthians since the latter were still Rome’s enemies in the first century C.E.64 This may possibly account for his decision to omit any details that would have portrayed Hyrcanus and the Jews unfavorably. Instead, Josephus merely refers his readers to other sources with the expectation that few would consult them. If Josippon’s story of a Jewish–Parthian alliance is true, it would explain Josephus’s perplexing account of the end of Sidetes’s invasion of Parthia. It would also clarify how Pharaates II knew the whereabouts of the Sidetes’s army, and why Hyrcanus’s valued legions mysteriously disappeared before the final battle. The Talmud may lend some historical plausibility to the claim of Josippon that Hyrcanus betrayed Sidetes. According to the Talmud, Jews attacked Antioch about this time. This suggests there was a coordinated Jewish opposition to the Seleucid Empire.65 The Talmud also recounts the visit of a Parthian delegation to Jerusalem in approximately 85 B.C.E., during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. This embassy apparently sought an alliance with the Jews against the Armenian monarch Tigranes II. This Talmudic tradition may provide additional evidence of a treaty between the Hasmoneans and the Parthians that was still in effect decades later.66 A note in an astronomical diary from Babylon may support the authenticity of this rather late Talmudic story. Dated to 83 B.C.E., it mentions a person named “Alexander,” who appears to be Alexander Jannaeus.67 Given the date of this text, it may record his alliance with the Parthians against Tigranes II. Additional evidence may provide some indirect support for this relationship. Numismatics suggest that this was 63.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 172–7; Case 1925. 64.  Pucci Ben Zeev (1981: 333–4; 1983: 19) notes that Josephus appears to imply in

Ant. 14.187-88 that some pagans were suspicious of ties between the Jews and Rome’s eastern enemies. David Ladouceur (1976: 125) believes that Josephus’s intent was to convince Jews of his day that it was pointless to rely on the Parthians. 65.  b. Sot. 33a. 66.  y. Naz. 5.3 (IV.G); y. Ber. 7.2 (III.F-G). The Talmud refers to the Parthians as the Persians. For discussions in favor of the historicity of the Talmudic evidence that an alliance also existed between Phraates II and Hyrcanus, see Atkinson 2011b: 8–11; Efron 1987: 148–50; Debevoise 1938: 94–5; Neusner 1965: 25–6; Pucci Ben Zeev 1981: 333–5; 1983; Sievers 1990: 140–1; Zollschan 2017: 259–64. 67.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: No. 476-66 no. 82A. See further Assar 2006a: 73–4.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

45

not the first time Hyrcanus travelled to Parthia. Rather, he likely served in the Seleucid army there during an earlier, and unrecorded, invasion of the region undertaken by Sidetes. It was during this campaign that he apparently received his Greek sobriquet “Hyrcanus.” His participation in this unknown expedition likely explains how he and his army later survived Sidetes’s disastrous campaign. An Unknown Parthian War of Sidetes: Hyrcanus the Conqueror of Hyrcania A Seleucid gold victory stater that Sidetes minted suggests that none of our extant sources preserves a complete account of his reign.68 There is no record that he conducted any military action outside of Syria other than his 130 B.C.E. invasion of Parthia. This coin shows otherwise. Its reverse is reminiscent of the iconography used by the Parthian king Mithridates I, but it switches the direction of the biga that appears on the Parthian coins. It also contains the inscription “of King Antiochus the Great, the Benefactor” ([ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ] ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟ[Υ] ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ), which is a previously unknown epithet for Sidetes. This stater, dated to year 179 (ΘΟΡ) of the Seleucid era (= 134/133 B.C.E.), commemorates a previously unknown victory of Sidetes over the Parthians.69 The majority of scholars who have investigated this coin associate it with some other event.70 Because this is a victory coin, it is doubtful that it celebrates Sidetes’s failed siege of Jerusalem that ended with a truce. It is important to recognize that the year it was minted and the date of the triumph it celebrates are not necessarily the same. It is unknown whether it was produced for several years since commemorative coins were often minted for extended periods. There is no evidence Sidetes invaded Parthia and the Hasmonean state at the same time. For this reason, this coin must celebrate a campaign that that took place before the 135/134 B.C.E. siege of Jerusalem by Sidetes. John’s Greek name Hyrcanus may provide a clue to understanding this coin. Josephus introduces him in his War and Antiquities as Simon’s third son John, who was also called Hyrcanus (Ἰωάννην, ὃς καὶ Ὑρκανὸς).71 Josephus consistently uses this sobriquet rather than the name John for 68.  The same is true of Hyrcanus. Dąbrowa (2010c: 70) comments that although he was one of the longest-reigning Hasmoneans, the extant sources provide us with little information about the events that occurred during his time in power. 69.  For this coin, see Houghton 1989: plate 6. 70.  Ehling 1998a: 237–8, 240; 2008: 196; Hoover 2009: 211–12. See also Ehling 1998b. 71.  Ant. 13.228; War 1.54.

46

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Hyrcanus. It is an unusual name and means “one from Hyrcania,” which is a region on the Black Sea. Tal Ilan comments that it is the first Greek name acquired by a Hasmonean. She also observes that it is an anomaly since it is not a classical Greek name, and proposes it may have been a nickname.72 Although her suggestion is plausible, it does not explain why a Hasmonean prince was referred to by the name of a foreign territory that he purportedly never visited. Scholars have been reluctant to accept the testimony of Jerome, Eusebius, and others that John received his Greek sobriquet Hyrcanus to commemorate his conquest of the Hyrcanians.73 Emil Schürer rejects these ancient explanations of the etymology of John’s sobriquet because Artaxerxes Ochus and other Parthian rulers deported Jews to Hyrcania. He believes that some of these Jews later moved from Hyrcania to lands that later became part of the Hasmonean state, and took the name of their former homeland.74 Seth Schwartz also doubts the historicity of these ancient explanations since no Hellenistic or Jewish general was named after a nation he had defeated.75 Yet, for reasons he does not explain, Josephus consistently refers to John by the sobriquet Hyrcanus. A close look at the Parthian war of Sidetes in light of this victory stater suggests that it was not the first incursion of Hyrcanus into the Parthian territory, and the accounts that he acquired his sobriquet for his military service in Hyrcania preserve an ancient tradition. Sidetes’s ill-fated invasion of Parthia may help us to determine why he was there. The 130 B.C.E. invasion of Parthia by Sidetes only reached the region of Ecbatana in Media, southwest of the Upper Zagros Mountains, to the west of Hyrcania. Josephus writes that after he defeated the Parthian general Indates, Sidetes erected a victory monument at the Lycus River. He remained there for two days at the request of Hyrcanus.76 The Lycus refers to the waterway also known as the Greater Zab in the area of Adiabene. The battle between Sidetes and Indates likely took place near Arbela, which was a major junction on the east–west and north–south caravan routes. The rulers of the Parthian and the Seleucid Empires both claimed it. During the reigns of Demetrius II and Antiochus VIII Grypus, the Parthians and their allies pushed westward to the Euphrates. This 72.  Ilan 1987: 2. 73.  See Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:130–1); Sync., Chron. 1.548; Jer., Chron.

(in Schöene 1999: 2:131); Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 26.2. 74.  Diod. Sic. 16.40-43; Oros. 3.7.6; Sync., Chron. 1.486; Solin. 35.4. See also Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:201–2 n. 2; 3.6. 75.  S. Schwartz 1990b: 4. 76.  Ant. 13.250-52.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

47

placed pressure on the Seleucid kings because the border of the Parthian Empire was now inside former Syrian territory. Sidetes needed to drive the Parthians from this region to secure his eastern frontier. According to Strabo, Sidetes fought the Parthians near a city named Demetrius.77 This is likely the present Baba Gurgur, which is located near Kirkuk. Demetrius II appears to have founded it in the second century B.C.E.78 The existence of a city with a Greek name implies that there were Greeks in the region. This may account for the speed and initial successes of Sidetes’s expedition as well as his invasion route. He likely fought his initial battles against the Parthians in friendly Greek-populated areas where he could receive assistance and intelligence from the region’s inhabitants. This may explain why Sidetes allowed Hyrcanus to remain behind. He may have recruited new units from the local Greek and possibly Jewish inhabitants, and believed that he had sufficient armed men to defeat the Parthians without the Hasmonean legion. Because the invasion of Parthia by Sidetes did not make it to Hyrcania, it is unlikely that the Hasmonean ruler John would have been given the name Hyrcanus to commemorate the conquest of a land he never reached. Given our lack of sources for the history of ancient Parthia, and the existence of the coin commemorating a previously unknown war between the Seleucid and the Parthian rulers, it is plausible that Hyrcanus actually fought in Hyrcania during an expedition that is not preserved in the historical record. This would account for the existence of the previously unknown victory stater as well as the Hasmonean high priest and ruler John’s unusual sobriquet. The prior history of the region may offer some additional information that could potentially help to reconstruct Hyrcanus’s earlier activities there. Hyrcania and John Hyrcanus The region of Hyrcania (modern Gurgan) was an important territory in antiquity. Isidore of Charax locates it on the trunk route that led across the mountains to Nisa, the Parthian capital of Mithridates I, and continued eastwards.79 The rulers of the Seleucid Empire considered Hyrcania part of their territory. A third-century B.C.E. Greek inscription from the southeastern corner of the Caspian Sea records the presence of Seleucid 77.  Strab., Geogr. 16.1.4. 78.  Hoffman 1880: 273. Strabo mentions that the town was located near Naphtha

Springs.

79.  Isidore of Charax, “Parthian Stations,” no. 10 (in Schoff 1914: 7). See further Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 72–3.

48

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

government officials there. It also mentions a manumitted slave “from Hyrcania” during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus I. Polybius writes that Greeks settled in the region; some were massacred during the anabasis of Antiochus III.80 The Seleucid kings, the Parthian rulers, and local tribes all fought to control Hyrcania. Its capture by the Parthians was a significant loss for the Seleucid sovereigns. The Arsacid monarchs took it as part of their effort to create vassal states out of several former provinces of the Seleucid Empire. These regions included Hyrcania, Aria, Media, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia. The Seleucid rulers considered these and other eastern territories part of their empire. The Parthians long contested this claim.81 Hyrcania in particular was of great importance to the Parthian kings. They undertook a monumental construction project to prevent hostile tribes from capturing it. The Parthian monarchs built the Great Wall of Gurgan to protect Hyrcania. Commonly known as “Alexander’s Barrier,” it is the second largest defensive wall constructed in antiquity: only by the Great Wall of China is larger. Extending through Hyrcania for over 195 kilometers (121 miles), it is between 6 to 10 meters (20–33 feet) in width. The Parthian rulers likely built it to prevent northern tribes, such as the Saka, from entering their territory. Although commonly attributed to the Sassanian period, recent excavations and surveys tentatively date it to the time of Mithridates II (123–87 B.C.E.). However, the dating of this structure to his reign is not based on the archaeological finds.82 Rather, it is merely a deduction from the extant literature on the history of the Parthians. Given the limited scope of these explorations of this immense structure, the imprecise nature of ceramic typology, and the lack of written sources, it is probable that it was constructed much earlier. The Great Wall of Gurgan shows the importance of Hyrcania for the Parthian rulers, who spared no expense to protect it from invading forces. Arsaces VI (247–211 B.C.E.) began his struggle for independence from the Seleucid Empire in 250 B.C.E. Expelling the Syrians from Hyrcania was one of his chief military objectives.83 He defeated the Seleucid army in 247 B.C.E., and annexed Hyrcania around 230 B.C.E. Phraates I (168–165 B.C.E.) campaigned westward to annex additional Seleucid lands. He conquered the Mardi tribes in Hyrcania and settled them at the 80.  Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 81–2; Polyb. 10.31.5. 81.  See further Bickerman 1938: 197–207; Wolski 1999: 53–4, 111. 82.  For the excavations and surveys, see Howard-Johnston 2006: 192–4; Kiani 1982:

36–7. This wall is mentioned in Sura 18 (“the Cave”) of the Qur’an. 83.  Assar 2006b: 1.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

49

foot of Mount Caspius, likely to guard the Caspian Gates. This action apparently caused Antiochus IV Epiphanes to postpone his war against the Jews and push eastward to subdue his rebellious subjects.84 According to Justin, Phraates II exiled Demetrius II to Hyrcania. Yet, a cuneiform text shows he actually sent him to Media, to the west of Hyrcania.85 Phraates II (= Arsaces VII; 132–127 B.C.E.) may have departed for Hyrcania to subdue insurgents in this region shortly before the invasion of Sidetes.86 While Phraates II was absent, a rebel named Hyspaosines declared himself king in Babylon. Phraates II had to return to Hyrcania at the end of the summer of 128 B.C.E. to subdue an uprising there.87 Given our lack of written accounts for this period, and the record of frequent conflicts between the rulers of the Seleucid and the Parthian Empires in the region of Hyrcania, it is plausible that Hyrcanus fought there with the Seleucid army in an unrecorded military campaign.88 The unique victory stater of Sidetes, which contains the date 179 S.E. (= 134/133 B.C.E.), provides some indirect support for this hypothesis. The Iranian historian Gholamreza F. Assar comments that the design and legend of this coin leaves little doubt it was struck to celebrate an otherwise unattested victory of Sidetes. Assar suggests that Sidetes raided Mesopotamia before the end of the reign of Mithridates I and penetrated briefly as far as Seleucia on the Tigris. This would account for Phraates II’s lack of an inaugural tetradrachm issue; he was busy fighting the Sidetes and unable to mint the customary coins to mark the start of his reign.89 If Hyrcanus participated in this previously unknown war against the Parthian Empire, it could shed new light on Simon’s reign and his relationship with Sidetes. In 138 B.C.E., or slightly later, Simon’s envoys returned from Rome with letters from the Senate ordering none of the local monarchs to harm the Hasmoneans.90 It was at this time that Sidetes attacked Tryphon in Dor: 1 Maccabees 15 and Josephus disagree whether Simon aided Sidetes 84.  For this campaign, see also Ant. 12.293; Just., Epit. 41.5.9-10. See also Assar 2006b: 1–2. For Phraates I and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see Tacit., Hist. 5. 85.  Sachs and Hunger 1996: 137A. 86.  This is suggested by Assar (2006b: 13) based on his interpretation of the Babylonian cuneiform document in Sachs and Hunger (1996: 228–9, no. 129A2). 87.  Assar 2006b: 17. 88.  It does not matter whether Sidetes actually participated in this expedition or merely sent his troops there since the victory would have been in his name. 89.  Assar 2005: 46. 90.  1 Macc. 15:2-10. See further Atkinson 2016b: 60; Sievers 1990: 128–9; VanderKam 2004: 283.

50

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

there. According to the author of 1 Macc. 15:26-31, Sidetes rejected Simon’s offer of assistance while Josephus claims that the Hasmonean army helped besiege Tryphon at Dor. In War 1.50, Josephus, suggests that Simon was hostile to Sidetes. He claims the Hasmonean leader captured the towns of Gazara, Joppa, and Jamnia, and overpowered the Akra in Jerusalem.91 In War 1.50, Josephus states that following these conquests Simon became an ally of Sidetes: “Subsequently, he (= Simon) was an auxiliary to Antiochus (= Sidetes) against Tryphon, whom he besieged in Dor, before he went on his expedition against the Medes” (αὖθις δὲ γίνεται καὶ Ἀντιόχῳ σύμμαχος κατὰ Τρύφωνος, ὃν ὲν Δώροις πρὸ τῆς ἐπὶ Μήδους στρατείας ὲπολιόρκει). Here, Josephus clearly states that Simon fought alongside Sidetes at Dor. In the next paragraph, Josephus writes that, despite Simon’s contribution at Dor, Sidetes became jealous of him and sent Cendebaeus to ravage Judea. Sidetes took power at a difficult time. He faced the threat of Parthian incursions while he was fighting Tryphon. If, as Josephus suggests, Sidetes was also preparing a campaign against the Parthians (= Medes), this would explain why he needed Simon’s help at Dor. It is possible that Sidetes sent some of his forces to attack the Parthians while he and Simon besieged Tryphon at Dor in 138 B.C.E. If the Great Wall of Gurgan was still under construction, Sidetes could have invaded Parthia while Hyrcania was under threat from hostile tribes to the north. If it was completed, Sidetes could have tried to push the Parthians towards the Gurgan Wall to block their retreat. The Seleucid monarchs had long controlled this area and had many allies there. They were particularly interested in capturing Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris. Antiochus IV deported many Greeks who lived in Babylon to Seleucia on the Tigris.92 He apparently did this to garrison it with Greeks to subdue the local population and keep the region in the Seleucid Empire. He also established a Greek community in Babylon that was given privileged political status (politeia).93 The Babylonians and the Greeks of the region had their own institutions and the central government communicated with both communities through them. Babylonian records show that there were three population groups in Babylon: Babylonian citizens under the jurisdiction of temple officials, Greek citizens under the authority of the 91.  In Ant. 13.215 Josephus makes it clear that Simon took the Akra, and razed it to the ground, as well as Gezer, Joppa, and Jamnia. Some manuscripts of Ant. 13.215, as well as 1 Macc. 13:43, state that Simon captured Gaza. Gazara (= Gezer) is certainly the correct reading. See Niese 1892: 187. 92.  See van der Spek and Finkel 2016: 5 rev. 6-9. 93.  See van der Spek and Finkel 2016: 14.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

51

governor of Babylon, and royal slaves supervised by the prefect of the king. Relations between Greeks and Babylonians were quite tense, and fighting between the two communities erupted following the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.94 Because of the Seleucid Empire’s long involvement in the region, Sidetes would have wanted to protect the Greeks in Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris. To accomplish this, he had to annex neighboring lands from the Parthians to serve as a buffer between the Seleucid and the Parthian Empires. Hyrcanus would have had an interest in Babylon because of its substantial Jewish population. According to Josephus (Ant. 13.147153), Antiochus III ordered the transport of some Babylonian Jews to Phrygia where they were exempt from taxes for ten years. Bert van der Spek uses this decree of immunity and the Babylonian records to suggest that Antiochus I gave the Greeks in Babylon, and likely Jews as well, a five-year tax exemption.95 The Parthian rulers may have granted the Jews similar concessions. The Jewish population of Babylon and the surrounding regions became so large that, in the first half of the first century C.E. during the reign of the Parthian king Artabanus, two former outlaws of Jewish origin seized the city and controlled it for fifteen years.96 A passage of disputed provenance that apparently came from the Parthica (9.23) of Asinius Quadratus attests to the presence of a Jewish community in Assyria during the time of Severus’s second campaign (197 C.E.) in a region that was named Solyma after Jerusalem.97 Because Greeks and Jews had resided in Hyrcania for centuries, and later comprised a substantial percentage of the region’s population, both Sidetes as king of the Seleucid Empire and Hyrcanus as high priest had an interest in protecting these peoples.98 We can assume that both knew something about this area from the Greeks and the Jews who lived there. Numismatic and archaeological evidence may provide indirect evidence for an earlier campaign of Sidetes in which Hyrcanus and his Jewish forces participated. Fragments of green-glazed Parthian ware dating to the first century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. found at Gamla is rare in the territories of the former Hasmonean state, and may have been brought back by Jews in Sidetes’s invasion force. Two complete biconical imitation Attic 94.  See further van der Spek 2009: 103–11. 95.  See further Sachs and Hunger 1996: 336–48; van der Spek 1993. 96.  See further Gregoratti 2012. 97.  In Cornell ed. 2013: 2:1139. See also Cornell ed. 2013: 1:616; 3:653. 98.  For Jews in Babylon, see Neusner 1965: 23–5; Diod. Sic. 34/5.1-5; Just., Epit.

36.1; Porphyry apud Euseb. Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:225). There are also fifth-century C.E. Armenian traditions that Tigranes II deported Jews to Armenia. See Topchyan 2007.

52

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

lamps from the second century B.C.E., which are common in Babylonian sites during the Parthian periods, were also found there. In addition, three coins from Seleucia on the Tigris discovered at Gamla may also date to this time. Likewise, coins of Hyrcanus found at Dura Europus may also indicate the presence of Jews in the Parthian Empire.99 However, there is another neglected coin of Sidetes that provides additional evidence that he fought in an undocumented campaign to seize Parthian territories. No text or inscription states that Sidetes ever reached the kingdom of Cappadocia. Yet, coins minted by the Cappadocian king Ariarathes VII Philometor (116–99 B.C.E.) bearing the posthumous portrait of Sidetes suggest otherwise.100 Although these were apparently minted to pay Syrian mercenaries in Cappadocia, there is no reason to commemorate Sidetes several decades after his death unless he had done something favorable for the Cappadocians. These coins may indicate that Sidetes liberated Cappadocia from the Parthians and made a treaty with its ruler. It provides strong evidence for some sort of military assistance between the Seleucid monarch and the Cappadocian rulers not recorded in any of our extant records. Because coins with a depiction of Sidetes were also minted by the successors of Ariarathes VII (Ariarathes VIII, Ariarathes IX, and Ariobarzanes X), it is plausible they were intended to encourage soldiers formerly in the army of Sidetes to enlist in the Cappadocian military. Some of these men may have been survivors of Sidetes’s ill-fated invasion of Parthian and were allowed to remain in the region because of Sidetes’s past assistance Turmoil to the North Hyrcanus was uncertain what would happen in the Seleucid Empire after Demetrius II returned to Syria from his Parthian confinement. The coins Demetrius II minted during his second reign show that his captivity had affected him psychologically. Unlike his earlier currency that depicts him as a youthful and strong looking monarch, his new coins portray him as a considerably aged and haggard looking man. He is depicted wearing Parthian clothing, long hair, and a lengthy beard.101 Upon his return home after a twelve-year absence, he was undoubtedly shocked to learn that his wife, Cleopatra Thea, had married his brother, Sidetes. Demetrius II 6.

99.  For this archaeological and numismatic evidence, see Syon 2014a: 136–7; 2014b:

100.  Atkinson 2016b: 66; Lorber and Houghton 2006; Krengel and Lorber 2009: incl. plates 9-18. 101.  Whitehorne 1994: 158 and plates 7-8.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

53

forced her to remarry him: this was technically the fourth time she had wed a Seleucid king.102 According to Appian, she hated him because he had wed a Persian noblewoman during his captivity.103 His desire to expand the Seleucid Empire with a risky military venture, and his liaison with this foreign princess led to his demise. Now back in power, Demetrius II became embroiled in the politics of the Ptolemaic Empire and started a war that nearly destroyed his kingdom, and which greatly affected the Hasmonean state. Cleopatra Thea’s stepfather, Ptolemy Physcon, at this time was married to Thea’s mother, Cleopatra II. Physcon took his stepdaughter, Cleopatra III, as his second wife.104 She was also Cleopatra Thea’s sister. Cleopatra II unsuccessfully tried to remove her husband and Cleopatra III from power. She fled to Thea for help. Cleopatra II promised Demetrius II the throne of Egypt if he would invade the country and eliminate Physcon and Cleopatra III. Demetrius II accepted Cleopatra II’s plan to unite the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires. He expected to rule both nations.105 One year after the 129 B.C.E. death of Sidetes, Demetrius II invaded Egypt. Although Hyrcanus had survived Sidetes’s disastrous Parthia campaign, it undoubtedly weakened his forces. He had no choice but to watch as Demetrius II and the Seleucid army passed through his country on its way to Egypt. There was a distinct possibility that Demetrius II could try to annex Hyrcanus’s kingdom to punish him for his previous 102.  Cleopatra Thea married Alexander I Balas in 150 B.C.E. The two had one son, Antiochus VI. Her father dissolved the union in 148/147 B.C.E. See App., Syr. 11.68; Ant. 13.116, 120; Just., Epit. 39.1. Thea then married Demetrius II in 148/147 B.C.E. The couple had the following children: Seleucus V, Antiochus VIII Grypus, and likely a daughter who may have been named Laodice. The marriage ended with the 138 B.C.E. capture of Demetrius II in Parthia. App., Syr. 11.68-69; 1 Macc. 11:12; Ant. 13.219-22; Just., Epit. 39.10. Thea then married Antiochus VII Sidetes. The date is uncertain, but likely 137 B.C.E. See 1 Macc. 15:10. The couple had the following children: one or two daughters named Laodice, a son named Antiochus, possibly a son named Seleucus, and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus. See App., Syr. 11.68; Ant. 13.270-74; Porphyry in Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:257). Porphyry apparently refers to another son of Sidetes and Thea named Antiochus. See also Ehling 1996: 31–7. The marriage ended with the 129/128 B.C.E. death of Sidetes in Parthia. See further Grainger 1997: 45–7. 103.  Demetrius II married the daughter of Mithridates, Rhodogune. See further Just., Epit. 36.1.4-6; Diod. Sic. 34/35.15-17; Livy, Per. 59; App., Syr. 68; Porphyry in FHG 3:712–13; Atkinson 2012c: 111–13; Bevan 1902: 241–6. 104.  Livy, Per. 59; Just., Epit. 38.8.5. The documentary dating formulae indicates that the marriage took place between May 8, 141 B.C.E. and January 14, 140 B.C.E. See Pestman 1993: 85–6 (Amherst dem. 51), 87–8 (Berl. Dem. 3090). The importance of this marriage and the backgrounds of Physcon and his two wives is discussed in Chapter 5. 105.  For these events, see further Just., Epit. 39.1; Ant. 13.267-68.

54

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

support of Sidetes. In contrast to Josephus’s assertion that Hyrcanus immediately began to conquer Syrian lands after the death of Sidetes, archaeological and numismatic evidence reveal that he waited fifteen years before he undertook his campaigns to expand the Hasmonean state.106 He held off this long until he was convinced the Seleucid monarchs were so weak that they no longer posed any threat to him. He also had to wait to see if the Ptolemaic rulers would wage their war against Demetrius II in Hasmonean territory. Physcon had received advanced warning of Demetrius II’s invasion. He stationed his forces at Pelusium to prevent the Syrian army from entering Egypt. Demetrius II apparently had expected surprise to be his greatest asset. Now he was uncertain whether to continue his march. He was also reluctant to return home in disgrace as Antiochus IV Epiphanes had done after the Romans had prevented him from attacking Egypt. In the meanwhile, his opponents organized revolts against his role. Demetrius II had to rush home to save his kingdom, and once again transit the Hasmonean state. He and his men certainly caused much damage to Hyrcanus’s territory during their two marches through his kingdom, and likely took needed supplies by force.107 Physcon, now firmly in control of Egypt, decided to eliminate any further threat from the Seleucid Empire. He tried to replace Demetrius II as its ruler with an obscure son of an Egyptian merchant named Alexander (128–123 B.C.E.), whom he thought would be a compliant monarch. In an attempt to gain the support of Syria’s population, Physcon claimed that Alexander was Cleopatra Thea’s adopted son from her first marriage. Many Syrians refused to believe Physcon and contemptuously referred to the puppet-king as Zabinas (“the bought one”).108 Nevertheless, a large number of Syrians were tired of Demetrius II and feared he would plunge the country into additional wars. Yet, many of his subjects consequently supported Physcon’s chosen ruler despite his dubious pedigree. Zabinas managed to gather sufficient forces and seize much of Syria. Cleopatra Thea attempted to take political control of her country. She located her base of operations at the strategic city of Ptolemais to oppose him. Her occupation of this port adversely affected Hyrcanus as it deprived him use of its harbor. It also put many trade routes firmly under Thea’s control, as well as Syrian troops close to the border of the Hasmonean state. After losing a battle to his enemies in Damascus, Demetrius II fled 106.  For this evidence, see Atkinson 2016b: 67–9. 107.  For these events, see further Atkinson 2012c: 113–16; Grainger 1997: 42–4. 108.  Just., Epit. 39.1.4-8; Ant. 13.267-68. See further Grainger 1997: 7.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

55

to his wife. She refused to help him. Demetrius II then travelled to Tyre, where he intended to seek sanctuary in the temple of Heracles Melkart. The city’s governor arrested him while his ship was in the harbor, and executed him. Cleopatra Thea likely arranged his murder.109 In 126/125 B.C.E., Cleopatra Thea claimed the throne of the Seleucid Empire as its sole monarch. She minted coins to mark the occasion that depict a cornucopia along with the inscription “Queen Cleopatra Thea Euteria” (Queen Cleopatra, Goddess of Plenty).110 Although she had the support of much of the country, Zabinas still commanded a large army. He refused to concede power and was prepared to fight for the throne. Thea decided to appoint a co-ruler to help her defeat the rebels opposing her. She chose her 16-year-old son, Antiochus VIII, as her co-regent. His official name was Antiochus Epiphanes Philometor Callinicus (“Manifest, Mother Loving, and Illustrious in Victory”), but many of his subjects called him Grypus (“hook-nose”) because of his distinctive proboscis.111 Thea issued new coins to publicize their joint rule: however, her portrait practically obscures his. Although the two quickly grew to hate one another, they maintained the fiction of harmony to defeat Zabinas. In the meantime, any potential threat from Egypt was eliminated when Cleopatra II returned there and reconciled with Physcon and Cleopatra III. The three ruled again as triple monarchs.112 They inadvertently played a major role in the development of Jewish messianic expectations during the reign of Hyrcanus’s son, Alexander Jannaeus.113 Thea decided to win Physcon’s support by arraigning for her niece, Cleopatra Tryphaena (ca. 95–ca. 51 B.C.E.), to marry her son, Grypus.114 As part of the agreement, Physcon made an alliance with Thea. He sent her troops to help her defeat Zabinas. In the meantime, Zabinas captured Antioch, where he proclaimed himself king of the Seleucid Empire. He lost the support of the city’s inhabitants when he melted a statue of the goddess Victory from the temple of Jupiter in Antioch to sell its valuable metal.115 His subjects expelled him from the city for this sacrilege. Grypus poisoned him.

109.  Just., Epit. 39.1.9; Livy, Per. 60; App., Syr. 69. 110.  Whitehorne 1994: 102. 111.  Just., Epit. 39.1. 112.  Pestman 1967: 62. See also, Hölbl 2000: 201. 113.  See further Chapter 5. 114.  Tryphaena was the daughter of Cleopatra Thea’s sister, Cleopatra III. She was

about sixteen or seventeen years of age. 115.  App., Syr. 69; Just., Epit. 39.2; Livy, Per. 60.

56

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The civil war between Demetrius II, his wife, and Zabinas destabilized the Seleucid Empire. The country remained a divided nation governed by a succession of kings who almost continuously fought one another for sole rule. This allowed Hyrcanus in 112/111 B.C.E. to undertake his successful military campaigns to expand the Hasmonean state.116 Nevertheless, many of his subjects were not convinced that political instability in Syria had allowed him to conquer foreign lands. Rather, they believed that he was a successful warrior because he was the longawaited prophetic messiah. Hyrcanus as a Prophetic Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls Hyrcanus’s military campaigns convinced some Jews that he was a prophetic messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that were written by his adversaries that argue otherwise, which indicate that many of his subjects viewed him as a messianic figure. They also show that some of his opponents nevertheless supported his persecution of an alternative form of Judaism. The Qumran text 4Q372 is perhaps the best witness to Hyrcanus’s efforts to impose a unified faith throughout his realm. It contains the following anti-Samaritan polemic directed against the Shechem community and its cultic center at Mount Gerizim: “[fools were dwelling in their land] and made for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy.”117 Eileen Schuller and Moshe Bernstein note that the author in this passage has slightly changed several biblical texts to transform a generic prophetic indictment into a specific reference to the 116.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 67–9. 117.  3Q372 1 11-12. Cf. 4Q371 1 10-11. This document is found in three scrolls from

Qumran (4Q371, 4Q372, and 4Q373). This composition was formerly titled Apocryphon of Joseph because Joseph is its central figure. The editors have renamed it 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition. They also include 2Q22 as part of this text. Although they propose that the manuscripts represent four copies of a single composition, no section of this text is found in all four fragments. The work 2Q22, moreover, contains no overlaps with the other three scrolls that contain 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition and could belong to a separate work. For the texts, see Schuller and Bernstein 2001. Because there is nothing that unites the various scrolls identified as part of the hypothetical 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition, and since there are few textual overlaps or common exegetical techniques or shared biblical traditions in them, it is doubtful that all these fragments belonged to one composition. Rather, they show the popularity of the biblical book of Joshua, which was the subject of considerable exegetical interpretation and expansion during the Second Temple Period. See further De Troyer 2003: 29–58; Feldman 2013: 188–93. Tov’s (2010: 20, 47) latest inventory of the Dead Sea Scrolls designates 4Q371, 4Q372, and 4Q373 as Narrative and Poetic Compositiona-b and 2Q22 as apocrDavid? (Narrative and Poetic Composition).

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

57

Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim.118 Josephus’s accounts of Hyrcanus, as well as the content of 4Q371, reflect tensions that existed during his reign when he forced the neighboring peoples to adhere to Jewish law. The animosity between the Judeans and the Samaritans in these Qumran documents is also evident in the biblical texts of each community. The Samaritan Pentateuch and writings that reflect this version suggest that the campaign of Hyrcanus against Samaria created a permanent religious division between the Samaritans and the Jewish community in Jerusalem.119 The Qumran text 4QTestimonia (4Q175) is another witness to this animosity. It was copied at the end of the second century B.C.E. or the beginning of the first century B.C.E. This work quotes from a harmonistic version of the book of Exodus that includes the same amount of editorial changes of the proto-Masoretic Text found in the Samaritan Pentateuch.120 The extant textual evidence suggests that the primary version of the Samaritan Pentateuch was undertaken by the second century B.C.E., presumably prior to the 112/111 B.C.E. destruction of Mt. Gerizim by Hyrcanus.121 The special, or “sectarian,” Samaritan readings were traditionally thought to comprise twenty-one changes in the Deuteronomic formula from “the place that Yhwh your God will choose (‫ ”)יבחר‬to “the place that Yhwh your God has chosen (‫)בחר‬.”122 However, Adrian Schenker’s textual study of these passages, and all extant variants and versions, suggests that ‫ בחר‬was likely the original reading in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, and that the Masoretic Text is a theologically motivated correction.123 This suggests that the Samaritan Pentateuch is based on a text type that was in use during the last two centuries B.C.E.124 118.  Schuller and Bernstein 2001: 172. The editors (2001: 171 n. 4) also state that the definitive “break” between the Samaritans, the Jerusalem temple, and the Jerusalem priesthood probably occurred only after the Samaria campaign of Hyrcanus. Pummer (2009: 19–20) and S. Schwartz (1993: 12) are reluctant to view this text as proof of a widespread Judean bias against the Samaritans. They suggest it merely describes the hostility of the Qumran sectarians towards the Samaritans. 119.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 69–78; 2016c. 120.  For the editio princeps, see Allegro 1968: 57–60, plate XXI. See further Allegro 1956: 182–7. Cf. Strugnell 1970: 225–9. The scribe of 4Q175 also produced 1QS. See Atkinson 2016b: 77–8; 2016c; Steudel 2000: 936–8. 121.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 69–78; E. Eshel and H. Eshel 2003; Schorch 2005. 122.  Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. 123.  Schenker 2008. See aslo Charlesworth 2013; 2015. 124.  Because the Septuagint, 4QMMT (4Q394 frg. 8 iv 9-11), as well as the Temple Scroll (11Q19 52.9, 16) contain the perfect tense in their citation of the biblical passage regarding God’s chosen place of worship, this provides additional evidence that the Masoretic Text is likely the result of a later textual change in these passages.

58

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Lines 22-23 of the Qumran text 4QTestimonia (4Q175) quote three passages from the Torah, and end with the following interpretation of Josh. 6:26: “He said “Cursed be the man who rebuilds this city! Upon his first-born will he found it, and upon his youngest son will he erect its gates!” And now behold, a man accursed, a man of Belial…” This passage is also found in 4QApocryphon of Joshuab (4Q379).125 The editor of this text believes the author of 4QTestimonia copied the curse of Joshua from 4QApocryphon of Joshuab, which may suggest that the Qumran community considered 4QApocryphon of Joshuab canonical. If the Qumran sectarians viewed this text as authoritative, this would explain why it was quoted together with pentateuchal passages in 4QTestimonia.126 Hanan Eshel proposes that the authors of 4QTestimonia and 4QApocryphon of Joshuab denounced Hyrcanus as the “man of Belial” because he ignored the curse in Josh. 6:26 and rebuilt Jericho.127 The phrase “instruments of violence” (‫ ;כלי חמס‬4Q175 25; 4Q379 22 ii 11) is likely an allusion to Jacob’s description of Simeon and Levi in Gen. 49:5. These Qumran texts compare the capture of Samaria by the two sons of Hyrcanus, Aristobulus and Antigonus, with the taking of Shechem by Simeon and Levi. They also provide historical confirmation for Josephus’s claim that Hyrcanus captured Shechem after a brutal campaign.128 These works also show that many Jews were surprised at the premature deaths of his two sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus.

125.  This text was formerly named “The Psalms of Joshua.” For the editio princeps of this and the related 4QApocryphon of Joshuaa (4Q378), see Newsom 1996. 126.  The following believe that 4QTestimonia is the latest of the two compositions: Brooke 2010; Newsom 1996: 238–9. H. Eshel (2008: 67, 83–6) argues that 4QTestimonia was added to the Apocryphon of Joshua. The former work consists of a series of quotations that are not commented or expanded upon like the pesharim or the Apocryphon of Joshua. It perhaps more probable that 4QTestimonia, since it preserves a shorter text with no editorial comments, preserves the original, or an earlier version, of this document. For this issue, see further Steudel 2000. 127.  H. Eshel 2008: 87. This identification is cautiously accepted by Steudel 2000: 937. 4QTestimonia and 4QApocryphon of Joshuab omit words from Josh. 6:26, including the identification of the city as Jericho. This, as previously noted by Strugnell (1970: 228), is due to the Septuagintal character of the text used by the authors of these documents. This document preserves a shorter version than the Masoretic Text and does not mention Jericho. The explication of Josh. 6.26 in lines 9-10 opens with the demonstrative particle ‫ והנה‬that connects the preceding clause with the section it introduces. This pronoun also links Joshua’s prophecy with its exposition, and suggests it refers to Jericho. See further Feldman 2013: 102. 128.  A Greek inscription from Samaria may provide additional support for Josephus’s account of the capture of this city by the sons of Hyrcanus. See Tushingham 1972: 63.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

59

According to Josephus’s War and Antiquities, Aristobulus and Antigonus died approximately one year after their father passed away.129 Because Hyrcanus also built a palace at Jericho, these texts best fit the historical circumstances of his reign.130 Some Jews undoubtedly thought that God must have cursed his two sons since one murdered the other, and the eldest died under mysterious circumstances. It is, therefore, plausible that these works were written to denounce Hyrcanus. It shows that their authors were convinced that biblical prophecy was being fulfilled in their day. The writers of these documents apparently believed Aristobulus and Antigonus, like the offspring of Hiel of Bethel in 1 Kgs 16:34, died because their father had rebuilt Jericho in defiance of Joshua’s curse.131 This scriptural reference shows that 4QTestimonia was written after 104 B.C.E., the year of Aristobulus’s death.132 4QTestimonia and 4QApocryphon of Joshuab may contain additional information about Hyrcanus that Josephus omitted from his books. These Qumran texts are clearly anti-Hasmonean since they denounce Hyrcanus as a “man of Belial” (4Q175 23; 4Q379 22 ii 9). In contrast, Josephus praises him more than any other Hasmonean ruler. In Ant. 13.299-300, he claims God granted him three of the greatest privileges: the rule of the nation, the office of high priest, and the gift of prophesy. 4QTestimonia collects biblical passages relating to his purported gift of prophecy, his leadership, and his high priesthood that appear to undermine this claim of Josephus.133 This is further supported by the interpretation of Scripture in 4QTestimonia and 4QApocryphon of Joshuab. Both call the man of Belial a “fowler’s snare,” which is taken from Hos. 9.7-8. In this biblical 129.  See War 1.67-69, 78-84; Ant. 13.299-309, 314-19. 130.  For the archaeological evidence, see Netzer 1977; 2001: 1–49. 131.  Berthelot (2009: 106–7) believes that this passage in 4Q175 22 and 4Q379 22 ii

8 does not refer to the sons of Hyrcanus because the preposition ‫ ב‬in ‫ בבכורו‬means “with” or “with the help of” and that it refers to the participation of the children of Hyrcanus in the rebuilding of the city. Newsom (1996: 280) believes there is too little preserved text in the Apocryphon of Joshuab to associate its contents with historical events. However, the context of 4QTestimonia and Apocryphon of Joshuab suggest that the authors of these works connect the biblical prophecy of Josh. 6:26, and its fulfillment in 1 Kgs 16:34, with the events of the reign of Hyrcanus. 132.  Aristobulus earlier murdered Antigonus. See War 1.72-74; Ant. 13.303-9. 133.  Atkinson 2016c: 23–7. Treves (1960) proposes the author of this document was actually pro-Hasmonean and believed that Hyrcanus fulfilled the biblical verses cited in these Qumran texts. As noted by H. Eshel (2008: 86–7), the designation of this ruler as the “man of Belial” clearly suggests otherwise. Regev (2013: 117–18) emphasizes that Hyrcanus’s fame stemmed not only from his military conquest, but also from his religious reputation.

60

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

passage, the prophet describes how his opponents, the false prophets, are frustrating his efforts. Hanan Eshel suggests the writers of these Dead Sea Scrolls chose this phrase to show that Hyrcanus was a false prophet.134 He notes that the description of this person as “a fowler’s snare” is followed by “ruin for all his neighbors,” which refers to the man of Belial.135 The writer then describes “a horrible thing in Ephraim and Judah.” The phrase is likely an allusion to Hos. 6:10-11, Jer. 5:30-31, and Jer. 23:14—all passages that denounce false prophets and priests.136 The passage in Jer. 23:14-15 also condemns adultery and false dealings, which are similar to some of the vices denounced as the nets of Belial. The crimes mentioned in the biblical verses cited in 4Q175 are reminiscent of the polemic in the Psalms of Solomon that accuses the temple priests of three crimes: adultery, theft from the sanctuary, and the defilement of the Temple (Pss. Sol. 8.10-12). This list closely parallels 4QPsalms Peshera (4Q171), which is a document that describes conflicts between the Righteousness Teacher, the Wicked Priest, and the Man of Lies. This Dead Sea Scroll also refers to “the nets of Belial” (4QpPsa col. II lines 1-10) in which Israel is presently ensnared. Although the author of this pesher does not specify what these three “nets” represent, they are enumerated in the Damascus Document (CD 4.15-18) as fornication, wealth, and defilement of the temple. The use of the sobriquet “man of Belial” in 4QTestimonia and 4QApocryphon of Joshuab may possibly allude to these three crimes, which their authors believed Hyrcanus had committed.137 134.  4Q175 ln. 24; 4Q379 ln. 10. Both H. Eshel and Newsom note that these texts also allude to Hos. 6:10-11 (4Q175 ln. 27; 4Q379 ln. 13), which associates the two sons of the man of Belial with “a horrible thing in Ephraim and in Judah.” While H. Eshel (2008: 80–2) suggests this may indicate that the Pharisees and the Qumran sect were weakened in the days of Aristobulus, Newsom (1996: 281) does not believe these terms in 4Q379 refer to the Pharisees or the Qumran community since she does not regard it as a sectarian composition. 135.  4Q175 ln. 24. For the discussion of this passage and Balaam in this text, see further H. Eshel 2008: 80–7; Feldman 2013: 103. Although 4Q379 ln. 10 contains this same passage, it does not include the material related to Balaam discussed here that is found in 4Q175. Because Josh. 6 merely states that any future builder of Jericho will be “cursed,” the author of this Qumran text has included an allusion from Hosea to provide a scriptural justification for referring to Hyrcanus by the sobriquet “Belial.” 136.  4Q175 ln. 27. This same passage is found in 4Q379 ln. 13a. 137.  See further Allegro 1968: 42–51; Atkinson 2004: 66–9; Bernstein 2000; Horgan 1979: 192–226; Lim 2002: 38–9; Pardee 1973; Strugnell 1970: 211–28. Similar lists of vices are also found in the following texts: Sib. Or. 1.172; 2.65-75, 255-60; 4.30-35; T. Mos. 5.4-6. For the possible biblical background of the three “nets of Belial,” see Kosmala 1978: 2:115–37. If the proposed reconstruction of line 9 (“[Yohanan son of Sim]on”) of the List of False Prophets in 4Q339 is correct and refers to Hyrcanus, it may

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

61

Hanan Eshel suggests the key to understanding the biblical references in 4QTestimonia is found earlier in this work where the author describes the expected prophet. Line 5 of this text cites Deut. 18:18 and reads: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren.” Line 9 contains the phrase “Oracle of Balaam son of Beor” and then proceeds to discusses Balaam’s prophecy about the star and scepter from Num. 24:17-29 that is expected to “crush the temples of Moab and destroy all the Children of Seth” (4Q175 lines 12-13). Hanan Eshel proposes the author of 4QTestimonia was concerned that readers would use Scripture to interpret Hyrcanus as a messianic figure. The writer of this text emphasizes that his conquest of Moab fulfilled Balaam’s prophecy. The Damascus Document (VII, 18-21) interprets this biblical passage as a reference to the “Interpreter of the Law” who will come from Damascus. Hanan Eshel suggests the author of 4Q175 could not accept the interpretation of Balaam’s oracle as a favorable prediction of the Hasmonean rulers. Through a careful selection of scriptural passages, the writer of this Qumran text apparently sought to show that Hyrcanus should not be identified either as the ideal prophet (the ruler who will crush Moab) or as the perfect priest described in Moses’s blessing of Levi despite his successful military conquests.138 There are some problems with Josephus’s narrative that Hanan Eshel overlooks in his effort to connect these Qumran texts with Hyrcanus. It is doubtful that Hyrcanus would have undertaken a military expedition across the Jordan River early in his reign since archaeological evidence shows that his campaigns occurred in 111/112 B.C.E.139 Although Josephus claims Hyrcanus captured Medaga, he writes that his forces suffered many hardships (ταλαιπωρηθείσης) and that he besieged the city for six months before he captured the unknown city of Samaga. It is unlikely that Hyrcanus would have spent so much time in this region and expand support the claim of Josephus that some Jews considered him a prophet. See Broshi and Yardeni 1995. As several scholars have noted, this reconstruction is conjectural. For this debate, see Eshel 2008: 88–9. Lange (2010) argues that the combination of Hebrew and Aramaic in this text suggests that it was composed at Qumran rather than brought from elsewhere. He proposes that the author associates Hyrcanus with false prophets denounced in the Jewish scriptures because he wrongly claimed prophetic authority, led Israel away from its God, and prophesied what God did not tell him. S. J. D. Cohen (2000) believes this text resembles lists (pinakes) compiled by Greek scholars in the Hellenistic period. 138.  H. Eshel 2008: 80–3. Berthelot (2009: 115–16) proposes that 4QTestimonia criticizes the legitimacy of Hyrcanus as a prophet, a political leader, and a high priest. She suggests that 4QApocryphon of Jeremiahb merely denounces him as a bad ruler and condemns his wars, but only implicitly rebukes him as a false prophet. 139.  Atkinson 2016b: 67–9.

62

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

his operation to include other cities since Demetrius II and Alexander Zabinus posed a great danger to his kingdom. Josephus, however, claims that Hyrcanus marched out “immediately” (ἐυθύς) after he received the news of the death of Sidetes (129 B.C.E.) to take advantage of the absence of any Syrian troops in the region.140 His placement of this incident in conjunction with Hyrcanus’s campaigns in Samaria and Idumea suggests that Josephus has embellished his narrative of Hyrcanus’s military conquests. His assertion that Jannaeus took Medaga from the Arabs shows that his story of the victory of Hyrcanus in the Transjordan is not factual.141 However, it does indicate that Hyrcanus planned to campaign there, possibly to fulfill the biblical prophecies that the messiah would capture it. For the author of 4QTestimonia, his failure to do so demonstrated that he was a false messiah and a untruthful prophet. 4QTestimonia suggests that the conquests of Hyrcanus led to some messianic speculation among his supporters that Josephus does not record. The Qumran community wrote 4QTestimonia and related texts to show that Hyrcanus did not fulfill either biblical prophecy or the Damascus Document’s predictions.142 The author of 4QTestimonia uses intertextual allusions to Jeremiah’s attack against false prophets to call Hyrcanus a “horrible thing” and a false prophet. This evidence suggests that Josephus’s claim that Hyrcanus enjoyed the gift of prophecy was not his literary creation, but that he recorded an ancient tradition that is reflected in literature from Qumran. Many of Hyrcanus’s subjects likely identified him as the longed-for “true prophet” of 1 Macc. 14:41.143 Conclusion Many supporters of Hyrcanus apparently identified him as the true prophet, and as a man specially chosen by God, because his military campaigns were so successful. The Qumran community considered him neither a prophet nor a savior. However, Josephus considered him unique among the Hasmonean rulers since God had sanctioned his conquests and his reign. He likely included a Transjordanian campaign in his account to 140.  Ant. 13.254. 141.  Sievers (1990: 142) notes this connection and considers Josephus’s account of

the conquest of Medaga by Hyrcanus dubious. There is no archaeological evidence from the Transjordan that can be associated with Hyrcanus’s supposed attacks there. See Berlin 1997: 30–1. Foerster’s (1981) attempt to connect one of the towns conquered by Hyrcanus with Mt. Nebo is largely conjectural. 142.  See further Atkinson 2016c: 9–27. 143.  See further Atkinson 2016c: 9–27.

3. Prophetic Messianism and Hasmonean State Expansion

63

portray Hyrcanus as a great warrior, and to exaggerate Hasmonean military successes at this time.144 Yet, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide contemporary evidence that he worsened tensions between the Hasmoneans and the Qumran community to an extent not documented by Josephus. These texts also show that Jews had differing opinions regarding Hyrcanus’s legitimacy to serve as high priest. The observation of John Collins and Peter Flint that the author of 4QPseudo-Daniel ar (4Q245) was not specifically anti-Hasmonean, but accepted a “mixed” line of priestly succession as long as the offices of priest and king remained separate, would account for this text’s apparent mention of Jonathan and Simon but not John Hyrcanus. 145 Unlike his predecessors, Hyrcanus represented a major change in Hasmonean policy. Although he held the same titles as his father, he effectively merged the offices of high priest and monarch. This Qumran text suggests that many believed that Hyrcanus was a king even though he refrained from using the title. This would explain why his son, Judah Aristobulus, dispensed with his father’s fiction and openly proclaimed himself king and high priest. Josephus likely omitted any messianic speculation about Hyrcanus in his books since any such claims for a Jewish leader would have been a sensitive issue among the Romans. In the aftermath of 70 C.E., the Romans would not have approved of any Jewish king whose supporters had believed he was in any sense a messiah. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that his son, Alexander Jannaeus, sought to perpetuate the belief that his father was a messianic figure. However, we must first turn to his brother, Aristobulus, who transformed the Hasmonean kingdom 144.  1 Macc. 11:57 likewise states that Jonathan campaigned in the Transjordan. There is no historical evidence for such an expedition. See further Goldstein 1976: 438–49. Bar-Kochva (1989: 141, 153–4) writes that the account of Judas’s Transjordan campaign in 1 Macc. 5:24-34 is not only incorrect in its geographical descriptions, but it is clearly fictional. These examples suggest that other ancient writers sought to portray the Hasmoneans as conquerors of Transjordan. Although it is widely recognized that Jubilees reflects events of the Hasmonean period, the ambiguous geographical references in ch. 34 of this book make any effort to identify its historical background problematic. See further E. Eshel and H. Eshel 2002: 127–9; Mendels 1987: 70–1. Lee and Ji (2004) observe increased settlement around Iraq al-Amir and Machaerus in the late second to early first century B.C.E., which they do not connect with the Nabateans. Nevertheless, they propose this was a Jewish settlement, and date it to the time of Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus. They do not furnish sufficient archaeological data to support the historicity of Hyrcanus’s Transjordan campaign or provide any firm evidence to date it the remains to the reign of Jannaeus (Ant. 14.18). The effort of Klein (1934) to connect Jub. 34 with the campaign of Hyrcanus in Edom is also without any historical support. 145.  J. Collins and Flint 1996: 158.

64

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

into a Hellenistic monarchy and nearly destroyed his entire family, before examining additional evidence concerning how later generations regarded Hyrcanus. Despite his brief reign, Aristobulus was an important Hasmonean ruler for the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls because they believed that his unprecedented short rule marked the beginning of the end of days.

