The Development of the High Priesthood
during the pre-Hasmonean Period
Supplements
to the
Journal for the Study
of Judaism
Editor
John J. Collins
The Divinity School, Yale University
Associate Editor
Florentino García Martínez
Qumran Institute, University of Groningen
Advisory Board
j. duhaime — a. hilhorst — p.w. van der horst
a. klostergaard petersen — m.a. knibb — h. najman
j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten — j. sievers — g. stemberger
e.j.c. tigchelaar — j. tromp
VOLUME 108
The Development of the
High Priesthood during the
pre-Hasmonean Period
History, Ideology, Theology
by
Maria Brutti
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2006
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Brutti, Maria.
The development of the high priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean period : history, ideology, theology / by Maria Brutti.
p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN
1384-2161 ; v. 108)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 90-04-14910-4 (alk. paper)
1. Jewish high priests—History. 2. Jews—History—586 B.C.-70 A.D. 3. Bible.
O.T. Apocrypha Maccabees—History of Biblical events. 4. Josephus, Flavius,
Antiquitates Judaicae. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1199.P7B78 2006
296.4'95—dc22
2005058246
ISSN 1384-2161
ISBN 90 04 14910 4
© Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic
Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by
Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
to my husband Primo
and my daughters Paola and Valentina
CONTENTS
Preface ..........................................................................................
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................
xi
xv
PART ONE
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Chapter One The Sources ......................................................
1.1 First Maccabees ............................................................
1.1.1 Unity and Structure ..........................................
1.1.2 Date and Author ..............................................
1.2 Second Maccabees ........................................................
1.2.1 Unity and Structure ..........................................
1.2.2 Date and Author ..............................................
1.2.3 Historical Reliability of Books I and II ..........
1.3 Flavius Josephus ............................................................
1.3.1 The Jewish War ................................................
1.3.2 Jewish Antiquities ..............................................
1.3.3 Against Apion ....................................................
1.4 Assessment of the Historiographic Sources ................
1.5 Other Sources ................................................................
1.5.1 Hecataeus of Abdera ........................................
1.5.2 The Letter of Aristeas ......................................
1.5.3 The Book of Sirach ..........................................
1.5.4 The Book of Daniel ..........................................
1.6 Epigraphic Sources ........................................................
3
4
5
10
14
16
18
19
24
25
28
39
41
43
43
46
48
52
54
Chapter Two Philological Issues ............................................
2.1 Origins and Evolution of the Word érxiereÊw ..........
2.1.1 Epigraphic Sources ............................................
2.1.2 Historiographic Sources ....................................
2.1.3 Conclusions ........................................................
2.2 The Chief-Priests and the Deputy High Priest ..........
2.3 The meaning of the terms prostãthw—prostas¤a ....
56
56
65
67
68
71
74
viii
contents
Chapter Three Historical Identity and Succession of the
High Priests ................................................................................
3.1 The High Priests in the Books of the Maccabees ....
3.2 Jewish Antiquities and the Lists of High Priests ......
3.2.1 The Question of Simon I or Simon II ..........
3.2.2 The “Onias” High Priests ................................
3.2.3 The Issue of the High Priests’ Succession ....
3.3 The “Absence” of the High Priests ............................
3.3.1 The letter from Areius to Onias
(1 Macc 12,20) ..................................................
3.4 The “érxiereÊw” Ezechias ............................................
3.5 The Period of the Intersacerdotium ................................
3.5.1 The Teacher of Righteousness as
High Priest? ......................................................
3.6 Excursus: Zadok’s Tradition ..........................................
3.6.1 The “Zadokite” Descent of the
High Priests ......................................................
3.6.2 The qwdx ynb ......................................................
3.7 Part One: Conclusion ..................................................
Table of the High Priests of the pre-Hasmonean Age ..........
Reconstruction Hypotheses ......................................................
76
77
79
80
84
86
90
92
94
98
101
107
109
110
115
117
118
PART TWO
RECONSTRUCTION
Chapter Four The Rule of the Ptolemies and the Jewish
High Priest ..................................................................................
4.1 The Ptolemies and the Administration of
Syria-Phoenicia ..............................................................
4.2 The situation of Judea under the Ptolemies ..............
4.2.1 ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W ....................................................
4.2.2 Hypothesis Outline ..........................................
4.3 Hecataeus of Abdera and the High Priesthood ........
4.4 Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas and in Flavius
Josephus ........................................................................
4.5 Onias II and the issue of the prostas¤a ..................
121
121
126
132
136
138
141
147
contents
Chapter Five The Rule of the Seleucids and the Jewish
High Priest ..................................................................................
5.1 The Seleucids and the Administration of
Coele-Syria ....................................................................
5.1.1 The strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw Ptolemy of
Thraseas ............................................................
5.2 The Jews of the Diaspora under the first Seleucids ....
5.3 Antiochus III and the Juridical Status of the Jews ......
5.4 Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Issue of
Persecution ....................................................................
5.4.1 The Documents of the Persecution ................
5.4.2 The Narratives of the Persecution ..................
5.4.3 The Interpretation of the Persecution ............
5.4.4 The testimony of Daniel (9,26; 11,30) ............
5.5 Simon ˆhkh and flereÁw ı m°gaw ....................................
5.6 Onias III in 2 Maccabees and Flavius Josephus ......
5.6.1 Onias’ Death and the Foundation of the
Temple in Leontopolis ....................................
5.7 The “Hellenizers” high priests: Jason and
Menelaus ........................................................................
5.7.1 The Nature of Jason’s Reforms ......................
5.7.2 Menelaus and the Akra ....................................
5.8 The High Priesthood of Alcimus ................................
5.8.1 The Nature of Alcimus’ High Priesthood ......
5.8.2 Alcimus and the Hasideans ..............................
5.8.3 Alcimus and the Syrian Government ..............
ix
156
156
160
166
169
175
176
186
191
197
199
204
211
216
221
225
230
233
238
241
PART THREE
SYNTHESIS: DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE
OF AN INSTITUTION
Chapter Six The Autonomy and Powers of the
High Priests ................................................................................
6.1 The High Priest and the People ................................
6.2 The High Priest and the Foreign Sovereign ..............
6.3 Territorial Autonomy of the High Priest ....................
6.4 The Hypothesis of the Pol¤teuma and the Pãtrioi
NÒmoi ..............................................................................
251
252
258
261
266
x
contents
Chapter Seven Ideological and Theological Re-reading ......
7.1 The High Priest and the Temple ................................
7.2 The Temple and the High Priest ................................
7.3 Simon and the Covenant of the Eternal Priesthood ....
7.4 Theology and Ideology in Onias III’s “Virtues” ........
7.4.1 eÈs°beia ..............................................................
7.4.2 eÈerg°thw, khdemΔn, zhlvtØw t«n nÒmvn ..........
7.4.3 kalÚw ka‹ égayÒw ................................................
7.5 The High Priests and Hellenism ..................................
7.6 Development or Decline? ..............................................
269
269
275
279
284
284
287
292
295
302
Conclusion ....................................................................................
1.1 First Part: Preliminary questions ..................................
1.2 Second part: Reconstruction ........................................
1.3 Third part: Synthesis ......................................................
306
306
307
309
Bibliography ................................................................................ 313
Index of Authors ........................................................................ 327
Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................... 330
PREFACE
I had been teaching Italian and Latin Literature in a High School
(Liceo Scientifico) in Viterbo for twenty years when I started my
theological and biblical studies, which led to the defence of a doctoral thesis in March 2004 at the Pontifical Gregorian University of
Rome. This book is a revised edition of my thesis.
When this work was first conceived on the suggestion of Professor
Joseph Sievers, it was intended to follow up that of A. Cody, who
more than thirty-five years ago had written A History of the Old Testament
Priesthood (Rome 1969), in which, having reached the threshold of
the Hellenistic Age, he opted for a “cautious closure.”1 Only recently
have some scholars of Judaism shown special interest in the period
of the Hellenistic Age; the specific issue of the high priesthood had
been studied only marginally, with very differing opinions on the
subject.2
From 2000 onwards, scholars have shown particular interest in
the institution of the high priesthood and, in the last five years, four
new books on this topic have been written. Rooke’s book came out
first, in 2000: Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood
in Ancient Israel. In 2003, Mulder’s book was published: Simon the high
priest in Sirach 50. September 2004 saw the appearance of VanderKam’s
book: From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile. Unfortunately,
this work was published after the defence of my doctoral thesis, but
it has still constituted a valuable resource in the revision process.
Finally, in 2005, Scolnic’s book: Alcimus, Enemy of the Maccabees was
published, but I was unable to include it in my study.
1
Cody, 193 considered the fact that from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period
onwards there was no reliable material available and the archaeological material
by itself did not provide a clear picture of the historical context.
2
See, for example, Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), 227, where it is stated that “The salient characteristic of the Jewish constitution in the post-exilic era is that the High Priest was
also the political leader of the nation”, while Bickerman, in his book The Jews in
the Greek Age, 126 says: “The High Priest of Jerusalem was neither the head of the
state, as were the spirituals dynasts in Syria and Asia Minor, nor even the master
of the Sanctuary”.
xii
preface
All these books show the growing interest in this issue and in this
line of research. My book attempts to focus the attention precisely
on the institution of the high priesthood during the nearly 150 years
that constitute the period prior to the establishment of the dynasty
of the Hasmonean high priesthood. In its final draft, the title of the
book is: “The development of the high priesthood of the preHasmonean Period (301–152 bce),” setting as terminus post quem the
year 301 bce, the year in which, under Ptolemy I Soter, the dominion of the Ptolemies of Egypt over the territory of Syria-Phoenicia,
which included also Judea began, and as terminus ante quem the year
152 bce, the year of the beginning of the high priesthood of the
Hasmoneans, with the accession to the office of high priest of Jonathan
Maccabeus (1 Macc 10,20). The subject of the research is of a historical-biblical-theological nature. Historical, inasmuch as it refers to
a well determined chronological period and it is based on sources
that belong to the literary genre of historiography (Books of the
Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities); biblical, because it seeks to investigate an institution, the high priesthood, whose foundations are to
be found in the Old Testament; theological, because it questions the
meaning and the religious functions of this institution. In particular,
this study attempts to establish whether there was a development or
rather a decline in the Jewish institution of the high priesthood, during a period strongly influenced by Greek culture. The sources provide us with limited material, so this study is largely based on
inferences made from the available data. This limitation allows for
conclusions that should not be taken as certainties, but rather as
possibilities.