Chapter 4 T he C r e at i on of t h e H a s m one an M onar chy : A p oc a lypt i c E x p ec tat i on s and t he D e ad S e a S c r ol l s

The decision of Aristobulus to transform the Hasmonean state into a monarchy in which the ruler also served as high priest was unprecedented in Jewish history. Because the Hasmoneans were priests, they were eligible to serve as high priests. Nevertheless, they were unqualified to reign as kings because they were not Davidic descendants. Josephus and 1 Maccabees shed some light on the family’s genealogy. Both state that the Hasmoneans belonged to the priestly course of Joiarib, which provides unambiguous evidence they did not consider themselves descendants of King David with the right to assume the position of monarch.1 Although Josephus may have emphasized the descent of the Hasmonean family from the priestly clan of Joiarib to justify their serving as high priests, he never defends their right to govern as kings. His stories about the earlier Jewish opposition to Hyrcanus likely preserve a historical memory of debates over his qualification to hold the office of high priest. However, the challenge to his legitimacy was not a question of his priestly pedigree, but a debate over his ritual purity. According to Josephus, a man named Eleazer demanded that Hyrcanus give up his position as high priest. He insisted upon this not because no single person could hold civil and religious authority. Rather, his opposition was only to Hyrcanus’s dubious paternity because he believed it violated Lev. 21:14: the accusation was that his mother had been raped while a prisoner. The implication of this charge is that the Hasmoneans could serve as high priests, but that some Jews believed their ritual impurity made them ineligible to accept the position.2

1.  Life 2; 1 Macc. 2:1; 14:29. 2.  Cf. Ant. 3.126; Apion 1.34-35; m. Ket. 2.9.

66

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

It has been widely assumed that the Hasmonean usurpation of the high priesthood from the Zadokites was a decisive factor in the formation of the Qumran sect. Nevertheless, there is no definitive evidence for the existence of a priestly dynasty until the Oniads; they were ousted by the Hasmoneans.3 There is also no historical evidence that the Hasmonean takeover of the office of high priest was a factor that led to the formation of the Qumran sect. Rather, many Jews appear to have opposed Aristobulus and his family because of the manner through which they obtained power. The controversy surrounding the installation of Simon as his brother’s successor in the extant sources suggest that his religious authority was limited since, according to 1 Maccabees, “the Ioudaioi and the priests were pleased that Simon would be their chief and high priest in perpetuity until a true prophet would arise.”4 Because the Greek phrase “in perpetuity” (εἰς αἰῶνα) makes no claim regarding hereditary character of this office, the agreement apparently was that Simon and the Hasmoneans could be removed from power if they proved to be inefficient stewards for the true prophet. This claim apparently went back to the beginning of Hasmonean rule since 1 Macc. 4:46 refers to the expectation of this prophet at the time Judas cleansed the temple. The extant evidence suggests that the Hasmonean family from the beginning of their rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes faced considerable resistance to their creation of a political and religious dynasty. We find some evidence of this opposition reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These documents also reveal how the Hasmoneans used the tradition concerning the true prophet to retain power until the Romans terminated their state in 63 B.C.E. Hasmonean Kings, High Priests, and the True Prophet The combination of the high priesthood and the monarchy under Aristobulus has a precedent in the Aramaic Levi text from Qumran.5 The author of this work states, “the kingdom of priesthood is greater than the kingdom.”6 James Kugel believes that such a claim could not have been 3.  Menelaus (172–162 B.C.E.) is the first recorded high priest in the Second Temple period to belong to a family other than one directly descended from Joshua (1 Macc. 7:14), the first high priest of this era. For the debate over the non-Zadokite background of Menelaus and the Hasmoneans, see further, Babota 2014: 72–3; Rooke 2000: 266–302; VanderKam 2004: 18–42, 203–26. For extensive discussions of this issue, with examinations of the relevant textual evidence and scholarly debates, see further Brutti 2006: 110–51; J. Collins 2010a: 95–8; Hunt 2006: 144–90. 4.  1 Macc. 14:41. 5.  1Q21 7 2; 4Q213 2 10-18. 6.  1Q21 1 2.

4. The Creation of the Hasmonean Monarchy

67

made about Levi before the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty. Therefore, he dates this composition no earlier than the second half of the second century B.C.E.7 The Hasmoneans apparently appealed to the tradition preserved in this text to seek the office of high priest first because they believed it gave them the right to reign as kings.8 In the Aramaic Levi document, moreover, Levi clearly states that kingship is not limited to the tribe of Judah.9 The Hasmoneans likewise held that they had the right to assume the monarchy.10 The Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the Hasmonean rulers also used apocalyptic traditions to justify the transformation of their state into a Hellenistic monarchy in which a single ruler held absolute religious and secular powers. Some Second Temple Period Jews believed that Antigonus’s creation of the Hasmonean monarchy was preordained: it marked the last stage of an apocalyptic countdown and the beginning of the final age of history. Although Josephus appears to have known such traditions, he does not explicitly acknowledge them in his books. Yet, a close look at his chronology, when read in light of earlier Jewish texts, suggests that he derived some of his history from an apocalyptic chronology. This is evident in his dating of Aristobulus’s time in power. He gives two different dates for the beginning of his reign in his War and Antiquities. In War 1.70 he writes that Aristobulus became king “four hundred and seventy-one years and three months” after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. In Ant. 13.301, he states that his reign began “four hundred and eighty-one years and three months” after the end of the Babylonian captivity. Both numbers are too large and likely represent an early interpretation of the seventy weeks of years, or 490 years, in Dan. 9:24-27.11 If the one-year reign of Aristobulus is added to this figure, then the Antiquities places the beginning of the reign of Jannaeus at the start of the 70th heptad (years 483–490). This number is similar to Eusebius’s Demonstratio Evangelica (8.2.394b-d), which calculates the length of time from Cyrus to the death of Jannaeus as 482 years.12 The appearance of this tradition in such a late text suggests that Eusebius had access to some ancient source that preserved apocalyptic beliefs of the Hasmonean period. 7.  Kugel 2007: 292. Aramaic Levi likely incorporates prior traditions, and was probably reworked during the early Hasmonean period. 8.  See further Regev 2013: 171–2. 9.  Gen. 49:10. 10.  Ant. 14.78; Just., Epit. 36.2. Cf. Ant. 14.404. 11.  Atkinson 2016f: 52–5; J. Collins 1993: 353–8. 12.  See further Atkinson 2016f.

68

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Josephus’s interpretation of Daniel is similar to the Dead Sea Scroll text 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ce (4Q390). The author of this work used Dan. 9:24-27 to date the last historical epoch to the period of the Hasmonean family’s revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes.13 Because Devorah Dimant does not discern any clearly identifiable sectarian features in this text, she believes a member of the Qumran community did not write it.14 If her interpretation is correct, it shows that other groups shared this understanding of Jeremiah’s reading of Daniel 9. This Qumran composition unfortunately has a rather complicated history that has somewhat hindered its historical analysis. It was originally grouped with fragments 4Q385-391 and classified as one of seven copies of PseudoEzekiel. Dimant, to whom the document was assigned for the official publication, later decided that these scroll pieces came from two compositions: Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon of Jeremiah.15 She subsequently identified 4Q390 as a third work that she named Pseudo-Moses.16 Dimant later reclassified 4Q390 as a copy of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and gave it the title Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce.17 Several scholars have questioned Dimant’s classifications of these fragments, especially her reconstruction of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.18 Hanan Eshel is perhaps the most notable of her critics. He believes 4Q390 is actually an independent work.19 Christoph Berner raises some 13.  For 4Q390 and its use of sabbatical chronology, see Dimant 2001: 113–16, 235–53. See also Adamczewski 2008; Balázs 2014; H. Eshel 2005; 2008: 25–7; Werman 2006. Similar calculations reflecting a periodization of history are found in the following texts: 1 En. 89.59–90.19 (4Q204-207); 4Q212; 4Q247; 4Q558; 4Q181; 4Q243. 14.  Dimant 2001: 236–7. For a possible relationship between 4Q390 and CD, see C. J. P. Davis 2011: 484–6. 15.  Dimant (2001: 7–9) identifies six copies of Pseudo-Ezekiel: 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385); 4QPseudo-Ezekielb (4Q386); 4QPseudo-Ezekielc (4Q385b); 4QPseudo-Ezekield (4Q388); 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Unidentified Fragments (4Q385c); and 4QpapPseudo-Ezekiele (4Q391). Dimant (2001: 92–4) identifies six copies of Apocryphon of Jeremiah: Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca (4Q385a); Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb (4Q387); Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc (4Q388a); Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cd (4Q389); Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce (4Q390); and Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cf (4Q387a). Dimant (2001: 117–27) now believes the fragments that comprise 4Q383, which were formerly assigned to editions of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, may possibly come from some other work. Nevertheless, she gave them the name 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah A and published them alongside the other copies of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah in her editio princeps of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah fragments. 16.  See Dimant 1992. 17.  See Dimant 2001: 91–6. See also Tov 2010: 49. 18.  Brady 2005; Wacholder 2000; B. G. Wright 2002. For her reaction to these and other critics, see Dimant 2011a. 19.  H. Eshel 2008: 22–4,

4. The Creation of the Hasmonean Monarchy

69

objections to Dimant’s reconstruction based on the dates of the fragments. He observes that 4Q390 dates later than the other manuscripts Dimant identified as part of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah.20 Eibert Tigchelaar, more­over, comments that there is no evidence to connect 4Q390 with any other Apocryphon. Rather, he observes that the content of 4Q390 is similar to the Damascus Document, but not with any other sectarian core text.21 The numerous similarities between 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389, and Bar. 1:1-15a, and the attitude towards the temple in these texts that differs from the more hostile view of 4Q390, provides further support for separating these four fragments from 4Q390.22 The classification of this fragment and the other texts that comprise the hypothetical Apocryphon of Jeremiah document is somewhat problematic, as well as the title of the reconstructed composition. The juxtaposition of the title Apocryphon with the name of a biblical book, in this instance Jeremiah, suggests that the work replaces earlier authentic biblical tradition with a new version. The problem with this understanding is that there is no evidence that the so-called Apocryphon of Jeremiah interprets our extant book of Jeremiah since many of its passages recontextualize other scriptural writings, such as Nahum, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. It is uncertain whether the many fragments Dimant includes in her reconstruction of the 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah actually belong to this work. This is particularly true regarding its anonymous ex eventu prophecies about Israel’s past and future. It is nevertheless clear that the author re-contextualizes the prophecies of other prophets in the composition, particularly Amos and Nahum. The writer also includes material from the Torah (e.g. Deuteronomy, Leviticus), as well as an updated version of Daniel’s (9:24) 490-year prophecy based on Jeremiah’s seventy years (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10). The extant composition, therefore, is clearly a new work that is composed of diverse strands of scriptural texts, and which was intended to reflect the Hasmonean period.23 It is important to make a distinction between fragments such as 4Q390 and any reconstructed document to which they have been assigned. In the case of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, it must be recognized that this text 20.  Berner 2006: 393–430. For other objections to Dimant’s reconstruction, see further C. J. P. Davis 2011; Stuckenbruck 2007: 55–6; Werman 2006. 21.  Tigchelaar 2012. 22.  See further K. Davis 2013; Doering 2003. 23.  See further Tamási 2014. It is also relevant to note that the earliest copies of the prophetic books from Qumran contain different variants, which make it difficult to refer to a single edition of any scriptural text such as the book of Jeremiah.

70

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

is a scholarly construct. The original team tasked with the preservation, reconstruction, and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls often assumed that many of the fragments the Bedouin gave them came from Cave 4. They then recorded these texts in the official registry as Cave 4 fragments without any definitive proof of their origins.24 For this reason, significant fragments such as 4Q390 must be examined apart from any hypothetical document to which they may have belonged. This is particularly important for those pieces associated with the hypothetical Apocryphon of Jeremiah since there are actually few joins between the pieces attributed to this presumed composition, and they could have come from different caves. Therefore, the present study examines 4Q390 only for what its content may tell us about theological beliefs at the time of the Hasmonean state, and does not seek to reconstruct any hypothetical document to which it once may have once formed a part. The calculations in 4Q390 presuppose the chronology in the book of Daniel. This suggests that Josephus, or possibly a Jewish source he used, derived the lengths of the reigns of some of the Hasmonean rulers from Scripture. It also shows that Second Temple Jews used the idea of periodization to explain the rise of the Hasmonean monarchy. They were not alone in using this concept. J. W. Swain traced the idea of four empires followed by a fifth, as found in Daniel 2 and 7, back to Iran.25 He suggested it became popular in the Greco-Roman age as part of antiGreek propaganda.26 However, it is not necessary to postulate an Iranian source for the materials at Qumran that contain this concept. Rather, it is more probable that they merely reflect a common cultural tradition rather than any direct borrowing. The use of Daniel in these Second Temple Jewish writings suggests that their authors regarded him as a prophet. Michael Stone comments that prophecies based on an interpretation of the seventy years of Daniel were often used to interpret world history.27 The Jewish elucidations of the seventy weeks of years in Daniel, when read in light of such works as the Testament of Moses 3, 1 Enoch (89:59; 90:22, 24), and the Epistle of 24.  See further Fields 2009: 231, 546, 561–5. For the implications of this information for understanding the history of the Qumran community, see further Atkinson 2012b. 25.  Swain 1940. 26. A fragment of the early second-century B.C.E. Roman chronicler Aemilius Sura (in Cornell 2013: 2:1144; 3:656) describes a similar schema of four kingdoms. Sura drew upon the earlier schemas of writers such as Eratosthenes and Ctesias that divided history up to the defeat of Antiochus in 190 B.C.E. into five periods. Cf. Diod. Sic. 2.22.2. For similar chronologies that sought to account for the rise of the Roman Republic, see Cornell 2013: 617–18; Mommsen 1861. 27.  Stone 2011: 60–9.

4. The Creation of the Hasmonean Monarchy

71

Jeremiah, suggest that apocalyptic interpretations regarding the seventy years were quite common in Second Temple Judaism. For this reason, none of these documents can be used for historical reconstruction since they reflect ancient attempts to correlate historical events with biblical prophecy. The calculations in the Dead Sea Scrolls that use biblical traditions to divide history into different periods are important since they likely reflect widespread ancient understandings about the significance of the Hasmonean period, and the belief that its creation marked the beginning of the final age of history as foretold by the biblical prophets.28 Aristobulus’s creation of the Hasmonean monarchy marked the termination of this apocalyptic countdown. One Dead Sea Scroll even implies that there is a historical truth behind Josephus’s colorful account of the demise of Aristobulus and Antigonus. Their deaths likely proved to many Jews that the end time calculation of 4Q390 was true. The Deaths of Aristobulus and Antigonus The Qumran document known as 4QTestimonia (4Q175 lines 22-30) likely alludes to Hyrcanus and his two sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus.29 It rejects the use of Scripture to interpret Hyrcanus as a prophet because the author believed that God had cursed him and his sons. This composition denounces him for his rebuilding of this city in defiance of the biblical curse of Josh. 6:26. The author highlights the violent acts of his children by their actions in Samaria with the biblical story of the capture of Shechem by Simeon and Levi. The writer of 4QTestimonia believed 28.  In addition to the texts previously cited, it should be noted that the author of CD 1.5-6 also mentions a period of 390 years after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar until the rise of the Righteous Teacher. This number is no more reliable than the 490 years in Daniel. These texts that use Daniel, as well as works by authors such as Demetrius the Chronographer, do not begin counting the 490 years from the same year. This may indicate that Jews of the Hellenistic period did not know the exact duration of the Persian period. See also the Seder Olam Rabbah, which calculates the length of the exile as 52 years and the period from the return from exile to the Hasmonean age as 232 years. The Talmud (b. ‘Abod. Zar. 9a) calculates the last period as 214 years. For these issues, see the further the discussions in J. Collins 2010a: 92–4; Vermes 2003. Wise (2003: 64–5) notes that Josephus used different chronologies for the Persian period to date historical events (War 4.318; Ant. 13.301). Many of these are based on Dan. 9:24-27. The only extant chronograph among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q559 (4QpapBibchronology ar), matches no known chronology. Although it is not complete, there is no reason to assume that its chronology for the Persian period would have matched any other ancient or modern dating for this era. See further Wise 1997. 29.  See further Atkinson 2016c: 9–17.

72

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

God was ultimately responsible for the short reign of Aristobulus, and his murder of Antigonus, since he never should have taken the throne in place of Jannaeus. As the new king, his brother, Jannaeus, struggled to preserve the Hasmonean state in the face of threats from the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires, and from Jewish apocalyptic expectations that the end of days was near. Many Jews believed that he would be the last Hasmonean ruler.

Chapter 5 R e l i gi ou s S t r i f e i n t h e H asmone an S tat e : F or e i gn T h reat s , P tol em a i c M e ssi ani sm , and t h e T rue P rophe t

Egyptian documents from the War of Scepters (103–101 B.C.E.) show that Jannaeus was a cautious ruler like his father. He waited approximately six years after taking power before he began his campaign to expand the Hasmonean state. Coins from Gaza reveal that he conquered it no earlier than 95/94 B.C.E.1 Josephus includes one important chronological reference in Ant. 13.365, where he states that Jannaeus’s siege of Gaza coincided with the murder of the Seleucid monarch Antiochus VIII Grypus, which took place in 96 B.C.E. This statement introduces an important section that describes the civil wars in the Seleucid Empire. Josephus apparently realized their significance for understanding Hasmonean history, but was uncertain of the chronology of Syria’s rulers. The result is a rather confusing narrative that overlooks the extent to which each nation influenced the other. Excursus 2: Numismatics and the Fratricidal Seleucid Wars in Antiquities 13.365-371 Josephus inserts a lengthy excursus in Ant. 13.365-371 that describes an extensive period of civil war in the Seleucid Empire.2 He begins with the 97/96 B.C.E. murder of Grypus by his minister Heracleon that brought Seleucus VI to power (Ant. 13.365).3 Josephus connects his death with Jannaeus’s successful siege of Gaza 1.  Atkinson 2016b: 118–22; Hoover 2007c. 2.  For a detailed examination of this passage, see Atkinson 2016a. Josephus does not

include this section in his War. 3.  Eusebius (Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:259) places his murder twenty-six years after the 167th Olympiad (= 112 B.C.E.). Josephus (Ant. 13.365) gives him a reign of twentynine years. Josephus is likely counting from 126/125 B.C.E., which was the first full year of his co-rule with his mother, Cleopatra Thea. See further Hoover 2007b: 285.

74

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

and states: “about this same time Antiochus, who was surnamed Grypus, died as the victim of a plot hatched by Heracleon” (‘Υπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτον καιρὸν καὶ Ἀντίοχος ὁ Γρυπὸς ἐπικληθεὶς ἀποθνήσκει ὑπὸ Ἡρακλὲωνος ἐπιβουλευθεὶς). Because the numismatic evidence provides a terminus a quo of 95/94 B.C.E. for Jannaeus’s siege of Gaza, Josephus is correct to place the two events in close proximity to one another in his narrative.4 Josephus apparently put this section about the history of the Seleucid Empire here in his Antiquities because the civil war between Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus greatly affected the Hasmonean state during Jannaeus’s reign. The events that took place in Syria, particularly in the cities of Damascus and Antioch, also influenced Jannaeus’s later military campaigns. Unfortunately, Josephus oversimplifies the country’s political situation at this time by claiming that Syria was divided between two kings: Grypus ruled the north while Cyzicenus governed the south. A look at the coins from Antioch reveals that the political situation was much more complicated than Josephus realized. They show that Grypus and Cyzicenus each ruled Antioch three times: Grypus: (first reign) 121/120–114/113 B.C.E. Cyzicenus: (first reign) spring 113/112 B.C.E. Grypus: (second reign) 113/112–111/110 B.C.E. Cyzicenus: (second reign) 110/109 B.C.E. Grypus: (third reign) 109/108–ca. 97 B.C.E. Cyzicenus: (third reign) 97/96 B.C.E.–96/95 B.C.E.5 The number of obverse dies used for coins minted by Grypus and Cyzicenus in Antioch peak between 113/112–111/110 B.C.E. This increase in currency production likely reflects the expenses they incurred during their civil war mentioned by Josephus.6 The slowing of dies to an annual rate of 7 to 9 during the third reign (109/108–ca. 97 B.C.E.) of Grypus, and to a rate of 8 to 12 during the third reign of Cyzicenus (ca. 97/96–96/95 B.C.E.), suggests that it was difficult for their mints to function. This evidence provides some additional corroboration of Josephus’s claim in Ant. 13.327 that these two rulers were engaged in a prolonged and destructive civil war that led to decades of instability in the country. The numismatic evidence from Ascalon and Ptolemais shows that Grypus and Cyzicenus fought one another for these cities. Cyzicenus took Ascalon from Grypus in 114/113 B.C.E. and retained it for another year until Grypus regained it in 112/111

4.  Atkinson 2016b: 118–21; Hoover 2007a; Kushnir-Stein 1995. 5.  Hoover 2007b: 284–8; Houghton and Müseler 1990. 6.  Ant. 13.327. The Gamla excavations uncovered 150 autonomous bronze coins, as

well and seven of uncertain attribution but likely of Tyrian origin, from the years 14 and 15 (113/112 and 112/111 B.C.E.) of Tyre’s independence. Syon (2008) suggests these coins provide evidence for the conflict between Grypus and Cyzicenus, and show that there was much military activity close to Tyre.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

75

B.C.E. Grypus appears to have held Ascalon until the city gained its autonomy in 104/103 B.C.E., just before the beginning of the War of Scepters.7 The state of affairs at Ptolemais was quite different. Cyzicenus took possession of it from Grypus in 113/112 B.C.E. and occupied it until 107/106 B.C.E. The coin evidence from Damascus is incomplete. Cyzicenus held the city in 111/110 B.C.E. Following a one-year gap, Grypus appears intermittently in coins minted there in 109/108–108/107, 104/103, and 102/101–99/98 B.C.E.8 Coins of Cyzicenus found at Samaria show that he established a mint in this city in approximately 112 B.C.E. He held it until John Hyrcanus expelled him around 109/108 B.C.E.9 Because Cyzicenus had effectively lost control of Ptolemais, even though its mint continued to produce coins in his name, Jannaeus decided to besiege the city at the beginning of his reign to take it. Cyzicenus was powerless to stop him. The unexpected arrival of Ptolemy Soter there, which started the War of Scepters, prevented Jannaeus from capturing it. Grypus and Cyzicenus were both unable to intervene in this conflict because of their civil war. Cyzicenus subsequently fought one of the sons of Grypus, Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator, in Cilicia.10 In 96/95 B.C.E. Seleucus VI seized Antioch and executed Cyzicenus. Seleucus VI ruled there from 96/95–94/93 B.C.E. Josephus states that his cousin, Antiochus X Eusebes (Philopator), eventually drove him from the city. Seleucus VI later lost much of his political support. He fled to Cilicia and was killed in Mopsuestia during a riot when he tried to extort money from its population. He appears to have perished in the royal palace when it was set on fire in approximately 94/93 B.C.E.11 Josephus believed it was important to provide this background information to explain why two brothers of Seleucus VI, Demetrius III and Antiochus XII Dionysus, invaded the Hasmonean state during Jannaeus’s reign. Demetrius III (97/96–88/87 B.C.E.) was the first son of Grypus to attack Jannaeus following the War of Scepters. Josephus (Ant. 13.370) claims that Ptolemy Soter installed him as king of Damascus following the death of Antiochus XI (ca. 93 BC). The coins minted in this city show that the reign of Demetrius III there actually began in S.E. 216 (= 97/96 B.C.E.) and lasted until S.E. 225 (= 88/87 B.C.E.), with the 7.  Houghton and Müseler 1990: 60–2. 8.  Houghton and Müseler 1990: 60–1; Huß 2001: 647–51. 9.  War 1.63-66; Ant. 13.255; Houghton 2000. 10.  Ant. 13.365. Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator was also the brother of Demetrius III,

Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus, Philip I Philadelphus, and Antiochus XII Dionysus. See further Ehling 2008: 231–2. 11.  The accounts differ over how he died. See Ant. 13.368; App., Syr. 69; Eusebius (Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:260–1); Bellinger 1949: 74; Grainger 1997: 65–6. A lead weight from Antioch with the inscription Seleucus Nicator and the date S.E. 218 (= 95/94 B.C.E.) shows that he was alive and in control of the city for at least a portion of that year. It is possible that he died early the following year. See Weiß and Ehling 2006. Jerome in his Chronicle (in Schöene 1999: 1:133) places his death in the 171st Olympiad (= 94/93 B.C.E.). See further Hoover 2007b: 288.

76

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

exception of a short interruption in S.E. 220 (= 93/92 B.C.E.).12 Events in Antioch likely led to his loss of this strategic city. Unfortunately, the events of this time are difficult to reconstruct because the ancient chroniclers were uncertain as to how and when Antiochus X Eusebes died. The gap in the historical sources for Parthia and Arabia makes it difficult to determine the extent to which the Parthians penetrated into the Seleucid Empire or Nabatean territory during the reign of Eusebes.13 According to Josephus (Ant. 13.371), Ladocie, queen of the Arab tribe of the Sameinans, summoned Eusebes to help her fight the Parthians.14 It is probable that she is to be identified with Laodike Thea, the Commagenian queen of Seleucid ancestry. Her father was apparently Antiochus VIII Grypus and her mother was Cleopatra Tryphaena. She married Mithridates I Callinicus.15 This connection would explain why Eusebes risked a military confrontation with the Arabs: many of them were from a region whose rulers had a longstanding connection through marriage with the Seleucid Empire. Nevertheless, Josephus’s claim that Eusebes died while helping the Arabs is clearly erroneous.16 Eusebius offers a different account. He claims that Eusebes fled to Parthia after Philip I defeated him. Eusebes later surrendered to the Roman general Pompey and asked to be restored to his former kingdom in Syria. After the residents of Antioch sent Pompey a gift, he decided to give the city autonomous status and not allow Eusebes to return there.17 Justin writes that Lucullus, after he defeated Tigranes, placed Eusebes on the throne of Syria. Pompey shortly afterwards removed Eusebes from power because he was suspicious of his whereabouts, and his unexplained activities during the eighteen-year reign of Tigranes. Pompey then made Syria into a Roman province.18 Appian simply states that Tigranes deposed Eusebes after the Armenian king annexed Syria in 83 B.C.E.19 John Grainger does not attempt to resolve these discrepancies, but merely suggests that all these ancient accounts are plausible.20 Laodike’s battle with the Parthians apparently took place sometime after Eusebes’s struggle against Philip I and Demetrius III. Eusebius says that Philip I defeated Eusebes.21 Eusebes then fled to the Parthians. He later returned home to ask Pompey for his kingdom. Both Eusebius and Jerome place the expulsion of Eusebes from

12.  Hoover, Houghton, and Vesely 2008; N. Wright 2010: 245–5l. 13.  Justin (Epit. [Prologue], 42) and Plutarch (Vit. Luc. 21.4; 36.6) state that this

period witnessed a rapid succession of Parthian rulers. 14.  The name of this Arab tribe varies widely in the manuscripts (Niese 1892: 219), and includes Σαμηνῶν and Γαλιήνῶν. Stephonos of Byzantion describes them as an “Arabian nomadic people” and uses the spelling Σαμηνωί. See Grainger 1997: 772. 15.  Assar 2006a: 60; Ehling 2008: 230; Grainger 1997: 48; Olbrycht 2009: 166–7. 16.  Ant. 13.371. 17.  Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:261). 18.  Just., Epit. 40.2.2-4. 19.  App., Syr. 48, 70 20.  Grainger 1997: 33. 21.  Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:261).

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

77

Antioch in the first year of the 172nd Olympiad (= 93/92 B.C.E.).22 Appian records a different sequence of events in his history. He claims that Tigranes twice expelled Eusebes from his kingdom.23 It appears that these authors have confused Eusebes with his son, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus.24 The account of Josephus is the most reliable. However, his placement of the death of Eusebes around 92 B.C.E. is incorrect. The year 89/88 B.C.E. is more probable since Demetrius III ruled at Antioch for a single year in 88/87 B.C.E. when he took the city during the absence of Eusebes there. There is no evidence that Philip I ruled Antioch before this time since he was using Beroea as his base in 88/87 B.C.E (Ant. 13.384). Coins show he captured Antioch in that year and held it until approximately 75 B.C.E.25 There is also no indication that Demetrius III drove Eusebes from Antioch. The reign of Antiochus X is poorly documented in the extant sources. Coins and a market weight from Antioch suggest that he ruled the city beginning in 94 B.C.E. No literary source states that he lost it to Antiochus XI.26 Currency from Antioch shows that Antiochus XI ruled there between late 94 B.C.E. and the autumn of 93 B.C.E. Unless one wants to assume that Antioch was fully autonomous, it is more likely that Eusebes reigned there for a second time from 93/92–89/88 B.C.E., as indicated by the numismatic evidence. This latter date also marks the likely year when Eusebes died.27 The date of the death of Philip I is uncertain because the literary sources often confuse him with his son, Philip II Barypous. The best estimate, based on the numismatics from Antioch and the beginning of the reign of Tigranes there, is that he died in 75 B.C.E.28 The turmoil created by the departure of Eusebes from Antioch to fight the Parthians may have contributed to Demetrius III losing Damascus in 93/92 B.C.E. In that year, Demetrius III marched north to support his brother, Antiochus XI, in his battle with Eusebes. It is probable that the forces of Eusebes, Jannaeus, or the Nabateans took advantage of the absence of Demetrius III to seize Damascus for a year. If Jannaeus tried to benefit from the civil war in the Seleucid Empire by trying to capture Damascus, it would explain why Demetrius III shortly afterwards invaded the Hasmonean state: he wanted revenge against the Hasmoneans for trying to seize his capital. His campaign against Jannaeus brought further instability to Syria.

22.  Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:923); Jer. Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 123). 23.  App., Syr. 48, 69/70. 24.  See Bellinger 1949: 75 n. 73. 25.  Hoover 2007b: 296–8. 26.  According to Porphyry (apud Euseb., Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:216), Antio-

chus XI and Philip I were twins and the sons of Cleopatra Tryphaena and Antiochus VIII Grypus. See further Ehling 2008: 237–40. 27.  For this evidence, see further Hoover 2007b: 289–90. 28.  For this evidence, see further Hoover 2007b: 294–8. Philip II likely lost control of Damascus in 66/65 B.C.E. since Antiochus XIII managed to rule the city for an additional year before the arrival of Pompey in 64 B.C.E. See further Dobias 1924: 216–17.

78

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

It was the death of Eusebes in 89/88 B.C.E. that led to a power struggle in the region that caused the downfall of Demetrius III. In 90/89 B.C.E., Demetrius III was in control of Damascus and was not at war with Philip I. After the passing of Eusebes, Demetrius III feared his brother Philip I; he presumably believed that his sibling would break their alliance and attack Damascus. Demetrius III was likely still in the Hasmonean state seeking to overthrow Jannaeus when Eusebes departed for Parthia. The death of Eusebes in Parthia left Antioch unoccupied. Demetrius III and his brother, Philip I, both wanted to control this vital city. If Demetrius III remained in Judea, Philip I could have annexed Antioch and possibly seized Damascus as well. Demetrius III had no choice but to abandon his campaign to take the Hasmonean state, return to Syria, and invade the territory of his brother, Philip I. It was the events associated with the Parthian campaign of Eusebes, and not the revolt the Jewish soldiers in the Syrian army as Josephus claims (War 1.95; Ant. 13.379), that forced Demetrius III to leave Judea. Demetrius III returned to Syria and besieged his brother Philip I at Beroea. Philip’s ally Straton called upon Azizus, the phylarch of the Arabs, and “Mithridates Sinakes, the governor of the Parthians,” for help.29 The two came to Philip’s assistance: they defeated and captured Demetrius III at Beroea. According to Josephus, they sent Demetrius III to “Mithridates, who was then reigning over the Parthians.”30 Much of our difficultly in understanding what took place at this time is due to Josephus. He confused hostilities between the Parthians and the Arabs with the struggle over the Parthian succession that took place during the reign of Eusebes. Josephus also misidentified Mithridates II (= Arsaces XI; ca. April 121–ca. September 91 B.C.E.) as Sinatruces (= Arsaces XII; ca. 93/92–69/68 B.C.E.).31 Sinatruces appears to have defeated Mithridates II in 93/2 B.C.E. and assumed power in Susa. Mithridates II likely died the following year. Sinatruces then lost Susa to Gotarzes I (= Arsaces XIII; August/September 91 B.C.E.–July/August 87 B.C.E.) in 88/87 B.C.E. Mithridates III (= Arsaces XIV; July/August 87–August/September 80 B.C.E.) then began his reign.32 The account of the death of Eusebes in Antiquities 13.371 likely refers to the victory of Sinatruces over Mithridates II. The Parthian ruler Mithridates III apparently took advantage of the Seleucid dynastic feuds to attack the Arabs. Josephus has mistakenly associated this event with the death of Eusebes. Mithridates III took power in July/August 87 B.C.E. The Parthians captured Demetrius III about the same time; he died of an illness during his imprisonment.33 The confinement and exile of Demetrius III left Philip I and his sibling, Antiochus XII, free respectively to take Antioch and Damascus. Philip I ruled Antioch from 88–ca. 75 B.C.E. and Antiochus XII reigned in Damascus 29.  The first name is emended from the account of Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 40.1a,b). One manuscript reads “Deizus” and the others “Zizus.” Strabo (Geogr. 16.1.23) refers to a place in Northern Mesopotamia called Sinnaca, where Mithridates was possibly stationed. 30.  Ant. 13.385. This Mithridates was actually a governor and not a king. 31.  Assar 2006a: 55–62. 32.  Assar 2006a: 55–62. 33.  Ant. 13.384-86.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

79

from 87/86–84/83 B.C.E. Antiochus XII killed his brother, Philip I, in 75 B.C.E.34 Antiochus XII later took advantage of his close proximity to Hasmonean territory to follow the example of Demetrius III and attack Jannaeus from Damascus. The numismatic evidence helps us to understand the political situation in the Middle East at the time Jannaeus took power. It suggests that the war between Grypus and Cyzicenus had greatly weakened the Seleucid Empire. From the reign of Seleucus VI to the invasion of Syria by Tigranes (II) the Great, king of Armenia (83–69 B.C.E.), the Seleucid Empire experienced almost constant civil war. The fighting was primarily between the remaining sons of Grypus (Antiochus XI Philadelphus, Philip I Epiphanes, Demetrius III, and Antiochus XII Dionysus) and the son of Cyzicenus (Antiochus X Eusebes).35 These rulers frequently fought over Antioch and Damascus. This civil war allowed John Hyrcanus and Judah Aristobulus to annex portions of the Galilee and the Golan controlled by the Seleucid Empire. However, Jannaeus faced an even greater threat, namely a war between the Ptolemaic ruling family that took place in the Hasmonean state. This conflict had its origins in the tumultuous marital history of one of Egypt’s most notorious rulers.

Egypt’s Political Situation and the Jews On June 28, 116 B.C.E., Ptolemy VIII Physcon died. He left his country in turmoil, largely because of his complicated marital situation. Previously, in 145 B.C.E., he had wed his sister, Cleopatra II. Josephus in his Against Apion states that Physcon had persecuted Jews.36 Elsewhere, Josephus implies that the Jewish community had a long and friendly relationship with Cleopatra II that began at the time of her first marriage to her other brother, the late Ptolemy VI Philometor. Josephus states they placed their entire army under the command of the Jewish generals Onias and Dositheos.37 Later, when Physcon and Cleopatra II fought one another for control of the Ptolemaic Empire, Josephus claims that Onias led an army against the city of Alexandra to protect her from Physcon. The two rulers eventually reached an agreement that allowed Cleopatra II to retain her position as co-regent.38

34.  Hoover 2007b: 298, 301; Houghton 1998: 67–8. 35.  For the sources, and the complicated history of this infighting, see Atkinson 2016a:

7–21; Bellinger 1949: 73–86; Bevan 1902: 253–63; Ehling 2008: 231–46; Grainger 1997: 32, 34, 44, 52; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:134–35. 36.  Apion 2.53-55. 37.  Apion 2.48-55. For the historical inaccuracy of Josephus’s account, see Barclay 2007: 198–200. For this period and Physcon’s relationship with Cleopatra II, see further Hölbl 2000: 194–214; Huß 2001: 597–608. 38.  Bevan 1927: 306–25.

80

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Egypt’s political situation began to deteriorate in 141/140 B.C.E. when Physcon married Cleopatra III. She was the youngest daughter of his sister and wife, Cleopatra II, as well as his niece and stepdaughter.39 Physcon elevated her to the rank of queen. Although both of his wives were legally equal, Cleopatra II appears first in official documents as “the sister” to distinguish her from Cleopatra III, “the wife.”40 In 132 B.C.E., the followers of Physcon and the partisans of Cleopatra II fought one another. Cleopatra II, with support from Alexandria’s Jewish and Greek communities, drove Physcon and Cleopatra III from Egypt. Physcon somehow convinced his son by Cleopatra II, Ptolemy Memphites, to join him in Cyprus, where he had fled. In the meanwhile, Cleopatra II ruled Egypt from Alexandria largely with the support of its Greek and Jewish populations. She created a new calendar, which marked 132/131 B.C.E. as “year 1.”41 In retaliation for his expulsion from Egypt, Physcon murdered the fourteen-year-old Ptolemy Memphites. Despite widespread support in Alexandria, Cleopatra II did not have sufficient military forces to maintain order in much of the country. This was largely because Physcon had considerable influence over Upper Egypt, which he placed under the rule of an officer named Paos. In 131 B.C.E., Physcon felt confident enough to return to Egypt with an army. In 127 B.C.E., Cleopatra II, fearing capture, fled to her son-in-law, Demetrius II, in Antioch. Cleopatra II decided to return to Egypt in 124 B.C.E. and attempt to reconcile with her daughter and husband. The three agreed to restore the triple monarchy.42 Trouble nevertheless continued for several years. To prevent further instability and a potential civil war, they issued a general decree of amnesty in 118 B.C.E.43 Physcon died on June 28, 116 B.C.E.44 In that year, Cleopatra II is listed for the last time in a text as part of a new triple monarchy alongside Cleopatra III and her son, Ptolemy IX Soter.45 39.  Livy, Per. 59; Just., Epit. 38.8.5. The documentary dating formulae indicates that the marriage took place between May 8, 141 B.C.E. and January 14, 140 B.C.E. See Pestman 1993: 85–6 (Amherst dem. 51), 87–8 (Berl. Dem. 3090). 40.  Heinen 1974; Hölbl 2000: 195; Huß 2001: 606–7. 41.  For these events, see Hölbl 2000: 197–204; Huß 2001: 608–15; Whitehorne 1994: 117–20. 42.  Pestman 1967: 60–2. 43.  Lenger 1980: 133–42, 167–8. 44.  Cauville and Devauchelle 1984: 40–1. 45.  See Pestman 1967: 64, 66 (P.Rylands dem. III.20). He is also known as Lathyrus (Ant. 13.328; Plut., Coriolanus 1.3). Eusebius (Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:171) and the Capitoline Chronicle (in FGrH, 252) call him Physcon.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

81

Cleopatra II apparently died shortly afterwards; she had been queen for nearly fifty-seven years.46 Cleopatra III had been the most powerful of Physcon’s two wives. His will suggests that she compelled him to leave her in charge since it gave the kingdom to her and allowed her to select one of her sons as co-ruler.47 Before his death, Physcon sent Ptolemy Soter to Cyprus to serve as its governor.48 Cleopatra III took advantage of his absence and named her younger son, Ptolemy Alexander, as her co-ruler. The move proved unpopular. She was forced to yield to public pressure to depose him, and appoint Ptolemy Soter as her co-regent. In retaliation for having to remove Ptolemy Alexander from power, she made Soter divorce his sister-wife, Cleopatra IV, and marry his younger sister, Cleopatra Selene.49 After the forced dissolution of her marriage, Cleopatra IV went to Cyprus, where Ptolemy Alexander was apparently governor, to obtain troops to return home and seize power.50 Failing to find adequate support on the island, she went to Syria and offered to help Cyzicenus, who at the time was fighting his half-brother, Grypus. Both of these Seleucid rulers were the children of Cleopatra III’s sister, Cleopatra Thea.51 Cyzicenus and Cleopatra IV apparently wed in 114 B.C.E.52 This union further exacerbated the Seleucid Empire’s already turbulent political situation since her sister, Cleopatra Tryphaena, was married to her husband’s rival, Grypus.53 The two women were determined to destroy one another. Tryphaena arranged for the murder of Cleopatra IV in the sanctuary of Daphne, near Antioch, in 112 B.C.E.54 Cyzicenus then captured and executed Tryphaena IV.55 46.  Hölbl 2000: 210; Huß 2001: 652; Whitehorne 1994: 119–20. 47.  Just., Epit. 39.3.1. Justin (Epit. 39.5.2) also notes that Physcon intended his illegit-

imate son by his concubine Eirene, Ptolemy Apion, to rule Cyrenacia as an independent kingdom. Although the sources do not explicitly state that Eirene was his mother, it is the most probable suggestion. See further Peremans et al. 1968: 17 no. 14553. For these events, and the relationships between Cleopatra III and her sons, see Whitehorne 1994: 103–48. 48.  Paus. 1.9.1; Pouilloux, Roesch, and Marcillet-Jaubert 1987: no. 80. This took place in 118 B.C.E. 49.  Just., Epit. 39.3. Cleopatra Selene was the daughter of Ptolemy VIII Physcon and Cleopatra III. 50.  Paus. 1.9.2. 51.  See further Grainger 1997: 31–3; Peremans et al. 1968: 6, nos. 14519, 14521. 52.  Just., Epit. 39.3. 53.  Just., Epit. 39.2 Tryphaena wed Grypus in 124 B.C.E. 54.  Just., Epit. 39.3. 55.  Just., Epit. 39.3. She was murdered in either 112/111 or 110/109 B.C.E.

82

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

John Hyrcanus inadvertently thrust himself into the complicated power struggles in both the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires when he invaded Samaria. Cyzicenus came to help the Samaritans; Hyrcanus’s sons, Judah Aristobulus and Antigonus, defeated him in battle.56 Cyzicenus then called on Soter in Cyprus for help. Soter sent six thousand men; his troops ravaged portions of Hyrcanus’s territory. Cyzicenus, with Soter’s reinforcements, lost another battle against the Jews. His defeat left Hyrcanus free to capture Samaria. The fight over Samaria had important ramifications for Egypt. Soter had helped Cyzicenus against the wishes of Cleopatra III.57 She had supported Grypus and his wife, Tryphaena, during this period. After Soter aided Cyzicenus in Samaria, Cleopatra III began to worry that this alliance posed a threat to her reign. She feared that these two rulers could potentially combine their forces to attack her in Egypt by land and sea. Cleopatra III continued to back Grypus, whose financial mismanagement had depleted his treasury. In 103 B.C.E. she sent troops to Syria to keep him in power and expel her son, Soter, from the region. Shortly afterwards, she arranged for her daughter, Cleopatra Selene, to be his wife.58 Excursus 3: A Tarnished Reputation?: Ptolemy VII Physcon, His Wives, and a Ptolemaic Messiah The activities of Cleopatra III in the Hasmonean state, as well as her relationship with Jannaeus and the Jews, cannot be understood without considering the actions of her mother, Cleopatra II. Both women played important roles in Hasmonean history through their support of Egypt’s Jewish community, which developed a unique form of messianism during their reigns. To appreciate their influence on Jannaeus, we must first recount their complicated marital histories, which have perplexed ancient and modern historians alike. Cleopatra II married her brother, Ptolemy VII Physcon, after his return from exile, in 145 B.C.E.59 This ceremony was among the most notorious events in antiquity. According to Justin, the following incident took place on the day of their nuptials:

56.  Ant. 13.277. War 1.65 mistakenly identifies Cyzicenus as Aspendius. 57.  Ant. 13.278. 58.  Just., Epit. 39.4.4; App., Syr. 11.69. Mobilization orders (P. Grenf. I 30 = P. Amh.

II 39 in Van ’T Dack et al. 1989: 39–48) dated to June 29, 103 B.C.E. show that Cleopatra III was preparing to invade Syria to attack Soter before this date. 59.  The first document listing the two rulers dates to August 13, 145 B.C.E. They were married sometime before this date. See Hölbl 2000: 194, 217 n. 63.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

83

Without a struggle he (= Physcon) had gained his brother’s (= Philometor) kingdom, for which he knew his brother’s son was being groomed to rule by his mother, Cleopatra (II), and by the leading citizens, whose support he enjoyed. Ptolemy turned against all of them. As soon as he entered Alexandria, he ordered the boy’s supporters to be butchered. As for the boy himself, on the day of the wedding at which the king took his mother in marriage, Ptolemy killed him in his mother’s arms during the arrangements for the banquet and the rites of the marriage, and entered his sister’s bed still dripping with the gore of her son… Ptolemy also divorced his sister (= Cleopatra II), then raped and married her virgin daughter (= Cleopatra III).60 This story is rather puzzling since Cleopatra II remained married to Physcon after he supposedly murdered her son and wed her daughter, Cleopatra III. The key to understanding this tale rests in the identity of this child, whose name Justin does not include in his account. We should be able to compare the dates of the deaths of each son of Cleopatra II to determine which of her male offspring Physcon murdered. She had at least two sons and two daughters with her first brother-husband, Ptolemy VI Philometor. We can eliminate the daughters, Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra III, as possible candidates since Justin states that Physcon murdered a boy. Cleopatra II gave birth to her first son, Ptolemy Eupator, around 166 B.C.E. He was named co-regent in 152 B.C.E. Egyptian documents refer to him as the eldest of her sons, which would account for his position as his father’s designated heir.61 However, he cannot be the child mentioned in Justin’s story since he died several years before Cleopatra II married Physcon.62 This leaves his younger brother as the only remaining candidate. He was also named Ptolemy. He is mentioned as an eponymous priest in an Egyptian text dated August 28, 143 B.C.E. that was written a year or two after Cleopatra II married Physcon. It lists him as the son of Cleopatra II and Philometor.63 Although the exact date of this Ptolemy’s death is unknown, evidence shows that he was alive after his mother married Physcon. There was another royal child named Ptolemy at this time. A relief in the Egyptian temple of Edfu, dated to the following year, depicts Philometor’s son, Ptolemy, alongside another boy named Ptolemy Memphites. This third potential heir to the 60.  Just., Epit. 38.3-5. 61.  P.Köln 8.350. For this text, see Chauveau 2000; Schubert 1992. See also Peremans

et al. 1968: no. 14549. 62.  He was named co-regent with his father in 152 B.C.E. and appears to have died the same year. This date is inferred from the surviving dating formula in several papyri. For this evidence, see Van’t Dack 1983: 103. His death may be referred to in an epigram of Antiochus of Sidon recorded in the Anthologia Palatina 7.241. See Laqueur 1909. 63.  P.Köln 8.350. The document P.dem Rylands 3.16 also mentions that Eupator was the eldest son. For these texts and evidence, see Chauveau 1990; 2000: 257; Schubert 1992: 119.

84

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

throne, Ptolemy Memphities, was the offspring of Physcon and Cleopatra II. He was likely born around 144/143 B.C.E. Because his birth coincided with the traditional coronation festival for new monarchs in the ancient city of Memphis, he was named in honor of the occasion.64 A relief designates Ptolemy Memphites as Physcon’s heir.65 Presumably, Ptolemy, the younger son of Cleopatra II, died shortly after this date since there is no further mention of him in any subsequent records. We can exclude him and his brother, Ptolemy Memphites, from consideration as the child Physcon murdered when he wed Cleopatra III since both were alive over a year after their marriage.66 The discovery of an Egyptian inscription mentioning a Ptolemy Neos Philopator (“New, Father-Loving”) appeared to provide a solution to the identity of the child Physcon murdered when he married Cleopatra II. Several scholars refer to him as Ptolemy VII and identify him as a son of Cleopatra II and Philometor.67 Supposedly born around 162 B.C.E., he presumably became co-regent with his father in 145 B.C.E., and ruled briefly with his mother after his father’s death.68 However, the extant evidence from Egypt casts doubt on this reconstruction since there is no inscriptional or textual evidence that he governed in any capacity. Nevertheless, he indirectly played a major, yet overlooked, role in Jewish history. To understand his importance, we must look at later events, and the birth of another of Physcon’s sons. On February 18, 142 B.C.E., two important births took place. The first was the Apis Bull, Egypt’s most sacred animal.69 The Egyptians regarded it as a living manifestation of the god Ptah; the Greeks believed it was the son of their supreme god Zeus. The Apis Bull lived in a shrine in Memphis under the care of special priests. When it died, it was embalmed and interred it in a royal tomb alongside its predecessors, and the search for the reincarnation of the Apis began. The other divine birth to have occurred on February 18, 142 B.C.E. was a royal heir. Designated by scholars as Ptolemy IX Soter II, he was given the title

64.  See Just., Epit. 33.8; Diod. Sic. 33.13; Bevan 1927: 308–9; Hölbl 2000: 195; Whitehorne 1994: 109–10. Ptolemy Memphites is depicted towards the end of the 140s B.C.E. on two reliefs on the outer walls of the naos of Edfu alongside his parents as “Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy.” In one he is explicitly named the crown prince and bears his father’s cult title, “God Euergetes.” See Cauville and Devauchelle 1984: 51; Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14552. 65.  See Cauville and Devauchelle 1984. 66.  We can also exclude the only other remaining child of Physcon, Ptolemy Apion, whose mother was likely the concubine Eirene. He cannot be the child in question since he became king of Cyprus and died without any heirs in 96 B.C.E.; he bequeathed his kingdom to the Roman Republic. See further Just., Epit. 39.5; Livy, Per. 70.5; App., Mith. 121; Amm. Marc. 22.16; Bagnall 1972; Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14553; Whitehorne 1994: 206, 67.  Pestman 1967: 54–5, 146; Samuel 1962: 143–4; Hölbl 2000: 202–3. 68.  Gruen 1984: 2:712–13; Whitehorne 1994: 110–16, 206; Samuel 1962: 143–4. 69.  Herodotus 3.28.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

85

“distinguished in his birth together with that of the living Apis.” For Cleopatra II, the birth of this child created a problem since she was not Ptolemy Soter’s mother.70 Physcon had married his stepdaughter, Cleopatra III, the preceding year. Although Justin claims that Physcon first raped her, there is no evidence that Cleopatra III was forced into this union. Physcon loved her and gave her unprecedented honors: he elevated her to equal status with her mother. A document written the next year mentions “the priestesses of queen Cleopatra (II) and of queen Cleopatra (III), the daughter.”71 For the next eight years, until 132 B.C.E. when this unusual alliance ended, Egypt had two queens. The problem was that both were mothers of potential heirs to Physcon’s throne. Cleopatra III was Physcon’s favorite wife. The couple had two sons and three daughters.72 Cleopatra II feared that Physcon would remove her from the throne and name Ptolemy Soter as his co-ruler. She sent Ptolemy Memphites to Cyrene in North Africa for his protection, and prepared to seize power. In 132/131 B.C.E., her supporters descended on Alexandria and set fire to the royal palace. Physcon fled to Cyprus with Cleopatra III and their children. Cleopatra II stripped them of their royal titles and proclaimed herself Egypt’s sole ruler. She called herself “Queen Cleopatra Thea Philometor Soteria” (“Cleopatra the Mother-Loving Goddess, the Savior”).73 Physcon was unwilling to relinquish power. According to Justin: He (Ptolemy Physcon) summoned his eldest son (Ptolemy Memphites) from Cyrene and murdered him so that the Alexandrians could not make him king instead of himself… He dismembered the body, put it in a basket, and presented it to the boy’s mother (Cleopatra II) at a banquet on her birthday… The attention of the leading citizens was turned from a feast to a funeral. The people displayed the mangled limbs so the public could see what they could expect from their king in the future.74 The murder of Ptolemy Memphites took place in 132/131 or 130/129 B.C.E. Because there is no evidence that he was ever a king, he presumably did not serve as co-regent with his father. It is plausible that Physcon promised him a co-regency to lure him to Cyprus.75 Although the circumstance of his death is unknown, it had profound

70.  Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14554; Whitehorne 1994: 207. 71.  Whitehorne 1994: 130. 72.  The children, with their traditional numberings, are: Ptolemy IX Soter II, Ptolemy

X Alexander I Philometor, Cleopatra IV, Cleopatra V Tryphaena, and Cleopatra Selene. See Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14519, 14520-21. 73.  Hölbl 2000: 197. 74.  Just., Epit. 38.8.12-14. Cf. Diod. Sic. 34/35.14; Livy, Per. 59; Oros. 5.10.6. 75.  For this suggestion, see Whitehorne 1994: 118. See further Hölbl 2000: 197; Livy, Per. 59.14. Orosius (5.10), who presumably cites a lost portion of Livy’s books, places Memphites’s murder during the consulship of Perpenna, which would date it to 130/129 B.C.E. See further Broughton 1952: 1:501–2.

86

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

ramifications for Egypt’s Jewish community. The royal family soon reconciled after Physcon killed Ptolemy Memphites. As an act of contrition to restore harmony in Egypt, Physcon deified Ptolemy Memphites under name Ptolemy Neos Philopator (“New, Father-Loving”).76 The only explicit documentary reference to Ptolemy Neos Philometor is P.Berlin 3101, which is dated to May 118 B.C.E. and records his incorporation into the dynastic cult. He was likely deified in this month, or shortly before, since he is not mentioned in P.Rylands 17 and 19, both of which date to March of that year.77 The appearance of Ptolemy Memphites in the royal cult coincides with the amnesty decree of 118 B.C.E., which suggests that he was deified as an act of atonement by Ptolemy Physcon.78 Because Physcon was commonly numbered as the seventh Ptolemaic king in antiquity, it is inappropriate to use this numerical designation for Memphites.79 The result of the confusion over which of his sons Physcon murdered led to inadvertent creation of two stories recorded by Justin in which the ruler killed a young prince at the time of both his marriages. Despite his supposed crimes, there is no evidence that Physcon murdered any of Cleopatra II’s children in connection with a wedding. The fighting between Egypt’s ruling family and Syria’s monarchs would greatly affect the Hasmonean state. Earlier, as indicated by documents written between 130 B.C.E. and 129 B.C.E., Physcon took possession of more Egyptian territory. He controlled Thebes from January 21, 130 B.C.E., but he could not capture Alexandria.80 The Romans chose not to interfere in Egypt’s dynastic war, although a debate in the Senate at the time mentions the murder of Ptolemy Memphites.81 The Seleucid king Demetrius II attempted to take advantage of Egypt’s turmoil to become king there. He was encouraged to do this by Cleopatra II, to whose daughter, Cleopatra Thea, he was married.82 Although he reached the Egyptian border, Physcon’s troops repulsed him. In retaliation for his invasion, Physcon placed an obscure son of an Egyptian merchant named Alexander on Seleucia’s throne. To make him a more suitable candidate, Physcon created a fictitious royal genealogy: he claimed Alexander was 76.  Clarysse and van der Veken with Vlemming 1983: 30. See also Huß 2001: 11,

623–4.

77.  Pestman 1967: 146. 78.  Chauveau 1990: 153–6. 79.  The following ancient historians number Ptolemy Physcon as the seventh Ptole-

maic king: Poseidonius of Apameia apud Ath. 6.252e, 12.549d; Porphyry apud Jerome’s commentary on Dan. 7 (no. 667) in PL 25:530-31; Excerpta Latina Barbari 35b (in Schöne 1999: 1:212). Ptolemy Neos Philopator is not listed in the so-called Ptolemy’s Canon of Kings (in Ginzel 1906: 138–43), which is regarded as among the most accurate ancient lists of Egyptian rulers. For the evidence that Ptolemy Neos Philopator never existed and is actually Ptolemy Memphites, see Chauveau 1990: 145, 165 n. 11; 2000; Heinen 1997; Huß 2001: 608–11, 624; Lanciers 1995. 80.  Hölbl 2000: 199–200. 81.  Livy, Per. 59. 82.  Cleopatra Thea married Demetrius II for the second time in 129 B.C.E. (her fourth marriage) after his twelve-year absence as a Parthian captive. Just., Epit. 39.1; App., Syr. 11.68; Prophyry in Euseb. Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:257).

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

87

Cleopatra Thea’s adopted son from her first marriage.83 Many Syrians contemptuously referred to this puppet-king Alexander as Zabinas (“the bought one”).84 After Demetrius II lost a battle to Zabinas, he fled to the nearby island kingdom of Tyre. Once there, he planned to seek sanctuary in the temple of Heracles Melkart. The city’s governor arrested him while his ship was in the harbor and executed him. Many Syrians were convinced Cleopatra Thea had arranged his murder.85 With Zabinas now his ally, Physcon consolidated his hold around Alexandria. He likely captured it in 127/126 B.C.E. He took revenge against its Greek population for supporting Cleopatra II by setting the city’s gymnasium on fire with many ephebes inside. The dating formulae in 124 B.C.E. indicates that Physcon and Cleopatra II had reconciled, and that the triple monarchy had been restored.86 The three issued an Amnesty Decree in 118 B.C.E.87 The document was quite generous and, except for murder and temple theft, pardoned all crimes committed before April 28, 118 B.C.E. It also sought to address Egypt’s dire economic situation by favoring the economic interests of native Egyptians. It accomplishes this by providing government revenues to support the indigenous religious cults, including the burial costs for the Apis Bull. It was at this time, to celebrate the cessation of hostilities and the hope for peace and prosperity, that a new god named Neos Philopator—the spiritual incarnation of the late Ptolemy Memphites—was created.88

Excursus 4: Egyptian Messianism in the Third Sibylline Oracle Another Egyptian-Jewish composition may shed additional light on this period. Known as the Third Sibylline Oracle, this text likely contains a Jewish reaction to Egyptian nationalistic movements. It, and a related Egyptian composition, reflect events that took place following 132 B.C.E., when Cleopatra II expelled her husband and daughter from Egypt. During the ensuing chaos, an Egyptian named Harsiese of Panopolis proclaimed himself Pharaoh and captured the sacred city of Thebes. He is the only native Egyptian to have declared himself Pharaoh during the Ptolemaic period. Harsiese eventually retreated to the area of el-Hibeh in Middle Egypt. He was likely killed sometime after September 15, 130 B.C.E., which is the last document naming him as Pharaoh.89 83.  Just., Epit. 39.1.4-8; Ant. 13.267-68. 84.  See further Grainger 1997: 7. 85.  Just., Epit. 39.1.9; Livy, Per. 60; App., Syr. 69. 86.  Pestman 1967: 62. See also Hölbl 2000: 201. 87.  For its content, see Bevan 1927: 315–18; Lenger 1980: 133–42, 167–8. 88.  Ptolemy Memphites was incorporated into the dynastic cult between March and

May 118 B.C.E. as “New,” or “Young Father-Loving One.” See further Chauveau 1990: 145, 154–6; 2000; Huß 2001: 608–11, 624; Lanciers 1995. See also Bevan 1927: 313–23; Hölbl 2000: 202–3; Thompson 1994: 314–15. 89.  He likely ruled from 131–129 B.C.E. See further Hölbl 2000: 198–9; Pestman 1967: 58–60.

88

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

An anonymous text known as the Potter’s Oracle furnishes some insight concerning the animosity many Egyptians who had supported Harsiese felt towards the Ptolemais. Likely written by an Egyptian priest of Khnum in the city of Heliopolis, it predicts that a native Egyptian savior-king will overthrow the Greek rulers and the country will prosper when “one who originates from Helios (= the sun) has arrived to be king for fifty-five years.”90 This oracle predicts that this savior-king will arrive after a great period of misfortune. The fifty-five year reign is clearly a reference to Ptolemy Physcon, who governed for fifty-four years (170–116 B.C.E.) during the time of the rebellion of Harsiese.91 This text likely expresses disappointment over the defeat of Harsiese, and the author’s dissatisfaction with Ptolemaic rule.92 A follower of Onias IV in Leontopolis likely wrote a prophetic work under the name of the Sibyl to refute the sentiments found in texts like the Potter’s Oracle that opposed the Ptolemaic monarchs. Known as the Third Sibylline Oracle, this composition makes a rather remarkable prediction—the long-anticipated messiah will be a Ptolemaic king!93 The author of the Third Sibylline Oracle states that during the reign of the “seventh king of Egypt” the country will be torn apart by strife (Sib. Or. 3.315-18). This is apparently a reference to the civil war between Philometor and Physcon. In a passage that follows an allusion to this “seventh king,” the writer calls him the “king from the sun” and predicts that he will stop violence on the earth in obedience with God’s teachings.94 Although this monarch will put an end to all wars, he is not a savior. Rather, his beneficial reign creates the necessary conditions for the messianic age. The passage predicting the arrival of the “seventh king” is similar to the Potter’s Oracle since it uses the old Pharaonic title, “king from the sun.” The Ptolemaic kings appropriated this designation, and are said to have been “chosen by the sun” and “son of the sun, to whom the sun has given victory.”95 Although Eric Gruen and Rieuwerd Buitenwerf interpret the figure seven in the Third Sibylline Oracle symbolically, the three passages in this text that mention this number appear to be chronological

90.  See Kerkeslager 1998: 77. 91.  For this evidence, and the similarities between the Potter’s Oracle and the Third

Sibylline Oracle, see further Meer 2010. 92.  Hölbl 2000: 199. See also Kerkeslager 1998: 67–9. 93.  John J. Collins (1972: 49–55; 1997: 181–97; 1999: 96–7) notes that prior to the Maccabean revolt messianic attitudes could plausibly have been focused on Onias III. After their revolt, such speculations are more likely associated with the Jewish community led by his son, Onias IV. He constructed the Leontopolis temple and his descendants supported Cleopatra III, and interceded with her to save Jannaeus’s kingdom. Although it is not necessary that the Third Sibylline Oracle emanated from the partisans of Onias IV, it clearly describes a Ptolemaic messiah and shows Jewish support in Egypt for the Ptolemaic dynasty. 94.  Sib. Or. 3.652-56. The “seventh king” also appears in Sib. Or. 3.193, 318, 608. 95.  J. Collins 1972: 40–3; 1999: 68–70; J. Collins and A. Y. Collins 2008: 3–7. The Ptolemaic rulers likely used this title because of its connection with New Kingdom royal ideology. See further Manning 2010: 101–2.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

89

markers.96 They were likely written while this monarch was alive since the author describes a forthcoming savior figure.97 Because Physcon is the seventh Ptolemaic ruler, he must be the king of this oracle, whose reign heralds the messianic era. For the author of the Third Sibylline Oracle, Physcon’s return to power, under the influence of his two pro-Jewish wives, heralded the arrival of the messianic age because it brought peace and prosperity to Egypt’s Jews. Although Physcon seems an unlikely candidate to associate with a messiah, Egyptian evidence pertaining to a Jewish settlement there suggests otherwise, and casts doubt on the credibility of Josephus’s depiction of him as anti-Jewish. A collection of papyri from Heraklepolis, which date from the twenty-seventh year (144/3 B.C.E.) to the thirty-sixth year (133/2 B.C.E.) of Physcon’s reign, provides definitive proof for the existence of a Jewish politeuma in Egypt. These documents reveal that it had a military structure, and had existed as a military colony since the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor.98 This shows that Physcon had good relations with Egypt’s Jewish community. Jewish honorary inscriptions dedicated to Physcon provide further proof that he favored Egypt’s Jewish population.99 There is no evidence outside of 3 Maccabees and Josephus’s Against Apion for a Jewish persecution during the reigns of Philometor or Physcon, or any evidence that Jews suffered any consequences for supporting Cleopatra II during Egypt’s civil war. The extant documents suggest that Physcon was a benefactor of Egypt’s Jewish community.100 There is no historical objection to viewing Physcon as the king of the Third Sibylline Oracle, whose reign heralds the messianic era. If the author anticipates that one of Physcon’s sons will be the messiah, then the child could potentially be any of his sons. If it is a son of Cleopatra II, then the text likely dates before 144/143 B.C.E., by which time her two sons, Ptolemy Eupator and Ptolemy, had died. If it is Ptolemy Memphities, then this would place the composition sometime before his murder in 130 B.C.E. It is also likely that the child could be a son of Cleopatra III and Physcon. Her eldest child, Ptolemy IX Soter, was born on February 18, 142 B.C.E., while their youngest, Ptolemy X Alexander, was likely born in 140/139 B.C.E.101 We can plausibly assume that Egypt’s Jewish community would have considered neither a viable messianic candidate following the War of Scepters, during which much 96.  Gruen 1998b: 272–7; Buitenwerf 2003: 126–30. 97.  For support of the view that the “seventh king” is an actual person, see J. Collins

2004; 2010c: 38–40; Fitzmyer 2007: 117–18; Goodman 1987: 635. Kooij (2010: 81–4) believes that the ruler of the Third Sibylline Oracle was alive when it was written, but identifies him as Ptolemy VI. 98.  Cowey and Maresch 2001: 3–4, 35–154. See also J. Collins 1999: 113–22. 99.  See Runesson, Binder, and Olsson 2008: 216–17 no. 171; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 3.1:49. 100.  Johnson 2004: 187–9; Mahaffy 1899: 192–216. 101.  Peremans et al. 1968: no. 14555; Whitehorne 1994: 207. Although Ptolemy Apion could be a possible candidate, I am excluding him because of his illegitimacy and since he was never a potential co-ruler of Egypt.

90

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Jewish territory was devastated. It is probable that some Jews viewed the outbreak of the War of Scepters, and the arrival of Ptolemy Soter, Ptolemy Alexander, and Cleopatra III in the Hasmonean state, as the possible fulfillment of this messianic oracle. This may have led some Egyptian Jews to urge Cleopatra III to annex the Hasmonean state and install the Oniads as its high priests. The aftermath of this war apparently caused them to change their views. Although the Jews associated with the temple of Leontopolis are commonly regarded as having a hostile attitude towards the Jerusalem temple authorities, there is no evidence of any conflict between these two communities. If the priests of the Leontopolis and their followers had wanted to usurp the high priesthood or the monarchy from Jannaeus, the War of Scepters provided them with the perfect opportunity to do so. Josephus’s account of how Jannaeus survived the War of Scepters, while not accurate, likely preserves some memory of the respect that some Egyptian Jews held, despite the presence of an Oniad temple in their country, for the Hasmonean high priests. Josephus does not preserve much information about the interaction between Egypt’s Jews and Jannaeus during the War of Scepters. He also does not tell us how Jews in the Hasmonean state viewed the followers of the Leontopolis cult. Although we have little information about this shrine, the Septuagint may preserve some traditions regarding Jewish sacrifice in Egypt that suggest its rituals differed from those in Jerusalem. In several passages the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word for “hind leg” (‫ )שוק‬as “foreleg” (βραχίων).102 This Greek translation is clearly incorrect. Yet, the Septuagint in these passages did not rely on the Masoretic Text or any presumed Vorlage. Rather, it apparently attests to the distinct character of Egyptian Judaism that followed some different sacrificial rituals. Jan Joosten suggests the Septuagint in this instance preserves traditions that go back to the Persian Period when there was a functioning temple there. It is also probable that Leontopolis community adopted these earlier rites.103 This would make the Septuagint the only witness to sacrificial practices that took place at Leontopolis during the Hellenistic period. The differences between the sacrificial systems of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis temples may have made many Jews uncomfortable with the descendants of the Oniads returning to the Hasmonean state. Cleopatra III likely feared a religious war erupting in Judea should the Oniads try to take control of the Jerusalem temple, and wisely left the Hasmonean family in power and brought her Jewish soldiers back to Egypt to worship at Leontopolis. Because Egypt’s Jews remained loyal to the institution of the Hasmonean high priest, they did not try to take advantage of the War of Scepters to remove Jannaeus from power. They apparently returned to Egypt, and abandoned their interpretation of the Ptolemaic rulers as messianic figures who

102.  Exod. 29:22; Lev. 7:32-34; 8:25-26; 9:21; 10:15; Num. 6:20; 18:18. Sir. 7:31 shows that this distinctive sacrificial practice survived until the Hellenistic period. See further Joosten 2017. 103.  See further Joosten 2015. See also Vahrenhorst 2011: 361. For related comments about the Elephantine temple, see Fitzpatrick-McKinley 2017.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

91

would bring about Judaism’s Golden Age. Although Jannaeus no longer had to fear the Ptolemaic rulers would attack his kingdom, unexpected trouble from the Seleucid Empire nearly ended his reign.

The Invasion of Demetrius III in the Dead Sea Scrolls The invasion of the Hasmonean state by Demetrius III not only represented a significant event in Second Temple Period history, but it was also of considerable interest among the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These writings corroborate the accounts of Josephus that Jannaeus organized a mass crucifixion of his Jewish opponents following the invasion of Demetrius III.104 The Nahum Pesher (4Q169 3-4 I, 1-7) is among the few scrolls that contain names of known persons. In one passage the author writes: “The interpretation of it concerns Deme]trius (‫)דמי]טריס‬, king of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things.”105 Because the writer places his attack between the invasion of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the capture of Jerusalem by the Kittim (= Romans in 63 B.C.E.), this text can only refer to Demetrius III.106 The mention of crucifixion (or hanging) in the text describes the aftermath of the battle of Shechem when Jannaeus crucified 800 of his opponents who had sided with Demetrius III. Because these references are so detailed, and only fit the reign of Jannaeus, he is commonly identified as the “Lion of Wrath” (‫ )כפיר החרון‬denounced in this pesher.107 The Pharisees were apparently the leading opponents of Jannaeus since the Nahum Pesher acknowledges that the he crucified the “Seekers-afterSmooth-Things” for their role in inviting Demetrius III to invade Judea.108 104.  Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Klausner (1972b: 234) and Efron (1987: 173) doubted the historicity of this event. 105.  The name ‫ דמי]טריס‬can also be spelled ‫דמי]טרוס‬. The bulk of scholarly literature supports the first reading. For the literature on the reconstruction of the name, see further Berrin 2004a: 48; Horgan 1979: 173; Doudna 2001: 117–19. 106.  Berrin (2004a: 91) states that this identification is “nearly universal today.” See further Atkinson 2013b: 16–19; 2016b: 45–57; Dąbrowa 2010a: 176–7; H. Eshel 2008: 117–31; Regev 2013: 157; VanderKam 2004: 326–7; Levenson and Martin 2009: 311–12. 107.  See further Amusin 1977; Atkinson 2014a: 9–17; A. Baumgarten 2000: 661–2; Charlesworth 2002: 99–106; J. Collins 1992: 626; Dimant 1984b: 511–12; 2007; H. Eshel 2000; Lim 2002: 31–3; Regev 2013: 156–7; Wise 2000. Cf. Doudna 1999; 2001: 389–433, 601–74; 2011a; Hutchesson 1999; Tantlevskij 1994; 1997: 329–38. 108.  This does not mean that all of the enemies of Jannaeus were Pharisees, but that they merely constituted the leading opposition to his reign. For this evidence, see further VanderKam 2001. See also Goodman 1999.

92

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The author also states that they became powerful only after his death. The mention of a change in government in the Nahum Pesher that occurred after the crucifixion of the opponents of the Lion of Wrath best fits the reign of Shelamzion Alexandra.109 According to Josephus, she restored the Pharisees, the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things,” to power after the death of Jannaeus.110 The writer of the Nahum Pesher comments on this event: “Its interpretation concerns the dominion of the “Seekers-after-SmoothThings.” This is almost certainly a code name for the Pharisees.111 A passage from column 64 of the Temple Scroll (11Q19) may provide some additional information concerning the treatment of the Pharisees by Jannaeus. The author of this text states that hanging is reserved for those who inform against their people, deliver them to a foreign nation, or harm them. Yigael Yadin and Joseph Fitzmyer reconstruct line 8 of fragments 3-4 of the Nahum Pesher as either “[for this is the law] in Israel before” or “[for so it was done] in Israel before,” arguing that the Nahum Pesher justifies the actions of Jannaeus since, according to the Temple Scroll, crucifixion was the accepted punishment for those who had delivered their people to a foreign enemy.112 Yadin also suggests the quotation from Nah. 2:14 in the Nahum Pesher is an explanation which clarifies that the one hanged alive should be compared to the person described in Deut. 21:22-23. He suggests there was a debate in Judea concerning whether a condemned person should be executed in this manner while still alive, or whether only the corpse should be placed on the cross. The writer of the Nahum Pesher, according to Yadin, is merely explaining what was the customary punishment prior to his era.113 Hanan Eshel proposes that the author of the Nahum Pesher thought the “Lion of Wrath” did not follow the law of Deuteronomy when he crucified the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things” while they were alive. He proposes that the writer did not want to quote Deut. 21:23 since the verse can be read in such a way to imply that God is cursed.114 The composer of the Nahum Pesher apparently preferred to allude to this biblical passage, and assumed the reader would recognize the reference and understand that

109.  See further Amusin 1963; 1977: 143–5; Atkinson 2008: 63–4; 2012c: 175–89; Horgan 1979: 161–2; Schiffman 1993: 281–2. Cf. Dupont-Sommer 1963. 110.  Ant. 13.308. See further Atkinson 2012c: 141–60. 111.  Atkinson 2004: 36–52, 64–84; A. Baumgarten 2000; H. Eshel 2008: 29–61. 112.  For the former reconstruction, see Yadin 1971. For the latter, see Fitzmyer 1978: 498–507. For hanging in the Temple Scroll, see further Yadin 1983: 373–80. 113.  Yadin 1971: 11. 114.  H. Eshel 2008: 126–9. See also Horgan 1979: 176–80.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

93

only “the one hanged upon a tree” is cursed.115 The author’s animosity towards the Lion of Wrath is not unique to this text, but is found elsewhere in the Qumran writings. The “Lion of Wrath” is also mentioned in the Hosea Pesher B (4Q167 frg. 2). This fragmentary text may explain the origin of the sobriquet “Lion of Wrath.” The author apparently understood the biblical passage “Ephraim went to Assyria and sent the great king” as a prediction of the invasion of Demetrius III with the assistance of the Pharisees. The writer likely took the sobriquet “Lion of Wrath” from the Hosea passage, which warns that God will “be like a lion to Ephraim.” Hanan Eshel suggests that the interpretation of Hos. 5:13 implies that the writer believed Demetrius III could neither help nor “heal” the wounds of the Pharisees. In light of this reconstruction, he believes the author of the Nahum Pesher took the epithet “Lion of Wrath” from the Hosea Pesher B, whose writer adopted the image from Hos. 5:14. Eshel’s dating of the Nahum Pesher after the Hosea Pesher is important since the Nahum Pesher was clearly composed after Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem. Because the Nahum Pesher discusses many of the events in the Hosea Pesher B, it shows that the reign of Jannaeus was still the subject of exegetical interpretation decades after his death. Although it is difficult to draw historical conclusions from the fragmentary Hosea Pesher B, the content of this document, and its use of the sobriquet “Ephraim,” strongly supports Eshel’s reconstruction. It is clear that the authors of the Hosea Pesher B and the Nahum Pesher regarded the reign of Jannaeus as a pivotal moment in Judean history. Unfortunately, neither text explains why some Jews opposed Jannaeus. Nevertheless, other Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the apocalyptic worldview of his enemies motivated some of them to take up arms against him. 115.  H. Eshel (2008: 127) comments that this proposal was first made in print by Allegro (1956: 91) based on the suggestion of Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman. The following line reads “for concerning a person hanged alive upon the tree [it] reads” and is followed by a quotation from Nah. 2:14, “Behold I am against [you] say[s] Yahweh of Hosts.” This passage suggests that the interpretation first published by Allegro is correct. Verse 7 is likely an introduction to the citation of Nah. 2:14 and continues the preceding commentary, similar to 4QpIsab 2.7, to condemn these men. See further Horgan 1979: 178–9; Chapman 2008: 125–32. Berrin (2004a: 168) comments that the range of the term ‫ תלה‬included, but was not limited to, types of hanging executions denoted by the word ‫חנק‬. She suggests (Berrin 2004a: 178–80, 191–2) that the Nahum Pesher does not use Deut. 21:22-23 to condemn crucifixion, but hanging of some sort. This interpretation is unlikely in light of the accounts of the crucifixion by Jannaeus of his opponents. Magness (2011: 164–72) suggests that the rabbis, and possibly the Pharisees, understood the passage in Deuteronomy to refer to the public display of a corpse after execution, but that the Qumran sectarians did not.

94

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Excursus 5: Jewish Apocalyptic Expectations and the Invasion of Demetrius III The Dead Sea Scrolls provide some new information about the religious factors that may have inspired some Jews to help Demetrius III fight against Jannaeus. These texts are largely devoid of historiography. Nevertheless, they sometimes reflect knowledge of written and oral historical traditions that have not survived.116 This is especially true of those documents that appear to explain the Danielic interpretation of Jeremiah’s 70 years.117 The prevalence of this theme in ancient Jewish literature, including its use in Josephus, suggests that such speculation was widespread and likely circulated both in oral and written forms. One such document, 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ce (4Q390), may offer some additional insight about the religious factors that may have led some of the opponents of Jannaeus to fight with the army of Demetrius III.118 116.  J. Collins 2012. See also Brooke 2007. 117.  The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Dream Visions contained in 1 Enoch show a

similar use of Jeremiah (25:11-12; 29:10) and Daniel (2:24-27) to interpret Hasmonean history through the development of historical schemas that are sometimes inaccurate. The calculations are often made in terms of septenary units, year-weeks and Jubilees, to explain historical events. In many of these texts, particularly those from Qumran examined in this section, it appears that the authors were familiar with a comprehensive computation of the complete temporal sequence and therefore do not fully explain the thought process behind their calculations. See further Atkinson 2016f; Dimant 2014: 315–32; Stone 1976; 2011: 59–89. 118.  For the edition princeps of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, see Dimant 2001: 91–260 (4Q390 is found on pp. 235–53 of this volume). 4Q390 was originally separated from the group 4Q385-4Q390, which includes 4QPseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385, 4Q386, 4Q385b, 4Q388, 4Q385c) and 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389) into a third text called Pseudo-Moses. See Dimant 1992; Strugnell and Dimant 1998. An additional copy of a text identified as 4QPseudo-Ezekiel was published separately. See Smith 1998. Several scholars have followed Dimant’s original thesis that 4Q390 belonged to a different work. See Berner 2006: 393–40; Stucken­bruck 2007: 55–6; Werman 2006. Dimant (2014: 439) now rejects her earlier interpretation in her editio princeps and considers 4Q390 a fifth copy of 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah. Tigchelaar raises some methodological objections to the work of Dimant on this text. Most notably, he proposes that there is no evidence to connect 4Q390 with any other Apocryphon and that this work has many correspondences with the Damascus Document but no other sectarian core texts. He notes that the unique content of 4Q390, and the possibility of later additions in 4Q387, makes it problematic to connect these texts. Tigchelaar, moreover, urges caution in examining these documents because, unlike actual fragments, they are scholarly constructs. Because much of the content of 4Q390 is found in texts unassociated with Qumran, this suggests that the heptadic chronology in this document was fairly widespread in the Second Temple Period. See further Tigchelaar 2012. See also Najman and Tigchelaar 2014. The similarities between 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389 and Bar. 1:1-15a provides further support for separating these fragments from 4Q390. The work represented by 4Q390, moreover, appears more hostile towards the temple than

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

95

This author of 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ce was interested in the prophecies in the book of Daniel and Jeremiah’s predictions regarding the length of the Exile.119 The writer used these and other biblical texts to predict the duration of the Hasmonean dynasty. The author recontextualizes the prophecies of other biblical prophets, particularly Amos and Nahum, and includes material from the Torah (e.g. Deuteronomy, Leviticus), as well as an updating of Dan. 9:24 in his 490-year prophecy based on Jeremiah’s 70 years (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10). The extant composition, therefore, is clearly a new work composed of diverse strands of scriptural texts that reflect a much later situation than that described by the biblical authors.120 It appears that many Jews throughout the second and first centuries B.C.E. adapted this chronological tradition in various ways: those who produced these writings were convinced they were living at the end of the 490-year period predicted in Scripture.121 Josephus shows some knowledge of scriptural traditions that appear to have associated the reign of Jannaeus with the end of days. His figures for the reign of Judah Aristobulus are too large and likely represent an interpretation of the seventy weeks of years, or 490 years, of Dan. 9:24-27. Lester Grabbe comments that the date Josephus provides for the beginning of the reign of Aristobulus (Ant. 13.301) is problematic.122 He suggests it shows that Josephus had knowledge of traditions similar to those found in Eusebius. Josephus claims that Aristobulus reigned 481 years and 3 months after the return from the Exile. Because he ruled for one year, Jannaeus would have begun his reign close to the beginning of the 70th heptad (years 483–490).123 This suggests that Josephus was working with a tradition similar to that found in 4Q390. Grabbe notes that the numbers in Josephus are reminiscent of the calculations that begin with Cyrus and end with the death of Jannaeus found in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Demonstratio Evangelica (8.2 §394b).124 Although it is unlikely that Josephus and Eusebius used 4Q390, it is probable that both drew upon a common source that considered the reign of Jannaeus to be the fulfillment of biblical

these other fragments. See further K. Davis 2013: 497–520; Doering 2003: esp. 68. The resolution of the debate over the relationship of 4Q390, if any, with the other fragments grouped together to comprise 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah is beyond the focus of this study, which will merely explore the possible evidence this text provides for apocalyptic beliefs during the Hasmonean period. 119.  See especially Dan. 9:24-27; Jer. 25:8-14; 29:4-14. For discussion, see further C. J. P. Davis 2011: 467–79. 120.  For these aspects of 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah, see further Tamási 2014. 121.  The use of heptadic chronologies influenced by Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10; cf. Zech. 1:12; 7:5; 2 Chron. 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1) is found in several Second Temple Period texts, most notably the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 91:11-17; 93:1-10); Jubilees, 4Q181, 4Q390, and 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C. Although these texts, like Dan. 9, assign the 490 years to the last period of history, only the first two appear to be modeled on the Danielic chronology. See further Berner 2012. 122.  Grabbe 1997. 123.  See further Atkinson 2016f. 124.  Grabbe 1997: 601.

96

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

prophecy.125 This exegetical tradition appears to place the beginning of the 70th heptad (years 483–490) to the start of his reign.126 The Qumran text 4Q390 provides additional evidence for the widespread existence of traditions that would have been available to the opponents of Jannaeus to use as propaganda to motivate the masses to oppose him. The author of this Qumran work uses Dan. 9:24-27 to date the last historical stage to the period of the Hasmonean family’s revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4Q390 1 2-12).127 Because Dimant does not discern any clearly identifiable sectarian features in this composition, she believes it was not written by a member of the Qumran community.128 If her interpretation is correct, it demonstrates that other groups shared the interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of Daniel 9 contained in this document. 4Q390, the Qumran pesharim, and 1 Enoch espouse a similar view of history. They combine apocalyptic materials and a division of history into discrete chronological phases. Because this temporal sequence is finite, it may be calculated with some degree of precision.129 The figures in 4Q390 and Josephus reflect ancient exegetical interpretations of biblical prophecy that viewed the creation of the Hasmonean monarchy as a sign that marked the beginning of the final age of history.130 Hanan Eshel suggests the author of 4Q390 contemporized the 490-year prophecy of Dan. 9.24 into the four sub-periods, and expected the final redemption to come after a 490-year period. Whether the author 125.  Olson (2005) comments that the inaccurate historical chronologies of Dan. 9:24-27 show that we should recognize that people in antiquity could, and did, use different dates than the more accurate figures cited by modern historians. 126.  (471 years and 3 months) War 1.70; (481 years and 3 months) Ant. 13.301. See further Atkinson 2016f. 127.  See further H. Eshel 2008: 25–27; Werman 2006. Similar calculations reflecting a periodization of history are found in the following texts: 1 En. 89:59–90:19 (4Q204207); 4Q212; 4Q247; 4Q558; 4Q181; 4Q243. See further Adamczewski 2009; H. Eshel 2005. For this figure in Daniel and related literature, see J. Collins 1993: 352–4. The eschatological pattern reflected in 4Q390 is reminiscent of 4Q215A, whose writer, like the author of the Apocalypse of Weeks, believed that he was living during the final historical period before God’s final intervention. See further Justnes 2009: 368–73. 128.  Dimant 2001: 236–7. For a possible relationship between 4Q390 and CD, see C. J. P. Davis 2011: 484–6. 129.  Cf. Dan. 9; 1 En. 85–90; 91:11-17; 93:1-10; 4Q180. See further Dimant 2014: 315–32. 130.  In addition to the texts previously cited, it should be noted that the author of CD 1 also mentions a period of 390 years after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. This figure should not be considered any more reliable than Daniel’s 490 years. These texts that use Daniel, as well as the work of Demetrius the Chronographer, show that Jews of the Hellenistic period did not know the exact duration of the Persian period. For these issues, see further the discussions in J. Collins 2010a: 92–4; Sterling 1992: 155–67; Vermes 2003. The rabbis later placed the length of the Seleucid Empire at 180 years, and the Hasmonean Dynasty at 103 years. See Seder ’Olam Rabbah 30; ‘Avodah Zarah 8b-9a. It is unknown how these and other rabbinic calculations concerning the lengths of the Seleucid or Hasmonean periods originated. See further Stemberger 1992: 194–7.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

97

of 4Q390 counted from the purge of the Temple by Judah in 164 B.C.E. or from 160 B.C.E., seven years after the statue of Zeus was placed in the Temple, is unspecified in the text. The dates respectively correspond to 94 B.C.E. or 90 B.C.E., which Eshel notes is close to the 88 B.C.E. Pharisaic rebellion against Jannaeus.131 Because the numismatic evidence indicates this revolt should be dated to S.E. 223 (= 90/89 B.C.E.), the invasion of Demetrius III roughly coincides with the final age of history as predicted in 4Q390.132 If the understanding of Daniel reflected in 4Q390 was widely known, some Jews may have believed that biblical prophecy was coming to fulfillment during the time of Jannaeus, and that they were living in the final age of history. This interpretation of Daniel may have prompted the author of 4Q390 to write this composition that called for the end of the line of Hasmonean high priests.133 It may also explain why some Jews took up arms against Jannaeus. Assuming the accuracy of Dimant’s thesis that 4Q390 is one of five copies of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, we can compare it with the other extant fragments of this work to see if there is any evidence that it reflects a negative view of Jannaeus.134 This in turn may help us understand whether the apocalyptic traditions reflected in this Qumran fragment may have influenced historical events, or whether current affairs shaped the theological views reflected in this document. 4Q387 3 4-6 may contain a denunciation of Jannaeus as high priest. This fragment is paralleled in a less complete form in 4Q385a 5 4-9, which Dimant translated as “three priests who will not walk in the ways of the former [priests] who by the name of the God of Israel were called.”135 In her most recent assessment of this text she slightly changes her translation to read: “three priests, who will not walk in the ways of [the] former [priests], will be called by the name of the God of Israel.”136 Dimant 131.  H. Eshel 2008: 22–7. 132.  This assumes the author starts his calculations with the year 160 B.C.E. For

the numismatic evidence in support of this date, see Atkinson 2016f; Hoover, Houghton, and Vesely 2008: 306–7, 310. Dimant recently rejected the thesis of H. Eshel that 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah updates the 70-year chronology of Dan. 9. She also opposes the view of Werman that the Apocryphon was written in reaction to Daniel. See Dimant 2011a. The use of Daniel throughout this text, especially the apparent reference to Dan. 9:27 in lines 2-4 (cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3-4) and -‫ הבין ב‬in lines 6-7 in the sense of “to understand, to consider” as in Dan. 1:17, shows that it is more probable that 4Q390 updates Daniel. 133.  Suggested by A. Baumgarten and documented in H. Eshel 2008: 131 n. 43. 134.  Even if these fragments are a later updating of the so-called Apocryphon of Jeremiah, or other compositions, their similarities with the likely historical setting and review of history in 4Q390 makes them relevant to compare with this text. 135.  Dimant 2001: 192. In her interpretation of this text (2001: 193), she suggests that the three priests of line 4 are likely Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus, or possibly Simon, Hyrcanus, and Jannaeus. She also comments, based on the allusion in 1QpHab VIII 8-9, that line 5 may refer to priests of the First Temple period or early generations of the Second Temple period. 136.  Dimant 2011a: 34 n. 67.

98

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

now understands the phrase “who will not walk in the ways of [the] former [priests]” as a subordinate description that stresses what the three priests are not. She proposes they are positive figures, and likely Jonathan, Simon, and Hyrcanus. If we adopt this interpretation, then lines 6-7, which state that “Israel will be rent asunder in th[at] generation, each m[a]n fighting against his neighbor,” likely refer to the civil wars that took place during the reign of Jannaeus.137 It is also plausible that the denunciation of “the slaves of foreign things” (‫ ;ועבדי נאכר‬4Q387 3 6) refers to the mercenaries employed by Jannaeus and their possible influence over him. The chronological traditions reflected in 4Q390 and Josephus may suggest that apocalyptic timetables encouraged some Jewish sectarian groups, especially the Pharisees, to oppose Jannaeus based on their belief that the final age of redemption had arrived. Such prophetic interpretations were already known prior to this event, and could easily have been adapted to fit the new circumstances that accompanied the creation of the Hasmonean monarchy. The document 4Q390 is perhaps best classified as a historical apocalypse that is similar to other Jewish apocalypses, particularly the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 84–90), Fourth Ezra, and 2 Baruch.138 These works were likely preserved because later generations could easily update and/or reinterpret their apocalyptic language and images to reflect new historical circumstances. This suggests that the ambiguity found in many apocalyptic texts was intentional: the predictions in such works are often deliberately vague to allow room for later adjustments. Because their readers already believed in these prophecies, they likely did not need much evidence to convince them that the theological interpretations and predictions in these writings were correct. A related Dead Sea Scroll preserves new historical information about the efforts of another Seleucid king to annex the Hasmonean state at the time the community of these texts expected the end of days.

The Invasion of Antiochus XII Dionysus The invasion of Antiochus XII Dionysus was the last time a Seleucid monarch attacked Jannaeus.139 Josephus’s account of his incursion is rather confusing. The civil wars in the Seleucid Empire may help explain 137.  In her most recent study of this text, Dimant comments that her dating of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C to the last quarter of the second century B.C.E. at the earliest appears a little late. This is because of the connections in the Apocryphon to the somewhat earlier and shorter Hebrew edition of Jeremiah and Bar. 1:1–3:8. Because of this, she no longer identifies the three priests. See Dimant 2013a. Reynolds (2011a; 2011b: 298–300) proposes that Jannaeus cannot be included in this list because it only mentions four priests, and that the final priest should be identified with Hyrcanus, during whose tenure he believes the text was composed. His analysis, however, is based on 4Q387 and fails to consider the future temporal outline of the composition that describes an inner rift in Israel to portray Hasmonean kings negatively. For the importance of this forecast in this work, see Dimant 2001: 141, 194–5. 138.  For this evidence, see further Henze 2009. Dimant (2014: 339–40) accepts this classification for 4Q390. 139.  Atkinson 2016b: 127–30.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

99

why he attacked the Hasmonean state. There is no evidence that Dionysus ever reigned in Antioch or attempted to capture the city from his brother, Philip I. Rather, the kingdom of Dionysus was largely confined to Damascus. His reign there, mentioned by Josephus, is dated by the city’s coins, which begin in S.E. 226 (= 87/86 B.C.E.) and ended in S.E. 230 (83/82 B.C.E.).140 Because the numismatic record provides some indirect evidence that Aretas III took Damascus in 83/82 B.C.E., Dionysus likely attacked Jannaeus sometime between 87/86–83/82 B.C.E.141 The capture of Damascus put Dionysus in close proximity to the Hasmonean state, and its adjacent trade routes that he and Jannaeus wanted to control. It was also the perfect location from which to invade the Hasmonean state, as evidenced by the earlier use of the city by Demetrius III to attack Jannaeus. The Dead Sea Scrolls may contain some allusions to Dionysus’s invasion of the Hasmonean state.142 The Nahum Pesher interprets historical events in the biblical book of Nahum sequentially. The author’s strict adherence to this method required some rather contrived interpretations of the prophetic text so that the resulting commentary interprets each historical incident in chronological order. The section of the Nahum Pesher that follows the reign of Jannaeus describes another violent event that the writer interprets through Nah. 2:14. This section refers to smoke, burning, detachments of an army, prey, and the wealth of Jerusalem that the last priests have amassed (4Q169 3-4 I 8b-12). This passage follows the text’s mention of the invasion of Demetrius III and Jannaeus’s mass crucifixion of his opponents (4Q169 3-4 I 1-2). Since the subsequent section of the Nahum Pesher (4Q169 3-4 II 1-6) describes the reign of a woman, it can only refer to the successor of Jannaeus, his wife Queen Shelamzion Alexandra.143 This means that the incident described in 4Q169 3-4 I 8b-12 occurred after the invasion of Demetrius III and before Jannaeus’s death. The incursion of Antiochus XII Dionysus is the only major event that took place during this span of time. In 4Q169 3-4 I 8b-12, the author expects God to chastise Jannaeus for his past crimes and his unlawful crucifixion of Jews. The description of punishment in this section of the Nahum Pesher matches the account 140.  See Ant. 13.387-91; War 1.99-102. Newel 1939: nos. 132-34; Hoover 2007b: 298–9; Hoover, Houghton, and Vesely 2008; Houghton and Spaer 1990: 4. All the coins of Dionysus were minted at Damascus. See further Hoover 2007b: 298–9; 2009: 274–6. Cf. Houghton and Spaer 1990: 4. The most probable date for the beginning of the reign of Dionysus at Damascus is 87/86 B.C.E. 141.  See further Atkinson 2013b: 19–22; Hoover and Barkay 2010. 142.  Atkinson 2013b: 19–23. 143.  See further Atkinson 2012c: 187–9.

100

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

of the invasion of Antiochus XII Dionysus in Josephus (Ant. 13.387-91; War 1.99-102) when his army caused much destruction throughout Judea. During his campaign, Antiochus XII Dionysus burnt the fortification wall Jannaeus had constructed to block his passage. The “sword will consume your cubs” likely refers to Dionysus and the devastation he caused. Lines 9-12 provide additional historical information about this time that is not reflected in Josephus. This section of the text apparently documents how Jannaeus took the wealth of the priests.144 This shows that Jannaeus, like Antiochus IV Epiphanes, pillaged the temple after his military loss. It also suggests there was considerable economic instability during Jannaeus’s reign, during which he depleted the treasury to finance his numerous wars.145 The author interpreted the invasion of Dionysus as God’s punishment of Jannaeus for his past crimes, and his treatment of his Jewish opponents. The Nahum Pesher provides some support for the claim of Josephus that Antiochus XII Dionysus never reached Jerusalem since it emphasizes that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the only Seleucid monarch who did so before Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of the city. The fighting described in this section may refer to the turbulent events that occurred during the final days of Jannaeus’s life, when Aretas III defeated him in battle (Ant. 13.392; War 1.103). The subsequent column of this text (4Q169 3-4 II 1-6) describes a continued period of instability and warfare, which ended with the assumption to power of a woman that can only refer to his wife and successor, Shelamzion Alexandra.146 Conclusion The use of Scripture in 4QTestimonia and related Qumran texts to describe a prophetic figure in connection with Hyrcanus reveals how the Hasmoneans used ancient traditions to justify their rule. Jannaeus like­ wise drew upon these interpretations regarding the future “true prophet” in 1 Macc. 14:41 to validate his reign. Goldstein comments that 144.  Horgan (1979: 180–1) notes that the third person singular masculine suffix in the phrases phrase “detachments of his army” and “his lions” refer back to the “Lion of Wrath” (= Alexander Jannaeus), who took the wealth of the priests. 145.  The numismatic record shows that Jannaeus sought to boost the economy through the minting of excessive amounts of currency. Some of this was likely intended to pay his mercenaries. His coins are the most common Hasmonean currency found at archaeological sites in the territories of the Hasmonean state. See further Ariel 1982: 284, 322; Hirschfeld and Ariel 2005; Regev 2013: 174–82. 146.  See further Atkinson 2014b.

5. Religious Strife in the Hasmonean State

101

Mattathias’s family likely looked forward to receiving the blessings of Elijah, which was prophecy. Only Hyrcanus, Josephus claims, had this gift.147 The coins Jannaeus minted with a star surrounded by a diadem likely provide physical evidence of this claim. Meshorer suggests this star is a symbol of royalty and was based on Num. 24:17.148 However, in light of 4QTestimonia and related texts from Qumran, there is a more plausible interpretation of the star on the coins of Jannaeus. It likely alludes to his father’s prophetic abilities to show that Hyrcanus was the expected “true prophet” of 1 Macc. 14:41, and to demonstrate that God had chosen the Hasmoneans to be the permanent kings and high priests.149 It likely served to show that Jannaeus was the rightful successor of the Hasmonean ruler most favored by God, namely his father Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.299-300). The imagery represented by this star must have been well known, and provides additional evidence that many Jews regarded Hyrcanus as a prophetic messiah as well as the anticipated “true prophet” promised in Scripture. The lack of specificity concerning what was expected of the “true prophet” likely appealed to the Hasmoneans, who took over this preexisting tradition to justify their rule. The Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that messianic beliefs played a greater role in Hasmonean history than Josephus has documented. However, these texts show that not all Jews accepted the messianic claims of the Hasmoneans that God had chosen them to rule the nation. For the Qumran community, Scripture predicted otherwise, namely that their reign marked the beginning of an eschatological countdown. When Jannaeus’s wife, Shelamzion Alexandra succeeded him, this created a crisis for the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Her reign was so prosperous that the rabbis considered it a “Golden Age.” The Qumran community struggled to explain her success. They also had to account for the apparent delay in their apocalyptic countdown. The Dead Sea Scrolls in particular contain much new information about this unique era of Second Temple Period Jewish history when a female ruled the Hasmonean state. These texts reveal that many opponents of the Hasmonean family, following the death of Jannaeus, believed that the end-time prophecies regarding the end of days would be fulfilled during her reign. 147.  See further Goldstein 1976: 8, 507–8. The Dead Sea Scrolls also document the expectation for an eschatological prophet like Elijah. See 4Q558. Cf. 4Q521. 148.  Meshorer 2001: 37–8. Regev (2013: 211–12) proposes that Jannaeus adopted the Hellenistic symbols of the star and diadem to represent his royal status, and as a substitution for his self-portrait. 149.  For the expectation of this future prophet, see 1 Macc. 4:46; Atkinson 2016c: 9–27.

Chapter 6 M i l i ta ry D et er r en ce a n d the H asmone an G ol d en A g e: T he E nd of D ays i n t h e D ead S e a S cr olls

The reign of Shelamzion Alexandra is perhaps the most unusual period in the history of the Hasmonean state. She is unique not only because she was the only Hasmonean queen regnant. In addition, she is important since she played a major role in shaping diplomatic relations between several of the countries that bordered her nation. Unfortunately, Josephus’s accounts of her time in power are uncharacteristically brief. Fortunately, the Dead Sea Scrolls, classical texts, other Jewish works, and numismatics supplement the writings of Josephus. This evidence suggests that Alexandra was a skilled politician, whose foreign policy not only brought unprecedented prosperity to her country, but also indirectly changed the history of the Roman Republic. Nevertheless, the Qumran community had a different opinion of her. They believed Scripture had predicted that the end of days would occur during her reign. Alexandra in the Qumran Pesharim and Calendrical Texts The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Antiquities is based on historical reality: they appear to have achieved their greatest political power and religious authority during Alexandra’s reign. Josephus states that she allied herself with the Pharisees, and that they dominated the politics and religion.1 The Nahum Pesher recounts several historical events from this time in chronological order, and also documents conflicts between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It refers to her husband, Jannaeus, as the “Lion of Wrath” to denounce his crucifixion of the Pharisees who invited the Syrian monarch Demetrius III to invade 1.  Ant. 13.408-18; War 1.107-14. See further Atkinson 2014b: 20–38; 2016b: 135–8; Zeitlin 1960–61.

6. Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age

103

Judea. After recounting this atrocity, the writer quotes from and interprets Nah. 2:14 to describe how the wealth of Jerusalem’s priests will be taken from them (4Q169 3-4 I 8b-12). The historical context of this passage fits the description of the persecution of the Pharisees by Jannaeus mentioned in the writings of Josephus. This is clear by the context of these lines, which follows the reference to the Lion of Wrath’s crucifixion of the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things.” The author is convinced that Jannaeus was responsible for this atrocity. The beginning of the next column continues the interpretation of the preceding paragraph, and explains Nah. 3:1-3 as referring to the rule of the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things.” The writer states that they suffer from the sword of the gentiles, captivity, plunder, fire, exile, and death (4Q169 3-4 II 1-6). Because the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things” is a sobriquet for the Pharisees in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the text appears to describe a time after the Pharisees had come to power.2 However, there is some debate concerning whether this passage describes Alexandra or Jannaeus. Johann Maier believes this section documents the persecution of the Pharisees by Jannaeus.3 Igor Tantlevskij proposes it refers to a brief period following the battle of Shechem, and the capture of Pharisees at Bethoma, when this sect regained control of Jerusalem.4 He adopts the view of Lawrence Schiffman that the “sword of the gentiles” (‫ )חרב גוים‬refers to the invitation of the Pharisees to Demetrius III to invade the Hasmonean state and remove Jannaeus from power. Schiffman also suggests that the words “captivity” and “exile” likely describe the Pharisees who fled Judea after Jannaeus crucified 800 of his enemies.5 Shani Berrin rejects Schiffman’s proposal that this column reflects the events of the Battle of Shechem, which they both date to 88 B.C.E. She also disagrees with his interpretation that the phrase “sword of the gentiles” is a reference to the appeal of the Pharisees to Demetrius III since it would mean the Nahum Pesher describes the defeat of the Pharisees both here and in the previous pericope. She suggests the “sword of the nations” refers to the massacre of the Jews during the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Jerusalem.6

2.  4Q169 3-4 II 4. See further A. Baumgarten 2000; H. Eshel 2008: 29–61. 3.  Maier 1962: 245. 4.  Tantlevskij 1994: 222–3. His thesis that the Pharisees regained control in Jerusalem

during the reign of Jannaeus lacks any historical confirmation from Josephus or any other extant Second Temple period texts. 5.  Schiffman 1993: 281–2. 6.  Berrin 2000b; 2004a: 228–31.

104

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Because the Nahum Pesher describes events in chronological order, it is unlikely that 4Q169 3-4 II 1-6 is a second account of the invasion of Demetrius III. Line 4 of this section depicts a time when the situation of the Pharisees changed: “Its interpretation concerns the rule (‫ )ממשלת‬of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things.” The verb ‫ משל‬in the Nahum Pesher clearly refers to a period when the Pharisees dominated politics.7 This line best fits the reign of Alexandra. It also marks a transition in the text. The author abruptly changes from a description of the Lion of Wrath and his execution of the “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things” to a time when this previously persecuted group governed. This section and the remainder of the column (4Q169 3-4 I 4-12) state this took place during the reign of a woman. The manuscript of this portion of the Nahum Pesher is also unusual. The passage in 4Q169 3-4 I 1-12 ends with a rather lengthy vacat. The anomalous spacing within the Nahum Pesher here appears to mark the beginning of an updated portion of the text. The material in columns 3-4 was likely added to reflect the unexpected change in the Pharisees’ power during the reign of Alexandra, which the author believed Scripture had predicted. There is a close correspondence between the biblical texts and their interpretations in the Nahum Pesher. The decision of the author to continue with the subsequent chapter of Nahum suggests that 4Q169 3-4 II 1-6, which is found after the vacat, describes events that took place following those recounted in the previous column.8 The writer, having read Nah. 2:12 in the preceding column as a prophecy about the persecution of the Pharisees, understands Nah. 3:1-3 as a prediction that was fulfilled with the reign of Alexandra because she restored the Pharisees to their former positions of influence. The author was convinced that during her rule there would be renewed violence and a period when the Pharisees would dominate politics. Joseph Amusin suggests that lines 3-6 describe the crimes perpetrated by the Pharisees against the Sadducees that took place following the death of Jannaeus.9 The author of the Nahum Pesher was apparently convinced that Scripture had foretold these events since Nah. 3:1-5 abruptly switches from a prediction of violence to a description of a prostitute in Nah. 3:4-5. The interpretation of this unflattering image in the Nahum Pesher also 7.  See further Amusin 1963; 1977: 143–5. 8.  For the close relationship between the biblical citations and their interpretation in

the Nahum Pesher, see further Berrin 2000a; 2004b.

For the many links between this pesher and the book of Daniel, see further Berrin 2004a. 9.  Amusin 1963: 392–3; 1977: 144; War 1.113-14; Ant. 13.410-11.

6. Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age

105

states that the biblical prophet describes those who led Ephraim astray with their false teaching, and their lying tongue (4Q169 3-4 II 7-12). The writer accuses the Pharisees of using deceit and hypocrisy to win over the masses, the rulers, and the priests. The author (4Q169 3-4 II 8-10) also uses images of prostitution and sexual immortality to refer to their false teachings during the reign of Alexandra.10 The writer clearly denounces Alexandra for her control of the government. The mention of false teachings in this pesher provides some insight concerning debates between the Pharisees and the Sadducees during her reign. The writer of the Nahum Pesher appears to allude to a conflict over the correct interpretation of biblical law, and calls his opponents the “Seekersafter-Smooth-Things” (4Q169 3-4 II 3, 6-7). The author also denounces those of Ephraim who by their “false teaching” (‫ )שקרם בתלמוד‬lead others astray (4Q168 frags. 3-4, col. II, 8). The term talmûd presumably carries its rabbinic meaning here and elsewhere in this pesher and refers to oral interpretation.11 The Nahum Pesher appears to reject the Pharisaic oral tradition that dominated the temple cult during Alexandra’s reign. Ben Zion Wacholder even suggests that the use of talmûd here reflects a dispute between the Pharisees and the Qumran sect over which community taught the authoritative interpretation of the oral tradition.12 This document shows that debates over the validity of the oral law precipitated religious conflicts during the Second Temple Period. The Nahum Pesher provides independent corroboration for the accounts of Josephus that the reign of Alexandra marked the pinnacle of Pharisaic religious and political power. The sexual images in this text are taken from Scripture. The author appears to have selected these biblical passages to denounce Alexandra as an illegitimate monarch. The word “witch,” although part of a quotation from Nah. 3:4, may reflect a historical event since, according to later Jewish tradition, Alexandra executed eighty witches in Ashkelon.13 Alexandra is likely alluded to in other Qumran pesharim. She and her husband are mentioned in the Hosea Pesher B (4Q167). This text also refers to him as the “Lion of Wrath” and alludes to the aftermath 10.  The vacat separating one comment in 4Q169 2-3 II, 8 from the second in 4Q169 2-3 II, 8-10 suggest that this section of the pesher is a combination of earlier pesher interpretations. Cf. 4Q252 5.3. 11.  Horgan 1979: 184. In CD 9-12 we have examples of oral exegesis of the Qumran sect. 12.  Wacholder 1966. 13.  m. Sanh. 6.4. For different version of this story, see Neusner 1971: 90, 92–3, 101, 115–16, 131–2. For discussion of this incident, see Atkinson 2012c: 170–2.