My first thanks go to Professor Joseph Sievers who, as my tutor
in the preparation of the thesis, guided me through the research
with great professional competence. Thanks are likewise due to
Professor Florentino García Martínez, associate editor of this series,
who accepted my work for publication. Thanks also to Hiara Olivera,
who helped me with the translation, and to Adrian Horder, who
helped with the revision of the English text. I also wish to express
my gratitude to my brother Mario, for his support.
In the course of this research I have had the opportunity to use
the material of several libraries with great benefit. Among them I
have to mention the Pontifical Biblical Institute, the Pontifical Gregorian
University of Rome and also the library of the “Padri Giuseppini
del Murialdo in Viterbo,” where I have spent many hours of study.
preface
xiii
I am therefore grateful to these institutions. My greatest thanks goes
to my husband, who has been a helpful reader and critic of all my
work, and has kindly prepared the indexes. Finally, I wish to thank
all those who have encouraged my endeavour with their words of
friendship.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1QM (1QM)
1QpHab
1QS
1Q28a (1QSa)
1Q28b (1QSb)
4Q256 (4QSb )
4Q258 (4QSd )
4Q274 (4Q Thohorot A)
4Q376
4Q448
4Q523
4QpP
11Q19 (11Q Temple a)
1Q War Scroll
1Q Habakkuk Pesher
1Q Rule of the Community
1Q Rule of the Congregation
1Q Rule of the Blessings
4Q Rule of the Community
4Q Rule of the Community
4Q Purification Rules
4Q Liturgy of the Three Tongues of Fire
4Q Apocryphal Psalm and Prayer
4Q Halakhic texts
4Q Psalm pesher
11Q Temple Scroll b
Ant
Ap
AP
Ar
bc
ca.
ch.
col.
coll.
bce
ed.
eds.
LXX
repr.
Rev. Ed.
AB
AcÅbo
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
Josephus, Against Apion
Aramaic Papyri (Cowley)
Letter of Aristeas
Before Christ
circa
chapter
column
columns
Before Common Era
editor
editors
Septuagint
Reprinted
revised edition
The Anchor Bible
Acta Academiae Aboensis Ser. A.
Humaniora
The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures
Association for Jewish Studies Review
Analecta Biblica
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English, ed. R.H. Charles,
2 vols., 1913
American Schools of Oriental Research
Biblical Archeologist
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research ( Jerusalem–Bagdad)
Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten
Testament und des Antiken Judentum
Biblioteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovanensium
Biblica
AJSLL
AJSR
AnBib
APOT
ASOR
BA
BASOR
BEAT
BEThL
Bib
xvi
BL
BRS
BSJS
BTT
BJSt
BZAW
BZNW
CBC
CBQMS
CCS
CHJ
CJAn
CNEB
CRINT
CSCT
EtB
EThL
DJD( J)
FGrH
GLAJJ
Hist. Eccl.
HCS
HNT
HSCP
HTR
HThR
IEJ
JBL
JEA
JJS
JPOS
JQR
JR
JSHRZ
JSJ
JSJ.S
JSOT
JSOT.S
list of abbreviations
Bible und Liturgie
Biblical Resources Series
Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies
Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
Brown Judaic Studies
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die
Kunde der älteren Kirche
The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the
New English Bible
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph
Series
Cambridge Classical Studies
The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed.
W. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 1984–.
Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity
The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the
New English Bible.
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
Études Bibliques
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
(Louvain)
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan)
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der Griechischen
Historiker, Berlin 1923–
M. Stern ed., Greek and Latin Authors on
Jews and Judaism, I–II, Jerusalem 1974–1984
Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius)
Hellenistic Culture and Society
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Harvard Theological Review
Harvard Theological Review
Israel Exploration Journal ( Jerusalem)
Journal of Biblical Literature (Philadelphia)
Journal of Egyptian Archaelogy
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
Jewish Quarterly Review
The Journal of Religion
Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit.
Journal of the Study of Judaism in the
Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
Journal of the Study of Judaism in the
Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period.
Supplement Series
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.
Supplement Series
list of abbreviations
JSPE.S2
JThS
J.W.
KAT
MBPAR
NEchter Egb-AT
NT.S
OGIS
OTM
PL
Prol. Gal.
RB
RdQ
REJ
REG
RHR
Ricstorbib
RivBib
SBL.DS
SBL.SCSt
SBL.SPS
SCI
SC
SEG
Sem
SFSHJ
SHAW
SJLA
StPB
STDJ
SubBi
TCCAS
ThStKr
TSAJ
VD
VT
VT.S
WBC
ZAW
ZNW
ZPE
xvii
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha.
Supplement Series 2
Journal of Theological Studies
The Jewish War
Kommentar zum Alten Testament
Münchener Beiträge zur papyrusforschung
und die antiken Rechtsgeschichte
Die Neuer Echter Bible. Ergänzungsband
zum Alten Testament
Supplements to the Novum Testamentum
W. Dittenberger ed., Orientis Graeci
Inscriptiones Selectae, Leipzig 1903–1905
Oxford Theological Monographs
Patrologia Latina (Migne)
Prologus Galeatus
Revue Biblique (Paris)
Revue de Qumran
Revue des Études Juives
Revue des Études Grecques
Revue de l’histoire des religions
Ricerche storico bibliche
Rivista Biblica
Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation
Series
Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint
and Cognate Studies Series
Society of Biblical Literature. Seminars
Papers Series
Scripta Classica Israelica
Sources chrétiennes
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
(1923–)
Semitica
South Florida in the History of Judaism
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse
Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
Studia Post Biblica
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
Subsidia Biblica (Roma)
Transactions of the Connecticut Academy
of Arts and Sciences
Theologische Studien und Kritiken
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
Verbum Domini
Vetus Testamentum (Leiden)
Vetus Testamentum Supplements (Leiden)
World Biblical Commentary
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
PART ONE
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
CHAPTER ONE
THE SOURCES
The discussion of sources is especially relevant in the context of the
study of the high priesthood of the pre-Hasmonean age.1 In fact, as
Morton Smith remarked: “The Old Testament contains no historical work dealing with two hundred and more years from the end
of Nehemiah’s regime (432?), to the beginning of the troubles under
Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 170)”.2 In order to explain such an absence,
Smith himself, based on the observation of the historiographic material regarding Palestine present in Flavius Josephus (Ant 11,297–12,236),
where he identified a hostile attitude towards the enemies of the
Maccabees, hypothesized that the missing documentation was instead
favourable to them, and “above all to the legitimate high priestly
family which has been pre-eminent in Jerusalem during those two
and a half centuries”.3 Therefore, according to Smith, the disappearance of this historiography could be connected with the history
of the high priesthood of the pre-Hasmonean age, inasmuch as it
was illegally exercised later on, during the Maccabean age. The book
1
By pre-Hasmonean age I mean the period in which Palestine was first under
the rule of the Ptolemies of Egypt and then under the dominion of the Syrian
Seleucids. The first reign began in 301 bce, after the defeat of Antigonus by Ptolemy
I of Egypt in the battle of Ipsus, and ended about a century later, in 200 bce with
the Syrian king Antiochus III’s victory at Panion. However, during this century,
the Ptolemies of Alexandria and the Seleucids of Antioch waged war against each
other on five occasions. The period which is the object of study in the present
investigation ends with the accession to the office of the high priesthood of the
Hasmonean dynasty, with Jonathan in 152 bce (1 Macc 10,21). Extended treatment is given to this historical period and the attitude of the Jews during the wars
between Ptolemies and Seleucids in F.M. Abel, Histoire de la Palestine I: de la conquête
d’Alexandre jusqu’à la guerre juive, Paris 1952; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People
in the Age of Jesus Christ (174 BC–AD 135). A New English Version revised and edited by
G. Vermes & Fergus Millar, I, Edinburgh 1973, 125–163; C. Saûlnier – C. Perrot,
Histoire d’Israel de la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du temple (331 AC–135 AD), Paris,
1985, 78–121; D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE ,
Leiden-New York-Köln 1998, 3–35.
2
Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York, 1971, 148.
3
Palestinian Parties and Politics, 150–152. See also 149, 263 note 7.
chapter one
4
collection by Judas Maccabee mentioned in Second Maccabees (2,14)
would be the source of the material that has reached us.4
Smith’s hypothesis seems especially interesting, both because the
lack of historiographic material to which he refers concerns, albeit
partially, the historical period considered in this study (300–200 bce)
and because the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood is precisely this
study’s subject. However, it is important to note that, regarding the
period between 200 and 150 bce, we do have at our disposal the
historiographic works of the books of the Maccabees and Flavius
Josephus, even if these were written later.5 These are the sources on
which this study will be fundamentally based;6 nevertheless, it has
been also considered necessary to take into account the contribution
of other sources: those of a literary nature that may report on the
presence of a Jewish high priest in the pre-Hasmonean age, and
the epigraphical ones which originate in the period being studied.
The aim of this chapter is essentially to outline the status quaestionis
of the problems that concern the main sources, in order to obtain
a fair picture of their features and their importance for the study of
the high priesthood.