106

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

of the invasion of Demetrius III.14 This poorly preserved pesher also contains a passage that certainly refers to Alexandra since it describes a prostitute (4Q167 frgs. 10 and 26 lns. 1-3).15 The Hosea Pesher A (4QpHosa [4Q166]) contains a better preserved reference to Alexandra. Fragment 2 of this document interprets the unchaste woman of Hos. 2:6-7 as Alexandra. The author believes Hos. 2:11-12 is a prophecy that God will punish her subjects with a terrible famine because of her misdeeds (4Q166 col. 2 lns. 8-13). This text, the Pesher on Hosea B, and the Nahum Pesher, all contain unflattering gendered allusions to Alexandra. This use of sexual imagery is reminiscent of other Qumran texts that likewise emphasize the seductive qualities, or physical attributes, of females.16 The writer of the Hosea Pesher A, like Josephus, blamed Alexandra for the tragic events that took place after she had died. But there was a problem. If the author of this pesher knew the traditions preserved in 4Q390 and related texts, and the interpretation of the 490-year prophecy as marking the end of days, then Alexandra’s reign seemed to prove that the Qumran sect’s interpretation of Scripture was wrong. Rather than an era of decline, Alexandra presided over a Hasmonean Golden Age. Her state was stronger than ever and faced no foreign threats because she had preemptively thwarted the efforts of all hostile powers to conquer it.17 It appeared that the Hasmonean state would continue for the foreseeable future in defiance of the predictions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For this reason, the authors of the pesharim, writing after her death, had to change history to support their prophetic predictions. The author of the Hosea Pesher A accomplishes this by altering the chronology to claim that Alexandra had not presided over a Golden Age. He cited the passage from Hosea to show that God sent a famine to punish her, even though it occurred two years after her death during the Sabbatical Year of 65 B.C.E.18 The famine mentioned in the Hosea Pesher A (4Q166 2.12-13) must have been significant since it is also documented in the Pesher on Isaiah B (4Q162 2.1) and twice in the Pesher on Psalms A (4Q171 frgs. 1-10 2.1). Yet, a close reading of the content of the Hosea Pesher A shows that 14.  4Q167 frag. 2, ln. 2. The author interprets the passage “then Ephraim went to Assyria” in Hos. 5:13 in light of the invitation of the Pharisees to Demetrius III. See further H. Eshel 2008: 130. Doudna (2000) believes the lines in this fragment were longer, and offers a rearrangement of them to propose that the “last priest” is the victim of the “Lion of Wrath.” 15.  See further Atkinson 2012c: 175–89; Ilan 2001: 66–7. 16.  See further Atkinson 2003c; 2011a. 17.  See further Atkinson 2016b: 140–5. 18.  See Atkinson 2001b; 2003c: 37–53; Berrin 2004a: 246 n. 41; Ilan 2001.

6. Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age

107

its author knew that Alexandra had presided over a time of unprecedented peace and affluence. It also alludes to a time of great prosperity before this famine. Nevertheless, the Qumran texts show that the community that resided there wanted to remember her time in office as a disastrous period in the history of the Hasmonean state. The Importance of Alexandra in the Dead Sea Scrolls The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls show a great interest in the reign of Alexandra. She is the only female mentioned by name in these writings. The following list arranges all the identifiable persons in the Qumran texts in chronological order:19 1-3. Ptolemy or Ptolemais (‫ )פתלמיס‬three times in 4QHistorical Text B (4Q578 2 2, 3, 4), which likely refers to Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145 B.C.E.), his brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physcon (145–116 B.C.E.), and one of their sons named Ptolemy. 4. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (‫ )אנתיכוס‬in 4QpNah (4Q169 3-4 i 3) (175–164 B.C.E.). 5. Onias III (?) (‫ )חוניה‬in 4Q245 I 9 (4Qpseudo-Danielc ar) (175 B.C.E.). 6. Jonathan (‫ )יונתן‬in 4Q245 i 10 (4Qpseudo-Danielc ar) (152–143 B.C.E.). 7. Simon (‫ )שמעון‬in 4Q245 i 10 (4Qpseudo-Danielc ar) (143–135 B.C.E.). 8. John Hyrcanus (‫ )יוחנן‬in 4QpapHistorical Text C (4Q331 1 i 7) (135–105/104 B.C.E.). 9-11. Alexander Jannaeus (‫ )יונתן‬in 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer (4Q448 ii 2 and iii 8) and (4Q523) (104–76 B.C.E.).20 12. Demetrius III (‫ )דמיתרוס‬in 4QpNah (4Q169 3-4 i 2) (96–88 B.C.E.).21 13-14. Shelamzion Alexandra (‫ )שלמציון‬in 4QpapHistorical Text C (4Q331 1 ii 7) and 4QHistorical Text D (4Q332 2 4) (76–67 B.C.E.). 19.  This chart is adapted from Atkinson 2007: 145. I omit other personal names in the Qumran texts such as ‫ בלכרוס‬of 4Q243 21 2 since they cannot be identified with any known person. 20.  It is more likely that this prayer refers to Jannaeus rather than Jonathan (152–143 B.C.E.) since the latter was never called a king. See further H. Eshel et al. 1998: 412–15. Puech (1997: 75) dates 4Q523 to the third quarter of the second century B.C.E. to propose that this fragment refers to Jonathan. Wise (2003: 70) comments that this “is an over precise date” and that paleography cannot rule out that 4Q523 was copied when Jannaeus was king. For this reason, I have adopted Wise’s identification of this fragment as a reference to Jannaeus. 21.  Flint (2001: 350) raises the possibility, as originally suggested by Milik, that ‫ רהוס‬in line 70 of 4Q243, which is the end of a partially preserved name in the apparent listing of persons who lived during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, may be one of the Seleucid monarchs named Demetrius. This is merely a conjecture and it could refer to another person whose name had the same ending.

108

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors 15. Hyrcanus II (‫ )הרקנוס‬in 4QHistorical Text D (4Q332 2 6) (63–40 B.C.E.). 16-17. M. Aemilius Scaurus (‫ )אמליוס‬twice in 4QHistorical Text E (4Q333 1 4, 8) (ca. 63 B.C.E.). 18. Peitholaus (‫ )פותלאיס‬in 4QHistorical Text F (4Q468e 3) (ca. 56–51 B.C.E.).

If we add two less certain references to this list, it would bring the total to twenty names of known persons. 19. Aristobulus II (?) (‫ )יאר[יסטבולוס‬in 4QHistorical Text H (4Q323 3 6) (67–63 B.C.E.). 20. Gabinius (?) (‫ )ג[בנויס‬in 4QHistorical Text D (4Q332 i 4) (57–55 B.C.E.).

The names in this list are important for understanding the end-time chronology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of these eighteen preserved names (nos. 1-18), the majority lived from the middle of the second century B.C.E. until approximately a decade following Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem. However, the individuals from the second century B.C.E. in the above list appear in texts that reflect back on this time, but which were written during the first century B.C.E.22 Ida Fröhlich comments that the Qumran pesharim predominately refer to events from a relatively brief period of time, from the rule of Jannaeus to the Roman conquest of 63 B.C.E.23 Geza Vermes likewise concludes his examination of names in the Qumran texts with the observation that the crucial event for the community was not the second-century B.C.E. Hellenistic crisis that ignited the Maccabean revolt, but the 63 B.C.E. conquest of the Hasmonean state by Pompey.24 Florentino García Martínez emphasizes that the historical references in 4QpapHistorical Text C, 4QHistorical Text D, and 4QHistorical Text E all appear to describe political and military history, and not the inner history of the group described in many Dead Sea Scrolls.25 The historical references in 22.  The sole exception is 4Q578, which is dated by paleography to approximately 125 B.C.E. See further Atkinson 2007; Puech 1997: 205. 23.  Fröhlich 1996: 163. 24.  Vermes 2007: 139. 25.  García Martínez 1998: 204. He suggests this provides additional evidence to support the Groningen hypothesis, and which places the move to Qumran at the end of the second century B.C.E. For the Groningen Hypothesis, see García Martínez 2011; García Martínez and van der Woude 1990. See also A. Baumgarten 2005: 257; García Martínez 2010; 2011; 2017.

6. Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age

109

the calendrical texts suggests that the period from the reign of Alexandra until the decade following the Roman conquest was a significant time for the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The last person mentioned in these texts lived at a time that roughly coincides with the expected end based on the 490-year prophecy. The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that the first century B.C.E. was the major period for the development of the community that produced and collected the Qumran writings. This is not only supported by the historical allusions and names in these texts, but also by their paleographical dates. Brian Webster’s index in volume 39 of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series assigns dates to approximately 719 manuscripts based on paleography.26 Both “biblical” and non-“biblical” scrolls peak in the second half of the first century B.C.E. (50–1 B.C.E.). In the first half of the first century B.C.E. the number of non-“biblical” manuscripts triples (32 to 100 manuscripts); during the same time the biblical manuscripts increase by only 40 percent. The number of manuscripts produced from the last half century B.C.E. is also quite high and totals approximately 272 manuscripts.27 These data show that the greatest period of scribal activity at Qumran took place in the late Hasmonean and the early Herodian periods.28 It also reveals that the formative years of the Qumran community should be situated between approximately 76 B.C.E. to ca. 51 B.C.E. The Qumran sectarians considered the events of the middle to the late first century B.C.E. of special significance. It was only these incidents, and not those of the second century B.C.E., that they saw fit to include in calendars that regulated the religious life of their community. Historical references and allusions cease in the Qumran texts shortly after the downfall of Alexandra’s son, Aristobulus II. The documentation of negative events that involved the Hasmonean dynasty in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that the Qumran sectarians believed the reign of Alexandra, the demise of Aristobulus II, and the events of the Roman conquest, marked a turning point in history. Something significant happened during the period from the death of Jannaeus until end of Alexandra’s reign. It was during this time span, beginning with her ascension to the throne, that Aristobulus II and his Sadducean supporters began to lose power. The authors of 26.  Webster 2002. Despite the limitations of paleography, recent archaeological evidence and radiocarbon examinations of the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed their paleographical datings. This evidence, however, only indicates the approximate date that a particular text was copied and not when it was composed. 27.  These figures are from Lapin 2010. 28.  Atkinson 2007.

110

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

4QpapHistorical Text C, 4QHistorical Text D, and 4QHistorical Text E, and 4QHistorical Text F appear to recount the defeats of Aristobulus II. These texts suggests that the Qumran community had a particular interest in documenting his downfall. In addition, their historical content corroborates the statements of Josephus and the Nahum Pesher that the Pharisees were the dominant religious party during the reign of Alexandra. They also show that her tenure was a pivotal period of Hasmoneans history, during which there was a major shift in power from the Sadducees to the Pharisees. The Qumran texts 4QpapHistorical Text C, 4QHistorical Text D, and 4QHistorical Text E, and 4QHistorical Text F appear to record negative events that involved the Hasmonean dynasty.29 Given their concentration on adverse incidents, these four texts likely belonged to a series of portentous calendars in which the Qumran sectarians recorded contemporary historical events they considered especially important.30 These documents were apparently used to commemorate these incidents, or to determine how they fulfilled biblical prophecy. Several of these works show an interest in calculating the end of days.31 The placement of the “latter days” (‫ )לאחרית הימים‬to the reign of Jannaeus in the Nahum Pesher (4Q169 frgs. 3-4 col. 2 ln. 2), as well as in 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ce, seems to indicate that the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls expected the final age of history to begin during his time in power, or shortly after his death during the early years of Alexandra’s rule. This section of the pesher appears to reflect the schema of Deut. 4:30 and 32:15-43. This may suggest that the writer viewed the persecution of the Pharisees by Jannaeus, and their flight from Judea, and the wars against Antiochus XII Dionysus and the Nabateans/Arabs, as the eschatological fulfillment of the prophecies of Nahum. The use of the phrase “latter days” in the Nahum Pesher may suggest this work originally ended with the reign of Alexandra, whose time in power was expected to mark the final eschatological period of history. The author was likely confident of this interpretation because of the biblical text’s unexpected description of the reign of a woman and its disastrous consequences. But history proved that the Qumran community’s predictions were incorrect. Hanan Eshel proposes a similar background for the Nahum Pesher and the Habakkuk Pesher. He believes that the second-century B.C.E. author of the Habakkuk Pesher understood the phrase “the rest of the peoples” 29.  See further Fitzmyer 2000a; 2000b; 2000c. 30.  Atkinson 2007. 31.  See, for examples, 1QS 3.20-21; 1QM 14.14.

6. Military Deterrence and the Hasmonean Golden Age

111

of Hab. 2:8 in the Habakkuk Pesher 9.3-4 as a prediction that a number of nations will plunder the Hasmoneans. This passage was apparently updated to refer to the Romans following Pompey’s conquest.32 Because all the pesharim survive in single copies, it is likely that each manuscript preserves the most current, and authoritative, version of these texts. Several appear to have been updated following the death of Alexandra to reflect the unexpected events of the Roman conquest. Some evidence for this interpretation may be found in the Habakkuk Pesher 7.9-14, which refers to some crisis in the community behind this composition. It appears that the writer’s eschatological hope of salvation failed to occur during the lifetime of the Righteous Teacher.33 The author of this pesher urges his followers to be patient and not to lose their faith, for the biblical prophecy will soon come true. The writer of the Habakkuk Pesher was convinced that Daniel’s calculation about the end of time would be fulfilled shortly after the reign of Jannaeus. To persuade readers that his interpretation is correct, the writer cited Scripture to lend authority to his prediction. In the case of the Habakkuk Pesher, the author clearly believed that Habakkuk had not fully understand the words of his inspired prophecy. The writer of the pesher has now revealed these hidden truths. This suggests that both Scripture and commentary were regarded as authoritative. This failed prophecy in this pesher appears to have caused a crisis among those who trusted in the apocalyptic calculations found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.34 This problem required the writer to formulate some explanation, or another creative interpretation of the scriptural passage, to account for this eschatological delay. Hanan Eshel suggests that the Qumran community no longer produced written pesharim sometime just before 31 B.C.E., and switched exclusively to the oral interpretations of texts. He proposes this may have been due to the unfulfilled prophecy in these texts, which discouraged subsequent members of this community from recording their interpretations of Scripture in writing. The dates of the Qumran documents lend some support to his theory, for they suggest that the community of these 32.  This interpretation may also explain the mysterious vacat between the “army of the Kittim” and “For they are the rest of the peoples.” The original edition of this pesher likely spoke of many nations. In the updated version the “peoples” refers to the Romans. The author was apparently forced to interpret the plural in this manner following the arrival of the Romans. For this view, see H. Eshel 2009. Hartog (2017) also proposes that the Habakkuk Pesher was updated to reflect the demise of the Hasmonean dynasty, but he suggests that columns 2.5-10 and 9.3-7 were the sections added to it. 33.  A. Baumgarten 1997: 178–80; Ruzer 2016: 350–5; Steudel 1993–94. 34.  Nitzan 2008: 91–2.

112

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

writings believed that the reign of Alexandra marked the beginning of the end of days. Because the Qumran sectarians stopped producing new works in the period shortly after the Roman conquest of 63 B.C.E., her reign appears to have been the determinative era for the community at Qumran. Consequently, subsequent explanations for the delay of the end of days are lost to us because the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls conveyed them orally. Conclusion Although Josephus devotes little attention to Alexandra in his War and Antiquities, the historical evidence suggests that she was a remarkable administrator, a skilled military leader, and an effective ruler. She is the only Hasmonean monarch portrayed favorably in later Jewish literature.35 These accounts, when read in conjunction with Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggest that her reign was the most prosperous and peaceful in Hasmonean history. The death of Alexandra marks the effective end of the Hasmonean state; its Golden Age abruptly ended with her death. The subsequent infighting between her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, led to Pompey’s intervention Hasmonean affairs. For Jews such as those of the Qumran sect, this event must have been the long-awaited confirmation of their interpretations of biblical prophecy that the end of days was near. Then a greater threat emerged that complicated this interpretation of Scripture, namely Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem and his termination of the Hasmonean state. This event appeared to disprove past prophecies in the Dead Sea Scrolls concerning the latter days, for it ushered in a new era of foreign domination that the authors of these texts struggled to explain.

35.  Because the bulk of the later Jewish sources about Alexandra do not contain any historical information, but extol her piety, they are not relevant to the present investigation. See further Atkinson 2012c: 235–41.

Chapter 7 A ft er t h e L os s of S ove r e i gnt y : N e w L i ght on H a s m on ea n a n d R oman H i story fr om t h e D ea d S ea S c r ol ls and C lassi cal T ex t s

The Romans at this time considered the Seleucid Empire part of the spoils of war connected with their subjugation of Tigranes. Pompey believed this gave him the right to annex Syria.1 Pompey had good reason to mistrust the Hasmoneans. Antiochus XIII claimed that he would become prey to Jewish pirates if Pompey did not keep him on the throne of the Seleucid Empire, and that the region would become unstable.2 If Strabo is correct, Pompey also feared Jewish pirates in Jerusalem and Jaffa.3 The probable Hasmonean alliance with the Parthians beginning with John Hyrcanus and continuing under his son, Jannaeus, likely made Pompey suspicious of both Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II.4 Hyrcanus II took power in the same year the Roman Senate commissioned Pompey to abolish piracy. Pompey’s campaign to protect the Mediterranean trade routes was part of a larger Roman operation against banditry in the region. He and his legates pursued brigands on the coast from Lycia to Phoenicia, as well as the Amanus passes. It is plausible that some Jews engaged in piracy along the coasts between Cilicia and Judea during the reign of Hyrcanus II.5 Because the Roman Republic did not have any direct control over the Hasmonean state, it would have afforded pirates a perfect refuge. Josephus provides some indirect support for Jewish piracy when he mentions that Pompey later cut the Jews off from the sea by taking away their harbors (War 1.156). The Romans likely 1.  Sartre 2005: 38–9. 2.  Just., Epit. 40.2.2. 3.  Strab., Geog. 16.2.28-40. 4.  See further Zollschan 2017: 267–8. 5.  See Zonaras, Epitome historiarum 10.5.

114

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

had another reason to worry about Hyrcanus II, for his brief reign as the Hasmonean state’s monarch and high priest may have been quite tumultuous and violent for some Jews. Excursus 6: Hyrcanus II as the “Wicked Priest” of the Qumran Texts and Why He Attacked the Righteous Teacher The Dead Sea Scrolls may reveal some significant new information about Hyrcanus II during his brief three months in power. Since the discovery of these documents, scholars have identified nearly twenty individuals as the person denounced in them by the mysterious sobriquet “the Wicked Priest” (‫)הכוהן הרשע‬.6 This name appears in the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab 8.8; 9.9; 11.4; 12.2, 8), the Pesher Psalmsa (4Q171 1-10 IV,7-10), and the Isaiah Pesherc (4Q163 frg. 30). Two partially preserved phrases in Pesher Habakkuk, at 8.16 and 9.16, are sometimes understood as referring to this person. Several scholars have inferred the existence of this figure in other texts, most notably the Hodayot and 4QMMT. Others, most notably Michael Wise, have used the Damascus Document and the Hodayot to reconstruct the movement of the Righteous Teacher and his persecution by the Wicked Priest.7 However, these documents are difficult to associate with the Righteous Teacher because they do not refer to him by name. This is particularly true of the Hodayot, which may possibly contain hymns written by him. Nevertheless, it is likely that this composition has been redacted: many of its poems may therefore refer to other persons.8 Although rarely included among the extensive list of individuals identified as the Wicked Priest, Hyrcanus II is perhaps the person whose career best matches the description of him in the Qumran texts.9 Because the descriptions of the Wicked Priest in the Dead Sea Scrolls are somewhat ambiguous, no single theory may answer all the questions we have about this person. Nevertheless, four factors suggest that Hyrcanus II is the most plausible candidate: the dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dates of the historical references in these texts, the date of the Qumran settlement, and the historical contents of the pesharim. The dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls provide us with a terminus ante quem for determining the probable date when the Wicked Priest lived. Brian Webster’s index in volume 39 of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series assigns dates to approximately 719 Qumran manuscripts based on paleography. His analysis reveals that the 6.  The notes to this excursus only cite some of the most influential studies. I side with those who believe the Wicked Priest was an actual person. See further Lim 2000b. See also Brooke 2007. 7.  Wise 2010. For the basis of the translation of the terminus technicus ‫ מורה הצדק‬as “Righteous Teacher,” see Charlesworth 2002: 28–30. See also Brooke 2009. 8.  For this possibility, see Arnold 2006: esp. 208–29. 9.  Atkinson 2017; J. Collins 2010a: 111–13; Dupont-Sommer 1973: 351–7.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

115

greatest period of scribal activity at Qumran took place in the late Hasmonean and the early Herodian periods; approximately 272 manuscripts were produced during the last half century B.C.E.10 Of those Dead Sea Scrolls widely identified as sectarian texts, nearly 85% have a paleographical date sometime in the first century B.C.E. Over half of these documents date to the final script phase or generation of that century; relatively few date to the first century C.E. Most significant is that none of these texts dates to the mid-second century B.C.E., when the Wicked Priest lived according to the traditional identification of him as Simon or Jonathan.11 The historical contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the late Hasmonean period was the formative era of the Qumran sect, when all the texts recounting the Wicked Priest were written. It is within this general period that we should place his career, and his persecution of the Righteous Teacher. The historical references in the Dead Sea Scrolls support the results of paleography. Of the eighteen identifiable names in the Qumran corpus, the majority of these persons lived from the middle of the second century B.C.E. until approximately a decade following Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem.12 Those individuals named in the Dead Sea Scrolls who lived during the second century B.C.E., such as Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Demetrius III, appear in texts that were produced during the first century B.C.E.13 Because several of these documents clearly refer to the 63 B.C.E. conquest of Pompey, the Wicked Priest clearly lived around this time since he is mentioned before this event. Although the Righteous Teacher was undoubtedly connected with the community that is described in editions of sectarian texts such as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document, the dates of these writings suggest that the emergence of the movement responsible for these compositions was unconnected with the career of the Righteous Teacher. The archaeological findings from Qumran provide additional support for placing the Wicked Priest during the late Hasmonean period when the pesharim that describe him were produced.14

10.  See Webster 2002. See also Lapin 2010: 116–19. 11.  Wise 2010: 99. 12.  Atkinson 2007: esp. 145–6; 2013b. 13.  The paleographical dates of the pesharim are as follows: 4QpIsab (4Q162) prior

to 30 B.C.E.; 4QpIsac (4Q163) ca. 100 B.C.E.; 4QpIsad (4Q164) ca. 30 B.C.E.–20 C.E.; 4QpIsae (4Q165) ca. 30 B.C.E.–20 C.E.; 4QpHosb (4Q167) ca. 20–70 C.E.; 1QpMic (1Q14) before the first century B.C.E.; 4QpNah (4Q169) ca. 60–30 B.C.E.; 1QpHab ca. 30–1 B.C.E.; 1QpZeph (1Q15) and 4QpZeph (4Q170) dates unknown; 1QpPs (1Q16) before the first century B.C.E.; 4QPsb (4Q173) ca. 20–70 C.E. For these dates, see Lim 2002: 22–3; Strugnell 1970; Webster 2002. 14.  For discussions in support of reading the pesharim as historical accounts of the Righteous Teacher’s life, see further J. Collins 2010a: 88–120; 2011; Wise 2010; 2003. See also Collins 2010b; 2012. For recent skeptical assessments that doubt we can learn anything about this figure, or that he may not have been an actual person, see the following studies and their extensive citations of relevant literature: Harkins 2017; Kratz 2017.

116

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Recent archaeological analysis of the Qumran settlement may provide a plausible explanation as to why the Wicked Priest attacked the Righteous Teacher. Jodi Magness’s revised dating of Khirbet Qumran shows that it was built in approximately 100–31 B.C.E.15 This date would rule out some of the earlier candidates if one wants to identify Qumran as the site where the Wicked Priest assaulted the Righteous Teacher.16 Although it is difficult to ascribe all the extant references to the Wicked Priest to a single individual, a look at the descriptions of this person suggest that they best fit Hyrcanus II. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not historical documents, even though they contain considerable historical content. Rather, they are primarily theological texts that seek to support this community’s religious beliefs and understandings of Scripture. Many of the works that mention the Wicked Priest are so polemical that their writers have likely distorted factual details to make historical events fit their interpretations of biblical prophecy. This is evident in the description of the drunkenness of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Pesher 11.12-15, which is likely an interpretation of Deut. 29:18 and should be understood as a metaphor.17 The Wicked Priest appears only in the pesharim, which are commonly identified as sectarian texts. These works refer to him as the Wicked Priest in the titular sense as a pun on the Hebrew title “the high priest.” This name only makes sense if he was an actual high priest. Hyrcanus II was high priest twice (76–67, 63–40 B.C.E.), for a combined total of 33 years. His tenure coincides with the period during which most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced and the Qumran settlement existed. For these reasons, his position as high priest and the dates of his reign make him an eligible candidate for the Wicked Priest.18 The personality of Hyrcanus II provides further evidence in support of this identification. According to the pesharim, the Wicked Priest was a violent individual. He persecuted the Righteous Teacher and his followers (1QpHab 11.3-8; 4QPsa frgs. 1-10, col. 4.7-8). Other crimes he committed included harming the “council of the community,” robbing the “poor ones” of their wealth, and defiling the temple (1QpHab 12.1-10). While these are serious charges, the Dead Sea Scrolls also claim 15.  Magness 2002: esp. 63-69. Magness also notes that De Vaux (1959: 5, 18–24, 33–41) pushed the foundation of the Qumran settlement earlier, and created Period Ia (ca. 130–100 B.C.E.), based on his literalistic reading of the figures in CD 1.3-11. The most recent examination of the extant archaeological evidence demonstrates that the settlement at Qumran was continuously inhabited from its foundation to the First Jewish Revolt. See further Mizzi and Magness 2016. See also Magness 2013. I reject the recent defense of De Vaux’s stratigraphical and ceramic dating, and the existence of Period Ia, recently put forth by Pfann (2011) because the ceramics he discusses are not clearly associated with sealed loci from an earlier period. Taylor (2012) has recently redated the settlement at Qumran to Period Ib, which she believes was constructed between ca. 37–B.C.E. to ca. 4 B.C.E. and associates with the Essenes. Her chronology is largely based on references to the Essenes in the writings of Josephus and not the archaeological evidence. 16.  1QpHab 11.6-8. 17.  Milik 1959: 69–70. 18.  See further Atkinson 2017: 100–101.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

117

that the Wicked Priest pursued the Righteous Teacher to his “house of exile” on the Day of Atonement, where he tried to kill him (1QpHab 11.6-8; 1QpPsa 1-10 IV,8). These actions fit the character of Hyrcanus II, who fought his sibling to regain power. He even served in the Roman campaign in Egypt to help Julius Caesar defeat his rivals.19 If the account of Diodorus Siculus is factual, Pompey once sought to remove Hyrcanus II from power because of some unspecified prior hostile action of his against the Roman Republic.20 If Hyrcanus II is the Wicked Priest, then his crimes documented in the pesharim likely occurred during his short three-month tenure as high priest. The Habakkuk Pesher claims that he was once acceptable: “[he was] was called by the true name at the start of his reign, but when he ruled in Israel, he became arrogant and abandoned God, and betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth” (1QpHab 8.9-11). This likely refers to the period when he served as high priest during his mother’s reign. After Alexandra’s death, Hyrcanus II persecuted his opponents and, once removed from power, used force in an effort to regain his former offices. Hyrcanus II also fought with Pompey’s army to remove his sibling, Aristobulus II, as king and high priest. His men also helped the Romans to inflict much damage on the city, and undoubtedly the Temple Mount, as well as kill many Jews. According to Josephus, when Roman soldiers stormed the temple compound, they merely surrounded the priests in its courts and did not touch them. Rather, they waited until the forces of Hyrcanus II arrived to kill them.21 The Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab 9.1-8) states that the last of Jerusalem’s priests will be punished by the Kittim (= Romans). This section follows the author’s description of God’s chastisement of the Wicked Priest to describe what will happen to his fellow priests. The text is somewhat repetitious in its subsequent descriptions of the crimes committed by the Wicked Priest in order to follow sequentially the text of Habakkuk. In column 12, the writer connects his punishment with the destruction of Jerusalem (1QpHab 7-10). These passages suggest that the Wicked Priest lived at the time of Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. siege of Jerusalem. For the community of this document, the Wicked Priest was responsible for this event that ended the Hasmonean state. After Pompey’s conquest, God punished him for his crimes, including those he had committed at Qumran. The Habakkuk Pesher contains an important clue that may explain why the Wicked Priest tried to assassinate the Righteous Teacher. It shows that the Wicked Priest used a different calendar than the Righteous Teacher since he could not have left the temple on Yom Kippur.22 This implies that there was some underlying religious difference between the two figures that compelled the Wicked Priest to attempt to kill the Righteous Teacher when he and his followers observed this holiday. The writers of the pesharim were convinced that God was on their side when the Wicked Priest 19.  Ant. 14.4-79, 353; War 1.120-58. 20.  Diod. Sic. 40.2.2. The parallel account preserved by Florus (1.40.29-31) is clearly

unreliable. 21.  War 1.149-50; Ant. 14.70; Atkinson 2016e: 153–4. 22.  J. M. Baumgarten 1999.

118

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

was punished by being delivered into the hands of his enemies (4QpPsa 3-10 IV,10; 1QpHab 9.10).23 According to the author of the Habakkuk Pesher, the Wicked Priest suffered “disease for annihilation with festering wounds” at the hands of his foes (‫נתנו‬ ‫ ;אל ביד אויביו לענותו בנגע לכלה במרורי נפש‬1QpHab 9.10-11). The writer also states: “his injury on account of his wicked judgments, and the horrors of evil illnesses they have acted upon him and the vengeful acts on his fleshly body” (‫נגועו במשפטי‬ ‫ ;רשעה ושערוריות מחלים רעים עשו בו ונקמות בגוית בשרו‬1QpHab 9.1-2). John Collins has commented that this is an accurate description of Antigonus’s disfigurement of Hyrcanus II.24 The imminent expectation of the end of days in the Dead Sea Scrolls provides an additional clue that supports the identification of Hyrcanus II as the Wicked Priest. The author of the Habakkuk Pesher shows that the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls still anticipated the end of days, and that the forty years had not passed since the death of the Righteous Teacher.25 Because several pesharim clearly refer to the 63 B.C.E. conquest of Pompey, if we identify Hyrcanus II as the Wicked Priest, then Habakkuk Pesher 9.4-7 was written after 40 B.C.E., when Antigonus mutilated him.26 If Hyrcanus II is the Wicked Priest of the Qumran texts, then these documents reveal much about his religious policy. They suggest that he was similar to his grandfather, John Hyrcanus. Both appear to have been intolerant of any competing form of Judaism. According to the Habakkuk Pesher, the Wicked Priest attacked, and apparently tried to kill, the Righteous Teacher in “his house of exile” on the Day of Atonement (1QpHab 11.6). If the author refers to Khirbet Qumran, then Hyrcanus II assaulted the site’s leader on the day that this desert community was celebrating the Day of Atonement. However, Hyrcanus II may have attacked him not only because of his different liturgical calendar; it appears that the Qumran community, like the Samaritans whose shrine John Hyrcanus demolished, practiced a different form of Judaism with its own priesthood and sacrificial altar. Jean-Baptiste Humbert has proposed that animal sacrifices were conducted at Qumran. He identified the remains of the actual altar in Locus 135, which is the wide, open expanse in the site’s north-western section. Humbert proposed that the enclosure to the north of the secondary building at Qumran in Loci 130-135 was a sacrificial courtyard in the late first century B.C.E. He identified the square stone feature protruding from the eastern corner of the miqveh in Locus 138 as the remains of an altar.27 He believes this altar was later moved somewhere to the southern part of the site, including the southern esplanade, and replaced with the aqueduct and water

23.  These passages and their theological explanations are reminiscent of the Jewish texts that describe Pompey’s assassination in Egypt examined in Chapter 8. 24.  J. Collins 2010a: 107–8. 25.  CD 20.14; 4QpPsa 3-10 ii; 1QpHab 7.7. 26.  J. Collins 2010a: 117–18. According to Josephus (War 1.269-70; Ant. 14.365-66), Antigonus severed his ears to disqualify him from resuming the high priesthood. He was then exiled to Babylon. See further Atkinson 1996: 319–20; 2013c. 27.  Humbert 1994: 196–206.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

119

system.28 This finding has received little attention largely because Roland de Vaux did not include any detailed descriptions or photographs, but only a schematic outline, of this area in his publications. Yet, the fact that the highest concentration of ash mixed with animal bones and pottery is found in Locus 130 supports the existence of an altar there even if its presence has until recently gone unnoticed.29 The large amount of ash at Qumran mixed with animal bones could reflect the biblical command of Lev. 6.10 that the ashes of the sacrifices must be collected and placed beside the altar. In light of this passage, it is perhaps significant that 4QMMT describes the removal of ash from the altar and its eventual deposition outside the camp to the north (4Q394 14-19). The immense number of bone deposits discovered at Qumran mixed with ash shows that this was not the result of wind or later clearing of the site. Rather, it is found in the open spaces around the buildings and mixed with the bone deposits. Similar deposits of animal bones and pottery mixed with ash are common features at ancient sanctuaries.30 These deposits came from some extensive burning at Qumran that took place regularly, like the fire Moses commanded to be kept burning continually on the altar described in Leviticus 6–7.31 Magness proposes that the hole in Locus 130 was the site of the altar that was presumably made of earth or stones in accordance with the laws of Exod. 20:24-25. It incorporated the large unhewn stone noticed by Humbert. She also makes the important observation that the

28.  For the archaeological evidence of this altar, see Donceel 2005: 22–4, 54–7, 130–4; Humbert 1994: esp. 184–91, 211; Magness 2016. See also Humbert and Chambon 1994: 128, photo 263; 2003: 332–4; Mizzi 2016. Humbert also proposes that the place of sacrifice was later moved to the southern portion of the site, and that the piers in the dining room and pantry (loci 77, 86) were offering tables. For a convincing rebuttal of his interpretation of the piers, see Magness 2004: 32–3. 29.  De Vaux uncovered bone deposits, either mixed with fragments of pottery or in complete vessels covered by lids, in the following loci: L23 (one deposit); L73 (two deposits); L80 (approximately 6 deposits); L92 (one deposit); L130 (twenty to thirty deposits); L132 (eight deposits), L135 (two to three deposits), and thirteen deposits along the north–south wall on the eastern side of the plateau, to the south of the site. For descriptions, see the loci numbers with de Vaux’s notes in Humbert and Chambon 1994. The recent excavations by Magen and Peleg (2007: 7, 11) and Price (reported by Bouchnik 2016) have located additional animal bone deposits with ash, although these have not been fully published. See also Magness 2011: 48. An earlier, although unsatisfactory, analysis of most of the bones discovered by de Vaux was undertaken by Zeuner (1960: 28–30). For comprehensive reviews of these finds, see Magness 2016: 10–15; Mizzi 2016: 51–8. I do not include the bronze incense altar purportedly from Qumran, which was sold by Khalil Iskander Shahin (Kando) to John Allegro in 1953, because of its uncertain provenance and the likelihood that it came from a Nahal Hever cave. See further Elgvin 2016. I also reject Steckoll’s (1967/68) identification of the small stone cube he found at Qumran as an altar. 30.  For these observations, see Magness 2016: 15, 24–34. 31.  See further Magness 2016: 26–8.

120

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Qumran sect observed the laws of the desert camp with the Tabernacle in its midst, and that they offered animal sacrifices as mandated by biblical law.32 The recent review of the evidence of an altar at Qumran by Gunnl Ekroth, an expert on ancient Greek religion, concludes that the bone and ash deposits prove there was an altar in the area of L130. She highlights the presence of calcined bones in L130, which demonstrates the existence of a fire hotter than a regular cooking fire and indicative of sacrificial activity.33 Although the altar was apparently relocated from L130 somewhere to the south, its absence should not be surprising since such structures in antiquity were often constructed of stone and earth. They are commonly missing from sites were animal sacrifices were conducted.34 But what did the Qumran sectarians do at this altar? It is unlikely that the Qumran community used this altar for sacrificial offerings since they believed that the Israelites had made none when they had lived the wilderness; the Qumran sect considered themselves as living in the same conditions as the Jews during the Exodus.35 At that time, sacrificial offerings were not made. This view is made clear in several biblical texts. Jeremiah 7:22, for example, states, “when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,” while Amos 5:25 asks, “Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel?” Perhaps the best interpretation of this altar is that it was built to fulfill the biblical laws pertaining to desired meat, whose blood must be returned to the land. This would account for the archaeological evidence, as well as the content of such texts as the Temple Scroll 53.1-6 that contains laws pertaining to the eating of “desired meat,” also known as profane meat, in the wilderness. Both Lev. 17:3-4 and Deut. 12:15-21 include an extensive discussion of desired meat. Column 54.3 of the Temple Scroll allows the eating of desired meat, but restricts its consumption to the gates located a distance of three days’ journey from the temple (11QT 53.13-15). Magness has demonstrated there is nothing in the theology of the Qumran sect that forbids sacrifice in the settlement. Many of these texts can even be read to imply that it did occur.36 Yoram Erder observes similarities between Qumranic and Karaite halakhot that may shed additional light on the function of the Qumran altar. He calls attention to the biblical requirements for the consumption of the fat and blood of desired meat. Leviticus 17:13 mandates that the blood or fowl be covered with earth. The Temple Scroll makes a parallel between the laws of game meat and desired meat (53.1-6). Its contents suggest that its author allowed the consumption of the fat of desired meat. The same view is attributed to the Karaite sage Mishawyhi al-Ukbari, whose teachings are preserved in the writings of the tenth-century C.E. non-Karaite Benjamin 32.  Magness 2016: 5–34, esp. 26–34. 33.  Ekroth 2016: 43–6. She notes that cooking fires rarely exceed approximately 280

degrees Celsius (= 540 Fahrenheit). 34.  See Ekroth (2016: 43–6) for examples of sacrificial sites lacking an altar, and the existence of altars constructed of ash. 35.  Atkinson 2006; 2016d. 36.  Magness 2016: esp. 28–34.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

121

al-Nahawandi. Based on these parallels, Erder suggested that the bones found at Qumran do not attest to an alternative sacrificial ritual, but that they are evidence of a ritual involving desired meat. Such meat would have required the erection of an altar for slaughter to preserve the edict of Lev. 19:26 not to eat anything with its blood.37 The deposition of the sacrificial remains with earth, as mandated in Lev. 17:13, matches the ash and bone deposits found at Qumran. The dimensions of this altar (2.5 × 2.5 meters; 8.2 × 8.2 feet) is comparable to the Israelite sanctuary at Arad. The Qumran community discontinued using the altar in this area in Period II. However, the abundance of pottery and animal bones indicates that it was moved elsewhere within the site, although the exact location is uncertain.38 Josephus’s enigmatic statement that the Essenes offered animal sacrifices privately could refer to this altar, and provide evidence for its existence during the Hasmonean period and later.39 The bone deposits at Qumran could be remnants of what Dennis Mizzi has described as the remains of the “sacrificialization” of ordinary meals that included meat.40 It is probable that the Qumran sect took part in special meals, likely during festivals, and that these are the remains of such celebrations.41 In a response to Magness’s examination of the evidence for an altar at Qumran, Allison Schofield emphasizes that none of the Rule texts prohibit the presence of an altar at the site. Rather, she makes the proposal that the “house of prostration” (‫ )בית השתחות‬in CD XI.18-23 could actually refer to the place of sacrificial worship run by the sectarians themselves.42 The Habakkuk Pesher shows that the Righteous Teacher resided in “his house of exile” (1QpHab 11.6), which was apparently the location of Khirbet Qumran where this altar was located.43 The existence of a competing form of Judaism so close to Jerusalem may have led Hyrcanus II to destroy it like his grandfather had done to the shrine in Samaria.

37.  Erder 2014: 417–20. 38.  For details, see Magness 2016: 23–5. 39.  Ant. 18.19. The Latin epitome of Josephus states that the Essenes did not offer

sacrifices. See further J. Collins 2010a: 131–3. 40.  Mizzi 2016: 67. He (2016: 65–7) also raises the possibility that the animal bone deposits are the remains of sacrificial meals arising from the offering of ‫ שלמים‬sacrifices in Jerusalem temple and consumed outside the city. 41.  The bones from Qumran bear cut marks that, like those found in the Jerusalem sifting project, show they were slaughtered by professionals. Livestock at Qumran tended to be older than that from Jerusalem, which suggests the animals were obtained from either Jericho or nearby shepherds. Because animals slaughtered at younger ages, before 24 months, is indicative of a large consumer center, the ages of the animals sacrificed at Qumran are representative of a more isolated community. For this evidence, see Bouchnik 2016. 42.  Schofield 2016: 132–3. 43.  Literally “to the house of his exile” (‫)אבית גלותו‬. This phrase is likely a contraction of ‫אל בית‬, “to the house of.”

122

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

It should not be surprising that an altar existed so near the Jerusalem temple during the time of the Hasmonean state. Although considerably earlier, the community at Elephantine provides a parallel Following the destruction of their temple by local Egyptians, the officials of this sanctuary wrote to the Judean and Samaritan leaders for help in rebuilding their shrine. Although the Jerusalem religious authorities prohibited the continuation of animal sacrifice at Elephantine, they allowed grain offerings to take place there.44 Likewise, later rabbinic tradition claims that offerings made at the Leontopolis temple were acceptable to God, but not its lineage of priests.45 Although the exact location of this temple is uncertain, the findings of Petrie in Egypt at Tell-El Yehudiyyeh include buried ceramic cylinders with burnt offerings placed on beds of ash.46 This may have been the location of the actual temple, or at least a settlement associated with it. Although this is a close parallel to the finds at Qumran, there is a site nearer to Jerusalem. Archaeologist have discovered over 400,000 burnt bones of animals that were sacrificed at Mount Gerizim. Yet, despite repeated excavations, there is no trace of an altar there.47 Because this shrine continued to function despite the attempts of John Hyrcanus to eradicate it, the Hasmoneans clearly tolerated a rival form of Judaism with its own line of priests and animal sacrifices not far from Jerusalem. It appears the same is true of Qumran, namely that animal sacrifice also took place there. If Hyrcanus II is the Wicked Priest, then the Habakkuk Pesher was written before 10 C.E. since it anticipates that the end will come within forty years of the 30 B.C.E. date of his death.48 His apparent attack on the Righteous Teacher likely occurred during the short three months he was in power. This suggests that once in control of Jerusalem’s political, religious, and military institutions after Alexandra’s death, he departed from his mother’s policy of religious toleration. Hyrcanus II sought to eliminate what he conceived to be a deviant form of Judaism in close proximity to the Jerusalem temple.49 It is unknown whether he would have taken similar actions in Samaria since his reign lasted only three months. Although the Romans later reinstated Hyrcanus II as high priest, but not as king, he had limited authority. He was in no position to root out Jewish heresies since he faced continued threats from Aristobulus II and his descendants. Hyrcanus II only had the power to undertake a religious persecution only during his brief, three-month tenure as king and high priest.

44.  Porten 1968: 87, 111–14 (TAD A4.9; 4.10). 45.  For this evidence, see Last 2010. 46.  See Petrie 1906: 19–27 and plates 22–7. 47.  Magen 2008: 106–10, 117, 121–2, 156. 48.  See further J. Collins 2011: 314. See also J. Collins 2010a: 103–13. 49.  For a detailed discussion of this evidence and its implications for understanding

Second Temple Judaism, see Atkinson 2016d.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

123

The Nabatean Threat to the Roman Occupation of the Former Hasmonean State Pompey’s arrival in the Middle East coincided with the overthrow of Hyrcanus II and his attempts to regain power. Although both of Alexandra’s sons sought Pompey’s support to rule the Hasmonean state, the Romans had no intention of allowing the Hasmonean family to retain power. Pompey considered the Seleucid dynasty terminated following the defeat of Tigranes, and likely adopted a similar view of the Hasmonean state. He apparently regarded the Hasmonean monarchs merely as local rulers of a region of the former Seleucid Empire that was now under the jurisdiction of the Roman Republic.50 As the successor the Seleucid kings, Pompey believed that he now had the authority to appoint the high priest in Jerusalem. He not only did so in that city, but he also chose the high priest of the temple of the Great Mother at Comana in Syria when he annexed the province.51 Pompey wanted to select the high priest in Jerusalem because he considered the former Hasmonean state to be Roman territory. He also needed a reliable occupant of this office to maintain peace there after he departed the region. Nevertheless, his most important consideration was to pick a reliable client who could help him deal with the Nabatean threat. Aristobulus II had enjoyed a favorable relationship with the Romans for nearly three years. Pompey had supported him since he had sent his envoy, Scaurus, to the Hasmonean state. Pompey had allowed Aristobulus II to remain as king and high priest. The partnership between Aristobulus II and Pompey, however, was not one of equals. It was common during the first century B.C.E. for a prominent Roman to seek an alliance with an important foreigner (hospitium) for his political benefit. As with other types of clientele, such as amicitia, hospitium had no legal basis. Rather, it was based on reciprocity and not equality.52 Pompey was famous for his alliances with Romans and foreigners. Although he was one of the Republic’s elite, he was not descended from a prominent family and many well-known Romans scorned his background. Consequently, Pompey often entered into partnerships outside Rome’s aristocratic families. He apparently no longer trusted Aristobulus II because Aretas III had helped him overthrow Hyrcanus II. Now unable to invade Nabatea, Pompey

50.  See further Baltrusch 2002: 125–32; Shatzman 1999: 79; van Ooteghem 1954:

226–30.

51.  See Strab., Geogr. 12.3.34. 52.  See further Badian 1958: 12–13, 45–7; Brunt 1965; Gruen 1974: 62–6.

124

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

apparently decided to capture Jerusalem instead and seek a new client. Hyrcanus II was his only choice.53 Rome’s relationship with the Nabateans suggests that Pompey believed his only option for stabilizing the region was to make Hyrcanus II his new client. After he captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., Pompey left for Amisus in Pontus to settle affairs with Pharnaces.54 Scaurus remained behind as Syria’s governor and, in 62 B.C.E., invaded Nabatea.55 His campaign was a disaster; the Nabateans trapped his forces. Scaurus and his men faced starvation. Hyrcanus II sent Antipater to him with grain and other supplies to help him survive. Scaurus asked Antipater to convince the Nabateans to pay the Romans a substantial indemnity in exchange for recognition of their political sovereignty. Aretas III was in the perfect position to destroy Scaurus and his legions, or demand reparations for the Roman invasion of his country. Yet, the opposite occurred. Aretas III agreed to give Scaurus three hundred talents and allowed the Romans to leave Nabatean territory. Scaurus apparently accepted the symbolic surrender of Aretas III, received three hundred talents, and withdrew from Nabatea. The claim of Scaurus that he defeated Aretas III is, therefore, partly true. Scaurus likely minted a coin to celebrate this unsuccessful campaign because it brought great wealth to the Roman Republic and the submission of the Nabateans.56 Hyrcanus II had fulfilled his role as a client by helping Scaurus escape from Nabatea.

53.  Seeman (2013: esp. 10–12, 203–43) proposes that the major reason the Hasmoneans made alliances with Rome was to protect their family and their supporters from their fellow Judeans, many of whom opposed them. See further Zollschan esp. 2017: 107–60 54.  Pharnaces was the son of Mithridates VI and took refuge with Pompey during the Third Mithridatic War. According to tradition, Pharnaces forced Mithridates VI to commit suicide. He purportedly took poison, which did not have the intended effect, and ordered his guard, Bituitus, to kill him with a sword. See App., Mith. 110-12; Aul., NA 17.16; Cass. Dio. 37.12-14; Flor. 1.40; Galen, De theriaca, ad Pisonem 14.283-84; Just., Epit. 37.1-2, 6; Oros. 6.5; Val. Max. 9.2.3; Aur. Vict., Caes. 1.76. For Pompey’s activities after his capture of Jerusalem, see Atkinson 2016b: 158–65; Gelzer 1959: 115–16; Greenhalgh 1981b: 147–67; Leach 1978: 96–101; van Ooteghem 1954: 244–53; Rajak 1994: 261–2; Seager 1979: 52–5. See also Greenhalgh 1981a. 55.  For this expedition, see War 1.80-81; Ant. 13.159. 56.  Bowersock (1983: 34–5) comments that this coin is a grotesque misrepresentation of Scaurus’s exploits. See further Bellmore 1999; 2000: 122; Crawford 2001: no. 422; Harian 1995: 69, 116–17. There is no evidence for associating the camel on this coin with the cult of Dionysus as argued by Scott (2015: 84–9).

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

125

The Hasmonean State as Pompey’s Consolation Prize Pompey had several problems. In 66 B.C.E., the Senate had appointed him as the third commander to subdue Mithridates VI. The death of Mithridates VI essentially terminated his justification for a Near Eastern campaign. Pompey’s presence in Syria was also unauthorized by the Senate.57 He was nearly a thousand miles south of the Black Sea, where Mithridates VI was located. Pompey was apparently forced to conquer the Hasmonean state so he could justify his costly southern detour, which had denied the Romans an actual victory over Mithridates VI. He also could not stay long in the Hasmonean state for fear his opponents in the Senate would seek to undermine him. Pompey needed a quick conquest that would allow him to return with a triumph, and the necessary wealth to finance his political ambitions. His negotiations with Aristobulus II suggest that he did not want to fight him, but that he tried to convince him to surrender Jerusalem, the Hasmonean state’s fortresses, and his assets peacefully and quickly.58 The partisans of Aristobulus II likely realized Pompey’s delicate political situation and refused to cooperate with him. They apparently expected that Pompey would soon have to leave the Hasmonean state to claim the kingdom of Mithridates VI and return to Rome. It is doubtful that anyone expected Pompey to attack Jerusalem, or abandon Aristobulus II. Pompey’s betrayal of Aristobulus II would not have been considered problematic for the Romans since it resulted in the conquest of Hasmonean state and the eventual pacification of Nabatea. It was, moreover, customary for a Roman authority to accept the role of arbiter in disputes between two parties, as Pompey did between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, and then to act contrary to the interests of the original petitioners. Justin emphasizes this aspect of Roman governance in his account of Pompey’s decision to depose Antiochus XIII.59 In his description of this incident, Pompey criticizes Antiochus XII because he sought to benefit from the Roman Republic’s conquest of Tigranes. Pompey emphasized that Antiochus XIII was fortunate since he would spare him the wrath that he was about to inflict upon the Jews and the Nabateans. Although Pompey emphasized the previous Roman victory over Tigranes as a justification for his treatment

57.  See further Kantor 2013; Yarrow 2006: 316–33. Høtje (2009: 121) stresses that the elimination of Mithridates VI effectively terminated Pompey’s legal grounds for campaigning in the Middle East according to the Lex Manilia. 58.  See further Gelzer 1959: 112. 59.  Just., Epit. 40.2.2-5. See also App., Syr. 49.

126

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

of local rulers, he was not involved in this earlier campaign that brought Armenia and the Seleucid Empire under control of the Roman Republic. Yet, Justin believed that the defeat of Tigranes by Lucullus was the basis for Pompey’s authority to undertake military action and determine policy in the region. Because Pompey had failed to fulfill the commission given to him by the Senate to conquer the kingdom of Mithridates VI, he could only cite the earlier victory of Lucullus to compel Antiochus XIII to submit to Roman rule. Having subdued the region, Pompey decided to capture Jerusalem and conquer the Hasmonean state. The Psalms of Solomon and Pompey The Psalms of Solomon is among the most important texts that document Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem and his termination of the Hasmonean state. The writers of these poems and the Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently members of sectarian groups whose members rejected the legitimacy of the Hasmonean kings and the temple priests.60 Unfortunately, the authors of these texts frequently used fictive names to describe their opponents. The persons mentioned in all these works were well known to the audience for whom they were written. Unfortunately, in many cases they are difficult, or sometimes impossible, for contemporary scholars to identify. The authors of the Psalms of Solomon frequently use sobriquets that convey how they viewed significant persons and groups. They denounce a variety of individuals and enemies such as the “dragon” (ὁ δράκων; Pss. Sol. 2:25), “him from the end of the earth” (τὸν ἀπ’ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς; Pss. Sol. 8:15), “the lawless one” (ὁ ἄνομος; Pss. Sol. 17:11), the “alien” (ἀλλότριος; Pss. Sol. 17:13), the “profane man” (βέβηλος; Pss. Sol. 4:1), the “men-pleasers” (ἀνθρωπάρέσκοω; Pss. Sol. 4:7), and the “leaders of the country” (οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆς γῆς; Pss. Sol. 8:16). Because none of the Psalms of Solomon contain any names, several of the poems are difficult to date.61 Nevertheless, a few contain clear historical references that place their composition during the Hasmonean period since they describe a successful siege of Jerusalem by a foreign general (Pss. Sol. 2:1-2; 8:18-22), who was later assassinated in Egypt (Pss. Sol. 2:26-27). Because Pompey is the only person who captured this city (63 B.C.E.), desecrated its temple, and was murdered in Egypt (48 B.C.E.), he is the only viable

60.  See further Atkinson 2001a: 396–89; 2004: 9–11; 2013d; forthcoming a. 61.  See further Atkinson 1998. See further F. M. Abel 1947.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

127

candidate for the conqueror of these poems.62 For the community of these psalms, his death represented divine judgment and demonstrated God’s righteousness.63 Several of the Psalms of Solomon recount the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey. The author of the second poem in the collection writes of this event: “When the sinner became proud he struck down the fortified walls (τείχη ὀχυρά) with a battering ram (κριῷ), and you did not restrain him” (Ps. Sol. 2:1). The psalmist’s statement that the sinner “struck down fortified walls with a battering ram” (Ps. Sol. 2:1) accurately describes both the appearance of the Temple Mount’s pre-Herodian northern wall and Pompey’s use of battering rams during his assault. The Syriac version translates the passage as “In his arrogance the lawless one cast down strong walls on the feast day, and you did not restrain him.”64 It is difficult to account for the Syriac here since it is unlikely that the translator confused the Greek word κριός (“battering ram”) with ἐορτή (“feast”).65 If the Syriac text of Ps. Sol. 2:1 is accurate, the statement that Jerusalem was captured on a “feast day” would furnish valuable historical information concerning the exact date when Pompey’s forces captured the city. There is no historical evidence to support the Syriac version’s statement that Jerusalem succumbed to the Romans on a “feast day.”66

62.  For a detailed discussion of the historical evidence supporting a Pompeian background for the collection, see Atkinson 2001a: 414–46; 2004. The work was likely redacted, and possibly updated, at a later date. See further Eckhardt 2009: 465–92. 63.  See further Ábel 2016: 133–9. 64.  Syriac MS 10hl adds a seyame and reads “feast days.” See further Trafton 1985: 31–2, 235. Trafton (1986: 235) raises the possibility that the Syriac version of the Psalms of Solomon may refer to someone other than Pompey. 65.  Harris and Mingana (1916: 1:43) suggest that )d)(d(B (“on a feast day”) is actually a corruption of )dr(B, meaning “with great beams,” and refers to a battering ram. It is also possible that the Syriac translator used an edition of the Greek text in which the translator had mistakenly misread an original Hebrew ‫כר‬. Trafton (1985: 32) comments that )dr(B can also refer to an engine of war that is smaller than a battering ram. His thesis was most recently accepted by Ward (1996: 23–5), who also attempts to use a hypothetical Hebrew text to demonstrate that the Greek and Syriac versions independently translated from a common Vorlage. See further Atkinson forthcoming b; forthcoming c. 66.  Neither the Psalms of Solomon nor the Qumran pesharim on Habakkuk and Nahum mention that Pompey conquered Jerusalem on Yom Kipper. Sharon (2017), however, accepts Josephus’s claims that Pompey and Sosius conquered Jerusalem on this day, or near it, as factual. For the importance of the Sabbath prohibition against fighting held by some Jewish sects as a more plausible explanation for Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, see further Atkinson 2016e.

128

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The description of the siege of Jerusalem in the Psalms of Solomon supports the accounts of Josephus and the classical writers that Pompey took Aristobulus II, and some of his family, to Rome. The author of Psalm of Solomon 2 documents how the victorious Roman commander seized the “sons of Jerusalem” (τοὺς υἱοὺς Ιερουσαλημ; Pss. Sol. 2:11), along with the “daughters of Jerusalem” (Ps. Sol. 2:13), and placed their necks “in a seal” (ἐν σφραγῖδι), and sent them into “harsh captivity” (Ps. Sol. 2:6-7).67 This reference clearly refers to Aristobulus II, his family, and his partisans. Pompey captured and took all of them as captives to Rome. The poet also describes the final moments of the siege when Roman soldiers stormed the temple, and trampled it with their sandals (Ps. Sol. 2:2; cf. 2:19). His designation of these invaders as “foreign nations” demonstrates that the poem describes a pagan army’s attack of Jerusalem. The psalmist regards Pompey’s actions as a great sacrilege because he defiled the Holy of Holies and his soldiers polluted the temple compound when they failed to remove their sandals (Ps. Sol. 2:2). Hyrcanus II and his partisans helped Pompey’s forces capture the temple, and killed many priests as well.68 The writers of the Psalms of Solomon not only condemn the Romans, but Jews as well. They describe how corrupt priests had ritually contaminated the Jerusalem temple prior to the Roman conquest (Pss. Sol. 1:7-8; 2:3-4; 8:9-13; 16:18-19). The denunciations of these priests in Psalm of Solomon 8 are similar to those found in 4QMMT and other Jewish writings that appear to document the practices of the Sadducees.69 The sexual transgressions in Ps. Sol. 8:9-10 resemble the condemnations of the priests in the Damascus Document, which likewise accuses them of having intercourse with women during menstruation in violation of Lev. 15:25.70 All these texts associate sexual impurity with the defilement of the temple, and accuse the priests of violating the laws of menstrual purity. This suggests there was a major disagreement among the Pharisees and the Sadducees concerning how to observe the ritual laws of purity. 67.  This passage likely refers to the branding of slaves or to the impressions commonly found on slave collars. See Ryle and James 1891: 12; Viteau 1911: 258–9. 68.  For this evidence, see Atkinson 2016e: 153–8; Regev 1997. See further Sharon 2012; 2014a; 2014b. 69.  Atkinson 2003a. 70.  CD 4.17–5.11; 6.15-16; 4Q266 9.II.1-4. Because these three sins do not exactly match the subsequent description of sins committed by “the builders of the wall” (CD 4.19–5.15), this list likely underwent some redaction, as suggested by its appearance in the Psalms of Solomon, Aramaic Levi (Bodleian B 11 14-16), and Jub. 23:20. See further Wassen 2005: 113–14.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

129

According to the authors of the Mishnah (m. Nid. 4.1-3), the Sadducees were lax in following biblical laws pertaining to sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman. In light of these parallels, it is significant that Ps. Sol. 8:12-13 also rebukes the priests for contaminating the temple sacrifices with menstrual blood. The reference to children “begotten in defilement” (Ps. Sol. 8:21) suggests that Psalm of Solomon 8 denounces the Sadducean priests for their illegal marital practices. This accusation is similar to the indictments against the clergy in 4QMMT B 48, 75.71 Psalm of Solomon 8 and 4QMMT not only contain many of the same denunciations of the temple priests, but they both use similar rhetorical language to divide Judaism into sectarian categories (4QMMT C 7-10). Hanan Eshel identifies the three groups of 4QMMT as follows: the “we” group of the author, the “you” group of the addressee, and the “multitude of the people.” Eshel also believes the “you” group of 4QMMT later became the Pharisees and that the “multitude of the people” eventually followed the priests who later led the Sadducean party.72 The authors of the Psalms of Solomon also differentiate between three Jewish parties: the supporters of Hyrcanus II (= Pharisees; Ps. Sol. 8:16-17), the partisans of Aristobulus II (= Sadducees; Ps. Sol. 8:8-15, 21), and their own community. Based on the association between Aristobulus II with the Sadducees in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the community behind the Psalms of Solomon apparently blamed the halakhic infractions of the Sadducean priests for the Roman conquest.73 Although the Psalms of Solomon is a poetic composition, its content supports the historical accounts of the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Jerusalem, as well as the thesis that the Pharisees backed Hyrcanus II while the Sadducees supported Aristobulus II. We can learn more about these two rulers and their religious differences from the Qumran pesharim. The 63 B.C.E. Roman Conquest of Jerusalem in the Qumran Pesharim The pesharim are the most important Dead Sea Scrolls for the reconstructing the events of the 63 B.C.E. conquest of Pompey and its aftermath. The Isaiah Pesher A (4Q161) likely alludes to Pompey’s campaign in the 71.  See further the discussion of this issue in Qimron and Strugnell 1994: 51, 55, 96, 171–2. See also CD 4.14–5.11; 4Q271 (4QDf) 1 I 9-11; 4Q270 (4QDe) 5.15-16; 4Q513 frags. 1-2, col. II; 1QpHab 8.13; 9.4-5; 12.8; T. Levi 14–16; m. Suk. 5, 8; t. Suk. 4, 28; b. Suk. 56b. 72.  H. Eshel 1996. See also H. Eshel 2000. 73.  See further Atkinson 2004: 64–86; 2003b; 2012a; 2015c.

130

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Hasmonean state. Its author expects the imminent demise of the Romans. The writer uses Isa. 11:1-5 to describe a militant Davidic messiah who will oppose the Kittim.74 The author interprets the biblical text of Isa. 10:27-32, which in its original context described the march of the Assyrian army as an account of the arrival of a foreign army at the end of days. The resulting passage describes the advance of this enemy, whose forces passed through Ptolemais (= Akko) on their way to Jerusalem.75 This army is expected to inflict much destruction on Jerusalem before God intervenes to save it is inhabitants. The Isaiah Pesher A (frgs. 8-10 III 17-24) also describes how during the “battle of the Kittim,” the Jews will defeat the foreign general. The relevant messianic portion of column three of this pesher describes the “Branch of David,” who will take office in the end of days. The interpretation of Isa. 10:33-34 in the Isaiah Pesher A clearly identifies the Kittim (= Romans) as Israel’s enemies.76 The writer expects the Davidic messiah to defeat them in battle. Like the War Rule (4Q285), this text uses the last part of Isaiah 10 and the opening verse of ch. 11 to describe the battle between the Davidic messiah and the leader of the Kittim.77 Because the Isaiah Pesher A states that the “Branch of David” will oppose an eschatological enemy of Israel at the “end of days,” this passage clearly describes an eschatological Davidic king.78 The writer expects him to appear soon, defeat the Romans, and sit upon the “throne of glory.” Since the author believes the Davidic messiah will assume the throne, this pesher also threatens the legitimacy of any non-Davidic dynasty. Several scholars believe that the Isaiah Pesher A describes the events of the War of Scepters in 103–101 B.C.E. when Ptolemy IX Soter fought Jannaeus.79 Joseph Amusin, the first scholar to propose this interpretation, dates this text to this time because the pesher mentions Acco (Ptolemais), which was a major scene of fighting between these two rulers. He and Hanan Eshel believe this document was written to commemorate God’s 74.  For the editio princeps of 4Q161, see Allegro 1968 (to be used with the correction in Strugnell 1970). Strugnell (1970: 183) dates the text to 30 B.C.E. and 20 C.E. See further the historical discussion in Atkinson 2004: 165–7. 75.  4Q161 2-6 ii 27. See further Horgan 1979: 81. 76.  For the use of “Kittim” as a sobriquet for the Romans in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see further Brooke 1991. 77.  Atkinson 1999. See also Bockmuehl 1992. 78.  This pesher equates the Jeremiah’s “Branch of David” with Isaiah’s shoot from the stump of Jesse foretold in Isa. 11:1-5. For this identification, see further 4Q285 5.3. See Atkinson 2004: 166–7; Schreiber 2000: 223. 79.  Amusin 1977: 123–34; H. Eshel 2008: 91–100; Nitzan 2010: 342–3.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

131

intervention and protection of Jerusalem. Eshel also accepts the following reconstruction of line 27 that was proposed by John Strugnell: “when he goes up from the valley of Acco to fight against Phil[istia…].” Eshel believes that Philistia refers to the Soter’s campaign against Zoilus, the ruler of Dor.80 But there are some problems with dating this composition to the time of Soter. There are three reasons why the Isaiah Pesher A likely refers to Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem and not the War of Scepters. First, it is doubtful, especially given the late date of the extant copy of this text, that it describes events of the reign of Jannaeus. Although it is plausible that the Isaiah Pesher A is merely a later copy of a much earlier work, a few factors suggest otherwise. The 18 continuous Qumran pesharim are unique because each is extant in a single copy. It appears that the Qumran sectarians only kept the most current edition of each pesher. The oddities in the verbal tenses of the pesharim suggest that they were periodically updated to reflect subsequent reinterpretations of Scripture in light of later events. The presence of interlinear (4QPesher Isaiahc frg. 23, 2.14; 4QPesher Isaiahe frg. 5.5; 4QPesher Psalmsa frgs. 10-11, col. 3.5) and scribal corrections (4QPesher Isaiahb col. 1.4) support the thesis that the pesharim are not autographs, but updated copies of earlier works.81 The extant copy of Isaiah Pesher A and the other pesharim must be dated by their latest clearly identifiable historical allusions. Although paleography and radiocarbon examinations are unable to date a text to a precise moment in history, the paleographical studies of the pesharim reveal that all were produced in their current form during the late Hasmonean and Herodian periods.82 Since these texts in their extant editions postdate the invasion of Pompey, it is more likely that their final historical allusions refer to this time, and not to an earlier historical event such as the campaign of Soter.83 80.  Strugnell 1970: 184; H. Eshel 2008: 98. Horgan (2002: 91) also accepts this reconstruction. Cf. Horgan 1979: 81. 81.  See further Berrin 2004a: 215–16; Charlesworth 2002: 77–8. H. Eshel 2009; Tigchelaar 2017a. In 1972, Frank Moore Cross proposed that the pesharim preserve exegetical lore that was transmitted orally and later written down. See further the correspondence and comments from Cross on this issue in Charlesworth 2002: 77–8. 82.  See further the evidence of paleography and radiocarbon for these texts in Lim 2002: 20–2. 4Q161 is written in a rustic semi-formal script, which dates between 30 B.C.E. and 20 C.E. See Milik 1959: 96 n. 1; Pomykala 1995: 198; Strugnell 1970: 183. 83.  This does not exclude the possibility that the pesharim may recount earlier events. We must, however, begin with final historical references in these documents, and work backwards, to determine their dates of composition and whether they have been updated.

132

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The second reason in favor of a Roman date for the composition of the Isaiah Pesher A is its content. The author of this text merges priestly and royal imagery to depict the royal messiah as the central character in the eschatological battle. The description of this figure is reminiscent of 4Q284, which also portrays the Prince of the Congregation as the leader of this war.84 The author expects this figure to destroy the leader of the Kittim and his kingdom (4Q161 frgs. 8-10 [col. 3] 1-10). Because the pesharim use biblical texts to recount historical events in chronological order, the battle between the Prince of the Congregation and the Kittim in the Isaiah Pesher A follows the arrival of the enemy described in the preceding column (4Q161 frgs. 2-6 [col. 2] 1-19). It is unlikely that a scribe would have interpreted this biblical text as a reference to the campaign of Soter because he never actually threatened Jerusalem. The third reason it is unlikely that the Isaiah Pesher A describes the War of Scepters is its mention of the route taken by the enemy to reach Jerusalem. It matches the march of Pompey’s army. Joseph Amusin and Hanan Eshel are certainly correct to view the “valley of Acco” in Isaiah Pesher A as a reference to the port of Ptolemais. Both the biblical text of Isaiah and the Isaiah Pesher A, however, describe a threat to Jerusalem. For this reason, this text should be understood as referring to a foreign ruler who attacked Jerusalem. There is no evidence the city was threatened during the War of Scepters. The author of Isaiah Pesher A appears to have interpreted Isa. 10:24-35, which describes the movement of the Assyrians through locations north of Jerusalem and their attack on this city, as a prediction of Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem.85 His army, 84.  For this observation, see Jassen 2011: esp. 86–9. See further Atkinson 1999. 85.  The author cites Isa. 10:28-32, which describes the expected progress of the

Assyrian army at the “end of days,” to describe this foreign ruler. The connection between this text and 4Q285, discussed below, suggests that Isaiah’s prophecy was continuously reinterpreted to portray any ruler who tried to attack Jerusalem. The Romans are also associated with the Kittim in the following documents: 4Q285; 4Q491; Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. Num 24.24; Dan. 11:30 (LXX). It has been proposed that one version of the War Scroll (1QM 1.4) alludes to Julius Caesar’s expedition to Egypt in 48 B.C.E., which, if correct, provides additional evidence that this text was updated during the Roman period. See further Duhaime 2004: 31–3, 64–101. Sharon (2017: 435–51) dates Isaiah Pesher A to Herod’s first failed attempt to capture Jerusalem in 39/38 B.C.E. The absence of any names in the Qumran texts following aftermath of Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of the city, and the paleographical dates of the extant corpus of Scrolls and the historical references in them, makes such a late dating problematic. Because the text describes a foreign ruler of the Kittim (= Romans), this would exclude Herod. See further Atkinson 2007. A Pompeian dating does not exclude the possibility that some Dead Sea Scrolls were reinterpreted, and perhaps updated, to reflect later events.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

133

moreover, departed from two locations: from Damascus in Syria and from Tyre through Ptolemais. This latter unit would have passed through the cities of Ptolemais (= Acco), Mikmash, and Geba listed in this pesher. Because the march of the foreign invader as described in the Isaiah Pesher A matches the routes taken by Pompey’s invasion force, it is more probable that this document dates to the Roman period. Although Pompey captured Jerusalem, the temple and the city remained largely intact. It was likely this deliverance of Jerusalem and the physical preservation of the temple, and the subsequent Roman occupation of the Hasmonean state, that led the author to conclude that the Day of Redemption was near. Because the Kittim of this pesher represent the Romans, it makes better sense to understand the text’s mention of Acco as a reference to the arrival of Pompey’s forces in Jerusalem from the west.86 The Branch of David” in this composition also approaches from this direction. In contrast to the foreign invader, he is the agent of salvation. It is doubtful that the author of the Isaiah Pesher A would have made a connection between the anticipated arrival of the “Branch of David” with the deliverance of Jannaeus from Soter during the War of Scepters. Cleopatra II, and not any divine intervention, saved Judea from the threat of Soter. It is highly doubtful that this pesher would have been written to commemorate such a shameful event in Judean history when a pagan woman rescued a Hasmonean monarch. The Qumran text 4QSefer ha-Milhamah (4Q285) may have some relationship with Isaiah Pesher A. It describes the aftermath of the final battle when the militant Davidic messiah, called both the “Prince of the Congregation” and the “Branch of David,” executes the Roman commander.87 Because Isaiah 11 states that the son of Jesse will strike the earth with the “rod of his mouth” and kill the wicked with the “breath of his lips,” there is little doubt that this Branch of David/Prince of the Congregation is a militant Davidic messiah.88 The author interprets 86.  As noted by Horgan 1979: 81. 87.  The verb (‫ )והמיתו‬within this controversial line should be parsed as a hiphil third

person singular with a third-person masculine singular suffix, as convincingly argued by Vermes (1992) in opposition of the view of Tabor (1992). Cf. Eisenman and Wise 1992: 29. For additional discussion in support of Vermes’s interpretation, see Schreiber 2000: 218; Zimmermann 1998: 84, 86. Because 4Q285 does not overlap with 1QM or any Cave 4 copies of the War Rule, it may be another version of the War Rule. Weitzman (2009), although focusing on the relationship of this text with Greco-Roman theories of warfare, proposes that the War Scroll may have had some practical application and suggests it was possibly written in light of Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest to oppose Roman rule. 88.  See Atkinson 1999: 135–60; Alexander and Vermes 2000.

134

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Isa. 10:33–11:5 as a prediction of the messiah’s capture and sentencing of the enemy commander. The authors of the Psalms of Solomon, 4QSefer ha-Milhamah, and Isaiah Pesher A use Scripture to describe a violent confrontation between Jews and foreigners that somehow results in the defeat of the gentile invader. Like the Psalm of Solomon 17, the author of the Isaiah Pesher A transforms Isaiah’s verbal weaponry into a literal instrument of execution to kill this figure.89 The Davidic messiah appears only in the Dead Sea Scrolls that appear to have been written in the aftermath of Pompey’s conquest.90 Although it is possible that some of these texts predate Pompey, the lack of any extant copies of any of these documents with a paleographical date earlier than the Roman invasion of 63 B.C.E. makes it more probable that our copies of these works in their present form record events from the mid-first century B.C.E. Like the poets responsible for the Psalms of Solomon, the authors of these Dead Sea Scrolls that allude to the Roman period used aliases for their enemies that are often drawn from the Scripture. Without exception, all the Davidic messiahs in the Dead Sea Scrolls are violent warriors who are expected to overthrow Roman rule. Like the messianic figure of the Psalms of Solomon, the militant Davidic messiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls is fashioned as Pompey’s righteous counterpart.91 The dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the pesharim and the versions of the War Scroll, further suggest that the earlier interpretation of the Kittim as the Seleucid Empire’s rulers in the Qumran texts was abandoned following the arrival of Pompey. After his conquest of Jerusalem, Jews identified the eschatological enemy, the Kittim, as the Romans.92 Of all the pesharim that document the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest, none is more important than the Nahum Pesher. The author of this Qumran text considered this event unprecedented. To make certain that the reader

89.  For evidence that this text, like Ps. Sol. 2:25-26, describes the piercing or stabbing of an enemy, see Alexander and Vermes 2000: 240–1; Atkinson 2004: 167–71. 90.  See further Atkinson 2011b: 7–19. 91.  Atkinson 2011c. 92.  The replacement of the word “Kittim” with “Romans” in the Old Greek and Vulgate translations of Daniel suggest that this identification preceded the arrival of Pompey. It was likely made when it became obvious that the Romans had replaced the Seleucid Empire’s kings in the region as the dominant power. Because the War Scroll combines Dan. 11 with Balaam’s prophecy in Num. 24, it was necessary for the foreign power to be defeated before Israel’s ultimate redemption could occur. For this issue, see further Atkinson 2011b: 7–19; Schultz 2011.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

135

understood how unique it was, the work states that since the time of “Antiochus” (= Antiochus IV Epiphanes) no foreign ruler had captured the city until the Kittim’s arrival.93 The writer mentioned both “Antiochus” and “Demetrius” (= Demetrius III, 94–88 B.C.E) to make certain that the reader correctly identified the historical period and persons described in this document. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls frequently call the Romans “Kittim,” which is a name they took from the biblical passage of Num. 24:24, to portray them as an eschatological gentile power that is also God’s instrument of vengeance.94 Because the Nahum Pesher here, and elsewhere, alludes to Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, our extant copy of this work clearly postdates 63 B.C.E. The author appears to have considered the Roman destruction of Jerusalem by Pompey of great historical and theological significance since he compares it with the earlier attack by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the failed effort of Demetrius III to approach the city. The Nahum Pesher contains other historical allusions that show it documents Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem.95 The author of the pesher describes how in the last period (‫ )לקץ האחרון‬the rule of the Sadducees (= Manasseh) will collapse and foreigners will take the leader’s relatives into captivity.96 This passage undoubtedly refers to Pompey’s capture and exile of Aristobulus II, along with his family and supporters, following the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Jerusalem.97 The authors of the Nahum Pesher and the Psalms of Solomon regarded this event as a severe blow

93. 4QpNah 3-4 I 2-3. I follow Horgan (1979: 174) in taking the verb ‫ תרמם‬as a niphal imperfect singular feminine. The subject of the verb is in the feminine, which in the context of the column must be Jerusalem. 94.  Later Jewish texts also use the name “Kittim” for the Romans. See Berrin 2004a: 1010–4; Charlesworth 2002: 106–9. Many scholars identify the “Kittim” as the Romans based on the allusion in the Habakkuk Pesher 6.1-8 to their sacrifice before their legionary standards. See Brooke 1991; Charlesworth 2002: 109–12; Horgan 1979: 80–1; Lim 2000a; Sharon 2017: 171–207; Yadin 1962: 23–6. The identification of the Kittim as the Romans in the Nahum Pesher does not exclude the possibility that earlier mentions of them in the Dead Sea Scrolls referred to the rulers of the Seleucid Empire. See further H. Eshel 2001; 2008: 163–79. 95.  For the Roman conquest and Pompey in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see further Atkinson 2013b: 27–8. 96.  4QpNah Frags. 3-4 4 1-4. 97.  Dupont-Sommer (1963: 85) notes that the military context of this pesher accurately describes Aristobulus II, who was a soldier like his father. For additional evidence in favor of this identification, see Berrin 2004a: 268–71; Regev 1997: 286–8.

136

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

to the Sadducees, which suggests that they disagreed with this sect’s operation of the temple.98 The author of this pesher expects the partisans of Aristobulus II, many of whom continued to resist the Romans, to be defeated in battle. The Habakkuk Pesher provides additional information about Pompey’s conquest and its aftermath. It mentions the approach and attack of a fearful warlike people, the Kittim, who came from the islands of the Sea to conqueror Judea (1QpHab 3-4; 6.1-12). The writer condemns their pagan religion: The Kittim, and they increase their wealth with all their booty like the fish of the sea. And when it says “Therefore he sacrifices to his net (‫)לחרמו‬ and burns incense to his seine.” Vacat The interpretation of it is that they sacrifice to their standards (‫)לאותותם‬, and their weapons are the objects of their worship. (1QpHab 6.1-5)

This passage not only describes Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, but also provides an early example of the worship of Roman standards documented in later texts.99 It is probable that the author understood ‫חרם‬ to imply a religious duty as well as having a military connotation. Because the word is sometimes translated as “net,” the writer may have known a tradition similar to that found in the Targum Jonathan where the word is equated with standards (‫)אותותם‬.100 The Habakkuk Pesher contains some valuable information about the subsequent Roman occupation of the Hasmonean state. The author views the Kittim’s invasion as God’s judgment on Jerusalem’s priests for their sins (1QpHab 9.4-6). The “Rulers of the Kittim,” whose successive officials continue to ruin the land at the request of the “council of [their] guilty house,” likely refers to the Roman governors placed over the country following Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem.101 The mention of the Romans “plundering” lends some support for this 98.  For this interpretation of Manasseh as the Sadducees in the wake of Pompey’s conquest, see further, Amusin 1977: 142–6; Dupont-Sommer 1963: 65, 74; H. Eshel 2008: 133–5; Horgan 1979: 175; Regev 1997: 286–8. Cf. Berrin 2004a: 222–4; 2005. 99.  See K. M. T. Atkinson 1959. 100.  For this possibility, see Wood 1999. 101.  1QpHab 4.5, 10-11. See, Dimant 1984b: 510; H. Eshel 2008: 174. K. M. T. Atkinson (1959: 240–4) believes the author refers to the Roman Senate of the late Republican period. See also Nitzan 2013: 644. Flusser (2009: 201–2) comments that the anti-imperialist criticism of Rome in this pesher is similar to the condemnation of the Roman Republic in the Epistle of Mithridates in Sallust (Hist. 4.69).

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

137

interpretation.102 Although Josephus writes that the Romans did not steal from the temple in 63 B.C.E., he mentions that Pompey went inside the Holy of Holies.103 However, in 55 B.C.E., Crassus, Syria’s proconsul, plundered the temple treasury Pompey had left behind to fund his ill-fated Parthian expedition.104 The reference to this event in the Habakkuk Pesher shows that its author closely watched the Roman officials, and viewed their crimes and their desecration of the temple, and the continued Roman occupation, as God’s punishment on the Jews for their sins. Although the pesharim generally follow the sequential order of the biblical text they exegete, the authors of these works often focus on individual words or elements in the relevant scriptural passage and do not interpret some lemma. The writer of this pesher (1QpHab 2.9-10) was convinced that God had not revealed to the biblical prophet the full meaning of his divine visions. For this reason, the author apparently felt it necessary to comment only upon those passages that best described the historical events that were affecting his community. The focus in other pesharim on the incidents associated with the Roman conquest suggests that many Jews sought to interpret it through eschatological language. The 63 B.C.E. Roman Conquest of Jerusalem in Other Dead Sea Scrolls Several other Dead Sea Scrolls likely contain references to the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of Judea and its aftermath. The most important of these are found in calendrical texts that list the priestly courses along with historical events.105 These compositions are reminiscent of the Megillat Ta’anit, which lists thirty-five days in commemoration of past occurrences during which it was forbidden to declare a public fast or mourn for the dead.106 The similarities between these Qumran calendars and the Megillat Ta’anit suggest that these works were all written to remember significant episodes of the past. The dates of the historical references in

102.  K. M. T. Atkinson (1959: 244–6) believes that col. 6, ln. 6, of this pesher, which mentions both tribute and food, can only refer to the aftermath of Pompey’s conquest. As a result of this event, the Jews were forced to pay money to the Roman Republic, and later provide aide to Scaurus for his Nabatean campaign. 103.  Ant. 14.72; War 1.152. Cf. Cic., Flac. 28.670. 104.  Ant. 14.105-9. See further Charlesworth 2002: 110–12. 105.  See Atkinson 2007. 106.  Milik 1959: 73.

138

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

the calendrical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls are revealing for what they tell us about how their authors viewed the 63 B.C.E. Roman conquest of the Hasmonean state. The Qumran text 4QHistorical Text E (4Q333) clearly refers to events associated with Pompey’s conquest.107 Fragment 1 is particularly important for understanding the Roman intervention in the Hasmonean state since it mentions two massacres: one in Jehezkel (‫ ;בי]חזקאל‬4Q333 1 3) and the other in Gamul (‫ ;גמל‬4Q333 1 6). Lines 6 and 8 of this text reads: “Aemilius killed” (‫)הרג אמליוס‬. These references can only refer to M. Aemilius Scaurus.108 Josephus does not tell us anything about the participation of Scaurus in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. This document indicates that he killed Jews on two separate occasions.109 According to Josephus, Pompey ordered the beheading of the priestly leaders of the revolt (Ant. 14.73). The first massacre of 4QHistorical Text E may refer to this execution since Scaurus would have undoubtedly accompanied Pompey to Jerusalem (Ant. 14.73).110 4QHistorical Text E (4Q333) suggests that Scaurus played a major role in affairs at the time of the Roman conquest. As Pompey’s chief agent in the region, he would have been involved in any military action. Since the writer presumably records only major events, it is probable that the first massacre should be associated with the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. The second reference suggests that fighting continued after his departure. Pompey likely appointed Scaurus to subdue the remaining partisans of Aristobulus II. It was apparently during this time that the second incident documented in 4QHistorical Text E occurred. Josephus appears to have been troubled by the aggressive actions of the Romans in Jerusalem at this time. In the War, he suggests the Romans had planned to annex the Hasmonean state before Pompey met Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. He writes that Scaurus had been seeking a reason to 107.  For the editio princeps, see Fitzmyer 2000c. He dates the semi-formal Herodian hand of this text to the end of the first century B.C.E. 108.  For this identification, see further Atkinson 2007: 138–42; H. Eshel 2008: 138; D. Schwartz 2000; Vermes 2007: 137. 109.  Wise (1994: 217) proposes that these two murders, or massacres, were separated by approximately eight to fourteen days. He suggests that the first likely took place during Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. siege of Jerusalem and the second shortly afterwards. See also H. Eshel 2008: 138–42; D. Schwartz 2000. 110.  Wise (1994: 215–17) believes this document demonstrates that Pompey captured Jerusalem in the Fall of 63 B.C.E. For further discussion of the historical background of 4QHistorical Text E and its relationship to Scaurus in light of the Psalms of Solomon, see Atkinson 2004: 121–26.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

139

interfere in Judea, and that the civil disturbances there gave him a “godsent opportunity” (ἐπειδὴ τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἐπύθετο, καφάπερ ἐφ’ ἕρμαιον ἠπείχθη) to do so.111 Elsewhere in the War (1.138), Josephus states that when Pompey received news that Mithridates VI was dead, it spurred him to be even more aggressive towards Aristobulus II. Josephus omitted both these passages from his Antiquities. In this book, he partially exonerates the Romans by emphasizing that the Hasmoneans had been unworthy of kingship: the priests and the people did not want them to govern. Josephus emphasizes that Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II had invited Pompey to determine the future of their state, which suggests he believed that neither of Alexandra’s sons was a suitable ruler. In the Antiquities, Josephus also stresses that it was ultimately the failure of Aristobulus II to live up to his promises that forced Pompey to remove him from power. This claim somewhat redeems Hyrcanus II because he wisely remained loyal to the Romans. Because the War is the earliest of his books, and suggests that the Romans had aggressive intentions towards Judea from their arrival in the region, its account is to be preferred. It is also partly supported by 4QHistorical Text E, which was likely written by an eyewitness to Roman aggression in Judea. The Qumran evidence suggests that the Romans, even with the assistance of Hyrcanus II, still faced considerable opposition from partisans loyal to Aristobulus II and his family. Josephus provides some additional information about this time that may help us to document the second massacre mentioned in 4QHistorical Text E. He writes that after Pompey had captured Jerusalem, “those responsible for the war he (= Pompey) executed by beheading.”112 Josephus does not name the official appointed to carry out these executions. However, Scaurus, as Pompey’s chief agent in the region, certainly would have been involved. 4QHistorical Text E could possibly refer to this incident. We may even know the name of one of the Jewish adversaries he faced. A rebel named Bacchius is depicted on a coin minted in 54 B.C.E. by the curule aedile Aulus Plautius to commemorate the Judean campaign of Pompey. Because it is unlikely that Plautius would have depicted an insignificant figure on a commemorative coin, it is plausible that Bacchius led the antiRoman resistance after Pompey arrested and deported Aristobulus II.113 111.  War 1.127. 112.  Ant. 14.73. 113.  For this coin, see Crawford 2001: 1, nos. 54-55 and 431.1, pl. LII,7. This coin

depicts a bearded figure holding an olive branch kneeling beside a camel. The inscription on its face contains the name BACCHIVS IVDAEVS. It has been suggested, without any definitive evidence, that this coin depicts the submission of Aretas III to Scaurus. See Stevenson et al. 1889: 633. This is unlikely because this coin is a copy of an earlier coin

140

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

The Dead Sea Scroll 4QHistorical Text F (4Q468e) may tell us more about events following the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, and provide us with the name of another opponent of the Romans. The extant portions of the two lines of a small three-line fragment palimpsest, which is written over an unknown document, reads: “ki]lling the multitude of me]n” (‫ה]רוג‬ ‫ )את רוב הגבר[ים‬and “Potlais and the people that…” (‫)פותלאיס והנפש אשר‬ Most scholars identify this person with the Jewish officer Peitholaus who, in 57 B.C.E., helped Gabinius, then Syria’s new consul, fight Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II.114 The next year Aristobulus II escaped from Rome with his son, Mattathias Antigonus. Peitholaus switched sides. He joined them and fought the Romans near Machaerus in Transjordan.115 The Romans captured Aristobulus II and Antigonus. Peitholaus apparently escaped and continued to lead the anti-Roman faction. In 53 B.C.E. Crassus, Gabinius’s successor, fought and apprehended Peitholaus in the Galilee and executed him. Because 4QHistorical Text F describes a negative event, it is probable that it refers to the escape or execution of Peitholaus. A less certain reference to the period of the Roman conquest is possibly contained in 4QHistorical Text D (4Q332). Because this incomplete text that Scaurus, then Quaestor in Pompey’s forces, minted in 58 B.C.E. depicting a keeling figure and the inscription REX ARETAS. Because the earlier coin of Scaurus identifies the figure as Aretas III, it is unlikely that Plautius depicted Aretas III since he clearly identified this person as Bacchius. See further Harian 1995: 69, 116–17. Smallwood 1981: 26; Wise 1994: 214–15. For the Scaurus coins, see Duruy 1884: 832; Grueber 1970: 1:483–4, 490, nos. 3916–19; Stevenson et al. 1889: 689, 721. It has also been suggested that Bacchius is the Latin translation of the Greek name Dionysius. According to Josephus, a man named Dionysius of Tripolis was among of the Syrian princes Pompey fought (Ant. 14.39). There is no reason to identify him with Bacchius. See further Atkinson 2004: 125; Reinach 1903: 29–30. The recent argument of Scott (2015: esp. 42–99) that Pompey minted this coin to commemorate his victory over the Hasmonean state, and that the kneeling figure is Aristobulus II, is unconvincing. There is no evidence that the Romans believed Aristobulus II or any high priest, as Scott suggests, was an officiant of a Judean Bacchus cult. We also do not know the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II. 114.  Broshi 2000. Josephus documents the career of Peitholaus in the following passages: War 1.162-63, 172, 180; Ant. 14.84-85, 93-95, 120. For the linguistic arguments in favor of identifying Potlas with Peitholaus, see Atkinson 2007: 142–4; H. Eshel 2008: 142–3; Horbury 1999; Strugnel 1999; D. Schwartz 1999. The last three publications refer to this text by its earlier nomenclature of 4Q468g (= 4QHistorical Text B). For its current numbering, see Tov 2010: 54. Vermes (2007: 1373–8) is hesitant to identify Potlaus with a known person. This text dates to the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E. 115.  The location of this battle suggests the Nabateans were involved. They apparently continued to support Aristobulus II and his sons.

7. After the Loss of Sovereignty

141

consists of three small fragments, it is difficult to use it for historical reconstruction. Since it is written in early Herodian formal script dating to approximately 25 B.C.E., it may also reflect events that took place after Pompey captured Jerusalem.116 This dating is based on a reconstruction of the single letter at the end of the fourth line of the first fragment as either “Gentiles” or Gabinius (‫)ג[בנויס‬.117 It could possibly reflect the participation of Gabinius in subduing either Peitholaus or other followers of Aristobulus II. Possible evidence of Jewish opposition to the Hasmoneans may be preserved in 4Q471a (4QPolemical Text). This document was previously identified as a fragment of the Cave 4 War Scroll but is now classified as a polemical text.118 According to its editors, Esther Eshel and Menahem Kister, the author of this work rebukes a group of Jews who had violated God’s covenant (line 2). The writer preserves the following quotation that was apparently uttered by his opponents: “And you say: ‘let us fight His battles, because he has redeemed us’ ” (line 3). Although his adversaries apparently believe that their past military victories were proof that they were fighting God’s battles, the author is convinced their overconfidence has made them arrogant (line 7): God has rejected them and will allow them to experience defeat (lines 4-7). The polemical language in 4Q471a is reminiscent of Psalm of Solomon 2, which rebukes the Hasmoneans for their sins (Ps. Sol. 2:5, 8-9).119 Esther Eshel and Menahem Kister propose that the writer of 4Q471 denounces the Hasmoneans and their supporters (possibly Sadducees). They further propose that the redemption mentioned by the opponents in line 3 refers to the establishment of the Hasmonean state and the political successes of the first Hasmoneans, while lines 4-6 describe the subsequent downfall of their opponents under Alexander Jannaeus, or during Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem.120 Hanan Eshel, however, believes that 4Q471a refers to the fall of the Sadducean supporters of Aristobulus II at 116.  See further Fitzmyer 2000b. See also Eisenman and Wise 1992: 122–3; Wacholder 1998: 367; Wise 1994: 122–3. 117.  Fitzmyer 2000b: 283. For the reconstruction of this line as Gabinius, see Wacholder 1998: 366–7. 118.  E. Eshel and Kister 1992; 2000. They comment that it is unlikely that this fragment belongs to the War Scroll since that work does not include disputes between Jewish groups over the Torah. 119.  See Atkinson 2004: 47–8. 120.  E. Eshel and Kister 2000. See also E. Eshel and Kister 1992: 278. Dimant (2001: 58–9, 62–4) suggests that the statement “they shall say ‘peace and tranquility have come’ ” in 4Q386, frag. 1 ii ln. 7, refers to the establishment of the Hasmonean state.

142

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

the time of Pompey’s 63 B.C.E. conquest of Jerusalem. He also suggests that the author’s negative portrayal of the Hasmonean dynasty is similar to the Nahum Pesher. If this interpretation of this text is correct, then the author of 4Q471a, like the writer of Psalm of Solomon 2, apparently condemned the Hasmoneans and their Sadducean allies for their political transgressions.121 4Q471a was apparently written before either Psalms of Solomon 2 or the Nahum Pesher since its author anticipates a future defeat of the Hasmoneans, and Pompey’s invasion. Conclusion The Roman conquest of Pompey and the subsequent Roman activities in Judea likely led the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls to cease their production of new writings. This probably occurred sometime between 63 B.C.E. and 31 B.C.E., after they realized that their prophecies about the end of time were incorrect. The death of Alexandra and the disastrous infighting of her sons adversely affected all Jews residing in the territories of the former Hasmonean state. With no end in sight to the Roman occupation, and facing continued depredations by its forces, the community at Qumran and other Jews had to explain this new circumstance. The clear absence of any names in the entire Qumran corpus after the Roman conquest suggests that the Qumran community underwent a profound theological change in the aftermath of Pompey’s conquest. A look at how the Qumran writings and the Psalms of Solomon describe the assassination of Pompey sheds additional light on the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other Jews residing in Jerusalem. These works also clarify some of the discrepancies about his death in the classical texts, and supplement the accounts of Josephus. They also document the last efforts of the Hasmonean family to regain power and restore their state. Despite the loss of their nation, the Hasmoneans continued to shape the histories of the Roman Republic and their neighbors until they were ִּ‫נאללי‬ annihilated.

121.  See further Atkinson 2004: 47–8; 2013b.

Chapter 8 A D rea m S h at t e r e d: T he E nd of t h e H a s m on ean S tate and t he D em i s e of I t s N ei ghbor s

The 63 B.C.E. capture of Jerusalem by the Roman general Pompey marked a new chapter in Second Temple Period history. He took Aristobulus II along with some members of Hasmonean family to Rome to march as captives in his triumph. Pompey allowed Hyrcanus II to remain as high priest, but not as king.1 Instead, Pompey gave him the lesser title of ethnarch to show that he now governed the Jewish occupants of the former Hasmonean state on behalf of the Roman Republic.2 Nevertheless, it appears that some Jews still called him king.3 Pompey likely knew this and took steps to prevent any insurrection against Roman rule to revive the Hasmonean state by ordering the demolition of Jerusalem’s defenses. He also exacted 10,000 talents from the region’s Jewish population.4 Before he left, Pompey appointed Scaurus as governor of Syria; a region that now included the territories of the former Hasmonean state. The Romans also restored independence to many pagan cities the Hasmoneans had seized.5 Although Josephus records some of the Jewish rebellions that took place following the departure of Pompey from the region, the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that he has not preserved a complete account of what happened in the two decades after the Romans besieged Jerusalem and ended the Hasmonean state. These Jewish texts and other classical writings allow us to supplement the writings of Josephus, and shed some new light on Jewish perceptions of the Romans. They reveal that the 1.  Strab., Geogr. 16.2.46; War 1.153; Ant. 14.73; 15.180. 2.  War 1.202-3, 209, 212; Ant. 14.157, 190-95. Strabo (apud Josephus, Ant. 14.117)

writes that the Jews of Egypt were governed by an ethnarch. See also Strab., Geogr. 17.1. For the Roman use of this title in the Hasmonean state for Hyrcanus II, see Sharon 2010; 2017: 260–80. 3.  Ant. 15.14-15. 4.  Ant. 14.77-78. 5.  Ant. 14.74-76.

144

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Romans never fully controlled the territories of the former Hasmonean state until the replaced the descendants of Mattathias with Antipater’s son, Herod the Great.6 The Hasmonean family was not the only nation to end at this time, for the first century B.C.E. witnessed the collapse of the Roman Republic and the end of the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires. The fates of many of the neighboring kingdoms was closely connected with the Hasmonean family, whose members continued to shape Middle Eastern and European history. Of all the Hasmonean state’s neighbors, none was more important than Egypt at this time. The Hasmoneans not only became involved in changing its government, but their assistance to the Romans there helped bring Julius Caesar to power. Roman and Hasmonean Intervention in Egypt The 80 B.C.E. murder of Ptolemy XI Alexander II brought great uncertainty to Egypt’s population. The citizens of Alexandria worried the Roman Republic would impose a new king upon them.7 Their fears were not unfounded since Ptolemy XI had a long relationship with the Romans. Earlier, in approximately 103 B.C.E., his grandmother, Cleopatra III, had sent him to Cos for his safety at the start of the War of Scepters. In 88 B.C.E. the island’s inhabitants handed him over to Mithridates VI of Pontus.8 Ptolemy XI Alexander managed to escape in 84 B.C.E. He eventually reached Rome and sought refuge with Sulla. He returned to Egypt in 80 B.C.E. and married his stepmother, Cleopatra Berenice III. The two shared the throne. Appian claims that Sulla was behind this arrangement: he thought that their joint rule would give the Romans more influence over Egypt.9 But Sulla and the Romans failed to recognize the new king’s unpopularity. Shortly after Ptolemy XI Alexander returned to Egypt, he murdered Cleopatra Bernice III. A mob in Alexandra killed him to avenge her death. He had reigned for approximately nineteen days; he suffered damnatio memoriae and is not mentioned in the hieroglyphic texts.10 6.  For the Jewish attempts to expel the Romans led by the Hasmonean family and their supporters, see further Atkinson 2016b: 160–7. 7.  Ptolemy XI Alexander II was the son of Ptolemy X Alexander I by an unknown woman. Porphyry (in Euseb. Chron. in Schöene 1999: 1:165) implies that Cleopatra Selene was his mother. For his background, see further Hölbl 2000: 213–4; Whitehorne 1994: 176–9. 8.  Ant. 13.348; App., B. Civ. 1.102. 9.  App., B. Civ. 1.102. 10.  Hölbl 2000: 213–14; Whitehorne 1994: 177; App., B. Civ. 1.102; Cic., De rege Alexandrino, Fragment 9; Euseb., Chron. (in Schöene 1999: 1:165); P.Oxy. XIX.222.

8. A Dream Shattered

145

Cleopatra V Selene, the widow of the Seleucid king Antiochus X Eusebes, claimed the rights of succession to the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires for their two sons.11 The Egyptians recognized Ptolemy XII Auletes, son of Ptolemy IX Soter, as Pharaoh.12 They made his brother, Ptolemy, king of Cyprus to prevent the Romans from annexing the island.13 Ptolemy Auletes shortly afterwards married his sister, Cleopatra V Tryphania. The two subsequently ruled Egypt together.14 Ptolemy Auletes gave bribes to various Roman officials to win their support. He courted Pompey and sent him lavish gifts.15 Auletes also supplied him with a contingent of 8,000 cavalry to use in his subjugation of the Hasmonean state. He also hosted many Romans at his own expense.16 His overt support for Rome, coupled with his increased taxation, angered many Egyptians. Pompey refused to help him suppress a revolt. Appian suggests that he chose not to intervene in Egypt’s affairs because he feared his enemies in the Senate would accuse him of trying to take control of the country.17 Ptolemy Auletes nevertheless remained loyal to Pompey and Rome. He even borrowed a considerable sum, largely from the knight and banker C. Rabirius Postumus, to equip an entire Roman army as a public sign of his support for the Roman Republic.18 The Roman Senate was divided over the political status of Egypt. Crassus and other prominent Romans hoped its members would intervene in Egypt’s affairs and take direct control of the country. Cicero feared that Romans such as P. Servilius Rullus wanted to acquire Egypt so they could use the country as a base to overthrow the Roman Republic. In 60 B.C.E., Ptolemy Auletes had to pay Julius Caesar a bribe to prevent the 11.  The sons were Antiochus XIII Asiaticus and Seleucus VIII Philometor (= Seleucus Kybiosaktes). For her background, see further Atkinson 2012c: 210–12; Whitehorne 1994: 164–76. 12.  His full title is Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysus Philopator Philadelphus Auletes. He is also known as Ptolemy Nothus and Ptolemy Auletes. According to Cicero (Leg. agr. 2.16.42), he had been in Syria at the time Ptolemy XII Alexander was murdered. His mother is unknown. 13.  His brother, known as Ptolemy of Cyprus, had been captured by Mithridates VI. He appears to have returned with his sibling to Egypt. See further Whitehorne 1994: 177–85. 14.  It is uncertain whether she was the full sister of Ptolemy Auletes or his half-sister. Ptolemy Auletes likely became king in 80 B.C.E. His spouse served as his coregent. See further Hölbl 2000: 222–3; Macurdy 1932: 176; Whitehorne 1994: 178. 15.  Hölbl 2000: 224; Greenhalgh 1981b: 141. 16.  Plin., HN. 33.136; App., Mith. 114; cf. Diod. Sic. 1.83.8-9 17.  App., Mithr. 17.114. 18.  Hölbl 2000: 224.

146

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Roman annexation of Egypt. This sum, estimated at 6,000 silver talents, represented nearly half a year’s revenue for the entire country. Auletes was consequently forced to raise taxes, primarily among the non-Greek laboring classes in the countryside.19 Caesar helped win Roman support for Ptolemy Auletes when he introduced the lex de rege Alexandrino that made him an amicus et socius populi Romani in gratitude for helping the Roman army in Syria.20 However, the next year the tribune of the plebs, P. Clodius Pulcher, put forth a successful law to make Cyprus a Roman province. Public anger at the loss of this Ptolemaic territory forced Ptolemy Auletes to leave Alexandria in the summer of 58 B.C.E.21 He travelled to Rome to seek military assistance to regain his kingdom. After an unsuccessful attempt to court Cato, he asked Pompey for help. Pompey let him stay in his villa in the Alban hills, which was a public statement of his support.22 The Alexandrians took advantage of the absence of Ptolemy Auletes to replace him as Egypt’s ruler. They chose his eldest daughter, Berenice IV, along with her mother, Cleopatra Tryphanea, as her associate.23 When Cleopatra Tryphanea died a year later, Berenice IV became Egypt’s sole ruler. She retained this position until her father’s restoration in 55 B.C.E. During her tenure, she faced pressure to find a husband to prevent the Romans from further intervening in Egypt’s affairs, and to keep Ptolemy Auletes from returning to power. Gabinius and the Romans apparently feared that placing a Seleucid prince on the throne of Egypt would not be in their best interest since it could potentially lead to the merger of the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires. It was likely the Romans’ fear of a possible unification of the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Empires led Pompey to work behind the scenes to convince Ptolemy Auletes to block any union between Berenice IV and a Seleucid prince. Nevertheless, Berenice IV married Seleucus. The Alexandrians despised her new spouse: they nicknamed him Kybiosaktes (“seller of salt-fish”) because of his ill-mannered demeanor. Berenice IV 19.  See further Keddie 2016: 199–100. 20.  Caesar, B. Civ. 3.10; Cic., Rab. Post. 3; Att. 2.16.2; see Hölbl 2000: 224–5. 21.  Plut., Vit. Pomp. 49.7. Goldsworthy (2006: 435–6) suggests that Ptolemy Auletes

had trouble collecting the money he had promised Caesar, and that his efforts to do so led to the uprising that forced him to flee Egypt. A variant tradition that Plutarch (Vit. Pomp. 49.7) attributes to Timagenes claims that Theophanes, Pompey’s friend and personal historian, convinced Ptolemy Auletes to leave Egypt. 22.  See further Hölbl 2000: 226–7; Whitehorne 1994: 181–4. 23.  Papyri refer to two women rulers at this time, but do not name them. For their identities, see Whitehorne 1994: 182; Huß 2001: 11; Porphyry in FHG 723.

8. A Dream Shattered

147

quickly tired of him; she had him strangled in 80 B.C.E. shortly after their wedding.24 Egypt’s situation changed dramatically when a man named Archelaus bribed Gabinius to let him come to Egypt to marry Berenice IV. He had many influential connections. Pompey had appointed him high priest of the temple of the Great Mother at Comana in Syria when the Romans annexed the province.25 He was also a friend of Mark Antony. Despite his close relationships with several prominent Romans, Egypt’s population was willing to accept Archelaus as a potential ruler because they believed Mithridates VI was his father. Although his paternity is unknown, it is probable that he was the son of a general in the army of Mithridates VI named Archelaus.26 The uncertainty over his ancestry made many Romans suspicious of him, and further complicated Egypt’s unstable political situation at this time. Archelaus arrived in Egypt in March/April, 56 B.C.E. to marry Berenice IV.27 Pompey became determined to prevent an alliance between a possible son of Mithridates VI and Berenice IV. According to Strabo, Gabinius at that time was preparing to invade Parthia. Archelaus wanted to join the expedition. The Senate refused to let him participate in this campaign because they did not believe he was loyal to Rome.28 Despite the past favor he had shown to Archelaus, Pompey believed he was no longer a reliable ally. Consequently, Pompey decided to help Ptolemy Auletes regain his throne. The restoration of Ptolemy Auletes became a contentious political issue in the Roman Senate. Pompey campaigned to restore him to power since he believed he would comply with Rome’s wishes. Cicero also supported the appointment of a Ptolemaic king on the throne of Egypt, which he and many others thought would keep the country under Roman control.29 During the first six months of 56 B.C.E., a letter supposedly written by Ptolemy Auletes was distributed in the Roman Forum and the entrance to the Senate requesting Pompey be assigned as his commander-in-chief. In 57 B.C.E. the Senate gave the consul Publius Lentulus Spinther the task of 24.  Macurdy 1932: 181–4; Whitehorne 1994: 184–5; Cass. Dio 39.57; Strab., Geogr. 17.1.11. He was the son of Cleopatra Selene. His father was most likely Antiochus X Eusebes. 25.  Strab., Geogr. 12.3.34. 26.  Mayor (2010: 114) notes that it is also plausible that he was the son or maternal grandson of Mithridates VI. 27.  See further Hölbl 2000: 227–8; Whitehorne 1994: 184–5. 28.  Strab., Geogr. 12.3.34. 29.  Hölbl 2000: 227–8; Whitehorne 1994: 184–5; Cic., Fam. 1.1.3.