1.1
First Maccabees
The First Book of the Maccabees is an important source for the
study of the history of Judaism in the second century bce, as the
events narrated in it cover the period of time between 175 bce,
the first year of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ rule, and 134 bce, the
date of the death of Simon Maccabee. The first nine chapters are
specifically concerned with the pre-Hasmonean period, featuring: a)
a brief historical excursus that begins with Alexander the Great and
ends with the coming into power of Antiochus Epiphanes (1,1–10); b) a
succession of short narrations focused on the measures taken by king
4
Palestinian Parties and Politics, 151.
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 17, where it is said about the Books of the Maccabees and Flavius Josephus:
“They form the most important, and almost exclusive, source for Jewish political
history”.
6
With this purpose, J. Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period:
1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14, SubBi 20, Rome 2001 has
been an important tool for this research.
5
sources
5
Antiochus against the Jews and their religion, namely the defilement
of the temple, the building of the Akra and the suppression of Jewish
worship (1,11–64); c) the accounts of the Maccabean revolt, the rise
and achievements of Judas Maccabee, his death and the death of
the high priest Alcimus (2,1–9,57).
Some general problems raised by this book will now be given a
more extended treatment, with a summary of the main studies about it.
1.1.1
Unity and Structure
The issue of the unity of 1 Maccabees is a question that has been
discussed since the end of the eighteenth century, when the prevailing hypothesis assumed the existence of an original form of the
text, shorter than the one that has reached us. Such a hypothesis,
first suggested by von Destinon, depended mainly on the fact that
Flavius Josephus in Jewish Antiquities follows First Maccabees just
up to the thirteenth chapter, thus seeming to ignore the last three
chapters of the book (14–16).7 This position, known as the Addendum
Theory, was remarkably shaken by a study carried out by Ettelson,
who rejected it in 1925, on the grounds of the objection that Josephus’
testimony constituted an argumentum e silentio.8 Ettelson supported the
unity of 1 Maccabees, both in its aim and structure, observing the
presence throughout the book of common characteristics of a literary and religious nature, from which he deduced the fact that it
seemed to be the work of a single translator.9 After Ettelson, the
Addendum Theory quickly faded away and the opinion that the chapters 14,16–16,24 had been an integral part of the book in its original edition prevailed.10
However, in recent times, this idea has been questioned by Martola, who has contributed to the research from a methodological
7
J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus I: Die Quellen des Archäologie Buch
XII–XIV, Kiel 1882, 80–91; this hypothesis has been held by other scholars, for
instance G. Hölscher, Die Quellen vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege, Leipzig 1904, 9–10.
8
H.W. Ettelson, ‘The Integrity of 1 Maccabees’, TCAAS 27 (1925), 249–384.
9
‘The Integrity of 1 Maccabees’, 296–341. Ettelson concludes his long argument against the Addendum theory, declaring it “absolutely untenable” (341).
10
See, e.g. F.M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, Paris 1949, xxviii; J.A. Goldstein,
I Maccabees, New York 1976, 25. Nevertheless, J.R. Bartlett, I Maccabees, Sheffield
1998, 21 has stated in recent times that neither the text nor the style or the contents provide grounds enough for supposing that chapters 14–16 have not been
written by the author that wrote chapters 1–13. See discussion further on.
6
chapter one
perspective. He observed how, in the past, the book had been an
object of considerable interest, although the attention of the various
commentaries had been focused mainly on the historical, while the
literary problems had been scarcely taken into consideration. It was
precisely these issues that he wished to address, in particular the
question whether 1 Maccabees was a unified text and if there was
any reason to doubt that it was the work of a sole author or not.11
Therefore, Martola reconsidered Ettelson’s research and his objections to the integrity and unity of the book. He focused on two
aspects in particular: first, the already mentioned Addendum Theory,
and second, the one that Ettelson called the fabrication-interpolation
theory,12 according to which the documents and letters included in
1 Maccabees were forgeries or/and interpolations added later on.13
Martola observed that the first objection had already been rejected
by Ettelson himself and remarked that the second had been a subject of debate during the last fifty years and that, regardless of the
authenticity or falsity of the documents, the most commonly held
view was that the author of the book had inserted the documents
in their positions in 1 Maccabees.14 Furthermore, Martola underlined the virtual unanimity among the scholars regarding the division of the book into four parts: the first as an Introduction (1–2)
and the other three dedicated to the career of the renowned
Hasmonean brothers: Judas (3,1–9,22); Jonathan (9,23–12,53); and
Simon (13–16), making them subject of critical reflection.15 He noted
that rarely had any support or justification been provided and therefore reckoned that it was necessary to carry out a new investigation,
beginning with the study of the literary composition of the book,
thus examining how the different sections of 1 Maccabees had been
joined together.16 This work refers in particular to Martola’s conclusion without taking into account the first part of his research. In
11
N. Martola, Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of
Maccabees, Åbo 1984, 9.
12
‘The Integrity of 1 Maccabees’, 253.
13
Martola, Capture and Liberation, 10.
14
Martola, Capture and Liberation, 15, note 40. Among the authors quoted in support of this opinion are: Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxvi ff.; J. Goldstein,
I Maccabees, 37.
15
Martola, Capture and Liberation, 18. See also 25–30, where there is a synopsis
of the layout of 1 Maccabees according to the major commentaries.
16
Capture and Liberation, 30.
sources
7
his opinion, the raison d’être of 1 Maccabees is to be found in the
events narrated in 1,1–64, where there is an account of the series
of calamities inflicted on the Jews by Antiochus IV, which led to a
situation of dangerous imbalance. The account of 1 Maccabees would
demonstrate how this perilous situation was put to rights.17 He
believed, then, that 1 Maccabees was above all the history of
Jerusalem’s liberation. In the first place the liberation of the temple,
temporarily occupied by foreign powers, and in the second place the
liberation and sanctification of the Akra, built and inhabited by foreign heathens.18 Beyond what he called the main story19 there would
also be the chapters 14,6–16,24, which Martola defined as added
material, with the aim of indicating the natural conclusion of the
events, while the end of the original version of 1 Maccabees would
be constituted by Simon’s eulogy (14,4–15), which represented “an
impressive ending to the whole work of liberation”.20 Furthermore,
the parallelism between 9,22 and 16,23–24, where an analogous conclusive formula is to be found, led Martola to divide 1 Macc 3,16
into two parts, rather than the three proposed by the traditional
division: 1) Judas’ feats (3,1–9,22); 2) Jonathan and Simon’s feats
(9,23–16,24).21
An idea that drew much criticism from the experts is that of the
supposed existence of a Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees. From Jerome’s
Prologus Galeatus it was in fact known that the text had been originally written in Hebrew,22 although it was not clear whether Jerome
had actually possessed a copy or had reconstructed a version from
17
Martola, Capture and Liberation, 200 quotes 4,36–59, where there is a description of the liberation of the temple, its purification and the restoration of the worship, and 13,49–52, where there is a narration of the liberation of the citadel and
its purification. See 35–127 regarding the analysis of the text and 127–267 for a
conclusive synthesis.
18
Capture and Liberation, 201 where Martola distinguished between essential parts
of the story and additions.
19
Martola, Capture and Liberation, 268, specified the meaning of the ‘main story’
primarily as a literary unit, that is, the part that constitutes the core of the book
and provides continuity and coherence to 1 Maccabees. Starting from the ‘main
story’ he then considered the successive sequences of the book. See also 271.
20
Capture and Liberation, 201.
21
Capture and Liberation, 278–279.
22
Migne, PL 28, col. 602–603 “Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi”. This information finds an indirect confirmation in Origen, as he is quoted
by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 6,25,2: see G. Bardy ed., Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique,
V–VII, texte grec, traduction et notes, Paris 1955, 126.
chapter one
8
the Greek.23 In modern times, the particular linguistic character of
the book has been often pointed out precisely with reference to its
derivation from the Hebrew language,24 to the extent of claiming
that “The original Hebrew text has long since perished, but the character of the Greek translation through which the book survives is
such that the original can be proved to have been Hebrew”.25
But while Ettelson went so far as to deny the Addendum Theory precisely on the grounds of the statement that Josephus had only used
the Greek version of 1 Maccabees,26 many assumptions have been
made regarding Flavius Josephus’ abandonment of the Hebrew text.
According to Feldman, Josephus would have used various texts when
making his paraphrase of the Bible, but for the Pentateuch, there
would be a strong possibility that his main source had been a Hebrew
text and/or a Targumic paraphrase in Aramaic, while for the other
books of the Bible he would have followed the Septuagint, in the
proto-Lucian version. In the account of the Hasmoneans, Josephus
instead would have drawn exclusively (or almost exclusively) on the
Greek text. Regarding the possible coincidences between Josephus
and a Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees, Feldman himself hypothesized
that maybe the Greek text in Josephus’ possession was different from
the one we have today. As an example he gave the fragments of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show how their Greek version of Samuel
was shorter than the Hebrew one.27 Goldstein, on the contrary, reckoned that the Hebrew original was in Josephus’ possession when he
undertook his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees.28
Fifteen years after Martola, Williams resumed the analysis of the
problem of the unity and structure of 1 Maccabees,29 again reflecting
23
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxxiii.
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxiii; Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of
the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 181–182, note 3. Traces of the Semitic
origins of the book are present in words, expressions and idioms, and in the prevailing parataxical syntax. See a study on the language in P. Joüon, ‘Quelques
hébraïsme de sintaxe dans le premier livre des Maccabée’, Bib 3 (1922), 204–206.
25
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 14.
26
‘The Integrity of 1 Maccabees’, 341.
27
L.H. Feldman, ‘Josephus’s Portrayal of the Hasmoneans compared with
1 Maccabees’, in F. Parente – J. Sievers eds., Josephus & the History of the GrecoRoman Period, Leiden-New York-Köln 1994, 40 and note 3.
28
I Maccabees, 14.
29
The Structure of 1 Maccabees, Washington 1999. In his methodological considerations, Williams recalls the work of M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah,
24
sources
9
in particular upon the text of 1 Maccabees used by Flavius Josephus.
He hypothesized that, if Josephus had known both a Greek and a
Hebrew version, then it was not necessary that they were equally
long. Let us suppose that his Hebrew copy was the hypothetical first
edition and ended in 14,15: Josephus could have not relied entirely
on the Greek copy when he went on beyond this point. However,
Williams himself agreed on the fact that it was not possible to provide only one answer to such a question.30
Moreover, regarding the book’s structure, he took Martola’s division into consideration reckoning that, although his research represented a step forward inasmuch as it focused the attention on the
literary connections of 1 Maccabees, the achieved results were not
entirely satisfying.31 Therefore, he proposed the division of the book
Sheffield 1992. The methodology proposed for the analysis of the texts will not be
applied in this study, inasmuch as this research does not focus on a sole text but
undertakes a study based on the comparison of different sources that have as a
common denominator the figure of the high priest. In such a context, the method
of structuralism proposed by Butterworth does not seem to be appropriate.
30
The Structure of 1 Maccabees, 122, note 21 where Williams, among other scholars that have suggested various factors that might have led Josephus to abandon
1 Maccabees after 14,15, quotes J.C. Dancy, A Commentary on 1 Maccabees, Oxford
1954, 9,31, for whom 1 Macc 14–16 was simply lacking in its copy; L.H. Feldman,
Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1984), Berlin 1984, 223, for whom Josephus
would have changed sources to Nicholas of Damascus; Ettelson, ‘The Integrity of
1 Maccabees’, 226–228 and Goldstein, I Maccabees, 475 for whom the motive would
have been the fact that the chronology of the final part of 1 Maccabees does not
match the chronology adopted by Josephus. We add now two other hypotheses:
firstly, that of Abel, some of whose ideas are still quite valid, despite writing more
than fifty years ago. In Les Livres des Maccabées, xiv he noticed that, although Josephus
seems to abandon 1 Maccabees after the thirteenth chapter (the scholar fixed the
date of this abandonment in Ant 13,215, where the Jewish historian seems to refer
to Jewish War 1,50 or, more exactly, to Nicholas of Damascus, who in his opinion would be the source in Jewish War), there are some clues that lead him to
think that Josephus also knew chapters 13–15. See idem, xv, where Abel, in order
to support this claim, quoted Ant 13,214, which summarizes 1 Macc 14,4–15; Ant
13,227 which refers to 14,24; 15,15 and the signs of friendship towards Simon
shown by Antiochus VIII reported in Ant 13,223–225 and reckoned that Josephus
had used his sources “suivant sa fantasie, suivant la direction qu’il voulait imprimer à chacune de ses oeuvres” (xv). The second hypothesis is the more recent one
proposed by J.R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees, Sheffield 1998, 17 who claims that Josephus’ testimony clearly demonstrates that 1 Maccabees, at least until chapter 13, but
probably also until chapter 16, was known and available at the end of the first
century bce.
31
Williams, The Structure of 1 Maccabees, 130 made this observation regarding
Martola’s division into two parts; he noticed a lack of balance in the section II B
which includes chapters 3–7; 9–11; 12,24–14,15, in favour of the main story proposed by Martola.
chapter one
10
into three parts: the first two emphasizing the liberation of the temple and the citadel under Judas and Simon,32 the third underlining
the constitution Simon’s high priestly line. Williams also came to
that conclusion after taking into consideration the distribution of the
words related to the priesthood: flereÊw and érxiereÊw, in the three
sections into which he divided the book. He noticed that the term
érxiereÊw appears nine times in the first and second sections of the
book and eleven times in the third section which, in terms of number of verses, constitutes about a 10% of the whole text. This would
be an indication of the strong interest that the third part of the book
has in the high priesthood, not as a vague concept but as way to
lay stress on the importance of Simon’s high priestly line.33 In conclusion, according to Williams, knowing whether section three had
been added at a certain point or it had belonged to the original version of 1 Maccabees would cast light on the material of the previous sections (one and two), pointing out that Simon was not only a
liberator, but also the legitimate leader of the post-liberation and the
forefather of the hereditary line of high priests.34
These last data are especially relevant with relation to the aims
of the present investigation, in particular the observation concerning
the glossary will be analysed and developed later on, with reference
to the pre-Hasmonean period.35
1.1.2
Date and Author
The problem of the unity and the structure is closely linked to that
of the dating of the book. According to a widely held view, it is
possible to establish the date of composition of the book with a fair
degree of certainty. This is valid, mainly, for the terminus ante quem,
where the date of the entrance of Pompey in Jerusalem in 63 bce
is taken as the point of reference and this is related to the positive
attitude towards the Romans that can be sensed in 1 Macc 8.36 The
terminus post quem, according to the opinio communis, is provided by an
32
Williams, The Structure of 1 Maccabees, 131: I (1,1–6,17); II (6,18–14,15); III
(14,16–16,24).
33
Williams, The Structure of 1 Maccabees, counts 924 verses in the whole book, out
of which 99 are in the third section.
34
The Structure of 1 Maccabees, 126.
35
See chapter 2.1.
36
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 63; 346 note a 8,1–32.
sources
11
internal datum which is found at the end of the book (16,23–24),
where the events, wars and feats of John Hyrcanus are referred to
in the “Book of days” of his high priesthood and therefore to the
date of his death: 104 bce. The date of composition of the book
would be soon after that, circa 100 bce.37
This opinio, however, has often been subject to debate during the
last ten years. Schwartz38 re-examines the contents of First Maccabees
taking the proposed date as a hypothesis, but observing that one of
the most characteristic aspects of the work is the pronounced hostility towards the gentiles, to which the lack of distinction between
Greek and non-Greek gentiles has to be added.39 All this, in his
opinion, can hardly be reconciled with the policies of John Hyrcanus
or Aristobulus. The historical context in fact demonstrates that these
rulers, rather than pursuing the rejection or extermination of the
local peoples, as prescribed by the deuteronomic law, seem to seek
their incorporation into the Jewish state.40 In 1 Maccabees, instead,
Israel’s enemies are “the nations roundabout”,41 an expression that
corresponds to tå ¶ynh §n kÊklƒ aÈt«n. It is a stereotype used in the
book of Joshua, in the deuteronomic history, and in several prophetic
books to indicate the non-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan and the
adjacent regions. In 1 Maccabees the local gentiles are seen as bitter enemies of those whom the book “calls ‘Israel’ or ı laÒw, i.e.
Judaeans observant of the law”.42 Nevertheless, notes Schwartz, the
37
This opinion is shared, among others, by A. Momigliano, Prime linee di storia
della tradizione maccabaica, Rome 1930, 34–36; Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxix; J.C.
Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, Oxford 1954, 8; C. Saûlnier – C. Perrot, Histoire
d’Israel de la conquête d’Alexandre, 447. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 62–64 dates the book
to the reign of Alexander Janneus, but not later than 90 bce. According to
J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 3, a date late in the reign of Hyrcanus
is more likely, although it is also possible to conceive a time in which neither
Aristobulus nor Alexander Janneus were regarded as kings. See also Schürer –
Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 181.
According to them, the more likely date would be the first decades of the first century bce.
38
S. Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the
Hasmonean Expansion’, JJS 42 (1991), 17–38.
39
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 21–22 and note 23.
40
Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 20, makes this statement after
having examined the testimony of Flavius Josephus, and in particular Ant 13,319,
where Josephus, relying on the authority of Strabo and Timagenes, talks about the
incorporation of the Itureans into the Jewish state.
41
Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 22.
42
Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 24.
12
chapter one
aversion of 1 Maccabees towards the local gentiles is scarcely believable from a historical point of view, and not only clashes with the
reality of the Hasmonean policy, but also with the scant knowledge
that we have about Hasmonean propaganda.43 In his opinion, therefore, in order to solve the inner contradictions of the book, the
proper thing to do would be to drop the traditional date (circa 100)
and propose a new date prior to the main period of Hasmonean
expansion, that is, around 130 bce.44 As a consequence, 16,23–24
would be the final verses of a reviser, insofar as they suggest that
Hyrcanus’ rule was over, while the rest of the book does not reflect
Hyrcanus’ government at all. According to Schwartz, the opinions
on which the supporters of the communis opinio base their comments
are not very convincing.45 In reality, the new date hypothesized by
Schwartz had already been proposed by Momigliano in a study carried out in 1980,46 albeit with a different motivation. According to
Momigliano, the presence of biblical formulae in 1 Maccabees could
not be used to date the book, inasmuch as they meant to address
the future readers, included a vague prophetic element and therefore could not be used to date a late imitation of the biblical style.47
In the eighth chapter of the book, instead, he saw a clear indication for the dating of the book to around 146–130, most likely in
129 bce.48
In the last years, Doran has reconsidered Schwartz’s hypothesis,
suggesting however that “the assumption that the work is pro43
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 29–33 where Schwartz takes into consideration a document present within 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 14,27–49) and passages
such as the narration of the purification of the temple by Judas (4,36–61) and that
of the conquest of Gezer and the Akra, where the attitude towards the local gentiles seems to be different, not at all hostile.
44
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 36, note 32.
45
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 36, note 64, criticizes, in particular, the
opinions of Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, 8, for whom v. 23 would be the
original end, and of Momigliano, Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica, 34–36.
46
A. Momigliano, ‘The Date of the First Book of Maccabees’, Sesto Contributo alla
Storia degli Studi classici e del mondo antico, II, Rome 1980, 561–566.
47
‘The Date of the First Book’, 565–566. Momigliano refers in particolar to the
expression: ßvw t∞w ≤m°raw taÊthw (8,10; 13,30) and 16,23–24.