148

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

reinstating Ptolemy Auletes to Egypt’s throne. Caninius Gallus then introduced a bill that transferred Spinther’s authority to restore Ptolemy Auletes to Pompey. Although Ptolemy Auletes agreed to the new legislation, many in the Senate opposed granting Pompey such authority and armed men to accomplish this mission. Pompey publicly supported Spinther to show his critics that he was not seeking additional power; however, he secretly worked to undermine him.30 The situation unexpectedly changed when lightning struck a statue of Jupiter on the Alban Mount. The Senate turned to the quindecimviri sacris faciundis for an interpretation. They supposedly found a Sibylline Oracle that predicted the downfall of Ptolemy Auletes and consequently opposed the use of a Roman army to restore him to power. Although Pompey’s opponents likely fabricated this oracle, they failed to prevent the Senate from sending troops to Egypt.31 The two sons of Phraates III, Mithridates III and Orodes I, at this time were fighting for the Parthian throne. Earlier, in 80 B.C.E., the latter expelled the former.32 Mithridates III turned to Gabinius for support. Gabinius was confident he could settle the quarrel and acquire much wealth in the process since he knew the territory quite well; in 65 B.C.E. Pompey had sent him as far east as the Tigris River to intervene in the disputes between Parthia and Armenia.33 In 55 B.C.E., Gabinius set out to invade Parthia. During his absence, Ptolemy Auletes arrived in Syria. Pompey promised Ptolemy Auletes 10,000 talents to help restore him to the Egyptian throne. Mark Antony urged Gabinius to abandon his Parthian campaign and assist Ptolemy Auletes. Although Gabinius had crossed the Euphrates, he halted his expedition at the request of Anthony to reinstate Ptolemy Auletes.34 Archelaus, now married to Berenice IV, rushed to Pelusium to oppose Gabinius. The Romans killed Archelaus in battle in 55 B.C.E.35 His joint reign with Berenice IV had lasted barely one calendar year.36 30.  Goldsworthy 2006: 436; Sherwin-White 1994: 272–3; Tatum 1999: 199–203. 31.  Cicero (Fam. 1.1.1) considered the oracle a forgery. 32.  In that same year, Mithridates III briefly regained power, but was overthrown by

his brother. For the numismatic evidence for these dates, see further Assar 2009: 216–18. 33.  See Cass. Dio 36.51-53, 37.5-7; App., Mithr. 106. 34.  Josephus does not describe this campaign, but merely notes (Ant. 14.99) that others have provided a complete account of this expedition. Keaveney (1982: 412–17) suggests, largely based on statements of Cicero, that Gabinius violated the terms under which he held his province when he made war on Parthia. This may have played a role in his decision to abandon the campaign and travel to Egypt to restore Auletes to power. 35.  Plut., Vit. Ant. 3.6; Strab., Geogr. 12.3.34. According to Plutarch, Antony gave Archaelus a royal burial because of their former friendship. 36.  See further Hölbl 2000: 227–8; Whitehorne 1994: 184–5.

8. A Dream Shattered

149

Although the historical sources provide a brief and incomplete account of these events, Pompey was certainly behind the political developments in Egypt at this time. In April 56 B.C.E., he had secretly reconciled with Crassus and Caesar at Luca. Their joint agreement allowed him to interfere in Egypt’s affairs without fear his political opponents would block his actions in the Senate.37 Although this legislative body had not authorized any intervention in Egypt, Pompey sent Gabinius there; Mark Antony led his cavalry. Josephus records that Hyrcanus II and Antipater provided money, arms, corn, and auxiliaries to the Roman forces. Antipater ordered the Jewish guardians of the frontiers at Pelusium, many of whom apparently had fought alongside Archelaus against the Romans, to let Gabinius pass. They complied and allowed Mark Antony to garrison troops there for an attack against Alexandria.38 Antony and Gabinius removed Berenice IV from power and installed Ptolemy Auletes as Egypt’s monarch.39 The Romans left behind the equestrian C. Rabirius Postumus as the country’s financial minister and entrusted him with the task of securing repayment to the Roman bankers who had supported Ptolemy Auletes. He was also permitted to take compensation for money he had loaned to Ptolemy Auletes.40 A contingent of Roman troops, known as the Gabiniani, was left behind to prevent future insurrection.41 The restoration of Ptolemy Auletes was the first time in history that a Roman army had taken direct control of Egypt. Josephus does not explain why Hyrcanus II and Antipater played a major role in restoring Ptolemy Auletes to power. The two apparently had no choice but to assist the Roman intervention in Egypt because many Jews in the territories of the former Hasmonean state had opposed them. Josephus suggests that Antipater accompanied Gabinius to Pelusium, where he convinced the Jewish community there to support the Romans. While Gabinius was in Egypt, Alexander once again attempted to overthrow Hyrcanus II. Although Josephus suggests this was merely a spontaneous uprising that occurred because of the departure of Gabinius, a close reading of his account suggests otherwise. He notes that Alexander gathered such a large force that he was able to massacre Romans throughout former Hasmonean territory.42 Alexander’s ability to amass a large 37.  See further Sherwin-White 1994: 272; Goldsworthy 2006: 261–2; Sanford 1939. 38.  For this campaign, see War 1.175-76; Ant. 14.98-99; Plut., Vit. Ant. 3.4-7. 39.  Strab., Geogr. 12.3.34; Plut., Vit. Ant. 3.10. 40.  See further Cic., Rab. Post. 22, 38; Sherwin-White 1994: 272. 41.  This unit included Gallic and Germanic cavalrymen. See further Hölbl 2000:

229–30; Caes., B. Civ. 3.4.4. 42.  For the 55 B.C.E. revolt of Alexander, see War 1.176-78; Ant. 14.100-102.

150

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

army and kill Romans suggests prior planning on his part since Josephus emphasizes that he was in a position to take control of the country. The revolt of Alexander may have been part of a wider effort by the supporters of the family of Aristobulus II to expel the Romans from the Middle East. The speed and size of the force he managed to gather alarmed Gabinius. Josephus notes that Alexander had an army of 30,000 soldiers. Gabinius sent Antipater to negotiate with him. Then Gabinius fought and defeated Alexander at Mount Tabor. Alexander lost 10,000 men in the battle. Gabinius captured him and confined him in Antioch.43 Josephus mentions that Gabinius went to Jerusalem after he subdued Alexander. He reorganized the government according to Antipater’s wishes. Although Josephus does not state what Antipater wanted to accomplish, it is probable that he hoped Gabinius would make him the political leader of the former Hasmonean state.44 If, as Josephus suggests, Hyrcanus II remained in Judea while Antipater travelled to Egypt with Gabinius and Antony, it is probable the Romans did not consider him a reliable ally because of his Hasmonean pedigree. Josephus writes that Antipater supplied the Romans with most of the men in their army. Antipater’s ability to gather and lead his own troops suggests that Hyrcanus II was not in full control of his former kingdom since Aristobulus II and Alexander likewise had managed to recruit and command large Jewish militias at this time. This may suggest that the Romans no longer had any confidence in the political leadership of Hyrcanus II, and effectively demoted him in favor of Antipater. According to Josephus, Gabinius left Antipater in charge of affairs and then marched against the Nabateans. The ruler of the country at this time, Malchius I (60/59–30 B.C.E.), appears to have repudiated his father’s treaty with Rome. It is plausible that he had participated in the revolt of Alexander. Gabinius’s rush to subdue Nabatea suggests that he felt this country threatened the stability of Judea. He defeated Malchius in battle.45 43.  War 1.185; Ant. 14.125. Josephus implies that Gabinius captured and imprisoned Alexander at this time. He later mentions that Alexander was in Antioch, which presumably was where he was later incarcerated. He was executed there at the order of Pompey. 44.  War 1.178; Ant. 14.103. VanderKam (2004: 349) suggests that Antipater may have received the title ἐπιμελητής at this time. For a similar proposal, see P. Richardson 1996: 103–4. Kokkinos (1998: 98) suggests that Antipater was a “financial” procurator (Ant. 14.127) and a “political” governor (Ant. 14.143; War 1.199). 45.  In the following sentence Josephus mentions that Gabinius “also sent on their way Mithridates and Orsanes, fugitives from the Parthians, who had come to him, though the story was that they escaped from him” (Ant. 14.103). This passage, also in War 1.178, interrupts the narrative. Josephus has presumably copied it from his source. For

8. A Dream Shattered

151

Gabinius then sailed to Rome and handed over his province to Crassus. Despite Pompey’s public support for Gabinius, his enemies accused him of de maiestate in Rome in 55 B.C.E. Gabinius was acquitted, but subsequently charged with extortion.46 The Final Hasmonean Revolt against Roman Rule In 54 B.C.E. M. Licinius Crassus arrived in Syria to replace Gabinius as proconsul. He plundered the temple treasury to finance his planned Parthian campaign.47 The Parthians defeated him in battle; he retreated to Carrhae. The Parthians lured him into an ambush. The extant sources are unclear as to whether enemy troops murdered him, or if his soldiers killed him to prevent his capture.48 The quaestor C. Cassius Longinus led the survivors back to Syria, where he assumed command of the region.49 He repulsed a Parthian invasion at Antioch in the autumn of 51 B.C.E.50 Peitholaus led the remaining partisans of Aristobulus II in an insurrection to evict the Romans from the country.51 Although Josephus provides little detail as to what transpired, the location of Longinus’s battle with the rebels in the Galilee suggests that Peitholaus led a widespread uprising that threatened Roman control over the former Hasmonean state. This may indicate that the partisans of Aristobulus II were prominent in the north. Longinus defeated the forces of Peitholaus at or near Tarichaeae, or elsewhere in the Galilee. He captured Peitholaus and enslaved 30,000 of his soldiers. According to Josephus, he executed Peitholaus at the request of Antipater.52 this possibility, see Thackeray 1927: 82. This passage is likely a repetition of his earlier account of Mithridates III and Orodes I (Orsanes is likely a corruption of Orodes). For these rulers, see further Assar 2009: 216–18. 46.  See further Fantham 1975; Williams 1978. 47.  Crassus governed Syria from 57–55 B.C.E. See further Broughton 1952: 2:195–6, 203, 211, 218. 48.  For the Parthian campaign of Crassus, see Cass. Dio 40.12-27; Ov., Fast. 6.465; Plut., Vit. Crass. 17-31; Livy, Per. 106; Just., Epit. 43.4; Debevoise 1938: 78–93; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:246. Josephus was reluctant to recount this incident in his books and states that it is inappropriate to speak of it (War 1.179), and that other historians have described it (Ant. 13.119). 49.  Longinus governed Syria from 53–51 B.C.E. For his tenure, see Broughton 1952: 2:229, 237, 242–5. 50.  Cass. Dio 40.28-29; Ant. 14.119; Livy, Per. 108; Just., Epit. 42.4; Cic., Att. 5.20.1-7; Fam. 2.10; Phil. 11.14.35. 51.  For this revolt, see War 1.180-81; Ant. 14.120. 52.  War 1.180; Ant. 14.120.

152

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

Troubles in the region Hyrcanus II purportedly governed as ethnarch, and instability in Egypt, had prevented the Romans from successfully invading Parthia. Now that a reliable monarch ruled Egypt, the Romans turned their attention to the Jews. Because the territory of the former Hasmonean state was between Egypt and the Parthian Empire, it was essential that the Romans found some way to stop the supporters of Aristobulus II and his family from trying to restore the Hasmonean state. They began to look for new leadership, and for a time appeared prepared to give Antipater control over the region. Josephus inserts a passage after his account of Peitholaus’s revolt that describes the influence of Antipater over the Romans.53 This section contrasts the decline of the Hasmoneans with the rise of Antipater’s family. Josephus also informs his readers that Antipater’s son, Herod, eventually replaced the Hasmoneans and became the country’s Romanappointed king. In this section, Josephus provides a hint as to why the Romans favored Antipater at this time. He mentions that Antipater had made alliances with the neighboring princes, especially the Nabateans. It was likely his friendship with the Arabs, and his influence over Hyrcanus II, that led the Romans to turn to him for leadership to prevent further rebellions in the territory of the former Hasmonean state. The decision of Antipater to execute Peitholaus apparently convinced the Romans that he would continue to oppose anyone loyal to the family of Aristobulus II. Then, as common throughout the history of the Hasmonean state, foreign events changed everything for the Jews. The Roman civil wars that eventually brought about the end of the Roman Republic also destroyed any hope that the Hasmonean family once again would rule their homeland as its kings. The Roman Civil War and the Hasmonean Family The decision of Julius Caesar to challenge his political opponents by crossing the Rubicon, in 49 B.C.E., led to a civil war between him and Pompey. This, ultimately, accelerated the end of the Roman Republic. Because much of the military activity during the Roman civil wars took place in the Middle East, the Jews were forced to choose sides in this conflict.54 After Pompey and his supporters fled Italy for Greece, Caesar engaged them at Pharsalus. Pompey lost the battle on August 9, 48 B.C.E. and fled to the Middle East, where he expected to receive reinforcements. 53.  War 1.181; Ant. 14.121-22. 54.  See further Goldsworthy 2006: 358–31; Rawson 1994.

8. A Dream Shattered

153

Because Hyrcanus II was still his ally, he decided to use him to acquire troops from the region. Caesar released Aristobulus II from prison and gave him two legions to fight the supporters of Pompey in Syria.55 Unknown partisans of Pompey poisoned him.56 Pompey’s father-in-law, Q. Metellus Scipio, beheaded Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II, in Antioch.57 Josephus preserves a rather surprising story about the brothers and sisters of Alexander in his accounts of this period. Scipio, presumably at Antipater’s request, banished them from the territories of the former Hasmonean state.58 Antipater presumably felt they were too dangerous to remain in the region. The children were sent to the Iturean ruler Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, while their mother was held in Ascalon.59 Ptolemy’s son, Philippion, became infatuated with one of the daughters, Alexandra. Ptolemy murdered his son to marry her.60 Josephus tells us little about the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Instead, he focuses on how Antipater and his family helped Caesar in this conflict, and eventually replaced the Hasmoneans as Rome’s representatives and rulers in the territory of the former Hasmonean state. He also mentions that Caesar honored Antipater by bestowing upon him Roman citizenship and exemption from taxation everywhere.61 Caesar recognized Hyrcanus II as the lawful high priest and gave him permission to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls. Caesar also ordered the consuls to record these grants in Rome.62 These actions suggest that the Hasmonean family enjoyed considerable support among the Jewish population of the former Hasmonean state. Caesar apparently realized this and took these measures to honor Hyrcanus II to win the backing of the Jews in the region. Yet, many Jews still opposed Rome. When the Parthians took advantage of the political instability in the Roman Republic to invade Judea in 40 B.C.E., Antigonus joined them. He was the second and only surviving son of Aristobulus II, and had considerable support throughout the region. The Parthians made him king and high priest of a restored Hasmonean state, although it was considerably smaller in size than the nation Aristobulus 55.  War 1.183; Ant. 14.123; Cass. Dio 41.18.1. 56.  War 1.184; Ant. 14.124. 57.  War 1.185; Ant. 14.125-26. See further Atkinson 2013a. 58.  War 1.85-86, 196; Ant. 14.126; cf. Ant. 14.140. 59.  War 1.85-86; Ant. 14.123-26. Her name is unknown. 60.  See further Günther 2012: 133–9. 61.  The position of ethnarch is mentioned in his extensive section of Caesar’s favor-

able decrees to Hyrcanus II and the Jews in Ant. 14.190-216. 62.  Ant. 14.144.

154

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

II had ruled.63 Once in power, Antigonus cut off the ears of Hyrcanus II to render him ineligible to serve as high priest.64 Antigonus ruled his kingdom from 40–37 B.C.E.: the Roman Republic was powerless to depose him. The Parthian invasion and the rebellion of Antigonus forced the Romans to look to the family of Antipater to replace the Hasmoneans to provide political stability in the former Hasmonean state. Octavian and Antony convinced the Senate to make Antipater’s son, Herod, king of Judea. In 37 B.C.E. Herod, with forces supplied by C. Gaius Sosius, besieged Antigonus in Jerusalem.65 They captured Antigonus and sent him to Antony to hold for the triumphal celebration in Rome. Herod was apparently reluctant to murder Antigonus because so many Jews still supported the Hasmonean family. Herod subsequently changed his mind and bribed Antony to execute him. Antony decapitated Antigonus in Antioch. According to Josephus, Antony consented to Herod’s request because he believed this was the only way to prevent further Jewish revolts to restore the Hasmonean monarchy. Antony is the only Roman to have beheaded a reigning Hasmonean king.66 Josephus ends his account of the Hasmonean dynasty with the murder of Antigonus. He states that his death marked the end of the Hasmonean line, which had lasted for 126 years.67 However, there was one further effort to revive the Hasmonean state. It is the last time a member of the Hasmonean family governed any territory independent of foreign rule. A women ruled over this desert kingdom. Unfortunately, Josephus tells us nothing about her, not even the circumstances of her death. According to Josephus, a sister of Antigonus, Alexandra, rallied her brother’s supporters in the desert and captured the fortress of Hyrcania.68 There, she briefly ruled a small desert kingdom that technically was the last Hasmonean state. She presided over it for almost six years from the 37 B.C.E. execution of her brother to the 31 B.C.E. battle of Actium. 63.  For Antigonus’s tenure, see further VanderKam 2004: 385–93; Schürer et al. 1973–87: 1:281–6. 64.  Ant. 14.366. See Atkinson 2013a; 2013c. 65.  See further Atkinson 1996. 66.  Ant. 14.489-90; Plut., Vit. Ant. 36.4. In War 1.357 Josephus states that Antigonus fell beneath the axe. Cassius Dio (49.22.3-5) writes that the Romans crucified and flogged Antigonus. Strabo (apud Ant. 15.9-10) mentions that Antigonus was beheaded because he had refused to accept Herod as king. For the debate over the possible discovery of Antigonus’s skeleton, see the evidence in Elitzur 2013; Sharon 2017: 453–9. 67.  Ant. 14.490-1. This date places the beginning of the family to 163 B.C.E. 68.  This woman, named Alexandra (III), is to be distinguished from the daughter of Hyrcanus, Alexandra (II). See further Günther 2012; Kokkinos 1998: 114–15.

8. A Dream Shattered

155

Herod’s assault of the citadel is suspicious: Josephus claims his siege of Hyrcania prevented Herod from helping Antony at the Battle of Actium.69 It is probable that Herod chose his timing carefully to avoid fighting alongside Antony and Cleopatra VII against Octavian. Josephus does not recount what happened at Hyrcania. Herod presumably killed Alexandra to end the line of Aristobulus II. However, some Jews continued to look to Hyrcanus II as a potential savior because he was the last person to have ruled the Hasmonean state as its king and high priest. The termination of the civil war between Pompey and Julius Caesar ensured that the neither Hyrcanus II nor any of the remaining Hasmoneans would ever rule an independent Jewish state as its king. The End of the Roman Civil War Between Julius Caesar and Pompey In August 9, 48 B.C.E., the armies of Julius Caesar and Pompey met in Macedonia at Pharsalus. The confrontation was a devastating loss for Pompey. He fled the battlefield and sailed for Amphipolis, where he attempted to conscript additional men throughout Macedonia. He also met with friends there and collected money. When he heard the news of Caesar’s approach, he left at night and, travelling in a single ship, sailed to Mytilene. Four triremes from Rhodes and Tyre, along with his wife Cornelia, joined him. Pompey and his partisans then sailed southwards down the present-day Turkish coast past Rhodes. When he reached Pamphylia, he took a few small crafts and triremes from Cilicia. Pompey also sent messengers to various cities throughout the region of Pamphylia requesting money and men to operate his fleet.70 Cato sent the remaining forces loyal to Pompey at Dyrrachium and Corcyra to Africa. Pompey planned to organize a resistance there against Caesar, with the backing of King Juba. Pompey sailed to Cyprus where he raised 2,000 troops from the Roman business community. He apparently decided to embark there in order to connect with his supporters in Cilicia and Syria. Because Pompey had conquered Syria, Armenia, Pontius, Cilicia, and the Hasmonean state, he believed the rulers and officials he had placed in charge of these areas were still loyal to him. He expected them to provide sufficient troops to help him organize a counteroffensive against Caesar.71 However, after 69.  War 1.364. 70.  The sources vary as to some of the details concerning Pompey’s travels. See

further App., B. Civ. 2.83-86; Caes., B. Civ. 3.102-4; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.33-72; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 74-80; Velleius Paterculus, History of Rome 2.53. 71.  For Pompey’s strategy in the Middle East, see further Losehand 2008: 323–8.

156

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

the news of Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus spread throughout the region, many authorities shut their harbors to Pompey and his partisans. Because Pompey had no safe haven in Europe, Syria, or the territories of the former Hasmonean state, he had no option but to seek refuge in Africa.72 The political situation in Egypt changed just before the outbreak of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Ptolemy Auletes, whom Pompey helped restore to Egypt’s throne, died in 51 B.C.E. His children, Ptolemy XIII Philopator and Cleopatra VII, jointly ruled Egypt as husband and wife. By 50 B.C.E. Ptolemy Philopator had deposed his sister; he expelled her in 48 B.C.E. She went to Syria to gain military support to remove her brother from power.73 Despite the political turmoil in Egypt, Pompey had good reason to believe that Ptolemy Philopator would assist him. At the beginning of his war with Caesar, in the summer of 49 B.C.E., Pompey sent his eldest son, Gnaeus Pompey, to Alexandria.74 Philopator gave him five hundred Gallic and Germanic cavalry from the Roman troops of the Gabiniani in addition to fifty warships.75 Because of this assistance, Pompey was confident that Philopator would also provide him with additional soldiers to help him, Cato, and Juba fight Caesar in North Africa. Philopator was approximately twelve years of age and had little actual power. He was largely under the control of his eunuch, Pothinus, and an Egyptian named Achillas. Theodotos of Chios, one of the king’s teachers, also exercised great influence over him.76 News that Pompey was heading to Egypt placed them in a bind. They wanted to keep Egypt out of the Roman civil war; Pompey’s decision to ask Philopator for help made this no longer possible. Philopator’s advisors knew that Cleopatra VII was attempting to gather an army to remove him from the throne. Faced with an imminent invasion by Caesar, the partisans of Philopator decided to eliminate Pompey. Philopator presumably acquiesced to their decision; his courtiers murdered Pompey upon his arrival in Egypt on September 28, 40 B.C.E.77

72.  The classical accounts state that Pompey considered three places of refuge: Parthia, Africa, and Egypt. See App., Hist. rom. 2.83; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.331-453; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 76. Plutarch states that only Theophanes urged Pompey to go to Egypt. See further Gold 1985: 325–6; Greenhalgh 1981a: 175. 73.  App., B. Civ. 2.84; Strab., Geogr. 18.1.11. 74.  Plut., Vit. Ant. 25.4; Lucan, Pharsalia 2.636. 75.  Caesar, B. Civ. 3.4.4, 40; App., B. Civ. 2.49. 76.  For Ptolemy XIII, see further, Hölbl 2000: 231–9; Nadig 2013. 77.  See further Greenhalgh 1981b: 291; Hölbl 2000: 233, 253 n. 60.

8. A Dream Shattered

157

The Jews and the Roman Civil War Josephus writes that after Pompey’s assassination, Antipater decided to back Caesar.78 When Caesar arrived in Alexandria in October 48 B.C.E., Pothinus the eunuch was acting as regent for Philopator. Pothinus ordered Achilles and the army to defend the city. According to Caesar, Achilles had 20,000 men that included Gabinius’s former soldiers, mercenaries, and some runaway slaves from Roman provinces.79 The Egyptians quickly blockaded the Roman legions in the palace compound and ancillary buildings. A large percentage of the city’s population supported Philopator because they feared Caesar would annex Egypt. Caesar had one advantage: both Philopator and his sister, Arsinoe IV, the youngest daughter of Philopator, happened to be inside the Roman camp when the battle began. Caesar held them as prisoners along with many of their attendants, including Pothinus. Cleopatra VII smuggled herself past the siege lines into the palace at dusk and convinced Caesar to restore her as Egypt’s co-ruler.80 Arsinoe IV soon afterwards escaped and the Egyptians proclaimed her queen. She and her former tutor, the eunuch Ganymede, took command of her army and besieged Caesar and his forces. The Egyptian military surrounded the Romans and contaminated their water supply. Although Caesar’s men dug wells, they had no way to obtain food. Caesar was forced to fight a series of small naval battles in and around Alexandra’s harbor to secure provisions. During one naval engagement, which he lost, he suffered over 800 casualties. An Egyptian delegation approached him demanding that he release Philopator. They purportedly told Caesar they were tired of the despotism of Arsinoe and her former tutor Ganymede. Philopator pledged not to fight the Romans if Caesar released him. Caesar complied with their request; however, once free, Philopator did not keep his word. He ordered the Egyptian forces to redouble their efforts to kill Caesar and his men. Caesar thought his situation would improve with the imminent arrival of a relief army from Syria under the command of Mithridates of Pergamum (Mithridates I of the Bosphorus). Josephus states that Jews from the district of Onias blocked Mithridates at Pelusium and forced him to retreat to Ascalon.81 Antipater, on the order of Hyrcanus II, came 78.  War 1.187. This passage is repeated in a slightly different form in Ant. 14.127. 79.  Caes., B. Civ. 3.15-17. For Caesar in Alexandria, see further Goldsworthy 2006:

432–77.

80.  For the fighting between Caesar and the Alexandrians, see further Goldsworthy 2006: 432–47. 81.  For this incident, and the involvement of Antipater and Hyrcanus, see War 1.18794; Ant. 14.127-39.

158

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

to his aid with 3,000 Jewish troops. According to Josephus, Antipater convinced the chiefs of Arabia, including the prince Jamblichus and the Iturean ruler Ptolemy, the son of Soemus, as well as many of the region’s cities to join the expedition. Antipater also brought a letter from “the high priest Hyrcanus (II)” that ordered Egypt’s Jews to support Caesar. This communiqué proved persuasive: Antipater successfully convinced the city’s Jewish inhabitants to obey the request of Hyrcanus II and back Caesar. Now that the road to Egypt was open to Mithridates I and Antipater, the inhabitants of Memphis supported Caesar. Mithridates I and Antipater then camped at a place Josephus identifies as “the Camp of the Jews” (Ἰουδαίων στρατόπεδον) where they made preparations for their final assault.82 Josephus offers conflicting accounts about the assistance the Jews provided to Caesar in Egypt. He writes that Antipater distinguished himself in combat there. He and Mithridates of Pergamum each led one unit of men in battle. Mithridates of Pergamum, according to Josephus, personally praised Antipater’s valor to Caesar. In his War, Josephus states that Caesar later rewarded Antipater with Roman citizenship, exemption from taxes, and other honors. Antipater also convinced him to recognize Hyrcanus II as high priest.83 In the Antiquities, Josephus claims that many writers documented the participation of Hyrcanus II in the Egyptian campaign. He even cites Strabo, who cited the testimony of C. Asinius Pollio that “after Mithridates, Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, also marched into Egypt” (μετὰ δὲ τὸν Μιθριδάτην εἰσβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ Ὑρκανὸν τὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερὲα; Ant. 14.138).84 Josephus also states that Strabo mentioned that the historian Hypsicrates also documented the participation of Hyrcanus II in this campaign. Because a later decree of Caesar to the people of Sidon praises Hyrcanus II for his contribution in the Alexandrian War, he certainly led troops there.85

82.  Ant. 14.133. This is presumably a community associated with the “district of Onias” mentioned earlier (Ant. 14.131), which was apparently affiliated with the Leontopolis temple. 83.  War 1.194. 84.  The infinitive εἰσβαλεῖν is to be preferred over the alternative readings in many manuscripts, which erroneously imply that Hyrcanus II and Mithridates arrived after the Roman invasion of Egypt. See further Cornell 2013: 2:863; 3:524–5. Nicolaus of Damascus, a major source for Josephus, appears also to have used Pollio’s history. See further Scardigli 1983. 85.  Ant. 14.353.

8. A Dream Shattered

159

Josephus appears to have exaggerated the role of Antipater in affairs at this time because the Romans favored him and later appointed his son, Herod, as the nation’s monarch. It is probable that Caesar recognized Hyrcanus II as high priest because he had fought on his behalf.86 Despite Josephus’s emphasis on Antipater, Hyrcanus II was clearly a skilled politician. Having been a former partisan of Pompey, he managed to win the support of Caesar and regain his former position as high priest. Josephus implies that Caesar did not favor Hyrcanus II since he only gave him the high priesthood, and did not restore him to his former position as monarch. However, this is not a correct assessment of the Caesar’s treatment of Hyrcanus II. The Romans had replaced the Hasmonean monarchy and had governed the former Hasmonean state through the proconsuls of Syria for fifteen years. Recognition as high priest was the highest honor that Caesar could have bestowed upon Hyrcanus II at this time. Nevertheless, for many Jews, Roman domination was nearing its end. They concluded that God was still in control of world events because they believed that he had killed Pompey. The Assassination of Pompey in Jewish and Classical Texts The Roman world was shocked at the defeat and downfall of Pompey, and the manner of his assassination in Egypt. The accounts of Josephus preserve the most detailed record of Pompey’s activities in the Middle East. Yet, he does not mention Pompey’s murder or describe the immediate political aftermath of this event. On the other hand, the communities behind the Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to have taken great delight in his unexpected demise. They recorded his assassination to show that God had answered their prayers. These texts not only shed additional light on the use of Scripture in Second Temple Jewish literature to document and interpret historical events, but they also help us understand the classical accounts of Pompey’s murder. The community behind the Psalms of Solomon was convinced that God would punish Pompey because he had defiled the temple and had claimed divine status for himself. The author of Psalm of Solomon 2 demonizes Pompey by referring to him as the dragon. The writer implores God to chastise him and the Romans quickly: “Do not delay, O God, to repay them on their heads, to declare in dishonor the arrogance of the dragon” (Ps. Sol. 2:25). After patiently waiting fifteen years, the psalmist

86.  War 1.194; Ant. 14.137.

160

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

was convinced that God had answered his petition for divine vengeance when he received word in 48 B.C.E. that the Ptolemaic supporters of Julius Caesar had decapitated Pompey with a sword in Egypt. They sent Pompey’s head and ring to Julius Caesar, and threw his body on the shore.87 The poet apparently updated the psalm that recounted Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem to compare his ignoble death to the slaying of the mythical beast: I did not wait long until God showed me his dragon, Pierced, on the mountains of Egypt, more than the least despised on land and sea; His body, carried about on the waves in great insolence, And there was no one to bury him, For (God) had rejected him in dishonor. (Ps. Sol. 2:26-27)

In a verbal allusion to Pompey’s title, the Magnus, the poet also denounces him because he did not acknowledge God’s righteousness and considered himself divine: He did not consider that he was a man, nor did he consider the hereafter. He said, “I will be lord of land and sea” and he did not recognize that God is great, mighty in his great strength. (Ps. Sol. 2:28-29)

The psalmist here likely alludes to Pompey’s background and fame as a soldier. It was widely known that he sought to emulate his hero, Alexander the Great. Both had earned great distinction fighting in the Middle East. Pompey had been awarded the title “Magnus” when he was only 25 years old for his victory in Africa in 81 B.C.E. He even issued a coin with this epitaph to publicize his achievements.88 Plutarch mentions that Pompey celebrated three triumphs, each over a different continent, which led many to believe he had conquered the known world.89 He had received great public acclaim for his activity as a partisan of Sulla during the civil war of the 80s B.C.E. Pompey was also famous for his suppression of the revolt of Sertorius in Spain. He helped to end the rebellion of Lepidus in 87.  For the details of Pompey’s death, see Gelzer 1959; Greenhalgh 1981b: 256–69; Leach 1978: 207–9; Seager 1979: 185–9; van Ooteghem 1954: 633–41. 88.  Grueber 1970: 8.16.2, 9.7.3. Pompey’s coins depict many animals, which are symbols of the gods. These are intended to represent a theology of victory and to show that the gods had chosen Pompey to become the ruler of the Republic. See further Kopij 2011. 89.  Plut., Vit. Pomp. 38.2-3; 45.5. See also Cic., Leg. Man. 56.

8. A Dream Shattered

161

78 B.C.E., and aided Crassus during the 73 B.C.E. uprising of Spartacus. Pompey had followed up these victories with a successful campaign against the Mediterranean pirates in 67 B.C.E., which had led to his Eastern wars, his annexation of the territory of Mithridates VI, and his termination of the Hasmonean state.90 The lists of forts, towns, peoples, and treasures Pompey had captured was unprecedented.91 Pliny considered his conquest of Asia to be his greatest achievement.92 Pompey purportedly inscribed his accomplishments on a tablet that mentioned his subjection of Aristobulus II, king of the Jews, Aretas III, Syria, and Judea, which also boasted that he had “extended the frontiers of the Empire to the ends of the earth.”93 His military accomplishments annoyed his friends and opponents alike. Pompey purportedly became so arrogant that many claimed he acted like “the king of kings.”94 His subordinates were so resentful of his excessive pride that they contemptuously referred to him as “Agamemnon.”95 He was also famous for his cruelty and hubris.96 The death of Pompey convinced the author of Psalm of Solomon 2 that his community’s faith had been vindicated: God had listened to their prayers and had killed the “Magnus.” The psalmist’s claim that Pompey had declared himself “lord of land and sea” may have been influenced by Roman propaganda, and Pompey’s public boasts of his accomplishments. The description of Pompey’s assassination in the Psalms of Solomon provides valuable information about the author’s use of theology to recount historical events. The poet likely did not know the details of Pompey’s murder. He places it on land; it actually took place in a skiff at sea. In the absence of a detailed report of this event, the psalmist looked to Scripture to determine what happened. The writer chose the ancient effigy of the dragon to represent Pompey because the biblical authors used it to describe the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar, who was the last gentile to destroy Jerusalem, desecrate the temple, and take a Jewish king into captivity.97 The writer also incorporated language from Isa. 14:19, which describes the fall of the king of Babylon in mythological 90.  For Pompey’s rise and these events, and the influence of Alexander the Great upon his career, see further the summary and sources cited throughout Greenhalgh 1981b. 91.  See Plin., HN 7.97-99; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 45. Cf. App., B. Civ. 2.86. 92.  Plin., HN 7.99 93.  Cass. Dio 40.4. 94.  App., B. Civ. 2.67. 95.  App., B. Civ. 2.67. 96.  See Edwards 1991. 97.  Ezek. 29:3; 32:2; Jer. 51:34. For this image, see further Atkinson 2001a: 38–40.

162

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

language as a dragon, to depict Pompey as a creature who was “pierced on the mountains of Egypt” (Ps. Sol. 2:26).98 The result of this combination of biblical passages is a description of Pompey’s death that is just as credible as the surviving classical accounts. But it was likely the Qumran community that produced this, the earliest surviving work to document the murder of Pompey. The Qumran text 4Q386 is one of six documents that have been pieced together to form a composition known as Pseudo-Ezekiel.99 This text sheds some additional background on the description of Pompey’s assassination in Psalm of Solomon 2. The author of this Qumran text merges biblical images with sobriquets to describe Pompey as the “Wicked One” and “Belial” (4Q386 1 ii 3, 6). It opens with an unnamed prophet who asks God why the land is desolate. The writer then petitions God to gather his people together. Hanan Eshel proposes that lines 3b-6 merge biblical prophecy with historical fact to describe Pompey’s death.100 This passage also includes God’s response that describes the fate of “a son of Belial”: “The wicked one I will kill in Memphis (‫)במף‬, and I will bring my children from Memphis (‫( ”)ממף‬4Q386 1 ii 3b-6). In her editio princeps of this text, Devorah Dimant believes that Pseudo-Ezekiel likely refers to two antagonists of the second century B.C.E.101 She identifies the “son of Belial” of 4Q386 with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who stayed in Memphis during his campaign in 168 B.C.E. Although she notes it is possible that the “wicked one” and the “son of Belial” are associated, and both could refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, she also suggests that the former sobriquet could allude to a person involved in the 164 B.C.E. or the 132–129 B.C.E. political unrest in Egypt. She suggests Cleon, whom Antiochus IV installed in Memphis as governor, as a likely candidate.102 98.  Coarelli (1967: plate 12) has dated the tomb fragments bearing an inscription commemorating M. Paccius Marcellus, former primus pilus of the legio IIII Scythica (CIL. IX 1005), to the late first century B.C.E. and identified the animal on the right-hand standard of his monument as a dragon. If he is correct, this may indicate that the dragon was employed as a legionary emblem as early as the Roman Civil Wars during which Pompey killed. The author of Ps. Sol. 2 could have seen it in Jerusalem. Cf. Keppie 1984: 229. See also Wesch-Klein 2013: 3999. 99.  Dimant (2001: 7–9, 91–260) identifies six copies of this document: 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385); 4QPseudo-Ezekielb (4Q386); 4QPseudo-Ezekielc (4Q385b); 4QPseudo-Ezekield (4Q388); 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Unidentified Fragments (4Q385c); 4QpapPseudo-Ezekiele (4Q391). See further Dimant 1984a: 542–50; 2011b. 100.  H. Eshel 2008: 151–61. 101.  See Dimant 2001: 53–69. 102.  Dimant 2001: 55–8. For these historical events, see 1 Macc. 1:16-19; 2 Macc. 5:1; Polyb. 28.18.1-23.5; Diod. Sic. 30.14, 17, 18; Livy, History 45.11-12; Ant. 12.243-33.

8. A Dream Shattered

163

Hanan Eshel objects to Dimant’s interpretation. He notes that the text does not state that the “son of Belial” stayed in Memphis for a lengthy period, but only that the “wicked one” will be killed there. He believes the context of Pseudo-Ezekiel shows that its author refers to a single person under the nicknames “son of Belial” and “the Wicked One.” The writer, he suggests, combines Jer. 46.13-16, Ezek. 30:13, and Hos. 9:6 to associate the city of Memphis with the death of the Wicked One there. The author also denounces this person as the “son of Belial” because he oppressed the Jews.103 The interpretation of Eshel best explains the opening lines of this column that describes some persecution of Israel. 4Q386 appears to recount Pompey’s death in Egypt, which the writer believed had been predicted by Scripture.104 In her most recent publication on Pseudo-Ezekiel, Dimant offers some further objections to Eshel’s interpretation of 4Q386 as a description of the assassination of Pompey. Although she notes the similarity between this text and Psalm of Solomon 2, she does not believe they describe the same historical event. Dimant comments on 4Q386 that Pompey’s murder has nothing to do with the persecution of Jews in Egypt and that the events in this text should be dated to the last third of the first century B.C.E., well before Pompey’s demise.105 However, Dimant’s objection to dating this text to the time of Pompey is not based on the content of 4Q386, but on her reconstruction of the hypothetical document to which she believes it belonged. Although Dimant dates the extant copies of Pseudo-Ezekiel between 50–1 B.C.E., she proposes that the work was actually composed in its entirety in the second century B.C.E. She bases this thesis on her dating of 4Q391 (4QpapPseudo-Ezekiele) to the second half of the second century B.C.E. Dimant identifies 4Q391 as a fifth copy of this text and therefore assumes that its paleographical date is close to the time of PseudoEzekiel’s composition.106 However, there is nothing to show that the 77 small fragments of this text are connected with the hypothetical PseudoEzekiel document. Because none of these fragments overlaps with any other work based on the book of Ezekiel, they cannot be used to date the 103.  H. Eshel 2008: 151–5. 104.  See further Zahn 2012: 287. 105.  Dimant 2011a: 29–30. See also Dimant 2014: 433. 106.  This text was published by Smith 1998. See further Dimant 2001: 53. Dimant

(2013b: 2:1520) has recently written that Pseudo-Ezekiel should still be dated to the second century B.C.E., even if 4Q391 is not taken to be a copy of Pseudo-Ezekiel, and that this dating makes Eshel’s identification of the Wicked One as Pompey is without any support.

164

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

composition of Pseudo-Ezekiel. Even if 4Q391 is a copy of this composition, it is plausible that the work was updated during the first century B.C.E. to reflect the assassination of Pompey.107 Like the Nahum Pesher, the fragments of this Qumran text should be dated according to their latest historical references or allusions, and not their earliest, to determine whether they describe Pompey. This is especially true of 4Q386. The content of 4Q386 must be dated and evaluated apart from 4Q391. The historical content of 4Q386, and its use of Scripture, suggests that its author, like the writer of Psalm of Solomon 2, documented the assassination of Pompey. Because the scene of the carnage in this text occurs in “the land of Israel” (4Q386 1 ii 1), it is not necessary to assume that it refers to an Egyptian persecution of Jews. The work actually states that Israel has been oppressed, which indicates that the persecution was confined to that country. The author only refers to Egypt to specify that the person responsible for this affliction died there. Like the author of Psalm of Solomon 17, the writer of 4Q386 believes that God had determined that Pompey must die.108 The parallels between these two sections are quite illuminating, and suggest that both texts forecast the elimination of the same enemy: But I will not allow him; and his kin will not survive, nor will there be left from the impure one any seed. (4Q386 1 ii 4) But you, O god, will overthrow them and will remove their offspring from the earth. (Pss. Sol. 17:7)

In the Psalms of Solomon this person is called the “lawless one” (ὁ ἄνομος; Pss. Sol. 17:11) and the “alien” (ἐν ἀλλοτριότητι; Pss. Sol. 17:13). In 4Q386 1 ii 2 this person is referred to as “son of Belial” (‫ )בן בליעל‬and in 4Q386 1 ii 6 as the “wicked one” (‫)הרשע‬. The author of 4Q386 appears to contradict the Psalms of Solomon concerning the location of Pompey’s assassination. The writer of 4Q386 knew that Pompey had been murdered in Egypt. He concludes that this

107.  For this suggestion, see H. Eshel 2008: 153 n. 9. Smith (1998: 153) connects this fragment with Pseudo-Ezekiel largely on the bases of frag. 65.4, which mentions the river Chebar. He notes that 4Q391, unlike the other Pseudo-Ezekiel scrolls published by Dimant, uses material from Ezek. 40–48. Because of the extremely small size of the fragments that are considered part of this text, it is plausible that some of them, especially frag. 65, belong to a previously unknown text that is similar to the “Description of the New Jerusalem” (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554-555, 5Q15, and 11Q18). 108.  Cf. Pss. Sol. 17:7-14.

8. A Dream Shattered

165

event took place in Memphis because Ezek. 30:13 predicts God will put an end to idolatry there. He combines this passage with Jer. 46:13-16, which recounts the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt. In this biblical passage, the prophet Jeremiah forecasts God’s punishment of this leader and warns: “Stand ready and be prepared, for the sword shall devour around you. Why are your stalwarts swept away? They do not stand because the Lord thrust them down” (Jer. 46:14b-16a). This reading of Scripture results in a contemporized interpretation of Ezek. 30:13 that reflects an interpretation of Jer. 46:15-16 and Hos. 9:6. Although the author reads current history through the lens of Scripture, the attitude towards Pompey in this text is remarkably similar to the Psalms of Solomon. The writers of both works were convinced his assassination in Egypt was God’s punishment for his termination of the Hasmonean state. The author of 4Q386 attempted to explain the trauma his community experienced following the end of the Hasmonean monarchy. The surprising death of Pompey compelled him to compose this document. Jeremiah’s use of the rare Hebrew verb ‫סחף‬, meaning to “wash away” and “destroy,” likely convinced the writer that the prophet had predicted the abandonment of Pompey’s body on the shore.109 If there was any doubt his interpretation was correct, the author cited Hos. 9:6 to connect Pompey with Memphis and proclaimed: “Behold, they are going away from destruction; but Egypt shall gather them; Memphis (‫ )מף‬shall bury them.”110 The Latin poet Propertius—a contemporary of the Psalms of Solomon— may shed some light on the account of Pompey’s death in Pseudo-Ezekiel. He describes it as follows: Guilty Alexandria, land most accomplished in treachery, and Memphis so often bloodstained with our anguish, where the sand (harena) robbed Pompey of his three triumphs! (3.11.33-35)

Propertius’s use of harena is questionable since Pompey was not assassinated on the sand of Memphis.111 Yet, like 4Q386, Propertius places this 109. For this Hebrew word, see Koehler et al. 1994–99: 1:749. 110.  Dimant (2001: 65) notes that ‫ מף‬is mentioned in the Masoretic Text only in Hos.

9:6, which the Septuagint translates as “Memphis” (Μέμφις). 111.  For the traditional understating of this word as beach, see Camps ed. 1966: 107. For the view that Propertius uses beach to evoke the exotic image of desert sand to compare Pompey’s death to that of a gladiator, see Richardson Jr. 1977: 362–3. For a discussion of this issue with a suggested emendation of uerna for harena, see Butrica 1993.

166

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

event on land to emphasize certain details of Pompey’s murder and to illustrate moral lessons.112 The poetic account of Propertius is especially similar to Pseudo-Ezekiel, which places Pompey’s murder in Memphis. For Propertius, the assassination of Pompey—the great victor at sea— was tragic because it took place under shameful circumstances in an insignificant Egyptian city.113 If the passage in 4Q386 1 4 is a prophecy that the children of Pompey will perish, this would date the document sometime before the Spanish campaign of autumn 46 to spring 45 B.C.E. when Caesar defeated the last of Pompey’s supporters led by his sons, Gnaeus and Sextus.114 Several scholars proposed emendations for the difficult phrase “to turn the pride of the dragon into dishonor” (τοῦ εἰπεῖν τὴν ὑπερηφανίαν τοῦ δράκοντος ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ) in Ps. Sol. 2:25 to make it match one or more of the classical accounts of Pompey’s assassination.115 The psalmist’s description of Pompey’s assassination in v. 26 is particularly problematic for some interpreters: “And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence, pierced, on the mountains of Egypt.” Although Perles proposed

112.  In his account of Pompey’s death, Lucan models his assassination after the gruesome death of Cicero, and combines it with images of the mythical Gorgon’s head to emphasize the ironic reversal of fortune. See further Malamud 2003. 113.  Bell 1994. 114.  Gnaeus Pompeius was beheaded during this war. See App., Syr. 2.77. His brother, Sextus Pompey, escaped and was murdered in Miletus in 35 B.C.E. See Caes., Spanish War 2-27. 115.  Although all extant manuscripts contain τοῦ εἰπεῖν this phrase does not make sense and is likely corrupt. Syriac MS 16hl (Syr. 2:29) contains the reading wYMD[ML, but Syriac manuscript 10hI follows the Greek text and reads D[M)Ml. Gray (1912: 2:633) suggests that MS 16hl is a corruption of the Greek and believes that MS 10hI contains the correct text. Harris (1911: 40) believes the original Greek of this verse was actually ταπεινοῡν. Cf. Viteau 1911: 262–3. Trafton (1985: 43 n. 3) wants to accept the Syriac of Ms 16hI as original, yet he writes: “It is unclear what Hb [= Hebrew] word could also have given rise to the reading τοῦ εἰπεῖν, unless τοῦ εἰπεῖν is indeed an inner-Gk [= Greek] corruption.” Ward (1996: 47–8) suggests the Vorlage may have been ‫“( משל‬casting down”), which was misunderstood by the Greek translator (cf. Ezek. 21:5 [MT]). This assumes that the Syriac translated from the Greek. He also proposes that the original text was likely the hiphil participle of ‫“( נשל‬to cast down”), which the Syriac translator read correctly. Wellhausen (1874: 133), based upon Hos. 4:7, maintains that the original Hebrew text read ‫“( להמיר‬to change, turn”) and believes the Greek translator misread it as ‫לאמר‬. The present translation accepts Wellhausen’s emendation because it best conveys the psalmist’s emphasis on the dragon’s sudden change of fortune from arrogance to shame. See further Atkinson forthcoming c, Gebhardt 1895: 96; Ryle and James 1891: 23.

8. A Dream Shattered

167

emending “insolence” to “his body,” the Syriac suggests otherwise.116 The extant text makes sense in light of Pompey’s title “Magnus” since he profaned the Jerusalem temple when he entered the holy of holies. The author of Psalm of Solomon 2 provides some additional information about Pompey’s assassination. This poem places it “on the mountains of Egypt.” Several scholars have proposed various emendations for this phrase to match the account of Cassius Dio (42.3-5), who claims Pompey was assassinated “near Mount Casius” (πρὸς τῶ Κασσίῳ ὂρει).117 There is no reason to change the text of Psalm of Solomon 2 since Mount Casius is an actual mountain. The Greeks claimed it was so high that the sun did not set upon it until three hours after nightfall. The ancient Egyptians often extended the border of Pelusium to include to Mount Casius. Pelusium was not actually on the shore, but over 20 stadia (3 km; nearly 2 miles) inland and surrounded by marshes. Mount Casius, moreover, was a promontory over 70 meters (230 feet) in height and located on the Mediterranean seashore. Its most dominant feature in antiquity was a dune on the sea over 500 meters (1640 feet) in length.118

116.  Perles (1902: 17) suggests that τὴν ὕβριν αὑτοῦ should actually be translated as “his body” and that the Greek translator misread ‫( גויתו‬written ‫ )גותו‬as ‫גאותו‬. In support of this thesis, Perles cites a number of parallels where the Masoretic Text contains ‫גוה‬ for ‫( גאוה‬Job 22:29; 33:17; Jer. 13:17; Dan. 4:34). The Syriac (Syr. 2.30) appears to support the Greek and translates this passage as “his disgrace” (hD[Oc). Cf. Gray 1912: 633. 117.  All the extant Greek manuscripts contain ὸρέων Αίγύπτου. Several translators use the classical accounts of Pompey’s death to emend the text. Ryle and James (1891: 25) suggest the original reading was “upon the rivers of Egypt” (‫ )על יארי מצרים‬instead of “mountains” (‫)על הרי מצרים‬. Both Hilgenfeld (1871: 388) and Wellhausen (1874: 141) believe the original text read “borders” (ὀρίων). McDaniel (2007) proposes that the Greek translator mistakenly read the unvocalized Hebrew Vorlage (‫ )הרי‬as “mountains” when it actually meant “inlets.” Ward (1996: 48–9) suggests that the Vorlage read ‫חרים‬, “nobles” (scripto defective for ‫)חורים‬, and translates the line as “when he was pierced by the nobles in Egypt.” Although Trafton (1985: 45) comments that the Syriac reading “slain” ()XM) is an unusual translation of ἐκκεντέω, it does accurately convey the meaning of the Greek. See further Atkinson forthcoming b; forthcoming c. 118.  For these geographical descriptions of Mount Casius (a.k.a. Casium) and Pelusium, see Figueras 2000: 174–8, 214–27. For ancient descriptions of Mount Casius, see App., B. Civ. 2.86; Herodotus, Histories 2.8, 160; 3.8; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.540; Strab., Geogr. 17.21. The Syriac (Syr. 2:30) is identical to the Greek and reads “mountains.” The possible reference to a military defeat in 4Q385b, that took place “at the gates of Egypt” (‫)בשער[י] מצרים‬, may indicate that the phrase “mountains of Egypt” in Ps. Sol. 2 was a name for the nearby city of Pelusium. The same phrase also occurs in 4Q385a 13 3 and possibly in 4Q385c C 2.