48
‘The Date of the First Book’, 564, where Momigliano claims that 8,9–10 makes
sense only if understood with reference to the defeat of the Achaean League and
the destruction of Corinth in 146 bce. It is however noteworthy that, after denying the value of the formulae for the purpose of establishing a date, Momigliano
proposes the date of 129 bce precisely with relation to the formulae themselves,
see ibid., 566.
sources
13
Hasmonean”49 should be given a more attentive treatment. It is an
idea that for a long time has drawn much criticism from scholars.
Already in 1857, Geiger50 had identified the author with the official
historian of the Hasmonean dynasty, and nowadays most scholars
agree on this, although it has often been debated to which Judaic
party or religious sect the author belonged; i.e., whether he was a
Sadducee, one of the Hasideans or a Pharisee.51 Abel, back in 1949,
criticised such arguments, which proceed as if it had been compulsory within Judaism to belong to one or another of these parties.52
Instead, he posited that the main idea of the book was the opposition between Israel and the gentiles, claiming that the author held
the nationalist point of view.53 In a more recent period, it has been
stated that 1 Maccabees reflects the conformity of the ruling class
with the Maccabean dynasty under which they had been brought
up and the point of view of a fervent supporter of the crown (5,62)
who had turned the fight against paganism into a slogan for political action.54
Doran has contributed a new opinion to this debate. Certainly,
he says, the book approves the battle for independence, describes
the Hasmonean forefathers as biblical heroes and proclaims that they
were the family that liberated Israel. However, the way in which the
author describes Simon’s death and the contrast that emerges from
the book between the utopian portrayal of the Roman government
(chapter 8) and the one-man rule imposed by Simon (14,41–54) could
imply the author’s critical position regarding the changes that had
49
R. Doran, ‘The First Book of Maccabees’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. A
Commentary in Twelve Volumes, IV, Nashville 1996, 22; see also 3–23.
50
Urschrift und Übersetzung der Bibel, Frankfurt am Main 1928, 206, note 35: “Der
Vfr. der ersten Makk.buches ist der Reichshistoriograph der hasmonaïschen Dynastie”.
51
Concerning the hypothesis of the Sadducean origins of the author, see
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, Frankfurt am Main 1857; 19282,
215–218; see also J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, Paris, 1972, 75. Regarding the hypothesis that he was one of the Asidaioi, see Momigliano, Prime linee, 14–18; for the
Pharisaic origin see K.D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, Halle
1950, 80.
52
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxi.
53
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxiii.
54
L. Troiani, Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, in P. Sacchi ed., Apocrifi dell’Antico
Testamento, V, Brescia 1997, 32: See also Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’,
17 who supports the widespread opinion according to which the writings are certainly a product of Hasmonean circles. The main supporter of 1 Maccabees as
dynastic propaganda is, however, Goldstein, I Maccabees, 62–89.
chapter one
14
taken place under Hyrcanus and his successors. This would also
explain the hostility towards Jews (mentioned by Schwartz) and
towards the increasingly regal lifestyle of the Hasmoneans. As a consequence, Doran considers it possible to date 1 Maccabees soon after
the death of John Hyrcanus.55 One of the last contributions to the
issue of the dating is that of Bartlett,56 who criticizes Momigliano’s
idea in particular, reckoning that 1 Macc 8,2–16 is a separate piece
about Roman government “composed by the author from hearsay”57
and therefore cannot be used to limit the composition of the whole
book to a date pre-129 bce. According to Bartlett, a date belonging to the last decade of the second or the first decade of the first
century remains the most likely one.
Given the lack of further evidence, the communis opinio that dates
the book around 100 bce is more likely, although the contributions
examined can be seen as challenging, especially that of Schwartz.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight the relevance of this book
as a source, for two main reasons. The first being that it immediately makes us face the issue of historical methodology; that is, it
calls for an attentive examination of the historiographic sources of
the period and a careful assessment of their ideology. The second
reason is that, although the information that more directly affects
this research only covers a period of about 25 years, it contributes
greatly to the historical investigation precisely on the basis of the
comparison with other sources, as will be seen throughout the development of this study.58
1.2
Second Maccabees
The contents of 2 Maccabees cover a brief period of time: from the
failed seizure of the temple’s treasure, attempted under the rule of
Seleucus IV (187–175 bce), to the struggle for the high priesthood,
the religious persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, and up to the
account of the Maccabean revolt and the victory of Judas over
55
The First Book of Maccabees, 22.
1 Maccabees, 36–45.
57
1 Maccabees, 34.
58
See conclusive observation about 1 Maccabees in Tcherikover, Hellenistic
Civilization, 398.
56
sources
15
Nicanor (161 bce). Although covering only fifteen years of history
(175–161 bce),59 it still constitutes our most important source for the
reconstruction of the pre-Hasmonean period. As the author himself
says, 2 Maccabees60 is a condensed version of the five volumes written by a certain Jason of Cyrene (2,23). The author however confesses to have neglected Jason of Cyrene’s accuracy regarding the
smallest details and his meticulous account of the facts, and to have
followed the main outlines of the work, striving for brevity of expression (2,28–31).
The epitome is preceded by two letters,61 in which the Jews of
Egypt are invited to celebrate along with the Jews of Jerusalem and
Judea the festivity of hanukkah or Dedication of the Temple.62 The
composite nature of the work is also denoted by a certain heterogeneity of the material. Together with official documents63 (letters
59
Regarding the issue of the chronology of the Seleucid sovereigns, particularly
with relation to the differences between 1 and 2 Maccabees concerning the two
expeditions of Lysias, the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the rise to power of
Antiochus V Eupator and whether there was a period of co-regency of them two
or not, see the discussion in M. Zambelli, ‘La composizione del Secondo Libro dei
Maccabei e la nuova cronologia di Antioco IV Epifane’, Miscellanea greca e romana
16 (1995), mainly 203–247. See also J. Sachs – D.J. Wiseman, ‘A Babylonian King
List of the Hellenistic Period’, Iraq 16 (1954), 202–212, where the cuneiform document BM 35603 has been published, featuring a list of the Hellenistic sovereigns
from Philippus Arrideus to Antiochus Epiphanes. See further discussion in
J. Schaumberger, ‘Die Neue Seleukiden Liste BM 35603 und die Makkabäische
Chronologie’, Bib 36 (1955), 423–435. See in particular K. Bringmann, Hellenistische
Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa. Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte
(175–163 v. Chr.), Göttingen 1983, 15–28.
60
According to Jerome, this second book was originally written in Greek: “Secundus
Graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque frasei probari potest”, see Prol. Gal. to the Books
of Samuel, PL 28, col. 602–603.
61
First Letter to the Jews of Egypt (2 Macc 1,1–10a); Second Letter to the Jews
of Egypt (2 Macc 1,10b–2,18). This is, at least, the division proposed firstly by
E. Bickerman, ‘Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.’, ZNW 32 (1933),
233–254, followed by other scholars such as R. Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose
and Character of 2 Maccabees, Washington 1981, 3 and note 3, and other hypotheses
in note 1.
62
In 1,9.18 we find the term skhnophg¤a to indicate the festivity. Concerning
the meaning of the term see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 4–5.
63
There are in total seven documents in epistolary style. Two of them (already
quoted) were addressed to the Jews by their compatriots, and the other five are letters that they had received concerning international relations: Letter of Antiochus
IV to the noble Jewish citizens (9,19–27); Letter of Lysias to the Jewish People
(11,17–21); Letter of Antiochus V to Lysias (11,22–26); Letter of Antiochus V to
the council of the Jews and to the other Jews (11,27–33); Letter of the Roman
envoys to the Jewish people (11,34–38). See Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, xlii.
chapter one
16
from Seleucid kings and ministers, letters from Roman ambassadors),
we find legendary episodes64 that for a long time have called into
question the historical reliability of the book.65
1.2.1
Unity and Structure
As it happened before with 1 Maccabees, the first problem that arises
from the literary point of view is that of unity. Is the book composed of parts or is it a unified text? How are the letters related to
the narrative section and, within the narrative section, can different
sources be identified?66
Doran pays particular attention to the relationship between the
epitome and the letters, starting with their contents. In the first letter (1,1–10a) he identifies some connections with the epitome, both
in terms of contents and of linguistic style.67 For the second letter
the issue seems to be more complex, due to the presence of episodes
that differ from 1 Maccabees and to the coexistence, in particular,
of two accounts of the same event that do not seem to have any
relation with each other.68
Momigliano69 had already doubted the authenticity of these letters, precisely with reference to the account of the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes and thought that other documents contained in the book
were suspicious.70 Before him, Abel had considered the hypothesis
of the second letter being a forgery, already suggested by others on
64
See e.g. 2 Macc 6,18–31: Eleazar’s martyrdom; 2 Macc 7: the martyrdom of
the 7 brothers and their mother; 2 Macc 9,1–17: the description of the misfortunes
that hit Antichus Epiphanes; 2 Macc 14,37–46: Razis’ suicide.
65
Concerning this problem see 1.2.3.
66
Doran, Temple Propaganda, 3.
67
See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 5. Regarding the linguistic connections, he refers
mainly to the use of the verb katallãssein, while, regarding the contents, he states
that, in the opening prayer, the reference to Jason and to the festival of the
Tabernacles in the month of Kislev would not have any meaning for us today without the narrations of the epitome.
68
Doran, Temple Propaganda, 6 quotes as a first problem the one that arises from
the account of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1,13–16), which differs both
from that of 1 Macc 6,1–6 and from another story of 2 Macc 6,1–6.
69
A. Momigliano, ‘The Second Book of Maccabees’, in Sesto Contributo alla Storia
degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico, II, Roma 1980, 567–578.