168

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

A memorial to Pompey was later built atop Mount Casius.119 According to Appian, an anonymous inscription on his memorial read: “How pitiful a tomb for one so rich in temples.120 Someone later defaced it.121 The classical writers and the author of Psalm of Solomon 2 were intrigued by Pompey’s sudden reversal of fortune. However, the ancient descriptions of this event vary. The earliest authors to record it, Julius Caesar and Cicero, offer conflicting versions as to what happened. Caesar and others place Pompey’s death at Pelusium.122 Cicero states that he was killed in the Egyptian desert.123 Livy merely mentions he was assassinated somewhere in Egypt.124 A few state that Pompey was murdered in Alexandria.125 Others claim he was killed offshore in some type of vessel.126 All the extant accounts, despite their respective dates of composition, emphasize the tragic dimension of Pompey’s death. Some highlight the shameful way he was assassinated.127 Most mention that it took place in Egypt but prefer to focus on the tragedy of Pompey’s downfall, and the lowly status of his assassin. The details of his murder are usually omitted.128 Other accounts merely focus on Pompey’s undignified funeral and do not mention his burial, or omit the details of his passing.129 Several authors emphasize the tragedy of his demise and, like the Psalms of Solomon, allude to his title “Magnus” to contrast the unflattering manner of his

119.  Strabo (Geogr. 16.2.33) is the first to mention that Pompey’s grave was located at Mount Casius. 120.  App., B. Civ. 2.86. Hadrian later renovated it around 130 C.E. (Hist. Aug. [Vita of Hadrian 22.16.3], 14.4). 121.  For later references to this grave, see further Figueras 2000: 214–29. 122.  Caesar, B. Civ. 3.103-4; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.606-91; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 77-80; Cass. Dio 42.3-5; Flor. 2.13.52. 123.  Cicero, Div. 2.9.22. 124.  Livy, Per. 112. 125.  Sen., Ep. 96.64; Eutr. 6.2.3; Claudian, Against Eutropius 1.506-7. 126.  Caes., B. Civ. 3.104 (navicula parvula); Livy, Per. 112 (navicula); Lucan, Pharsalia 8.565 (parvam…ratem); Plut., Vit. Pomp. 78 (ἁλιάδος); Plut., Mor. 204E (ἁλιευτικὸν πλοῖον); App., B. Civ. 2.12.85 (σκάφος); Cass. Dio 42.5.3 (πλοιᾶριον); Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History II.53.1-2 (ex oneraria in eam navem). 127.  Pompey publicly claimed that his services to the state were essential for the survival of the Republic. He was also known to fabricate stories about plots against his life. His inflated sense of his own importance, and his fear of assassination, were widely known. See further Marshall 1987. 128.  Eutr. 6.21.3; Oros. 6.15; Amm. Marc. 14.11.32l; Pseudo-Hegesippus, History 1.23; Sen., Marc. 20.4; Claudian, Against Eutropius 1.506-7. 129.  Lucan, Pharsalia 8.470; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 80; App., B. Civ. 12.86; Cass. Dio 42.5.3.

8. A Dream Shattered

169

assassination with his past military exploits.130 The author of Psalm of Solomon 2 and Virgil emphasize that Pompey’s body was abandoned with no proper burial to highlight his astonishing downfall in light of his title Magnus.131 A few writers emphasize the theme of noble death in their descriptions of his murder, and even claim that Pompey willingly submitted to his assassins.132 The differences between the extant descriptions of the assassination of Pompey suggest that none of them preserves a reliable account of where and how it occurred. The oldest versions tend to focus on the details of his killing and highlight the tragic dimension of his death. They typically mention the murderer(s) or focus on Pompey’s beheading.133 Later accounts of Pompey often disagree over the manner and place of his demise. There are significant differences between the versions of Pompey’s murder. Earlier authors tended to focus on the shameful aspect of Pompey’s assassination. They did this to highlight traditional Republican values, and because it was considered disgraceful for a Roman soldier to kill his commander. Since revolts and mutinies among Roman legions had become commonplace during the first century C.E., Pompey’s assassination was no longer exceptional and could be described without comment. The ancient sources vary as to the place and manner of Pompey’s death. Unlike Julius Caesar’s public assassination in Rome, Pompey was slaughtered on the distant shores of Egypt with no onlookers.134 Because there

130.  Sen., Ep. 94.64; Ov., Pont. 4.3.41; Oros. 6.15; Plin., HN. 7.95; Manilius, Astronomica 4.50-65, 283-6; Sen., de vita beata 13.7. 131.  Verg., Aen. 2.567-68. (Virgil’s text is identified as a reference to Pompey’s assassination in Maurus Servius Honoratus, Commentary on the Aeneid of Vergil 2.557.) 132.  Plut., Mor. 204d; Pseudo-Hegesippus, History 1.23; Sen., Ep. 94.64. 133.  The following person or persons are mentioned either as the assassin, or as having participated in Pompey’s murder: Achillas and L. Septimius (Caes., B Civ. 3.104); Achillas (Livy, Per. 113); Septimius (Flor. 2.13.52); Pothinus, Achillas, and Septimus (Lucan, Pharsalia 8.485-541, 597, 670); Achillas; Septimius, and Salvius (Plut., Vit. Pomp. 79-80); Sempronius (App., B. Civ. 12.84); Septimius and Achillas (Cass. Dio 42.4); Ptolemy (Eutr. 6.21.3; Oros. 6.15); a eunuch (Amm. Marc. 14.11.32; Pseudo-Hegesippus, History 1.23); an Egyptian and a slave boy (Sen., Ad marciam de consolatione 20.4); or Pothinus (Claudian, Against Eutropius 1.506-7). The following mention Pompey’s beheading: Livy, Per. 113; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.684, 711; Plut., Vit. Pomp. 80; App., B. Civ. 12.86; Cass. Dio 42.7; Eutr. 7.21.3; Verg., Aen. 2.567-68. 134.  Cicero, Tusc. 3.27.66. Bell (1994: 826–7) notes that certain features had become standard in the accounts of Caesar’s death by the second century C.E. The same is not true for other events in his life. At least eight accounts of his crossing the Rubicon survive. Like the death of Pompey, writers shaped the events of Caesar’s life for polemical purposes.

170

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

were no corroborating witnesses who could challenge their accounts, ancient historians often enhanced their stories of Pompey’s death. These classical writers did not seek to convey mere historical fact when they wrote about Pompey’s murder. Rather, they frequently chose to emphasize certain details of his death in order to illustrate moral lessons. Pompey’s assassination quickly became an exemplum for those who wanted to use his story as an illustration of the vagaries of fate. It is, therefore, erroneous to take these accounts literally because each classical author embellished certain details of Pompey’s murder to support his particular political or theological agenda. The authors of Psalm of Solomon 2 and PseudoEzekiel likewise appear to have used Pompey’s death as an exemplum to warn others that God controls world events. Josephus’s accounts of Pompey’s intervention in the Middle East are the most detailed extant records of his activities there. Yet, he does not mention how or where he was killed. He only includes a brief statement that Pompey had died to show that the Roman civil war was now over and Caesar was free to act as he wished in Egypt.135 Because Josephus used extensive sources from this time, his omission of the details of Pompey’s assassination and its immediate aftermath are puzzling. A close look at his accounts may offer some plausible reasons for his apparently conscious decision not to record the details of this event. Given the past loyalty of the Egyptian Jewish community to the Ptolemaic family, and their military service, it is probable that many Jews there had opposed Caesar. Josephus may not have wanted to discuss this aspect of Jewish history and so preferred to emphasize the loyalty of the Jews to Caesar, as well as the subsequent recognition he bestowed upon the entire Jewish community in gratitude for their allegiance to him during his civil war against Pompey. Some Alexandrian Jews also may have fought against Caesar before Antipater brought reinforcements to help him. Josephus clearly praises Hyrcanus II and Antipater for fighting alongside Caesar’s forces in Egypt. He also highlights Caesar’s gratitude to Hyrcanus II and Antipater by reproducing Roman decrees that not only favored them, but the Jewish religion as well. His claim that Antipater convinced the Jews of Pelusium to support Caesar may suggest that there was much Jewish opposition to Caesar in Egypt, and considerable support for the Ptolemies. Hyrcanus II and Antipater changed this, and convinced Egypt’s Jews to back Caesar.

135.  War 1.187; Ant. 14.127.

8. A Dream Shattered

171

Josephus implies that Hyrcanus II and Antipater had remained loyal to the Roman Republic when they had supported its lawful representative, namely Caesar. Not only had the Senate voted to give Caesar a public funeral in the Forum on March 18, 44 B.C.E., but Josephus records many favorable decrees he had made granting the Jews numerous privileges.136 The apparent decision of Josephus to omit the sordid details of Pompey’s death, and highlight Jewish support for Caesar, was possibly intended to challenge those who questioned the loyalty of Rome’s Jewish community following the events of 66–70 C.E.137 Conclusion Herod’s elimination of the Hasmonean family left him as the only potential ally in the country the Romans could favor.138 Although his marriage to the Hasmonean princess Mariamne gave his rule some legitimacy among many of the former supporters of Hyrcanus II, he still faced considerable opposition. His rule marks the end of Hasmonean period, and the start of a new era of Jewish history.139 If not for Pompey’s assassination, it is probable that members of the Hasmonean family could have retained some control over portions of their former state, and possibly revived it as a client kingdom under the Roman Republic. Pompey’s death ended the dream of a Hasmonean renaissance. It also led to the end of political independence for the Hasmoneans’ neighbors, and eventually the Roman Republic as well. The Hasmonean family and their remarkable achievements are a significant part of classical history because they shaped the fates of Middle Eastern nations and the Roman Republic alike. Although they ruled a relatively small kingdom located between much larger, and often hostile, powers, the Hasmoneans governed it for nine decades, from 136.  For Caesar’s decrees favoring Judaism, see further Pucci Ben Zeev 1998: 31–106. For Caesar’s funeral and his mourners, see Plut., Vit. Ant. 14; Vit. Brut. 18-21; Vit. Caes. 67-8; Cass. Dio 44.20.1-53.7; App., B. Civ. 2.118-48; Suet., Iul. 82.4-85. Caesar was so popular that his grave was placed in the forum of the city. 137.  For the extent to which events of the first century C.E. shaped Josephus’s accounts of the Hasmonean state, see Atkinson 2016b: esp. 166–79. 138.  It is doubtful that the Jewish community would have considered the descendants of Onias fit to rule Judea or serve in the Jerusalem temple because of their schismatic Egyptian shrine. It is likely that the Romans doubted their loyalty. It is also plausible that some members of this community had fought Caesar in Alexandria. 139.  For the remainder of Herod’s reign and his successors, see further Richardson 1996: 174–318; Kokkinos 1998: 206–340.

172

The Hasmoneans and Their Neighbors

152–63 B.C.E. Their ability to maintain their state in this unfriendly region which straddled Asia and Africa and was closely connected with Europe, makes them one of history’s most remarkable families. Jews and Christians alike recount their deeds yearly during the festival of Hanukkah while the names of most of the great powers and persons that tried to take their land are forgotten. The discovery of new documents, coins, and artifacts from the caves and deserts where they once lived allows us to begin to piece together portions of their lost history. This evidence reveals how the Hasmoneans came to rule their homeland, lost it, tried to regain it, and their subsequent impact on the faiths of Judaism and Christianity. The history of the Hasmonean family and the story of their struggle to create and preserve an independent state surrounded by hostile powers is one of the most amazing and influential stories in the history of Western civilization.

B i b l i og r a p h y

Abegg, M. 2002. “Concordance of Proper Nouns in the Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 229–64 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Edited by E. Tov et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Ábel, F. 2016. The Psalms of Solomon and the Messianic Ethics of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Abel, F. M. 1947. “Le siège de Jérusalem par Pompée.” Revue Biblique 54: 243–55. Adamczewski, B. 2008. “Ten Jubilees of Years.” Qumran Chronicle 16: 19–36. Alexander, P. S., and G. Vermes. 2000. “4QSefer ha-Milhamah.” Pages 243–51 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI. Edited by S. J. Pfann et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Allegro, J. M. 1956. “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75: 172–87. ———. 1968. Qumran Cave 4, I: (4Q158–4Q186). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Amusin, J. D. 1963. “Éphraïm et Manassé dans le Péshèr de Nahum (4Qp Nahum).” Revue de Qumran 15: 389–96. ———. 1977. “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166).” Hebrew Union College Annual 48: 123–52. Ariel, D. T. 1982. “A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (Until the End of the Byzantine Period).” Liber annus Studii biblici franciscani 32: 273–326. Arnold, R. C. D. 2006. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Assar, G. F. 2005. “Genealogy and Coinage of the Early Parthian Rulers—II. A Revised Stemma.” Parthica 7 (2005): 29–63. ———. 2006a. “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 91–55 BC.” Parthica 8: 55–104. ———. 2006b. “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 165–91 B.C.” Electrum 11: 1–58. ———. 2009. “Some Remarks on the Chronology and Coinage of the Parthian ‘Dark Age.’ ” Electrum 15: 195–234. Atkinson, K. 1996. “Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.E.) in Psalm of Solomon 17.” Novum Testamentum 38: 313–22. ———. 1998. “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17: 95–112. ———. 1999. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118: 135–60. ———. 2001a. An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.

174 Bibliography ———. 2001b. “Queen Salome Alexandra and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 15–29 in Proceedings of the Central States Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research. Edited by S. S. Elliott. Kansas City, MO: Central States Society of Biblical Literature. ———. 2003a. “4QMMT and Psalm of Solomon 8.” The Qumran Chronicle 11: 57–77. ———. 2003b. Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 546–75 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003c. “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Qumran Chronicle 11: 37–56. ———. 2004. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2006. “Taxo’s Martyrdom and the Role of the Nuntius in the Testament of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125: 453–76. ———. 2007. “Representations of History in 4Q331 (4QpapHistorical Text C), 4Q332 (4QHistorical Text D), 4Q333 (4QHistorical Text E), and 4Q468e (4QHistorical Text F).” Dead Sea Discoveries 14: 125–51. ———. 2008. “The Salome No One Knows.” Biblical Archaeology Review 34, no. 4: 60–5, 72–3. ———. 2011a. “Body” (‫)גויה‬.” Pages 588–90 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by H. Fabry and U. Dahmen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer-Verlag. ———. 2011b. “The Historical Chronology of the Hasmonean Period in the War and Antiquities of Flavius Josephus.” Pages 7–27 in Flavius Josephus. Edited by M. Mohr et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011c. “The Militant Davidic Messiah and Violence Against Rome.” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 9: 7–19. ———. 2012a. “Enduring the Lord’s Discipline.” Pages 145–63 in This World and the World to Come. Edited by D. M. Gurtner. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2012b. “Josephus the Essene at Qumran?” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 10: 7–35. ———. 2012c. Queen Salome: Jerusalem’s Warrior Monarch of the First Century B.C.E. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. ———. 2013a. “Aristobulus II.” Pages 694–5 in Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by R. Bagnall et al. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ———. 2013b. “Historical References and Allusions to Foreigners in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Qumran Chronicle 21: 1–32. ———. 2013c. “Hyrcanus II.” Pages 3613–14 in Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by R. Bagnall et al. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ———. 2013d. “Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 1903–23 in Outside the Bible. Vol. 2. Edited by L. H. Feldman et al. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. ———. 2014a. “Judah Aristobulus and Alexander Jannaeus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Qumran Chronicle 22: 1–19. ———. 2014b. “Shelamzion Alexandra, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Qumran Chronicle 22: 20–38. ———. 2015a. “Hanukkah.” Pages 253–5 in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Vol. 11, Halah-Hiquni. Edited by H. J. Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2015b. “Hasmoneans.” Pages 373–7 in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, Vol. 11, Halah-Hiquni. Edited by H. J. Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2015c. “Perceptions of the Temple Priests in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 79–96 in The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology. Edited by E. Bons and P. Pouchelle. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Bibliography

175

———. 2016a. “Historical and Chronological Observations on Josephus’s Account of Seleucid History in Antiquities 13.365–371.” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 14: 7–21. ———. 2016b. A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. ———. 2016c. “John Hyrcanus as a Prophetic Messiah in 4QTestimonia (4Q175).” Qumran Chronicle 24:9–27. ———. 2016d. “Sacrifice at Khirbet Qumran and in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Implications for Understanding the Wilderness Tradition and Penitential Prayers.” The Qumran Chronicle 24 (2016): 105–26. ———. 2016e. “Septuagint Proverbs 28:4 and Shielding the Righteous.” Pages 142–58 in Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture. Edited by R. X. Gauthier, G. R. Kotzé, and G. J. Steyn. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2016f. “Understanding the Relationship Between the Apocalyptic Worldview and Jewish Sectarian Violence.” Pages 45–57 in The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview. Edited by L. L. Grabbe. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. ———. 2017. “The Identification of the ‘Wicked Priest’ Reconsidered.” Pages 93–109 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. Edited by J. Baden, H. Najman and E. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill. ———. Forthcoming a. “The Psalms of Solomon.” In Blackwell Companion to the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Edited by R. D. Chesnutt. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ———. Forthcoming b. “Psalms of Solomon: Greek.” In The Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 2, Deutero-Canonical Scriptures. Edited by M. Henze. Leiden: Brill. ———. Forthcoming c. “Psalms of Solomon: Syriac.” In The Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 2, Deutero-Canonical Scriptures. Edited by M. Henze. Leiden: Brill. Atkinson, K., and J. Magness. 2010. “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran Community.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129: 317–42. Atkinson, K. M. T. 1959. “The Historical Setting of the Habakkuk Commentary.” Journal of Semitic Studies 4: 238–63. Aucher, J. B., ed. 1818. Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis episcopi Chronicon bipartitum nunc primum Ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum, adnotationibus auctum, Graecis fragmentis exornatum. Venice: Typis Coenobii PP. Armenorum in Insula S. Lazari. Badian, E. 1958. Foreign Clientelae, 264–70 B.C.E. Oxford: Clarendon. Babota, V. 2014. The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood. Leiden: Brill. Bagnall, R. S. 1972. “Stolos the Admiral.” Phoenix 26: 363–5. Balázs, T. 2014. “Apocryphon of Jeremiah C from Qumran.” Pages 203–19 in Rewritten Bible After Fifty Years. Edited by J. Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill. Baltrusch, E. 2002. Die Juden und das Römische Reich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bar-Kochva, B. 1989. Judas Maccabaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barclay, J. M. G. 2007. Against Apion: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Baumgarten, A. I. 1997. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2000. “Pharisees.” Pages 657–63 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2005. “Reflections on the Groningen Hypothesis.” Pages 256–62 in Enoch and Qumran Origins. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

176 Bibliography Baumgarten, J. M. 1999. “Yom Kippur in the Qumran Scrolls and Second Temple Sources.” Dead Sea Discoveries 6: 184–91. Bell, Jr., A. A. 1994. “Fact and Exemplum in Accounts of the Deaths of Pompey and Caesar.” Latomus 53: 824–36. Bellinger, A. R. 1949. “The End of the Seleucids.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 38: 51–102. Bellmore, J. 1999. “Josephus, Pompey and the Jews.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte 48: 94–118. ———. 2000. “Pompey’s Triumph Over the Arabs.” Pages 91–123 in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 10. Edited by C. Deroux. Bruxelles: Latomus Revue d’études latines. Berlin, A. M. 1997. “Between Large Forces.” Biblical Archaeologist 60: 2–57. Berner, C. 2012. “The Heptadic Chronologies of Testament of Levi 16–17 and Their Sources.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 22: 40–52. ———. 2006. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bernstein, M. 2000. “Pesher Psalms.” Pages 655–6 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berrin, S. L. 2000a. “Lemma/Pesher Correspondence in Pesher Nahum.” Pages 341–50 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery 1947–1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ———. 2000b. “Pesher Nahum.” Pages 653–5 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2004a. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. 2004b. “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources in Pesher Nahum.” Dead Sea Discoveries 11: 1–11. ———. 2005. “Pesher Nahum, Psalms of Solomon and Pompey.” Pages 65–84 in Reworking the Bible. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements. Leiden: Brill. Berthelot, K. 2009. “4QTestimonia as a Polemic Against the Prophetic Claims of John Hyrcanus.” Pages 99–106 in Prophecy after the Prophets? Edited by K. De Troyer, A. Lange, and L. L. Schulte. Leuven: Peeters. Bevan, E. R. 1902. House of Seleucus. London: E. Arnold. ———. 1927. House of Ptolemy. London: E. Arnold. Bickerman, E. J. 1938. Institutions des Séleucides. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1938. ———. 1979. The God of the Maccabees. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bilde, P. 1988. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Bivar, A. D. H. 1983. “The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids.” Pages 21–99 in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3(1). Edited by E. Yaarshater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blasius, A. 2006. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 37: 521–47. Bockmuehl, M. 1992. “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?” Tyndale Bulletin 43: 155–69.

Bibliography

177

Bohak, G. 2010. “Heliopolis.” Pages 721–3 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bouchnik, R. 2016. “Meat Consumption Patterns as an Ethnic Marker in the Late Second Temple Period.” Pages 303–22 in Bones and Identity. Edited by N. Marom et al. Oxford: Oxbow. Bowersock, G. W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bowman, S. 2008. “Mock Aqedah or Mashiah? Imagining Herod in Sepher Yosippon.” European Journal of Jewish Studies 2: 21–43. Brady, M. 2005. “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383– 4Q391).” Pages 88–109 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brooke, G. J. 1991. “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim.” Pages 135–59 in Images of Empire. Edited by L. Alexander. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ———. 2007. “Types of Historiography in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 211–30 in Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography. Edited by G J. Brooke and T. Römer. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2009. “Was the Teacher of Righteousness Considered to Be A Prophet?” Pages 77–97 in Prophecy after the Prophets? Edited by K. de Troyer and A. Lange. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2010. “Testimonia (4Q175).” Pages 1297–8 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, Edited by J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Broshi, M. 2000. “468e.4QHistorical Text F.” Pages 406–11 in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Broshi, M. and E. Eshel. 2000. “4Q248. 4QHistorical Text A.” Pages 192–200 in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Broshi, M., and A. Yardeni. 1995. “339.4QList of False Prophets ar.” Pages 77–9 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV. Edited by M. Broshi et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Broughton, R. S. 1952. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. New York: American Philological Association. Brunt, P. A. 1965. “Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 11 n.s.: 1–20. Brutti, M. 2006. The Development of the High Priesthood During the Pre-Hasmonean Period. Leiden: Brill. Buitenwerf, R. 2003. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting. Leiden: Brill. Butrica, J. L. 1993. “Propertius 3,11,33–38 and the Death of Pompey.” Classical Quarterly 43: 342–6. Camps, W. A. ed. 1966. Propertius Elegies: Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Case, S. J. 1925. “Josephus’ Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution.” Journal of Biblical Literature 44: 10–20. Cauville, S., and D. Devauchelle. 1984. “Le temple d’Edfou: étapes de la construction, nouvelles données historiques.” Revue d’égyptologie 35: 31–55. Chapman, D. W. 2008. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Charlesworth, J. H. 2002. The Pesharim and Qumran History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2013. “What Is the Samaritan Pentateuch?” Pages xv–xx in The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. Edited by B. Tsedaka. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

178 Bibliography ———. 2015. “‫ – הברכה על הר גריזים‬An Unknown Dead Sea Scroll and Speculations Focused on the Vorlage of Deuteronomy 27:4.” Pages 393–415 in Jesus, Paulus und die Texte von Qumran. Edited by J. Frey and E. Edzard Popkes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2016. “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha—Thirty Years Later.” Pages 3–22 in New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by L. DiTommaso and G. S. Oegema. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Chauveau, M. 1990. “Un Été 145.” Le Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 90: 135–68. ———. 2000. “Encore Ptolémée «VII» et le Dieu Néos Philopatôr!” Revue d’égyptologie 51: 257–61. Clarysse, W., and G. van der Veken with S. P. Vlemming. 1983. The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt (P. L. Bat. 24). Leiden: Brill. Coarelli, F. 1967. “Su un monumento funerario romano nell’abbazia di San Guglielmo al Goleto.” Dialoghi de archeologia 1: 46–71. Cohen, G. M. 1978. The Seleucid Colonies. Wiesbaden, Steiner. Cohen, S. J. D. 1979. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: Leiden: Brill. ———. 2000. “False Prophets (4Q339), Netinim (4Q340), and Hellenism at Qumran.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1: 60–2. Collins, J. J. 1972. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Missoula: Scholars Press. ———. 1992. “Essenes.” Pages 619–26 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman, G. A. Herion, D. F. Graf, and J. D. Pleins. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1993. Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1997. Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1999. Between Athens and Jerusalem. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2004. “The Third Sibyl, Revisited.” Pages 3–19 in Things Revealed. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2009. “Josephus on the Essenes, The Sources of His Information.” Pages 51–72 in A Wandering Galilean. Edited by Z. Rogers with M. Daly-Denton and A. F. McKinley. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. 2010a. Beyond the Qumran Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2010b. “Prophecy and History in the Pesharim.” Pages 209–26 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by M. Popović. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010c. The Scepter and the Star. 2d ed. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2011. “Reading for History in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 18: 295–315. ———. 2012. “Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 19: 159–76. ———. 2016. “Temple or Taxes?” Pages 189–201 in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East. Edited by J. J. Collins and J. G. Manning. Leiden: Brill. Collins, J. J., and Peter W. Flint. 1996. “245.4Qpseudo-Danielc ar.” Pages 153–64 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVII. Edited by G. Brooks et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Collins, A. Y., and J. J. Collins. 2008. King and Messiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Collins, M. A. 2009. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T&T Clark International. Cornell, T. J. ed. 2013. The Fragments of the Roman Historians. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography

179

Cotton, H. M., and D. Gera. 2009. “Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koile Syria and Phoinike.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 169: 125–55. Cotton, H. M., and M. Wörrle. 2007. “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159: 192–205. Cowey, J. M. S., and K. Maresch. 2001. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Crawford, M. H. 2001. Roman Republican Coinage. 2 vols. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1992. The Roman Republic. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Crommelin, B. V. W. “Die Parther und die Parthische geschichte bei Pompeius Trogus— Iustin.” Pages 259–77 in Das Parthherreich und seine Zeugnisse. Edited by J. Wiesehöfer. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Dąbrowa, E. 1992. “Könige Syriens in der Gefangenschaft der Parther.” Tyche 7: 48–50. ———. 2010a. “Demetrius III in Judea.” Electrum 18: 175–81. ———. 2010b. “The Hasmoneans and the Religious Homogeneity of Their State.” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 8: 7–14. ———. 2010c. The Hasmoneans and Their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press. Davies, P. R. 2011. “Between Text and Archaeology.” Dead Sea Discoveries 18: 316–38. Davis, C. J. P. 2011. “Torah-Performance and History in the Golah.” Pages 467–95 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by P. W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. S. Baek. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Davis, K. 2013. “Prophets of Exile.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44: 497–529. Davis, K., I. Rabin, I. Feldman, M. Krutzsch, H. Rimon, Å. Justnes, T. Elgvin, and M. Langlois. 2017. “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the TwentyFirst Century.” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 188–228. Debevoise, N. C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. De Troyer, K. 2003. Rewriting the Sacred Text. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. de Vaux, R. 1959. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dimant, D. 1984a. “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran.” Pages 542–57 in Messiah and Christos. Edited by I. Gruenwald. Tübingen: Mohr, 1984. ———. 1984b. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by M. Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1992. “New Light from Qumran on Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390.” Pages 405–48 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Edited by J. T. Barrera and L. V. Montaner. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2001. Qumran Cave 4.XXI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ———. 2007. “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community.” Pages 197–205 in Flores Florentino. Edited by A. Hilhorst, É. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011a. “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective.” Revue de Qumran 25: 17–39. ———. 2011b. “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Texts.” Pages 347–95 in Qumran und die Archäologie. Edited by J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2013a. “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” Dead Sea Discoveries 20: 452–71. ———. 2013b. “Pseudo-Ezekiel.” Pages 1520–8 in Outside the Bible. Vol. 2. Edited by L. H. Feldman et al. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

180 Bibliography ———. 2014. History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dobias, J. 1924. “Φἴλιππος Βαρύπους: A Contribution to the History of the Last Seleukids.” Listy Filoggické 51: 214–27 (in Czech). Doering, L. 2003. “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C.” Pages 50–79 in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. Edited by O. Kraus and K. W. Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Donceel, R. 2005. Khirbet Qumrân (Palestine): Le Locus 101 et ses vestiges d’activité artisanale. Cracow: Enigma. Dönitz, S. 2013. Überlieferung und Rezeption des Sefer Yosippon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2016. “Sefer Yosippon (Josippon).” Pages 382–9 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by H. H. Chapman and Z. Rodgers. Malden, MA: Wiley. Doran, R. 2016. “Resistance and Revolt.” Pages 175–88 in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East. Edited by J. J. Collins and J. G. Manning. Leiden: Brill. Doudna, G. L. 1999. “Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Found at Qumran: The Case for 63 BCE.” The Qumran Chronicle 8: 1–96. ———. 2000. “4Q Pesher Hoseab.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10: 338–58. ———. 2001. 4Q Pesher Nahum. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 2006. “The Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation.” Pages 147–57 in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011a. “Allusions to the End of the Hasmonean Dynasty in Pesher Nahum (4Q169).” Pages 259–78 in The Mermaid and the Partridge. Edited by G. J. Brooke and J. Høgehaven. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011b. “Dating the Scroll Deposits of the Qumran Caves.” Pages 238–46 in The Caves of Qumran. Edited by M. Fidanzio. Leiden: Brill. Duhaime, J. 2004. The War Texts. New York: T&T Clark International. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1963. “Le Commentaire de Nahum Découvert près de la Mer Morte (4QpNah: Traduction et Notes).” Semitica 13: 55–88. ———. 1973. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Trans. G. Vermes. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith. Duruy, V. 1884. History of Rome and the Roman People. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench. Eckhardt, B. 2009. “PsSal 17, die Hasmonäer und der Herodompeius.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40: 465–92. Edwards, M. J. 1991. “Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.” Journal of the Accordia Research Centre 2: 69–85. Efron, J. 1987. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden: Brill. Ehling, K. 1996. “Die Nachfolgergelung des Antiochos VII. Vor seinem Aufbruch in den Partherkrieg (131 v. Chr.).” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 46: 31–38. ———. 1998a. “Probleme der seleukidischen Chronologie und Geschichte der Jahre zwischen 139 und 131 v. Chr.” Pages 227–41 in Stephanos nomismatikos. Edited by Ulrike Peter. Berlin: Akademia. ———. 1998b. “Seleukidische Geschichte zwischen 130 und 121 v. Chr.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte 47: 141–51. ———. 2008. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.). Stuttgart: Steiner.

Bibliography

181

Eisenman, R. H., and M. Wise. 1992. The Dead Scrolls Uncovered. Rockport, MA: Element. Ekroth, G. 2016. “A View from the Greek Side.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7: 35–50. Elgvin, T. 2016. “Incense Altar from Nahal Hever? MS 1655/4.” Pages 439–49 in Gleanings from the Caves. Edited by T. Elgvin. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Elitzur, Y. 2013. “The Abba Cave.” Israel Exploration Journal 63: 83–102. Erder, Y. 2014. “Understanding the Qumran Sect in View of Early Karaite Halakhah from the Genoic Period.” Revue de Qumran 26: 403–22. Eshel, E., and H. Eshel. 2002. “Toponymic Midrash in 1 Enoch and in Other Second Temple Jewish Literature.” Henoch 24: 115–30. ———. 2003. “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls.” Pages 215–40 in Emanuel. Edited by S. M. Paul. Leiden: Brill. Eshel, E., H. Eshel, and A. Yardeni, eds. 1998. Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eshel, E., and M. Kister. 1992. “A Polemical Qumran Fragment.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43: 277–81. ———. 2000. “4QPolemical Text.” Pages 446–9 in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI. Edited by S. J. Pfann et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Eshel, H. 1996. “4QMMT and the History of the Hasmonean Period.” Pages 53–65 in Reading 4QMMT. Edited by J. Kampen and M. J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 2000 “Alexander Jannaeus.” Pages 16–18 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.” Pages 29–44 in Historical Perspectives. Edited by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2005. “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 102–10 in Enoch and Qumran Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2008. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ———. 2009. “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 107–17 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by A. K. Petersen et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2016. “The Fate of the Scrolls and Fragments: A Survey from 1946 to the Present.” Pages 33–49 in Gleanings form the Caves. Edited by T. Elgvin. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Fantham, E. 1975. “The Trials of Gabinius in 54 B.C.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 24: 425–33. Feldman, A. 2013. Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran. Berlin. de Gruyter. Fields, W. 2009. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History. Leiden: Brill. Figueras, P. 2000. From Gaza to Pelusium. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1978. “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40: 498–507. ———. 2000a. “4QpapHistorical Text C.” Pages 275–80 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI Miscellanea, Part I. Edited by S. J. Pfann. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 2000b. “4QHistorical Text D.” Pages 281–6 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI Miscellanea, Part I. Edited by S. J. Pfann. Oxford: Clarendon.

182 Bibliography ———. 2000c. “4QHistorical Text E.” Pages 287–9 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI Miscellanea, Part I. Edited by S. J. Pfann. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 2007. The One Who Is To Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. 2017. “Preserving the Cult of YHWH in Judean Garrisons.” Pages 375–408 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. Edited by J. Baden, H. Najman and E.Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill. Flinders Petrie, W. M. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. Cairo: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Flint, P. 2001. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 229–367 in The Book of Daniel. Edited by J. J. Collins and P. Flint. Leiden: Brill. Flusser, D. 1957. “An ‘Alexander Geste’ in a Parma MS.” Tarbiz 26: 165–84 (in Hebrew). ———. 1978. Josippon [Josephus Gorionides] Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew). ———. 2009. Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume 1. Translated by A. Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Foerster, G. 1981. “The Conquests of John Hyrcanus I in Moab and the Identification of Samaga Samoge.” Eretz-Israel 15: 353–5 (in Hebrew). Fröhlich, Ida. 1996. “Time and Times and Half Time.” Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. García Martínez, F. 1998. “The History of the Qumran Community in the Light of Recently Available Texts.” Pages 194–216 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 2010. “Reconsidering the Cave 1 Texts Sixty Years After Their Discovery: An Overview.” Pages 1–13 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited. Edited by D. K. Falk. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “The Groningen Hypothesis Revisited.” Pages 17–29 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Edited by A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “The Contents of the Manuscripts from the Caves of Qumran.” Pages 67–79 in The Caves of Qumran. Edited by M. Fidanzio. Leiden: Brill. García Martínez, F., and A. S. van der Woude. 1990. “ ‘A Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” Pages 521–41 in The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community. Edited by F. García Martínez. Paris: Gabalda. Gebhardt, O. L. von. 1895. ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Geller, M. G. 1979. “Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift.” Journal of Jewish Studies 30: 202–11. Gelzer, M. 1959. Pompeius. Munich: F. Bruckmann. Gera, D. 2009. “Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koile Syria and Phoinike.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 169: 125–55. Ginzel, F. K. 1906. Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, das Zeitrechnungswesen der Völker. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Gold, B. K. 1985. “Pompey and Theophanes of Mytilene.” American Journal of Philology 106: 312–27. Goldstein, J. A. 1976. 1 Maccabees. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Goldsworthy, A. 2006. Caesar. New Haven: Yale University Press. Goodman, M. 1987. “The Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 618–53 in vol. 3 of E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.135). Rev. ed. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Bibliography

183

———. 1999. “A Note on Josephus, the Pharisees and Ancestral Tradition.” Journal of Jewish Studies 50: 17–20. Grabbe, L. L. 1991. “Maccabean Chronology: 167–164 or 168–165 BCE.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110: 59–74. ———. 1992. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ———. 1997. “The Seventy-Weeks Prophecy (Daniel 9:24–27) in Early Jewish Interpretation.” Pages 595–611 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Leiden: Brill. Grainger, J. D. 1997. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden: Brill. Gray, G. B. 1912. “The Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 625–52 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon. Greenhalgh, P. 1981a. Pompey: The Republican Prince. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ———. 1981b. Pompey: The Roman Alexander. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Gregoratti, L. 2012. “Parthian Women in Flavius Josephus.” Pages 183–92 in Jüdisch hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext. Edited by M. Hirschberger. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Grossman, M. 2002. Reading for History in the Damascus Document. Leiden: Brill. Grueber, H. A. 1970. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, vol. 1. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Gruen, Eric S. 1974. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. London: University of California Press. ———. 1998a. Hellenism and Persecution. Pages 238–64 in Hellenistic History and Culture. Edited by P. Green. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1998b. Heritage and Hellenism. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2016. “When Is a Revolt Not a Revolt?” Pages 10–37 in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East. Edited by J. J. Collins and J. G. Manning. Leiden: Brill. Günther, L. M. 2012. “Die Hasmonäerin Alexandra—Integrationsfigur für den Widerstand gegen den neuen König Herodes?” Pages 131–55 in Jewish Identity and Politics Between Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. Edited by B. Eckhardt. Leiden: Brill. Gutfeld, O., and R. Price. 2017. “The Discovery of a New Dead Sea Scroll Cave at Qumran.” Qumran Section. Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, MA. November, 19. Online: http:// www.liberty.edu/media/1147/archaeology/SBL_Qumran_section_paper_2017_sm.pdf. Harian, M. 1995. Roman Republican Moneyers and Their Coins 63 BC to 49 BC. London: Spink & Son. Harkins, A. K. 2017. “How should We Feel About the Teacher of Righteousness?” Pages 493–514 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Edited by A. Feldman, M. Cioatǎ, and C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill. Harris, J. R. 1911. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, J. R., and A. Mingana. 1916. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. 2 vols. Manchester: John Rylands University Press. Hartog, P. B. 2017. “ ‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ and ‘The Mouth of the Priest.’ ” Dead Sea Discoveries 24:1–22. Hartog, P. B., and J. Jokiranta. 2017. “The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Hellenistic Context.” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 339–55.

184 Bibliography Hata, G. 2011. “Where Is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt.” Pages 177–91 in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Edited by J. Pastor, P. Stern and M Mor. Leiden: Brill. Heinen, H. 1974. “Les marriages de Ptolémé VII Evergète et leur chronolgie Etude comparative de papyrus et d’inscriptions grecs, démotiques et hiéroglyphiques.” Pages 147–55 in Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Edited by E. Kiessling and H. A. Rupprecht. Munich: C. H. Beck. ———. 1997. “Der Sohn des 6. Ptolemäers im Sommer 145.Zur Frage nach Ptolemaios VII. Neos Philopator und zur Zählung der Ptolemuaerkönige.” Pages 449–60 in vol. 1 of Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 1995. Edited by B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler, and G. Poethke. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. Hendin, D. 2013. “Current Viewpoints on Ancient Jewish Coinage: A Bibliographic Essay.” Currents in Biblical Research 11: 246–301. Henze, M. 2009. “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses.” Pages 25–41 in Prophecy after the Prophets? Edited by K. de Troyer and A. Lange. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Hilgenfeld, A. 1871. “Die Psalmen Salomo’s, deutsch übersetzt und aufs Neue untersucht.” Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 14: 383–418. Hirschfeld, Y., and D. T. Ariel. 2005. “A Coin Assemblage from the Reign of Alexander Jannaeus Found on the Shore of the Dead Sea.” Israel Exploration Journal 55: 66–89. Hoffman, G. 1880. Auszüge aus Syrischen Akten Persicher Märtyrer. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Hölbl, G. 2000. History of Ptolemaic Egypt. Translated by T. Saavedra. London: Routledge. Hominer, H. 1967. Josiphon. Jerusalem: Hominer Publication (in Hebrew). Honigman, S. 2014. Tales of High Priests and Taxes. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hoover, O. D. 1994. “Striking a Pose: Seleucid Types and Mactpolitik on the Coins of John Hyrcanus I.” The Picus: The Annual Journal of the Classical and Medieval Numismatic Society 3: 40–57. ———. 2007a. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton: Part II. New York: American Numismatic Society. ———. 2007b. “A Revised Chronology for the Late Seleucids at Antioch (121/120–64 BC).” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 56: 280–301. ———. 2007c. “The Dated Coinage of Gaza in Historical Context (264/3 BC–AD 241/2).” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 86: 63–90. ———. 2009. Handbook of Syrian Coins. London: Classical Numismatic Group. ———. 2011. “Time Is Money?” Pages 251–66 in Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times. Edited by F. de Callataÿ. Bari: Edipuglia. Hoover, O. D. and R. Barkay. 2010. “Important Additions to the Corpus of Nabatean Coins Since 1990.” Pages 197–212 in Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms. Edited by M. Huth and P. G. Van Alfen. New York: American Numismatic Society. Hoover, O. D., A. Houghton, and P. Vesely. 2008. “The Silver Mint of Damascus Under Demetrius III and Antiochus XII (97/6 BC–83/2 BC).” American Numismatic Society 2nd Series 20: 305–36. Horbury, W. 1999. “The Proper Name in 4Q468b: Peitholaus?” Journal of Jewish Studies 50: 310–11.

Bibliography

185

Horgan, M. P. 1979. Pesharim. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. ———. 2002. “Isaiah Pesher 4 (4Q161=4QpIsaa).” Pages 83–97 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Høtje, J. M. 2009. “The Death and Burial of Mithridates VI.” Pages 121–30 in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Edited by J. M. Høtje. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. Houghton, A. 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton. New York: American Numismatic Society. ———. 1989. “A Victory Coin and the Parthian Wars of Antiochus VII.” Page 65 in Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics. Edited by I. A. Carradice. London: International Association of Professional Numismatists. ———. 1992. “The Revolt of Tryphon and the Accession of Antiochus VI at Apamea.” Revue Suisse de numismatique 71: 119–41. ———. 1998. “The Struggle for the Seleucid Succession, 94–92 BC.” Schwizerische numismatische Rundschau 77: 66–8. ———. 1993. “The Reigns of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX at Antioch and Tarsus.” Schwizerische numismatische Rundschau 72: 87–106. ———. 2000. “A Mint of Antiochus IX at Samaria-Sebaste?” American Journal of Numismatics 12: 107–12. Houghton, A., C. Lorber, and O. Hoover. 2008. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, Part II. New York: American Numismatic Society. Houghton, A., and G. Le Rider. 1988. “Un premier règne d’Antiochos VIII Éphphane à Antioche en 128.” Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique 112: 401–11. Houghton, A., and W. Müseler. 1990. “The Reigns of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX at Damascus.” Schwizerische numismatische Rundschau 40: 57–62. Houghton, A., and A. Spaer. 1990. “New Silver Coins of Demetrius III and Antiochus XII at Damascus.” Schweizer Münzblätter 157: 1–5. Howard-Johnston, J. 2006. East Rome, Sasanian Persian and the End of Antiquity. Burlington: Ashgate. Humbert, J.-B. 1994. “l’espace sacré a Qumrân. Propositions pour l’archéologie.” Revue Biblique 191: 161–214. Humbert, J.-B., and A. Chambon, eds. 1994. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrânet de ‘Ain Feshkha I. Fribourg: Academic Press. ———. 2003. The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes. Trans. S. J. Pfann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hunt, A. 2006. Missing Priests. New York: T&T Clark International. Huß, W. 2001. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. Munich: C. H. Beck. Hutchesson, I. 1999. “63 BCE: A Revised Dating for the Deposition of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Qumran Chronicle 8: 177–94. Ilan, T. 1987. “Greek Names of the Hasmoneans.” Jewish Quarterly Review 78: 1–20. ———. 2001. “Shelamzion in Qumran.” Pages 57–68 in Historical Perspectives. Edited by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill. Jassen, Alex P. 2011. “Re-Reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161) Forty Years After DJD V.” Pages 57–90 in The Mermaid and the Partridge. Edited by G. J. Brooke and J. Høgehaven. Leiden: Brill. Johnson, S. R. 2004. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

186 Bibliography Joosten, J. 2015. “Divergent Cultic Practices in the Septuagint.” Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 48: 27–38. ———. 2017. “A Gift of Arms.” Pages 131–8 in The Faces of the Torah. Edited by M. Bar Asher Siegal, T. Novick, and C. Hayes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Justnes, Å. 2009. The Time of Salvation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Justnes, Å., and J. M. Rasmussen. 2017. “Soli Deo Gloria?” Bible and Interpretation. November. Online: http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Justnes%20&%20Rasmussen %20.pdf. Kantor, G. 2013. “Mithradatic Wars.” Pages 454–551 in Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by R. Bagnall et al. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Keaveney, A. 1982. “The King and the War-Lords.” American Journal of Philology 103: 412–28. ———. 2009. Lucullus: A Life. 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Keddie, G. A. 2013. “Solomon to His Friends: The Role of Epistolarity in Eupolemos.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 22: 201–37. ———. 2016. “Ptolemaic Sovereignty and the Political Unconscious of 3 Maccabees.” Pages 193–216 in New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by L. DiTommaso and G. S. Oegema. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Keppie, L. 1984. The Making of the Roman Army. London: Batsford. Kerkeslager, A. 1998. “The Apology of the Potter.” Pages 67–79 in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology. Edited by I. S. Grumach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kiani, M. Y. 1982. Parthian Sites in Hyrcania. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982. Klausner, J. 1972a. “John Hyrcanus I.” Pages 211–21 in The World History of the Jewish People VI. Edited by A. Schalit. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ———. 1972b. “Judah Aristobulus and Jannaeus Alexander.” Pages 222–41 in The World History of the Jewish People VI. Edited by A. Schalit. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Klawans, J. 2012. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein, S. 1934. “Palästinisches im Jubiláenbuch.” Zeitschrift des deutschen PalälstinaVereins 57: 7–18. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, eds. 1994–1999. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill. Kokkinos, N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kooij, A. van der. 2010. “The Old Greek of Isaiah and Other Prophecies Published in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 72–84 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by W. Kraus and M. Karrer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kopij, K. 2011. “The Coins Related to Pompey the Great Through the Lens of the Theology of Victory.” Pages 141–50 in Proceeding of the 6th International Numismatic Congress in Croatia. Edited by J. Dobrinić. Dobrinic: Rijeka. Kosmala, H. 1978. Studies, Essays and Reviews. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Kratz, R. G. 2017. “The Teacher of Righteousness and His Enemies.” Pages 515–32 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Edited by A. Feldman, M. Cioatǎ, and C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill. Krengel, E., and C. C. Lorber. 2009. “Early Cappadocian Tetradrachms in the Name of Antiochus VII.” The Numismatic Chronicle 169: 51–104. Ksapp, J. 1772. ed. Iulii obsequentis quae supersunt ex libro De prodigiis. Dorf: G. Vierlingium.

Bibliography

187

Kugel, J. 2007. “How Old Is the Aramaic Levi Document?” Dead Sea Discoveries 14: 291–312. Kushnir-Stein, A. 1995. “Gaza Coinage Dated LIC—A Reappraisal.” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 74: 49–55. Ladouceur, D. J. 1976. Studies in the Language and Historiography of Flavius Josephus. PhD diss., Brown University. Lanciers, E. 1995. “Some Observations on the Events in Egypt in 145 B.C.” Simblos 1: 33–9. Lange, A. 2010. “The False Prophets Who Arose Against Our God.” Pages 205–18 in Aramaica Qumranica. Edited by K. Berthelot and D. S. Ezra. Leiden: Brill. Lapin, H. 2010. “Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historiography of Ancient Judaism.” Pages 108–27 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Laqueur, R. 1909. “Ein Epigramm des Antipatros von Sidon.” Hermes 44: 146–50. ———. 1920. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Giessen: Münich Verlagsbuchhandlung. Last, R. 2010 “Onias IV and the ἁδέσποτος ἱερός.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41: 494–516. Leach, J. 1978. Pompey the Great. London: Croom Helm. Lee, J.-K., and C.-H. Ji. 2004. “From the Tobiads to the Hasmoneans.” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 8: 177–88. Lenger, M.-T. 1980. Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées. Brussels: Palais des academies. Le Rider, G. 1965. Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Paris: P. Geuthner. Levenson, D. B., and T. R. Martin. 2009. “Akairos or Eukairos?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40: 307–41. Lim, T. H. 2000a. “Kittim.” Pages 469–71 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2000b. “Wicked Priest.” Pages 973–96 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2002. Pesharim. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Loginov, S. D., and A. B. Nikitin. 1996. “Parthian Coins from Margiana.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 10: 39–51. Lorber, C. C., and A. Houghton. 2006. “Cappadocian Tetradrachms in the Name of Antiochus VII (with an Appendix of Quantitive Analyses by Peter Veselý).” Numismatic Chronicle 166: 49–97. Losehand, J. 2008. Die letzten Tage des Pompeius. Vienna: Phoibos. Macurdy, G. H. 1932. Hellenistic Queens. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Mader, G. 2000. Josephus and the Politics of Historiography. Leiden: Brill. Magen, Y. 2008. Mount Gerizim Excavations, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Israel Antiquities Authority. Magen, Y., and Y. Peleg. 2007. The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Magness, J. 2002. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2004. Debating Qumran. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2011. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

188 Bibliography ———. 2013. “Was Qumran a Fort in the Hasmonean Period?” Journal of Jewish Studies 64: 228–41. ———. 2016. “Were Sacrifices Offered at Qumran?” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7: 5–34. Mahaffy, J. P. 1899. A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Maier, J. 1962. “Weitere Stücke zum Nahumkommentar aus der Höhle 4 Von Qumran.” Judaica 18: 215–50. Malamud, M. 2003. “Pompey’s Head and Cato’s Snakes.” Classical Philology 98: 31–44. Mandell, S. R. 1991. “Did the Maccabees Believe That They Had a Valid Treaty with Rome?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53: 202–20. Manning, J. C. 2010. The Last Pharaohs. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marshall, B. 1987. “Pompeius’ Fear of Assassination.” Chrion 17: 119–33. Mason, S. 1991. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1997. “An Essay on Character.” Pages 31–77 in Internationales JosephusKolloquium Münster 1997. Edited by J. U. Kalms. Münster: Lit. ———. 1998. “Should Any Wish to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25).” Pages 64–103 in Understanding Josephus. Edited by S. Mason. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 2009. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins. Peabody, MA; Hendrickson. Mayor, A. 2010. The Poison King. Princeton: Princeton University Press. McDaniel, T. F. 2007. Clarifying Baffling Biblical Passages: Chapter Thirty-Four: “Stabbed Along the Inlets of Egypt” Psalms of Solomon 2:26–27. Online: http:// tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/. Meer, M. N. van der. 2010. “Vision from Memphis and Leontopolis.” Pages 298–306 in Isaiah in Context. Edited by M. N. van der Meer et al. Leiden: Brill. Mendels, D. 1987. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2011. “Was the Rejection of Gifts One of the Reasons for the Outbreak of the Maccabean Revolt?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 20: 243–56. Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Nyack, NJ: Amphora. Milik, J. T. 1959. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by J. Strugnell. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson. Mizzi, D. 2016. “The Animal Bone Deposits at Qumran.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7: 51–70. ———. 2017. “From the Judaean Desert to the Great Sea.” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 378–406. Mizzi, D., and J. Magness. 2016. “Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century BCE?” Journal of Biblical Literature 135: 301–20. Mommsen, T. 1861. “Mamilius Sura, Aemilius Sura, L. Manlius.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 16: 282–7. Nadig, P. 2013. “Ptolemy XIII.” Pages 5648–9 in Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by R. Bagnall et al. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Najman, H., and E. Tigchelaar. 2013. “A Preparatory Study of the Nomenclature and Text Designation in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Revue de Qumran 103: 305–25. Netzer, E. 1977. “The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228: 1–13. ———. 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Bibliography

189

Neusner, J. 1965. A History of the Jews in Babylonia I: The Parthian Period. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1971. The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. Newsom, C. 1996. “4QApocryphon of Joshuaa-b.” Pages 237–88 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII. Edited by G. Brooke et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Niese, B. 1892. Flavii Iosephi Opera, vol. III. Berlin, Weidman. Nikonorov, V. P. 1998. “Apollodorus of Artemita and the Date of his Parthica Revisited.” Electrum 2: 107–22. Nitzan, B. 2008. “Reality and Hopes of the Qumran Community as Response to Crises in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 75–93 in Religious Responses to Political Crisis. Edited by H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman. New York: T&T Clark International. ———. 2010. “The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 337–50 in Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013. “Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 636–66 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiff­ man. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Noam, V. “The Story of King Jannaeus (b. Qiddušin 66a).” Harvard Theological Review 107: 31–58. Olbrycht, M. J. 2009. “Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran.” Pages 163–90 in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Edited by J. Munk Højte. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. ———. 2010. “The Early Reign of Mithradates II the Great in Parthia.” Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientalia 1: 144–58. Olson, D. C. 2005. “Historical Chronology after the Exile according to 1 Enoch 89–90.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15: 63–74. Orth, W. 2011. “Seleukidische Hoftitel und politische Strukturen im Spiegel der Seleukidische Hoftitel und politische Strukturen im Spiegel der SeptuagintaÜberlieferung.” Pages 64–77 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Edited by Eberhard Bons et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Pardee, D. 1973. “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalms 37 from Qumran Cave 4.” Revue de Qumran 8: 163–94. Passehl, M. K. 2005. “Demetrios Nikator’s Second Arsakid War.” Online: http://www. seleukidtraces.info/information/mark_passehl. Peremans, W., E. Van ’t Dack, L. Mooren, and W. Swinnen. 1968. Prosopographia Ptolemaica. 6, Cour, les relations internationals et les possessions extérieures, la vie culturelle. Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain. Perles, F. 1902. Zur Erklärung der Psalmen Salomos. Berlin: Wolf Peiser, 1902. Pestman, P. W. 1967. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.–453 ap. J. C.). Leiden: Brill. ———. 1993. The Archive of the Theban Choachytes (Second Century BC). Leuven: Peeters. Pfann, S. J. 2007a. “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25: 147–70. ———. 2007b. “Sites in the Judean Desert Where Texts Have Been Found.” Pages 109–19 The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: Companion Volume. Edited by E. Tov. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “Period Ia and the Terminus a quo of De Vaux’s Period IB, Essene Occupation.” Pages 703–18 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Edited by A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill.