70
Momigliano, ‘The Second Book of Maccabees’, 572 refers in particular to
9,19–27, where Antiochus IV recommends his son to the Jews, and to 11,22–26,
which contains the Letter of Antiochus V to Lysias. The problem of the authenticity of these documents will be discussed again, see chapter 5.4.1.
sources
17
the grounds of the greeting formulae, although he later rejected it.71
Goldstein, on the contrary, claims that the letter is a forgery of
103/2,72 while Doran considers the whole matter from a broader
point of view and, regardless of the fact that the letter may be a
forgery, reckons that it is more relevant to take into consideration
its relationship with the epitome.73
After the analysis of the various sections that form the letter,74 he
comes to the conclusion that, even if the letter presents divergences
from the epitome, it reflects the emphasis on the holiness of the temple, God’s defence of it and His vengeance upon its assailants. If in
any case the epitome has to be considered as an independent work
and studied as such, says Doran, then “the final arrangement of the
work with the two letters prefixed is no coincidence”.75 The new
Schürer, revisiting one of the theses proposed about the relationship
between the letters and the book, maintains that none of them is
satisfactory.76
There is much to be said for this last opinion, but perhaps Doran
is right when he states that the epitome ought to be studied as an
independent text. Preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue, its structure follows a pattern of events determined by three
assaults on the temple of Jerusalem. The assault by Heliodorus under
Seleucus IV (3,1–39); the one under Antiochus IV Epiphanes
(3,40–10,8) and the final assault by Nicanor under Demetrius I
(10,9–15,37).77
71
Les Livres des Maccabées, 289. See also xl–xli, where Abel subscribes to the
hypothesis according to which the addition of the two letters and the documents
of chapter 11 would be the work of a compiler posterior to the epitomist, whose
work would begin with the preface of 2,20; the account of Antiochus’ death in the
annexed part (1,13–16) would be a variation that does not match Jason’s account
adopted by the epitomist.
72
II Maccabees, 168. About this entire issue, see 157–168.
73
Temple Propaganda, 7 and notes 17.18.
74
Doran, Temple Propaganda, 7 distinguishes: a long discussion about the fire at
the times of Nehemiah (1,18–36); a section on Jeremiah (2,1–8); a comparison
between Moses and Solomon (2,9–12); a reference to the foundation of a library
by Nehemiah, and later, with the aim of imitating him, also by Judas (2,13–15); a
conclusion (2,16–18).
75
Temple Propaganda, 12.
76
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 533–534.
77
R. Doran, ‘2 Maccabees’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, IV, Nashville 1996, 181.
chapter one
18
1.2.2
Date and Author
The difficulty in determining with certainty the relationship between
epitome and letters also hinders the possibility of establishing the
date of the book, partly because there is no further information about
Jason and his work.
Concerning Jason, Abel rejected the hypothesis that the name was
a pseudonym of an author willing to confirm his work with the prestige of authority and maintained that, given the difficulties in identifying Jason and learning about his characteristics, the author had
to be understood with reference to the book as we know it. Abel
himself, regarding the possible dates proposed for the composition
of Jason’s works, identified two extreme positions and a middle-way.
Firstly, Niese’s archaizing theory, according to which Jason had written soon after 160 bce, while the epitome would date from 124 bce
(that is, the same date as the festal letter); secondly, Willrich’s theory, which dated Jason to the first decade of our era, and lastly,
Moffat’s theory, which takes the middle ground and dated it back
to 130 bce. In the conclusion, Abel went back to the literary genre
and concluded that nothing opposed the idea of Jason of Cyrene
writing it by the middle of the second century bce and the epitomist publishing his works in 124 bce.78
After Abel, Tcherikover highlighted the close link between the
period in which Jason had lived and the date in which the book
had been written. He agreed on the date of 125/4 as the terminus
post quem, both for the completion of the work and the approximate
time in which it was written.79 The seesaw of the hypotheses went
on until recent times; for example, Goldstein came to the conclusion that: “First Maccabees was written by 90 bce; Jason of Cyrene
wrote his work by 86 bce; and the abridger produced his between
78/7 and 63 bce”.80
It seems difficult to accept dates that have become unlikely due
to the very exactness of their calculations. Doran, faced with the
78
See Les Livres des Maccabées, xxxiii–xxxiv for the archaizing position; xlii–xliii
for the other two positions.
79
Hellenistic Civilization, 382. According to Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 532 it is probable that the epitomist had worked in 124 bce, while Jason of Cyrene: “probably wrote not long
after 161 bc.”
80
II Maccabees, 83.
sources
19
question about the identity of the epitomist and where and when he
wrote, claimed that “We have even fewer clues to go on than with
1 Maccabees”.81 In his opinion, the date of the book could range
from the second century bce to the first century bce; maybe, considering the book’s friendly attitude towards the Romans, it could
have been written before the entrance of Pompey into Jerusalem in
63. Moreover, Doran dismisses Momigliano’s hypothesis, which supported the date of 124.82 Although it is possible to make connections between the letters and the epitome, says Doran, the author
of the epitome does not mention in the prologue that the piece he
was writing had to complement any letter.83 Therefore, the problems of the dating of Second Maccabees and of the relationship
between epitome and letters are not altogether solved and remain
open to further investigation.84 However, besides the already considered issues of the unity, the dating and the author of the two
books of Maccabees, and with the aim of fostering the use of the
sources, it is necessary to tackle yet another issue: that of their historical reliability.
1.2.3 Historical Reliability of Books I and II
The problem arises from the fact that, although they refer to historical periods, which are in part very close and sometimes identical, the accounts of First and Second Maccabees differ in a number
of details, sometimes even in the order in which the events are
reported.85 It is still true, however, that both the books feature numerous parallel passages.86
This issue has been discussed for a long time and has given birth
to various hypotheses that, in the light of modern studies, are hardly
81
‘2 Maccabees’, 183.
According to Momigliano, ‘The Second Book’, 570 the epitome would have
been written with the purpose of sending it to Egypt, “in support of the invitation
contained in the letters”.
83
Doran, Temple Propaganda, 183.
84
See Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, for him: “hazardous are attemps
to date Jason’s work closely”, therefore reckoning that the most likely dating of
Jason’s story would be between 155 and 106 bce.
85
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 150–154.
86
Vedi Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 2–142.
82
20
chapter one
persuasive.87 Nevertheless, beginning with Grimm’s commentary in
the mid-1800s,88 the greater degree of textual unity, sobriety and
coherence of First Maccabees led scholars to consider it more historically reliable, while the authority of the Second Book was scarcely
recognised. Niese, while working on the third volume of a History
of the Greek and Macedonian States, found himself in the need of
examining the documentary value of the books of the Maccabees,
and was the first one to come to the conclusion that Second Maccabees
was the older source and, for the time being, the purest.89
As Doran points out, it was precisely from Niese’s study that the
definitions of tragic history or pathetic historiography,90 that so badly
damaged the historical reliability of the books, were derived. In the
analysis of the literary character of 2 Maccabees, Doran has shown
how some expressive forms belong to the tradition of Hellenistic literature and therefore that the definition of tragic, pathetic historiography is rather inappropriate.91 If history can be said to be presented
dramatically, Doran remarks, it is carried out “in a way traditional
to Jewish thought”.92
Nowadays then, there is certain unanimity in recognising, even in
the diversity of some contents, the historical value of First and Second
87
See, e.g., I. Lévi, ‘Les deux livres des Maccabées et le livre hébraïque des
Hasmonéens’, Sem 5 (1955), 15–36; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 37–54; Schürer – Vermes –
Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 531; Sievers,
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 6.
88
C.L.W. Grimm, Das erste Buch der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch
zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testament, III, Leipzig 1853.
89
B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbucher, Berlin 1900, 8: “Es liegt im Warheit
kein Grund vor, das 2. Makkabäerbücher in allen Stücken hinter das erste zurücksetzen, sondern es ist als die ältere und oft reinere Quelle anzusehen”. Niese, in
order to provide support for the veracity of 2 Maccabees, introduced the following
proofs: 1) the information about the history of Syria coincides with that of Polybius;
2) the titles borne by various officials of the Seleucid empire correspond to those
found in Greek authors or inscriptions; 3) The knowledge of Antiochus and the circumstances of his illness seem to be reliable and similar to the news that circulated
at that times; 4) the letter of the Romans to the Jews, generally judged to be apocryphal, contains terms and usages typical of the chancellery of the second century;
5) the language of 2 Maccabees is the same language found in the literature of
that period. It is the language of Polybius, among others. See also I. Lévi, ‘La date
de la Rédaction du IIe livre des Maccabées’, REJ 43 (1901), 222–225.
90
Bickerman, The God of Maccabees, 95, has talked about pathetic historiography:
“Seen as a literary product, the work, in sharp contrast to I Maccabees, belongs
to a certain genre of Greek historiography, the ‘pathetic historiography’ of the
Hellenistic Age”.
91
Temple Propaganda, 77–104,
92
Temple Propaganda, 97.
sources
21
Maccabees, mainly due to the presence of documents in both the
books. In Second Maccabees, Abel had already pointed to an evident impression of truth in the report of the events, although he
stressed that a certain degree of exaggeration in the narrative style
was typical of the historians in those days.93 The new Schürer sees
the historical value of Second Maccabees mainly with relation to the
description of the institutions of the Seleucid monarchy, and with
the fact that the majority of the official documents reported in the
book are considered to be authentic.94 Bickerman, in particular,95
dwells on the assessment of the authenticity of about sixty Greek
and Roman public acts, concerning the Jews and covering a period
that goes from Antiochus III’s documents (223–187 bce) to a rescript
issued by emperor Claudius (45 ce),96 identifying two indices that
may certify the veracity of a document.97 With relation to this, his
observation that the documents regarding the Jews float around at
random is noteworthy.98 This is because, in his opinion, they are not
anchored in the accounts of the books of the Maccabees or Flavius
Josephus; in the case of Second Maccabees, in fact, they often contradict the author that quotes them. They could never constitute
only one collection: Josephus does not know the documents of
2 Maccabees and each of the books of Maccabees ignores the acts
included in the other or quoted by Josephus. It is also important to
93
Les Livres des Maccabées, xxv.