190 Bibliography Pomykala, K. E. 1995. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Popović, M. 2011. “The Jewish Revolt against Rome.” Pages 1–25 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by M. Popović. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “Reading, Writing, and Memorizing Together.” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 447–70. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portier-Young, A. E. 2011. Apocalypse Against Empire. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pouilloux, J., P. Roesch, and J. Marcillet-Jaubert. 1987. Salamine de Chypre XIII. Paris: Diffusion de Bouccard. Pucci Ben Zeev, M. 1981. “An Unknown Source on a Possible Treaty Between Hyrcanus I and the Parthians.” Zion 46: 331–8 (in Hebrew). ———. 1983. “Jewish-Parthian Relations in Josephus.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 13–25. ———. 1998. Jewish Rights in the Roman World. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Puech, E. 1997. Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pummer, R. 2009. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell. 1994. Qumran Cave 4 V. Oxford: Clarendon. Rajak, T. 1994. “The Jews Under Hasmonean Rule.” Pages 274–309 in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume IX. 2nd ed. Edited by J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2001. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Leiden: Brill. Rawson, E. 1994. “Caesar: Civil War and Dictatorship.” Pages 421–67 in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume IX. 2nd ed. Edited by J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reed, S. A. 2007. “Find-Sites of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 14: 199–21. Regev, E. 1997. “How Did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?” Journal of Jewish Studies 48: 276–89. ———. 2013. The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Reinach, T. 1903. Jewish Coins. London: Lawrence & Bullen. Reynolds III, B. H. 2011a. “Adjusting the Apocalypse.” Pages 279–94 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Edited by A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011b. Between Symbolism and Realism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Richardson Jr., L. 1977. Propertius Elegies I-IV. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Richardson, P. 1996. Herod. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Rocca, S. 2014. “The Late Roman Republic and Hasmonean Judaea.” Athenaeum 102: 47–78. Rodgers, Z. 2006. “Justice for Justus.” Pages 169–892 in Biographical Limits in the Ancient World. Edited by B. McGing and J. Mossman. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Rooke, D. W. 2000. Zadok’s Heirs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Runesson, A., D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, eds. 2008. The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ruzer, S. 2016. “Eschatological Failure as God’s Mystery.” Dead Sea Discoveries 23: 347–64. Ryle, H. E., and M. R. James. 1891. ΥΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

191

Sachs, A., and H. Hunger. 1996. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 3. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sachs, A. J., and D. J. Wiseman. 1954. “A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period.” Iraq 16: 202–12. Samuel, A. E. 1962. Ptolemaic Chronology. Munich: C. H. Beck. Sanford, E. M. 1939. “The Career of Aulus Gabinius.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 70: 84–7. Sartre, M. 2005. The Middle East Under Rome. Translated by C. Porter and E. Rawlings with J. Routier Pucci. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Savalli-Lestrade, I. 1998. Les “Philoi” royaux dans l’Asie hell énistique. Genève: Droz. Scardigli, B. 1983. “Asinius Pollio und Nikolaos von Damaskus.” Historia 32: 121–3. Schenker, A. 2008. “Le Seigneur choisir-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?” Pages 339–51 in Scripture in Tradition. Edited by A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta. Leiden: Brill. Schiffman, L. H. 1993. “Pharisees and Sadducees in Pesher Nahum.” Pages 272–90 in Minhah Le Nahum. Edited by M. Brettler and M. A. Fishbane. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Schöene, A. ed. 1999. Eusebi Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Zurich: Weidmann. Schofield, A. 2016. “An Altar in the Desert?” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7: 123–35. Schoff, H., trans. 1914. The Parthian Stations of Isidore of Charax. Philadelphia: Commercial Museum. Schorch, S. 2005. “The Reading(s) of the Tora in Qumran.” Pages 105–14 in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines Helsinki, 1–4 August 2000. Edited by H. Shehadeh and H. Tawa with R. Pumme. Paris: P. Geuthner. Schreiber, S. 2000. Gesalbter und König. New York: de Gruyter. Schubert, P. 1992. “Une attestation de Ptolémée Eupator regnant?” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 94: 119–22. Schuller, E., and M. Bernstein. 2001. “4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona-c.” Pages 153–204 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII. Edited by M. Bernstein et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Schultz, B. 2011. “Not Greeks But Romans.” Pages 107–27 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by M. Popović. Leiden: Brill. Schürer, E., G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black, eds. 1973–87. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D.135). 3 vols. Rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Schwartz, D. R. 1999. “4Q468g: Ptollas?” Journal of Jewish Studies 50: 308–9. ———. 2000. “Aemilius Scaurus, Marcus.” Pages 9–10 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem.” Pages 45–56 in Historical Perspectives. Edited by D. Goodblatt et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2008. 2 Maccabees. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schwartz, S. 1990a. “Georgius Syncellus’s Account of Ancient Jewish History.” Pages 1–8 in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by D. Āsāf. Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies. ———. 1990b. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1993. “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and JudaeanSamaritan Religions.” Jewish History 7: 9–25. Scott, J. M. 2015. BACCHIUS IUDAEUS. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Seager, R. 1979. Pompey. Berkeley: University of California Press.

192 Bibliography Seeman, C. 2013. Rome and Judea in Transition: Hasmonean Relations with the Roman Republic and the Evolution of the High Priesthood. New York: Peter Lang. Sharon, N. 2010. “The Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41: 472–93. ———. 2012. “Setting the Stage.” Pages 415–41 in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? Edited by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss with R. A. Clements. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2014a. “Between Opposition to the Hasmoneans and Resistance to Rome.” Pages 414–54 in Reactions to Empire. Edited by J. A. Bunne and D. Batovici. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2014b. “The Conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey and Herod.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 21: 193–220. ———. 2017. Judea Under Roman Domination. Atlanta: SBL Press. Shatzman, I. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). ———. 1999. “The Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire.” Scripta classica Israelica 18: 49–84. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1994. “Lucullus, Pompey and the East.” Pages 229–73 in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume IX. 2nd ed. Edited by J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sherwin-White, S., and A. Kuhrt. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sievers, J. 1990. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 2013. “Josephus’ Rendering of Latin Terminology in Greek.” Journal of Jewish Studies 64: 1–18. Smallwood, E. M. 1981. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill. Smith, M. 1998. “4QpapPseudo-Ezekiel.” Pages 153–93 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV. Edited by M. Broshi et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Steckoll, S. 1967/68. “The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis.” Revue de Qumran 6: 55–69. Stegemann, H. 1998. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stemberger, G. 1992. “The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 193–201 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. Leiden: Brill. Sterling, G. E. 1992. Historiography and Self-Definition. Leiden: Brill. Stern, M., ed. 1961. “The Relations between Judea and Rome During the Reign of John Hyrcanus.” Zion 26: 3–19 (in Hebrew). ———. 1974–80. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences. ———. 1987. “Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War.” Pages 71–80 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Steudel, A. 1993–94. “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran.” Revue de Qumran 16: 473–81. ———. 2000. “Testimonia.” Pages 937–98 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevenson, S. W., C. R. Smith, and F. W. Madden. 1889. Dictionary of Roman Coins. London: George Bell.

Bibliography

193

Stiebel, G. D. 2004. “A Hellenistic Gladius from Jericho.” Pages 229–32 in Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Vol. II. Edited by E. Netzer. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Stökl ben Ezra, D. 2007. “Old Caves and Young Caves.” Dead Sea Discoveries 14: 313–33. ———. 2011. “Wie viele Bibliotheken gab es in Qumran?” Pages 327–46 in Qumran und die Archäologie. Edited by J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stone, M. E. 1976. “List of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 414–54 in Magnalia Dei. Edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ———. 2011. Ancient Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Strugnell, J. 1970. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan.’ ” Revue de Qumran 26: 163–276. ———. 1999. “The Historical Background to 4Q468g [=4QHistorical B].” Revue de Qumran 73: 137–8. Strugnell, J., and D. Dimant. 1988. “4QSecond Ezekiel.” Revue de Qumran 13: 45–58. Stuckenbruck, L. 2007. 1 Enoch 91–108. Berlin: de Gruyter. Swain, J. W. 1940. “The Theory of Four Monarchies—Opposition History Under the Roman Empire.” Classical Philology: 1–21. Syon, D. 2008. “The Bronze Coinage of Tyre.” American Journal of Numismatics 20: 295–304. ———. 2014a. “Coins.” Pages 109–223 in Gamla III. Edited by D. Syon. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. ———. 2014b. “Introduction—A History of Gamla.” Pages 1–20 in Gamla III. Edited by D. Syon. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Tabor, J. D. 1992. “A Pierced or Piercing Messiah? The Verdict Is Still Out.” Biblical Archaeology Review 18, no. 6: 58–9. Tamási, B. 2014. “Apocryphon of Jeremiah C from Qumran.” Pages 203–19 in Rewritten Bible After Fifty Years. Edited by J. Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill. Tantlevskij, I. R. 1994. “The Reflection of the Political Situation in Judea in 88 B.C.E. in the Qumran Commentary of Nahum (4QpNah, Columns 1–4).” St. Petersburg Journal of Oriental Studies 6: 221–31. ———. 1997. “The Historical Background of the Qumran Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah).” Pages 329–38 in Hellenismus. Edited by B. Funck. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Tatum, W. J. 1999. The Patrician Tribune. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Taylor, J. E. 1998. “A Second Temple in Egypt.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 29: 297–321. ———. 2012. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tcherikover, V. 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. New York: Jewish Publication Society of America. Thackeray, H. St. J., trans. 1927. Josephus: The Jewish War, Books I–III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thompson, D. J. 1994. “Egypt, 146–31 B.C.” Pages 310–26 in Cambridge Ancient History Volume VIII. Edited by A. E. Astin et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

194 Bibliography Tigchelaar, E. 2012. “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 43: 519–50. ———. 2016a. “Gleanings from the Caves? Really? On the Likelihood of Dead Sea Scrolls Forgeries in The Schøyen Collection.” Online: https://www.academia.edu/. ———. 2016b. “Post–2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fishy Fragments—or Forgeries?” Online: https://www.academia.edu/. ———. 2016c. “A Provisional List of Unprovenanced, Twenty-First Century, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments Version 2.0.” https://www.academia.edu/. ———. 2017a. “Dittography and Copying Lines in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 293–307 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Edited by A. Feldman, M. Cioatǎ, and C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017b. “A Provisional List of Unprovenanced, Twenty-First Century, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 173–88. Topchyan, A. 2007. “Jews in Ancient Armenia (First Century BC–Fifth Century AD).” Le Muséon 120: 435–76. Tov, E. 2002. “Forward.” Pages ix–x in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. C. VanderKam and P. Flint. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2010. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011. “Some Thoughts at the Close of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Publications.” Pages 3–13 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Edited by A. D. Roitman et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2015. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Leiden: Brill. Trafton, J. L. 1985. The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1986. “The Psalms of Solomon.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105: 227–37. Treves, M. 1960. “On the Meaning of the Qumran Testimonia.” Revue de Qumran 2: 569–71. Tushingham, A. D. 1972. “A Hellenistic Inscription from Samaria-Sebaste.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114: 59–63. van der Spek, R. J. 1993. “New Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries Concerning Seleucid and Arsacid History.” Archiv für Orientforschung 44/45: 167–75. ———. 2009. “Multi-Ethnicity and Ethnic Segregation in Hellenistic Babylon.” Pages 103–11 in Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition. Edited by T. Derks and N. Roymans. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. van der Spek, R. J., and I. L. Finkel. 2016. Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. Online: http://www.livius.org. Van ’T Dack, E. 1983. “Encore le problème de Ptolemée Eupator.” Pages 103–15 in Althistorische Studien. Edited by H. Bengtson and H. Heinen. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Van ’T Dack, E., W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur, and J. K. Winnicki, eds. 1989. The Judean Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 B.C. Brussels: Publikatie van het Comité Klassieke Studies, Subcomité Hellenisme Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letterèn en Schone Kunsten van België. Van Ooteghem, J. 1954. Pompée le grand: bâtisseur d’empire. Brussels: Palais des Académies. Vahrenhorst, M. 2011. “Levitikon/Leviticus/Das dritte Buch Mose.” Pages 325–430 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Edited by Eberhard Bons et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel­gesellschaft. VanderKam, J. C. 2001. “Pesher Nahum and Josephus.” Pages 299–311 in vol. 1 of When Judaism and Christianity Began. Edited by A. J. Avery-Peck et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2004. From Joshua to Caiaphas. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Bibliography

195

Vermes, G. 1992. “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285).” Journal of Jewish Studies 43: 85–94. ———. 2003. “Eschatological Worldview in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament.” Pages 479–94 in Emanuel. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2007. “Historiographical Elements in the Qumran Writings.” Journal of Jewish Studies 58: 121–39. Viteau, J. 1911. Les Psaumes de Salomon. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Wacholder, B. Z. 1966. “A Qumran Attack on the Oral Exegesis?” Revue de Qumran 5: 575–8. ———. 1998. “Historiography of Qumran.” Pages 347–77 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testament. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2000. “Deutero Ezekiel and Jeremiah (4Q384–4Q391).” Pages 445–61 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery 1947–1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Ward, G. 1996. “The Psalms of Solomon.” PhD diss., Temple University, Philadelphia. Wassen, C. 2005. Women in the Damascus Document. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Webster, B. 2002. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.’ ” Pages 351–446 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Edited by E. Tov et al. Oxford: Clarendon. Weiß, P., and K. Ehling. 2006. “Ein datiertes Marktgewicht im Namen von Seleukos VI Epiphanes Nikator.” Chiron 38: 369–78. Weitzman, S. 2009. The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40: 213–41. Wellhausen, J. 1874. Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. Greifswald: Bamberg. Werman, C. 2006. “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13: 229–55. Wesch-Klein, G. 2013. “Legions, History and Location of.” Pages 3996–4005 in Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by R. Bagnall et al. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Wheaton, G. 2012. “The Festival of Hanukkah in 2 Maccabees.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74: 247–62. White Crawford, S. 2012. “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings.” Pages 253–73 in A Teacher for All Generations. Edited by E. F. Mason et al. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 105–13 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Edited by A. Feldman, M. Cioatǎ, and C. Hempel. Leiden: Brill. Whitehorne, J. E. G. 1994. Cleopatras. London: Routledge. ———. 1995. “Ptolemy X Alexander I as ‘Kokke’s Child.’ ” Aegyptus 75: 55–60. Williams, R. 1978. “The Rome of Amicitia in the Career of A. Gabinius (COS. 58).” Phoenix 32: 195–210. Wise, M. O. 1994. Thunder in Gemini. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 1997. “To Know the Times and the Seasons.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15: 3–51. ———. 2000. “Crucifixion.” Pages 155–9 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Flourit of His Movement.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122: 53–87.

196 Bibliography ———. 2010. “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement.” Pages 92–122 in Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wolski, J. 1977. “Les Parthes et la Syrie.” Acta Iranica 12: 395–417. ———. 1999. The Seleucids. Kraków: Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności. Wood, M. 1999. “Pesher Habakkuk and the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19: 129–46. Wright, B. G. 2002. “Review” of Qumran Cave 4,XXI.” Dead Sea Discoveries 9: 249–52. ———. 2017. “Were the Jews of Qumran Hellenistic Jews?” Dead Sea Discoveries 24: 356–77. Wright, N. L. 2010. “A Late Seleukid Bronze Hoard, c. 1988 (CH 10, 349).” Pages 245–64 in Coin Hoards. Volume 10, Hoards. Edited by O. Hoover, A. Meadows, and U. Wartenberg. New York: American Numismatic Society. Yadin, Y. 1962. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1971. “Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered.” Israel Exploration Journal 21: 1–12. ———. 1983. The Temple Scroll. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yardeni, A. 2007. “A Note on A Qumran Scribe.” Pages 287–98 in New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform. Edited by M. Lubetski. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Yardley, J. C., and R. Develin. 1997. Justin. Oxford: Clarendon. Yarrow, L. M. 2006. Historiography at the End of the Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zahn, M. M. 2012. “Genre and Rewritten Scripture.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131: 271–88. Zeitlin, S. 1960–61. “Queen Salome and King Jannaeus Alexander.” Jewish Quarterly Review 51: 1–33. Zeuner, F. E. 1960. “Notes on Qumran.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92: 27–36. Zimmermann, J. 1998. Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Zollschan, L. T. 2004. “The Earliest Embassy to the Romans: 2 Macc. 4:11?” Journal of Jewish Studies 40: 37–44. ———. 2012. “A Bronze Tablet from the Church of San Basilio in Rome.” Classica et Mediaevalia 63: 217–45. ———. 2017. Rome and Judaea. London: Routledge.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 49:5 58 49:10 67 Exodus 20:24-25 119 29:22 90 Leviticus 6–7 119 6:10 119 7:32-34 90 8:25-26 90 9:21 90 10:15 90 15:25 128 17:3-4 120 17:13 120, 121 19:26 121 21:14 65 Numbers 6:20 90 18:18 90 24 134 24:17-29 61 24:17 101 24:24 135 Deuteronomy 4:30 110 12:5 57 12:11 57 12:14 57 12:15-21 120

12:18 57 12:21 57 12:26 57 14:23 57 14:24 57 14:25 57 15:20 57 16:2 57 16:6 57 16:7 57 16:11 57 16:15 57 16:16 57 17:8 57 17:10 57 18:6 57 18:18 61 21:22-23 92, 93 21:23 92 26:2 57 29:18 116 31:11 57 32:15-43 110 Joshua 6 60 6:26 58, 71 1 Kings 6–7 4 16:34 59 2 Chronicles 36:21-22 95 Ezra 1:1 95

Job 22:29 167 33:17 167 Isaiah 10 130 10:24-35 132 10:27-32 130 10:28-32 132 10:33–11:5 134 10:33-34 130 11 130 11:1-5 130 14:19 161 Jeremiah 5:30-31 60 7:22 120 13:17 167 23:14-15 60 23:14 60 25:8-14 95 25:11-12 69, 94, 95 29:4-14 95 29:10 69, 94, 95 46:13-16 163, 165 46:14-16 165 46:15-16 165 51:34 161 Ezekiel 21:5 166 29:3 161 30:13 163, 165 32:2 161 40–48 164

198 Daniel 1:17 97 2 70 2:24-27 94 4:34 167 7 70, 86 7:9 29 9 68, 95-97 9:24-27 67, 68, 71, 95, 96 9:24 69, 95, 96 9:27 97 11 23, 134 11:21 22 11:28-30 21 11:29 5 11:30 LXX 132 11:40-45 22 12 23 Hosea 2:11-12 106 4:7 166 5:13 93, 106 5:14 93 6:10-11 60 9:6 163, 165 Amos 5:25 120 Nahum 2:7 93 2:12 104 2:14 92, 93, 99, 103 3:1-5 104 3:1-3 103, 104 3:4-5 104 3:4 105 Habakkuk 2:8 111 Zechariah 1:12 95 7:5 95

Index of References Apocrypha Ecclesiasticus 7:31 90

5:1-21 21 5:1-5 23 5:1 162

Baruch 1:1–3:8 98 1:1-15 69, 94

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 84–90 98 85–90 96 89:59–90:19 68, 96 89:59 70 90:22 70 90:24 70 91:11-17 95, 96 93:1-10 95, 96

1 Maccabees 1:16-19 162 1:20 21 2:1 1, 65 4:36-59 20 4:46 66, 101 5:24-34 63 6:20 33 7:14 66 8:17 7 8:23-32 6 10–11 28 10:15-21 4, 28 10:15-20 4, 28 10:21 28 11:12 53 11:57 63 13:33-42 32 13:41-42 4 13:43 33, 50 13:49-52 33 13:53 32 14:1 34 14:7 33 14:29 65 14:36 33 14:41 62, 66, 100, 101 15 49 15:2-10 49 15:2-9 37 15:10 36, 37, 53 15:26-31 50 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:19 20 3 24 3:1–4:6 24 4:11 7

Jubilees 23:20 128 34 63 Psalms of Solomon 1:7-8 128 2 128, 141, 142, 161–4, 167-69 2:1-2 126 2:1 127 2:2 128 2:3-4 128 2:5 141 2:6-7 128 2:8-9 141 2:11 128 2:13 128 2:19 128 2:25-26 134 2:25 126, 159, 166 2:26-27 126, 160 2:26 162, 166 2:28-29 160 4:1 126 4:7 126 8 128 8:8-15 129 8:9-13 128 8:9-10 128 8:10-12 60

8:12-13 129 8:15 126 8:16-17 129 8:16 126 8:18-22 126 8:21 129 16:18-19 128 17 134, 164 17:7-14 164 17:7 164 17:11 126, 164 17:13 126, 164 Sibylline Oracles 2:65-75 60 4:30-35 60 1:172 60 2:255-60 60 3:193 88 3:315-18 88 3:318 88 3:608 88 3:652-56 88 Testament of Levi 14–16 129 Testament of Moses 3 70 5:4-6 60 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 1.240 10 3.126 65 7.393 37 12.138-46 24 12.235 29 12.243-33 162 12.246-47 21 12.248-50 21 12.248 10 12.293 49 12.316-26 20 12.321 10 12.363 33 13.116 53

Index of References 13.119 151 13.120 53 13.131 32 13.147-53 51 13.182-86 34 13.184-209 36 13.213-14 36 13.213 32 13.215 50 13.219-22 53 13.220-21 37 13.222 37 13.228 45 13.244 37 13.250-52 42, 46 13.250-51 10 13.250 42 13.253 43 13.254 62 13.255 75 13.267-68 29, 53, 54, 87 13.270-74 53 13.277 82 13.278 82 13.286-87 10 13.288-300 18 13.299-309 59 13.299-300 59 13.301 67, 71, 95, 96 13.303-9 59 13.308 92 13.314-19 59 13.319 10 13.327 74 13.328 80 13.337 10 13.344 10 13.347 10 13.348 144 13.365-71 3 13.365-371 73 13.365 73, 75 13.368 75 13.370 75 13.371 76, 78

199 13.379 78 13.384-86 78 13.384 77 13.385 78 13.387-91 99, 100 13.392 100 13.408-18 102 13.410-11 104 13.43-46 4, 28 13.46 28 13.62-73 27 13.80-83 27 13.86-115 28 14.4-79 117 14.4 10 14.18 63 14.39 140 14.66 10 14.70 117 14.72 26, 137 14.73 138, 139, 143 14.74-76 143 14.77-78 143 14.78 67 14.84-85 140 14.93-95 140 14.98-99 149 14.99 148 14.100-102 149 14.103 150 14.105-9 137 14.117 143 14.119 151 14.120 140, 151 14.121-22 152 14.123-26 153 14.123 153 14.124 153 14.125-26 153 14.125 150 14.127-39 157 14.127 150, 157, 170 14.131 158 14.133 158 14.137 159

200 Josephus, Ant. (cont.) 14.138 158 14.140 153 14.143 150 14.144 153 14.145-48 39 14.187-88 44 14.190-216 153 14.236 10 14.353 117, 158 14.365-66 118 14.366 154 14.389 10 14.404 67 14.487 10 14.489-90 154 14.490-91 154 15.9-10 154 15.14-15 143 15.109 10 15.180 143 16.136 10 18.19 121 20.266-67 9 20.267 9 Against Apion 1.34-35 65 1.184 10 1.218 10 2.17 10 2.48-55 29, 79 2.53-55 29, 79 Life 2 10, 65 10 10 359-60 9 Jewish War 1.38 6 1.50 50 1.53 36 1.54 45 1.63-66 75 1.65 82

Index of References 1.67-69 59 1.70 96 1.72-74 59 1.78-84 59 1.85-86 153 1.95 78 1.99-102 99, 100 1.103 100 1.107-14 102 1.113-14 104 1.120-58 117 1.127 139 1.138 139 1.149-50 117 1.152 26, 137 1.153 143 1.156 113 1.162-63 140 1.172 140 1.175-76 149 1.176-78 149 1.178 150 1.179 151 1.180-81 151 1.180 140, 151 1.181 152 1.183 153 1.184 153 1.185 150, 153 1.187-94 157 1.187 157, 170 1.194 158, 159 1.199 150 1.202-3 143 1.269-70 118 1.357 154 1.364 155 1.415 10 4.318 71 5.395-96 8, 26 7.426-31 27 Mishnah ‘Abodah Zarah 8b–9a 96

Ketubbot 2.9 65 Niddah 4.1-3 129 Sanhedrin 6.4 105 Sukkah 5, 8

129

Babylonian Talmud ‘Abodah Zarah 9a 71 Qiddušin 66a 18 Soah 33a 44 Sukkah 56b 129 Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 7.2 44 Nazir 5.3 44 Tosefta Talmud Sukkah 4, 28 129 Midrash Seder ’Olam Rabbah 30 96 Targums Onqelos Numbers 24.24 132 Ps.-J. Numbers 24.24 132

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts CD (Damascus Document) 14, 62, 69, 94, 114, 115, 128 VII 11 [MS A] 22 VII, 18-21 61 XI.18-23 121 XIX 24 [MS B] 22 1.3-11 116 1.5-6 71 4.14–5.11 129 4.15-18 60 4.17–5.11 128 4.19–5.15 128 6.15-16 128 20.14 118

9.1-8 117 9.1-2 118 9.3-7 111 9.3-4 111 9.4-7 118 9.4-6 136 9.4-5 129 9.9 114 9.10-11 118 9.10 118 9.16 114 11.3-8 116 11.4 114 11.6-8 116, 117 11.6 118, 121 11.12-15 116 12.1-10 116 12.2 114 12.7-10 117 12.8 114, 129

1QM (War Scroll) 14, 133, 134, 141 1.4 132 14.14 110

1QS 57 3.20-21 110

110, 111, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 136, 137 VIII 8-9 97 2.5-10 111 2.9-10 137 3–4 136 4.5, 10-11 136 6.1-12 136 6.1-8 135 6.1-5 136 6.6 137 7.7 118 7.9-14 111 8.8 114 8.9-11 117 8.13 129 8.16 114

1Q15 (1QpZeph) 115

1QpHab

201

Index of References

1Q14 (1QpMic) 115

1Q16 (1QpPs) 115 1Q21 1 2 7 2

66 66

1Q32 164 2Q22 56 2Q24 164 3Q372 1 11-12

56

4Q161 (4QpIsaa, Isaiah Pesher A) 129, 130–4 2-6 ii 27 130, 131 frgs. 2-6 col. 2 1-19 132 frgs. 8-10 col. 3 1-10 132 frgs. 8-10 III 17-24 130 4Q162 (4QpIsab) 115 col. 1.4 131 2.1 106 2.7 93 4Q163 (4QpIsac) 115 frg. 23, 2.14 131 frg. 30 114 4Q164 (4QpIsad) 115 4Q165 (4QpIsae) 115 frg. 5.5 131 4Q166 (4Q9Hosa) 106 col. 2 lines 8-13 106 frg. 2 106 2.12-13 106 4Q167 (4QpHosb) 105, 115 frg. 2, line 2 106 frg. 2 93 frg. 10 106 frg. 26, lines 1-3 106 4Q168 frags. 3-4, col. II, 8

105

202

Index of References

4Q169 (4QNah, Nahum Pesher) 11, 26, 91–3, 99, 100, 102–6, 110, 115, 135, 142, 164 2-3 II, 8-10 105 2-3 II, 8 105 3-4 104 3-4 line 8 92 3-4 i 3 107 3-4 i 2 107 3-4 I 1-12 104 3-4 I 1-7 91 3-4 I 1-2 99 3-4 I 2 22 3-4 I 3 22, 25 3-4 I 4-12 104 3-4 II 8-10 105 3-4 I 8b-12 99, 103 3-4 I 9-12 100 3-4 II 1-6 99, 100, 103, 104 3-4 col. 2 line 2 110 3-4 II 3-6 104 3-4 II 3 105 3-4 II 4 103, 104 3-4 II 6-7 105 3-4 II 7-12 105 3-4 4 1-4 135

3-10 ii 3-10 IV,10 10-11, col. 3.5

4Q170 (4QpZeph) 115

4Q234 14

4Q171 (4QPsalms Peshera) 60 col. II lines 1-10 60 1-10 2.1 106 1-10 IV,7-10 114 1-10, col. 4.7-8 116 1-10, IV,8 117

118 118 131

4Q173 (4QPsb) 115 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) 57–62, 71, 100, 101 line 5 61 line 9 61 lines 12-13 61 lines 22-30 71 lines 22-23 58 line 23 59 line 24 60 line 25 58 line 27 60 4Q180 96 4Q181

68, 95, 96

4Q204-207

68, 96

4Q212

68, 96

4Q213 2 10-18

66

4Q215A 96

4Q243 21 2 line 70

107 107

4Q243

68, 96

4Q245 (4QPseudoDanielc ar) 63 I 9 107 i 10 107

4Q247

68, 96

4Q248 (4QHistorical Text A) 21–4, 30 1 22 3-4 22 4 22 6-7 22 6 22 7 23 9-10 22, 23 4Q252 5.3 105 4Q266 9.II.1-4 128 4Q270 (4QDe) 5.15-16 129 4Q271 (4QDf) 1 I 9-11 129 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milhamah) 130, 132–4 5.3 130 4Q323 (4QHistorical Text H) 3 6 108 4Q331 (4QpapHistorical Text C) 108, 110 1 i 7 107 4Q332 (4QHistorical Text D) 108, 110, 140 i 4 108 2 4 107 2 6 108

4Q333 (4QHistorical Text E) 108, 110, 138–9 1 3 138 1 4 108 1 6 138 1 8 108, 138 4Q339 60 9 60 4Q341 14 4Q342-348 12 4Q347 12 4Q351-361 12 4Q360 14 4Q371 56–7 1 10-11 56 4Q372 56 4Q373 56 4Q379 (4QApocryphon of Joshuab) 58–61 9-10 58 10 60 13 60 13a 60 22 ii 8 59 22 ii 9 59 22 ii 11 58 4Q383 68 4Q385-91 68

Index of References 4Q385-90 94 4Q385 (4QPseudo68, 94, 162 Ezekiela) 4Q385a (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca) 68, 69, 94 5 4-9 97 13 3 167 4Q385b (4QPseudo68, 94, 162, Ezekielc) 167 4Q385c (4QPseudoEzekiel: Unidentified Fragments) 68, 94, 162 C 2 167 4Q386 (4QPseudo23, 68, 94, Ezekielb) 162–5 1 ii 1 164 1 ii 2 164 1 ii 3 162 1 ii 3b-6 162 1 ii 4 164 1 ii 6 162, 164 1 ii line 7 141 1 4 166 4Q387 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb) 68, 69, 94, 98 2 ii 3-4 97 3 4-6 97 3 4 97 3 5 97 3 6-7 98 3 6 98 4Q387a (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cf) 68, 94

203 4Q388 (4QPseudoEzekield) 68, 94, 162 4Q388a (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc) 68, 69, 94 4Q389 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cd) 68, 69, 94 4Q390 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce) 68, 69, 94–8, 106, 110 1 2-12 96 1 2-4 97 1 6-7 97 4Q391 (4QpapPseudo68, 162–4 Ezekiele) frag. 65 164 frag. 65.4 164 4Q394 (4QMMT) 14, 114, 119, 128, 129 frg. 8, iv 9-11 57 14-19 119 B 48 129 B 75 129 C 7-10 129 4Q448 (4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer) ii 2 107 iii 8 107 4Q468e (4QHistorical Text F) 110, 140 3 108

204

Index of References

4Q471a (4QPolemical Text) 141, 142 line 2 141 line 3 141 lines 4-7 141 lines 4-6 141 line 7 141 4Q491 132 4Q513 frags. 1-2, col. II

129

4Q521 101 4Q523 107 4Q525 12 4Q554-555 164 4Q558

68, 96, 101

4Q559 (4QpapBibchronology ar) 71 4Q578 (4QHistorical Text B) 26–8, 30, 108, 140 2 29 2 2 26, 107 2 3 26, 107 2 4 26, 107 4Q4364 8a 13 4QGenb 12 5Q15 164 11Q18 164 11Q19 52.9 57

52.16 57 53.1-6 120 53.13-15 120 54.3 120 col. 64 92 Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Aulus Gellius Noctes atticae 10.34 39 17.16 124 Ammianus Marcellinus 14.11.32 169 14.11.321 168 22.16 84 Antiochus of Sidon Anthologia Palatina 7.241 30, 83 Appian Bella civilia 1.102 144 2.12.85 168 2.49 156 2.67 161 2.83-86 155 2.84 156 2.86 161, 167, 168 2.118-48 171 11.68 39, 41, 53 12.84 169 12.86 168, 169 Historia romana 2.83 156 Mithridatic Wars 17.114 145 106 148 110-12 124 114 145 121 84

Syrian Wars 2.77 166 11.68-69 53 11.68 53, 86 11.69 82 48 76 49 125 59 39 66.350-52 5 67 28 68 36, 39, 53 69 38, 55, 75, 87 70 76 Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus 1.76 124 Caesar Bellum civile 3.4.4 149, 156 3.4.40 156 3.10 146 3.15-17 157 3.102-4 155 3.103-4 168 3.104 168, 169 Spanish Wars 2–27 166 Cassius Dio 36.51-53 148 37.5-7 148 37.12-14 124 39.57 147 40.4 161 40.12.27 151 40.28-29 151 41.18.1 153 42.3-5 168 42.4 169 42.7 169 42.5.3 168 44.20.1-53 171 49.22.3-5 154

Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum 2.16.2 146 5.20.1-7 151 De rege Alexandrino Fragment 9 144 De divinatione 2.9.22 168 Epistulae ad familiares 1.1.1 148 1.1.3 147 2.10 151 De Lege agraria 2.16.42 145 Orationes philippicae 11.14.35 151 Pro Lege manilia 56 160 Pro Flacco 28.670

205

Index of References

26, 137

Pro Rabirio Postumo 3 146 22 149 38 149 Tusculanae disputationes 3.27.66 169 Claudian Against Eutropius 1.506-7 168, 169 Diodorus Siculus 1.83.8-9 145 2.22.2 70 16.40-43 46 20.92.1-2 33 30.14 162 30.17 162

30.18 162 31.2 5 32.9 28 33.4 32 33.13 84 34–35 24 34/35.14 85 34/35.15-17 53 34/35.15-16 40 34/5.1-5 51 37.17.1 41 40.1a,b 78 40.2.2 117 42.1.1-5 42 Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica 8.2 §394b 95 8.2.394b-d 67 Eutropius 6.2.3 168 6.21.3 168, 169 7.21.3 169 Florus 1.40 124 1.40.29-31 117 2.13.52 168, 169 Galen De theriaca, ad Pisonem 14.283-84 124 Herodotus Historiae 2.8 167 2.160 167 3.8 167 3.28 84 Historia Augusta (Vita Hadrian) 14.4 168 (Vita Aurelius) 2.1 16

(Vita Probus) 2.7 16 Justin Epitome 33.8 84 34.3.1-3 5 35.2.1-4 28 36 41 36.1 51 36.1.1-6 34 36.1.1-3 34 36.1.4-6 35, 53 36.1.4 35 36.2 67 36.3.9 8 37.1-2 124 37.6 124 38.3-5 83 38.8.12-14 85 38.8.5 53, 80 38.10 37, 40 38.10.6 40 38.10.7 40 38.10.8-9 41 38.10.9-10 41 39.1 53, 55, 86 39.1.4-8 29, 54, 87 39.1.9 38, 55, 87 39.2 55, 81 39.3 81 39.3.1 81 39.4.4 82 39.5 84 39.5.2 81 39.10 53 40.2.2-5 125 40.2.2-4 76 40.2.2 113 41.5.9-10 49 41.6.9 39 42 76 42.4-5 42 42.4 151 43.4 151

206 Livy History 37 24 40–41 24 45.11-12 162 45.11.9 22 45.12.1-8 5 Periochae 55 36 57 40 59 80, 85, 86 59.13 39 59.14 85 60 38, 55, 87 70.5 84 106 151 108 151 112 168 113 169 Lucan Pharsalia 2.636 156 8.33-72 155 8.331-453 156 8.470 168 8.485-541 169 8.540 167 8.565 168 8.597 169 8.606-91 168 8.670 169 8.684 169 8.711 169 Manilius Astronomica 4.50-65 169 4.283-6 169 Maurus Servius Honoratus Commentary on the Aeneid of Vergil 2.557 169

Index of References Orosius 3.7.6 46 5.5.17 35 5.10 85 5.10.6 85 5.190-310 39 6.5 124 6.15 168, 169

Caesar 7–68 171

Ovid Epistulae ex Ponto 4.3.41 169

Lucullus 21.4 76 36.6 76

Fasti 6.465 151

Pompeius 38.2-3 160 45 161 45.5 160 49.7 146 74–80 155 76 156 77–80 168 78 168 79–80 169 80 168

Pausanius 1.9.1 81 Pliny Natural History 7.95 169 7.97-99 161 7.99 161 33.136 145 Plutarch Coriolanus 1.3 80 Moralia 204d 169 204E 168 Antonius 3.4-7 149 3.6 148 3.10 149 14 171 25.4 156 36.4 154 Brutus 18–21 171

Crassus 17–31 151 Demosthenes 21 33

Polybius 1.1.5 7 3.1.4-5 7 3.1.9 7 3.4.2 7 28.18.1-23.5 162 29.27.1-8 5 30.25.1-26.9 22 30.26 24 Poseidonius of Apameia 6.252e 86 12.549d 86 Pseudo-Hegesippus History 1.23 168, 169 Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.13 7



207

Index of References

Sallust Historiae 4.69 136

Suetonius Divus Julius 82.4-85 171

Papyri P.Amh. II 39

Seneca Ad marciam de consolation 20.4 168, 169

Sulpicius Severus Chronicle 26.2 46

P.Berlin 3101 86

Sync. Chron. 1.486 46 1.548 46

P.Grenf. I 30

82

P.Koln 8.350

30, 83

Epistulae 94.64 169 96.64 168 De vita beata 13.7 169 Solin. 35.4 46 Strabo Geographica 11.9.2 34 12.3.34 123, 147–9 16.1.23 78 16.1.4 47 16.2.10 32, 36 16.2.28-40 113 16.2.33 168 16.2.46 143 17.1 143 17.1.11 147 17.21 167 18.1.11 156

Tacitus Historiae 5 49 5.8.2 24 Valerius Maximus 9.2.3 124 Velleius Paterculus History of Rome 2.53 155 II.53.1-2 168 Vergil Aeneid 2.567-68 169 Zonaras Epitome historiarum 10.5 113

82

P.Oxy. XIX.222 144 P.Rylands 17 86 19 86 P.dem Rylands 3.16 30, 83 Inscriptions Bodleian B 11 14-16 128

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abegg, M. 11 Ábel, F. 127 Abel, F. M. 126 Adamczewski, B. 68, 96 Alexander, P.S. 133, 134 Allegro, J. M. 57, 60, 93, 119, 130 Amusin, J. D. 91, 92, 104, 130, 132, 136 Ariel, D. T. 100 Arnold, R. C. D. 114 Assar, G. F. 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 76, 78, 148, 151 Atkinson, K. 1, 2, 8–11, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26–8, 30, 32, 34–6, 38, 40, 42, 44, 49, 52–4, 56, 57, 59–62, 67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 79, 91, 92, 94–102, 105–10, 112, 114–18, 120, 122, 124, 126–30, 132–5, 138, 140–2, 144, 145, 153, 154, 161, 166, 167, 171 Atkinson, K. M. T. 136, 137 Aucher, J. B. 35 Babota, V. 66 Badian, E. 6, 123 Bagnall, R. S. 84 Balázs, T. 68 Baltrusch, E. 123 Bar-Kochva, B. 1, 20, 21, 33, 63 Barclay, J. M. G. 29, 79 Barkay, R. 99 Baumgarten, A. T. 91, 92, 97, 103, 108, 111 Baumgarten, J. M. 117 Bell Jr., A. A. 166, 169 Bellinger, A. R. 75, 77, 79 Bellmore, J. 124 Berlin, A. M. 62, 86 Berner, C. 68, 69, 94, 95 Bernstein, M. 56, 57, 60 Berrin, S. L. 26, 91, 93, 103, 104, 106, 131, 135, 136 Berthelot, K. 59, 61 Bevan, E. R. 27, 37, 40, 53, 79, 84, 87 Bickerman, E. J. 24, 41, 48 Bilde, P. 9 Bivar, A. D. H. 34, 35

Blasius, A. 29 Bockmuehl, M. 130 Bohak, G. 27 Bouchnik, R. 119, 121 Bowersock, G. W. 124 Bowman, S. 18 Brady, M. 68 Brooke, G. J. 15, 58, 94, 114, 130, 135 Broshi, M. 21–3, 61, 140 Broughton, R. S. 85, 151 Brunt, P. A. 123 Brutti, M. 25, 66 Buitenwerf, R. 88, 89 Butrica, J. L. 165 Camps, W. A. 165 Case, S. J. 44, 69, 111, 126 Cauville, S. 30, 80, 84 Chambon, A. 119 Chapman, D. W. 93 Charlesworth, J. H. 13, 15, 57, 91, 114, 131, 135, 137 Chauveau, M. 30, 83, 86, 87 Clarysse, W. 86 Coarelli, F. 162 Cohen, G. M. 10, 41, 61 Collins, A. Y. 88 Collins, J. J. 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 63, 66, 67, 71, 88, 89, 91, 94, 96, 114, 115, 118, 121, 122 Cornell, T. J. 51, 70, 158 Cotton, H. M. 24 Cowey, J. M. S. 29, 89 Crawford, M. H. 6, 14, 15, 124, 139 Crommelin, B. V. W. 35 Dąbrowa, E. 4, 10, 32, 35, 37, 40, 45, 91 Davies, P. R. 15 Davis, C. J. P. 68, 69, 95, 96 Davis, K. 13, 69, 95 Debevoise, N. C. 44, 151 De Troyer, K. 56 Devauchelle, D. 30, 80, 84 de Vaux, R. 116, 119 Develin, R. 16

209

Index of Authors Authors

209

Dimant, D. 23, 68, 69, 91, 94, 96–8, 136, 141, 162–5 Dobias, J. 77 Doering, L. 69, 95 Donceel, R. 119 Dönitz, S. 18, 43 Doran, R. 25 Doudna, G. L. 14, 91, 106 Duhaime, J. 132 Dupont-Sommer, A. 92, 114, 135, 136 Duruy, V. 140

Grainger, J. D. 20, 24, 27–9, 32, 40, 53, 54, 75, 76, 79, 81, 87 Gray, G. B. 166, 167 Greenhalgh, P. 124, 145, 156, 160, 161 Gregoratti, L. 51 Grossman, M. 15 Grueber, H. A. 140, 160 Gruen, E. S. 7, 8, 24, 25, 27, 84, 88, 89, 123 Günther, L. M. 153, 154 Gutfeld, O. 14

Eckhardt, B. 17, 127 Edwards, M. J. 161 Efron, J. 18, 44, 91 Ehling, K. 20, 32, 34–6, 45, 53, 75–7, 79 Eisenman, R. H. 133, 141 Ekroth, G. 120 Elgvin, T. 119 Elitzur, Y. 154 Erder, Y. 120, 121 Eshel, E. 4, 11, 13, 21–3, 57–61, 63, 68, 91–3, 96, 97, 103, 106, 107, 110, 111, 129–32, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 162–4

Harian, M. 124, 140 Harkins, A. K. 115 Harris, J. R. 127, 166 Hartog, P. B. 16, 111 Hata, G. 27 Heinen, H. 30, 80, 86 Hendin, D. 2 Henze, M. 98 Hilgenfeld, A. 167 Hirschfeld, Y. 100 Hoffman, G. 47 Hölbl, G. 27, 29, 55, 79–82, 84–8, 144–9, 156 Hominer, H. 18, 43 Honigman, S. 23, 24 Hoover, O. D. 18, 36, 45, 73–7, 79, 97, 99 Horbury, W. 140 Horgan, M. P. 60, 91–3, 100, 105, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136 Høtje, J. M. 125 Houghton, A. 18, 36, 38, 45, 52, 74–6, 79, 97, 99 Howard-Johnston, J. 48 Humbert, J.-B. 118, 119 Hunger, H. 34, 35, 39, 44, 49, 51 Hunt, A. 66 Huß, W. 27, 29, 30, 75, 79–81, 86, 87, 146 Hutchesson, I. 91

Fantham, E. 151 Feldman, A. 56, 58, 60 Fields, W. 12, 70 Figueras, P. 167, 168 Finklen, I. R. 51, Fitzmyer, J. A. 89, 92, 110, 138, 141 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. 90 Flinders Petrie, W. M. 122 Flint, P. 63, 107 Flusser, D. 18, 43, 136 Foerster, G. 62 Fröhlich, I. 108 García Martínez, F. 108 Gebhardt, O. L. von 166 Geller, M. G. 18 Gelzer, M. 124, 125, 160 Gera, D. 24 Ginzel, F. K. 86 Gold, B. K. 27, 45, 156 Goldstein, J. A. 1, 4, 21, 33, 63, 100, 101 Goldsworthy, A. 146, 148, 149, 152, 157 Goodman, M. 89, 91 Grabbe, L. L. 7, 21, 95

Ilan, T. 46, 106 Jassen, A. P. 132 Ji, C.-H. 63 Johnson, S. R. 89 Jokiranta, J. 16



Index of Authors

Joosten, J. 90 Justnes, Å. 13 Kantor, G. 125 Keaveney, A. 148 Keddie, G. A. 7, 146 Keppie, L. 162 Kerkeslager, A. 88 Kiani, M. Y. 48 Kister, M. 141 Klausner, J. 32, 91 Klawans, J. 10 Klein, S. 63, 162 Koehler, L. 165 Kokkinos, N. 150, 154, 171 Kooij, A. van der 89 Kopij, K. 160 Kosmala, H. 60 Kratz, R. G. 115 Krengel, E. 52 Ksapp, J. 41 Kugel, J. 66, 67 Kuhrt, A. 47, 48 Kushnir-Stein, A. 74 Ladouceur, D. J. 44 Lanciers, E. 30, 86, 87 Lange, A. 61 Lapin, H. 109, 115 Laqueur, R. 9, 83 Last, R. 8, 13, 35, 38, 39, 57, 67, 68, 71, 72, 80, 87, 95, 96, 98, 99, 106, 109, 115, 117, 122, 130, 135, 140, 142, 154, 155, 161, 163, 166 Le Rider, G. 18, 35 Leach, J. 124, 160 Lee, J.-K. 63 Lenger, M.-T. 80, 87 Levenson, D. B. 91 Lim, T. H. 11, 60, 91, 114, 115, 131, 135 Loginov, S. D. 42 Lorber, C. C. 18, 52 Losehand, J. 155 Macurdy, G. H. 37, 145, 147 Magen, Y. 119, 122 Magness, J. 11, 14, 15, 30, 93, 116, 119–21 Mahaffy, J. P. 89 Maier, J. 103

Malamud, M. 166 Mandell, S. R. 5, 6 Manning, J. C. 88 Marcillet-Jaubert, J. 81 Maresch, K. 29, 89 Marshall, B. 168 Martin, T. R. 91 Mason, S. 9, 10 Mayor, A. 147 McDaniel, T. F. 167 Meer, M. N. van der 88 Mendels, D. 24, 63 Milik, J. T. 107, 116, 131, 137 Mingana, A. 127 Mizzi, D. 14, 16, 116, 119, 121 Mommsen, T. 70 Müseler, W. 18, 74, 75 Nadig, P. 156 Najman, H. 94 Netzer, E. 59 Neusner, J. 18, 44, 51, 105 Newsom, C. 58–60 Niese, B. 43, 50, 76 Nikitin, V. P. 42 Nikonorov, V. P. 16 Nitzan, B. 111, 130, 136 Noam, V. 18 Olbrycht, M. J. 76 Olson, D. C. 96 Orth, W. 4, 28 Pardee, D. 60 Passehl, M. K. 37 Peleg, Y. 119 Peremans, W. 30, 81, 83–5, 89 Perles, F. 166, 167 Pestman, P. W. 53, 55, 80, 84, 86, 87 Pfann, S. J. 12, 14, 116 Pomykala, K. E. 131 Popović, M. 16, 17 Porten, B. 122 Portier-Young, A. E. 24 Pouilloux, J. 81 Price, R. 14, 119 Pucci Ben Zeev, M. 43, 44, 171 Puech, E. 26, 27, 107, 108 Pummer, R. 57

210



Index of Authors

Qimron, E. 129 Rajak, T. 28, 124 Rasmussen, J. M. 13 Rawson, E. 152 Reed, S. A. 12 Regev, E. 4, 17, 25, 59, 67, 91, 100, 101, 128, 135, 136 Reinach, T. 140 Reynolds III, B. H. 98 Richardson Jr., L. 150, 165, 171 Rocca, S. 6 Rodgers, Z. 9 Roesch, P. 81 Rooke, D. W. 18, 66 Runesson, A. 29, 89 Ruzer, S. 111 Ryle, H. E. 128, 166, 167 Sachs, A. 34, 35, 39, 44, 49, 51 Samuel, A. E. 84 Sanford, E. M. 149 Sartre, M. 113 Savalli-Lestrade, I. 4, 28 Scardigli, B. 158 Schenker, A. 57 Schiffman, L. H. 92, 103 Schöene, A. 37, 39, 41, 46, 51, 53, 73, 75–7, 80, 86, 144 Schoff, H. 47 Schofield, A. 121 Schorch, S. 57 Schreiber, S. 130, 133 Schubert, P. 30, 83 Schuller, E. 56, 57 Schultz, B. 134 Schürer, E. 1, 18, 21, 29, 46, 79, 89, 151, 154 Schwartz, D. R. 17, 21, 23, 138, 140 Schwartz, S. 46, 57 Scott, J. M. 124, 140 Seager, R. 124, 160 Seeman, C. 4, 5, 124 Sharon, N. 4, 17, 20, 127, 128, 132, 135, 143, 154 Shatzman, I. 7, 33, 123 Sherwin-White, A. N. 47, 48 Sherwin-White, S. 148, 149 Sievers, J. 1, 10, 18, 21, 33, 44, 49, 62 Smallwood, E. M. 140

211

Smith, M. 94, 163, 164 Spaer, A. 18, 99 Steckoll, S. 119 Stegemann, H. 13, 14 Stemberger, G. 96 Sterling, G. E. 10, 96 Stern, M. 9, 21, 29 Steudel, A. 57, 58, 111 Stevenson, S. W. 139, 140 Stiebel, G. D. 33 Stökl ben Ezra, D. 14 Stone, M. E. 70, 94, 118–20 Strugnell, J. 57, 58, 60, 94, 115, 129–31 Stuckenbruck, L. 69 Swain, J. W. 70 Syon, D. 52, 74 Tabor, J. D. 133, 150 Tamási, B. 69, 95 Tantlevskij, I. R. 91, 103 Tatum, W. J. 148 Taylor, J. E. 27, 116 Tcherikover, V. 25 Thackeray, H. St. J. 151 Thompson, D. J. 87 Tigchelaar, E. 13, 15, 69, 94, 131 Topchyan, A. 51 Tov, E. 11, 12, 56, 68, 140 Trafton, J. L. 127, 166, 167 Treves, M. 59 Tushingham, A. D. 58 van der Spek, R. J. 50, 51 van der Veken, G. 86 van der Woude, A. S. 108 Van ‘T Dack, 30, 82 Van Ooteghem, E. 123, 124, 160 Vahrenhorst, M. 90 VanderKam, J. C. 25, 28, 49, 66, 91, 150, 154 Vermes, G. 15, 71, 96, 108, 133, 134, 138, 140 Vesely, P. 18, 76, 97, 99 Viteau, J. 128, 166 Vlemming, S. P. 86 Wacholder, B. Z. 68, 105, 141 Ward, G. 5, 127, 166, 167 Wassen, C. 128 Webster, B. 11, 14, 109, 114, 115



Index of Authors

Weitzman, S. 133 Weiß, P. 75 Wellhausen, J. 166, 167 Werman, C. 68, 69, 94, 96, 97 Wesch-Klein, G. 162 Wheaton, G. 28 White Crawford, S. 14, 15 Whitehorne, J. E. G. 27, 30, 37, 40, 52, 55, 80, 81, 84, 85, 89, 144–8 Williams, R. 151 Wise, M. O. 11, 15, 71, 91, 100, 107, 114, 115, 133, 138, 140, 141 Wiseman, D. J. 34 Wolski, J. 34, 42, 48 Wood, M. 136

212

Wörrle, M. 24 Wright, B. G. 16, 68, 76 Wright, N. L. 16, 68, 76 Yadin, Y. 92, 135 Yardeni, A. 12, 61 Yardley, J. C. 16 Yarrow, L. M. 125 Zahn, M. M. 163 Zeitlin, S. 102 Zeuner, F. E. 119 Zimmermann, J. 133 Zollschan, L. T. 4, 6, 8, 9, 43, 44, 113, 124