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 532 and note 55; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 77–109; Sievers, The
Hasmoneans and Theirs Supporters, 10. Concerning the documents, the study by
C. Habicht, ‘Royal Documents in Maccabees II’, HSPC 80 (1976), 1–18, is remarkable. See, in particular, page 5, where mention is made of 25 letters written by the
Seleucid kings featuring the same addressing formula.
95
‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juifs’, Studies in Jewish and Christian
History, II, Leiden 1980, 24–43.
96
‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juifs’, 24.
97
‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juifs’, 36–39. The pieces of evidence are: 1) the exactness of the formulae, insofar as whoever forged a document
did not know the historical evolution of the documentary style and would use the
formulae that corresponded to his own period, thus allowing to establish the approximate date of the forgery; 2) the chronological datum: a document whose data correspond to the chronology can be considered authentic. To these two, Bickerman
later adds a third criterion: the way in which the documents are inserted in the
text; if false, they constitute a whole along with the narrative structure that they
support.
98
‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juifs’, 40: “les documents touchant
les Juifs flottent au hasard”.
94
22
chapter one
note that these documents came into the hands of the Jewish authors
one by one. Bickerman, therefore, considers it legitimate to regard
some of the documents with suspicion, concluding that, in what has
to do with the privileges of the Jews, it is always necessary to consider the internal criticism of each document and that “incredulity,
just as well as credulity, has to be justified”.99
Lastly, Sievers chooses to make a quick examination of the historiographic purpose, according to which Second Maccabees would
have been written in opposition to First Maccabees, with the aim of
supporting the accuracy of the book of Daniel (7–12) and takes into
consideration the weakness of such a theory. In his opinion, Second
Maccabees expresses a point of view different from that of First
Maccabees, inasmuch as it does not seem to be particularly interested in the Hasmonean dynasty.100 Nevertheless, Sievers underlines
that, although Doran rightly demonstrated that in 2 Maccabees there
is a fusion of cultic, theological and historiographic elements, “much
material in 2 Macc is of historical value”.101
The problem of the reliability of the books has also been linked
to the quest for the sources on which the authors have drawn. Hengel,
in his analysis of the issue with regard to 2 Maccabees, reports on
the various hypotheses that have been put forward as follows: that
Jason is an eyewitness who wrote his book soon after the death of
Judas, based mainly on oral traditions102 or that Jason has drawn on
written sources.103
99
Author’s translation in ‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juifs’, 43.
See also 40, where, among these suspicious documents is also quoted king Areius’
letter, the dossier of Onias’ temple and the dossier of the Samaritans. See a discussion on king Areius’ letter in chapter 3.3.1
100
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus
I, SFSHJ, 6, Atlanta 1990, 8–9 and note 36. See in 9: (3) Historiographic refutation of 1 Macc and affirmation of the veracity of Daniel 7–12. For the book of
Daniel, see related discussion in 1.5.4.
101
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 10 and note 40. See also note 41 where,
among the historical elements that could be compared, Sievers quotes for Heliodorus
(2 Macc 3), Inscriptiones Graecae, XI. 4.1112–1114.
102
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
Hellenistic Period, Philadelphia 1974, I, 96; II, 66 note 301, where, among the scholars that had put forward these hypotheses he quotes Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées,
xli; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 385.
103
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 96; II, 66 note 302. This hypothesis is supported, among others, by E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentum, II, Stuttgart
1925, 457; E.J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the Meaning and Origin
of the Maccabean Revolt, Leiden 1979, 34.147.150.
sources
23
Before him, Bickerman had conjectured the existence of a source
on the basis of the assumption that a Jew could not possibly write
a pragmatic history, as was then required by a Greek reader.104
Tcherikover decidedly rejected this theory, either because he did not
see the contrast between biblical and pragmatic history or because
he observed the impossibility of identifying the source assumed by
Bickerman as a sole historian.105 Schunk, who has paid particular
attention to the analysis of this issue, claimed to have identified the
following sources: the book of Judas as a source common to both
First and Second Maccabees; a Seleucid chronicle; the annals of the
high priests Onias and Jason or official acts kept in the temple of
Jerusalem.106 Goldstein107 has also declared himself convinced of the
existence of written sources. He agrees with Schunck on the hypothesis of a history of the Seleucid Empire, which in his opinion served
as a source for both First and Second Maccabees108 and, moreover,
he claims the existence of another written source, a propagandistic
text written by the high priest Onias IV “between the outbreak of
the civil war in April or May, 131, and Cleopatra II’s offer to
Demetrius II in 129”.109 This would be the only source for Ant
12,154–236 and for 2 Macc 3–4. Such hypotheses have been fiercely
criticised by some scholars who claim that there does not seem to
be any way to prove it right.110 Cohen judges as incorrect the way
104
The God of the Maccabees, 22.
Hellenistic Civilization, 385–6. Again Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 96, considered the identification of the written sources to be difficult and controversial.
106
Die Quellen des I und II Makkabäerbuches, Halle 1954, 126. See also Idem, 36 ff.;
59 ff.
107
See in Goldstein, I Maccabees, 55–61 “Josephus’s and the Work of Onias IV”;
Id., 90–103 “Sources First and Second Maccabees no longer extant”; see also, by
the same author, II Maccabees, 35–57 “The Memoirs of Onias IV”.
108
Goldstein determines the passages of 1 and 2 Maccabees that come from this
source with precision, see in II Maccabees, 49–54: “Tables of Probable Sources for
Each Passage in First Maccabees and the Abridged History”.
109
J.A. Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity,
Judaism and the other Greco-Roman Cults, Fs. M. Smith, Leiden 1975, 116. Goldstein,
108–113, identifies the following characteristics of this source: great interest towards
Onias III, friendship with the Ptolemies and hostility towards the Seleucids; a liking for Ptolemy IV Philopator, interest for the pro-Ptolemaic Hyrcanus the Tobiad
and for the anti-Seleucid activities; unfavourable portrayal of those who had usurped
the privileges of the high priesthood that corresponded to the Oniad line; affirmation
of the doctrine that stated that the temple was no longer the place chosen by the
Lord, which might allow for the legitimacy of other Israelite temples, see II Maccabees,
36–37.
110
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 531.
105
chapter one
24
in which Goldstein believes to have identified the sources of Flavius
Josephus, and especially, the propagandistic history of Onias IV,111
while Collins thinks that the hypothesis of the existence of a written document is “unnecessary”.112 Doran rejects the division of the
sources proposed by Goldstein, as it “is not based on an analysis of
the text, but on a previous theory.”113 Also Sievers114 finds no support for Goldstein’s hypothesis about a text written by Onias IV;115
moreover, he too considers hypothetical the attempt made by some
scholars “to try to dissect sources in detail.”116 The problem of the
historical reliability warns against a rough reading of the texts. Each
datum then has to be attentively examined and assessed by means
of comparing it with the other available sources. Nevertheless, it is
important to stress that Second Maccabees is a source of particular
relevance for the events related to the development of the high priesthood in the pre-Hasmonean age. Above all, it provides us with the
only detailed account of the situation prior to and contemporary
with the so-called Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem (chapters 3–5), in
a period in which the historian Polybius of Megalopolis bore witness to the fame of the temple.117
1.3
Flavius Josephus
The historiographic work of Flavius Josephus is of the utmost importance for the purpose of studying the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood, as it allows us to find pieces of information that, compared
with some others from the 1 and 2 Maccabees, constitute an indispensable contribution. Above all, books XII–XIV of Jewish Antiquities
111
D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian,
Leiden 1979, 45, note 79.
112
J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora,
New York 1983, 2000?, 78.
113
Temple Propaganda, 19. Apart from the Memories of Onias IV, Doran also criticizes the hypothesis put forward by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 92 of a source belonging to the same genre of De Mortibus Persecutorum, written by Lactantius between 316
and 321, which the scholar had called DMP. However, later on Goldstein himself
had rejected such hypothesis, see II Maccabees, xii.
114
The Hasmoneans and Theirs Supporters, 6 note 3.
115
See in II Maccabees, 35 note 52 Goldstein’s answer, which does not seem to
conform either to Doran’s observations nor to Siever’s.
116
The Hasmoneans and Theirs Supporters, 6.
117
Reported by Flavius Josephus in Ant 12,136.
sources
25
are essential for this research; Jewish War and Against Apion also
provide us with important data, albeit fragmentary. In the analysis
of the general problems regarding these sources, the chronological
order of composition will be taken into account.
1.3.1
The Jewish War
This is the first of Flavius Josephus’ work.118 Divided into seven
books, it is formed by an introductory section which includes the
first book and half the second and deals with the period of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (175–164 bce), until the death of Herod (4 bce). The
other half of the second book narrates the events prior to the outbreak of the war (4 bce–66 ce), while the matter of the following
books is the war between the Romans and the Jews, until the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans and the defeat of the last rebels
(66–74 ce). Thackeray underlines the advantages of Josephus in this
matter. To begin with, he was an ex-combatant and an eyewitness,
and his lodgings were in the former house of Vespasian, where the
comments of his imperial lord were at his disposal.119 For the new
Schürer,120 the most important thing is Josephus’ personal experience:121 as we know from Against Apion (1,49), not even one fact
has escaped him and during the siege he had recorded everything,122
even the statements made by the deserters. In the preface to Jewish
War we read that the Greek text that has reached us is not the first
version of the work, but that it has been preceded by a version written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Josephus says that he told “the subjects
of the Roman Empire with a narrative of the facts by translating
into Greek the accounts which I previously composed in my vernacular
118
Josephus himself claims the authorship of a work about the Jewish war: per‹
toË ÉIoudaikoË pol°mou, of the years 66–70 bce, see Life, 412; Ant 18,11; 20,258.
Regarding the title of the writings, see discussion in J. Thackeray ed., The Jewish
War, Books I–III, in Josephus, II, London 1927, vii–viii.
119
Josephus, II, vii but see also J. Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian,
New York 1929, 37–41.
120
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 47
121
It is interesting to pay special attention, almost as a confirmation, to Josephus’s
silence about his sources, contrary to what he will do in following works; see
Thackeray, Josephus, II, xix.
122
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 47 talks about written notes, see in Ap 1,49 verb én°grafon.
26
chapter one
tongue” (1,3).123 It is said that the original language was Aramaic,124
but Thackeray is not altogether consistent125 claiming that anyway
the Greek was not a literal translation and that, with the aid of
Greek assistants, “the older work has been practically rewritten”.126
Also the new Schürer notes that Josephus, in Against Apion (1,50),
declares that he has made use of some persons to assist him for the
Greek, but he considers that the role that Thackeray assigned to
these assistants is an exaggeration.127 Regarding the date of the work,
Thackeray warns us that, as there have been a number of editions
of the book, Josephus, like many ancient authors, must have continually made changes to his work. Moreover, he observes that, when
the end of his life was near (93–4 ce), Josephus was planning a new
edition of his works in which he intended to include “the after events
of his nation’s history brought up to date” (Ant 20,267). Since the
preface (1,29) concludes with the triumph, it has been deduced that
the first Greek edition ended with that event and “appeared as early
as ad 71”.128
There is still the difficulty of determining the relationship between
books 1–6 and book 7.129 Schwartz, pointing out the incoherence of
this last book by comparison with the other six, both in terms of
style and contents, has suggested that Jewish War 7, as it has reached
us, is the product of three strata: the Ur-book, composed 79–81; the
Domitianic book, completed probably by 82 or 83, which contained
some new material about Vespasian and Domitian and perhaps some
minor revisions of the Ur-book; and the final book, brought to completion early in Trajan’s reign, containing the Commagene episode
and the two stories which close the book. All these repeated revisions, according to Schwartz, would not only show us something
123
Translation by Thackeray, The Jewish War, Books I–III, in Josephus, II, 4–5.
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 47.
125
In Josephus, II, The Jewish War I–III, 4, note to J.W. 1,3 we find: “Aramaic
or Hebrew”; while in II, ix , at the foot of the page we can read: “First Aramaic
Edition”.
126
Josephus, II, The Jewish War I–III, x.
127
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 47 and note 5.
128
Josephus, II, The Jewish War, I–III, xii.
129
Concerning this issue, see in particular the study by S. Schwartz, ‘The
Composition and Publication of Josephus’s Bellum Iudaicum Book 7*’, HTR 79 (1986),
373–386.
124
sources
27
about the way in which Josephus worked, but would also be indicative of his changing motivations, which varied depending on the
different periods of his life.130 In recent times, the issue of the date
of the book has been reconsidered by Jones in the context of the
problem regarding the chronology of Josephus’ works.131
Jones basis his theory of dating on the grounds of some chronological references identified in other writings, such as Life and Jewish
War.132 According to Jones, some of the books were finished before
79 (the year of the presentation to Vespasian), but all the work was
completed after 79 (the year of the death of Cecinna), and probably before 81 (the year of the presentation of the book to Titus).133
However, he claims that “there is of course no way of telling whether Josephus might have gone back and revised passages already
written.”134
With the aim of studying the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood, the
importance of the work lies in the reference, made at the beginning
of the first book, to the sixth Syrian war fought in the years 170–168
between Antiochus IV of Syria and Ptolemy VI Philometor of Egypt.
In this section, there is the narrative of the conflict between ÉOn¤aw
m¢n eÂw t«n érxier°vn (1,31) and the sons of Tobias, and the successive foundation of a temple in Egypt by Onias himself (1,31–33), a
theme that, as Josephus announces, is taken up later on (7,421–425).
This is one of the key issues in the history of that period, both
regarding the identification of the high priest (Onias III/Onias IV),
130
‘The Composition and Publication’, 385, where Schwartz remarks that the
Ur-book keeps up themes present in Jewish War 1–6: he flatters Titus, depicts the
rebel Jews as an abhorrent phenomenon and the Jewish people as utterly peaceloving. The first additions look like an attempt to flatter Domitian, the final additions reveal Josephus’ interest for the Greek cities of the Diaspora.
131
Ch.P. Jones, ‘Toward a Chronology of Josephus’, SCI 21 (2002), 113–121.
132
Jones, ‘Toward a Chronology of Josephus’, 113 refers to: Life 361, where the
Jewish historian claims to have himself presented to emperors Vespasian and Titus
the books about the Jewish War, soon after the events had came to pass; Life
463–467 [“sic”: it should be 363–67] from which it follows that Agrippa II had
received the books both separately, while they were being written, and in their complete version, meaning that Vespasian saw part of the writings while Titus knew
them in their entirety; J.W. 7,158–162, which deals with the last event mentioned
in the book, that is, the dedication of the temple of Peace, which dates back to
75; J.W. 4,644, which narrates the betrayal of Caecina and the homage paid to
him by Vespasian, which do not seem to be prior to 79.
133
‘Toward a Chronology of Josephus’, 120.
134
‘Toward a Chronology of Josephus’, 113.
chapter one
28
and the foundation of the temple.135 Schwartz put forward the interesting hypothesis that this section of book 7 was added, along with
other two episodes, in the last revision under Nerva or, more probably, at the beginning of Trajan’s rule.136 Before Schwartz, Thackeray
had reported Eisler’s opinion that the penultimate chapter of the
book about the destruction of Onias’ temple in Egypt (7,420–436)
would have been added after the event, seizing upon the opportunity to include in the work a preliminary chapter concerning the
foundation of the temple (1,33).137 Therefore, regardless of the brevity
of the information, Jewish War is relevant as an additional source
for the study of the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood.
1.3.2
Jewish Antiquities
The broadest and most important of Flavius Josephus’ historiographic
works is Jewish Antiquities. Divided into 20 books by the author, it
deals with the history of the Jewish people from the dawn of creation until the outbreak of the war against the Romans in 66 ce.138
The work was brought to an end in the thirteenth year of Domitian,
when Josephus was 55 years old (Ant 20,267), that is, probably in
93/94 ce.139
Laqueur, however, hypothesized about a second edition of
Antiquities, based on the presence in the work of a double conclusion (Ant 20,259; 20,267–68), the second of which was linked to a
new book: Life.140 Since it was considered that this book appeared
closely linked to Antiquities (Life 430), and had been written around
the year 100, the second edition of Antiquities was also assigned to
that date.141 Nevertheless, some doubts were later cast on the dat-
135
See chapter 5.6.1.
‘The Composition’, 379 identifies in the section 7,409–436 the riots in Alexandria
and, precisely, the end of Onias’ temple. The other two episodes would be: the
annexation of Commagene and the Alanic invasion of Media (7,219–251); disturbances in Cyrene and death of Catullus (7,437–453).
137
The Jewish War, I–III, xii.
138
About the contents of the work, see G.F. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition:
Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, NT.S 64, Leiden 1992, 245–252.
139
See S. Mason ed., ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, in L.F. Feldman ed., Josephus
Flavius. Translation and Commentary, III, Leiden 2000, xviii and note 3. See also Jones,
‘Toward a Chronology’, 121.
140
R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, Giessen 1920, 1–6, according to whom the first edition would have omitted 259–266 and the second 258.267–68.
141
J. Thackeray ed., Josephus, IV, London-Cambridge 1930, x; idem Josephus, I 14
136
sources
29
ing of Life and the hypothesis of the double edition.142 Recently,
Sievers has claimed the need for a thorough revision of the whole
second edition issue, beginning with the re-examination of the peculiarities of producing a second edition “of an ancient work in manuscript form”.143
Given the extent of the work and the problems that arise from
it, it is important to look in more detail at two issues that are highly
relevant in relation to this study: a) The aim and the addressees of
the writings; b) The sources.
The reference point for the first problem is Josephus himself, who
declares that he writes because he feels he owes it to “the whole
Greek-speaking world” (Ant 1,5). The address of the work to Greek
and Roman readers, on which most scholars have usually agreed144
based on this and other passages (16,174–178), has been recently
challenged due both to the presence in the text of statements that
seem to be addressed to readers of Jewish origin, and to the way in
which Josephus’ work approaches the field of Greek-Hellenistic
historiography.145
Amongst the various hypotheses, two contributions are worthy of
particular note. The first is offered by Sterling, who reckons that
142
See, for instance, E. Migliario ed., Flavio Giuseppe, Autobiografia, Milan 1994,
49–51, which criticizes both the hypotheses of the double edition of Antiquities and
that of the dating of Life based on the fact that Agrippa died, according to Eusebius,
around 100, and reckons instead that both Antiquities and Life have to be dated
to the end of the Flavian age (93–94/96). Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xv does
not see in the double conclusion a possible sign of the double edition: “it now
seems unlikely that the ‘double ending’ of Antiquities clumsily combines two different
conclusion in reverse order”. See also Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 53–54 where, even recognising the tight connection between the two works, some doubts arise regarding the dating of Life proposed around 100; the conclusion is that “It remains therefore uncertain when the
Life was issued” (54).
143
J. Sievers, ‘Josephus, First Maccabees, Sparta, The Three Haireseis—and
Cicero’, JSJ 32, 3 (2001), 248. For a recapitulation of the issue of the double edition, see 248 note 27. See also 242–243: Author’s Revisions and “Publication” in
Ancient Rome.
144
See for instance Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 48.
145
See, regarding this L. Troiani, ‘I lettori delle Antichità Giudaiche di Giuseppe:
Prospettive e problemi’, Athaeneum 64 (1986), 343–353, for whom the readers of
Antiquities would be instead mainly members of that Jewish diaspora of Greek
background that for centuries had been inserted in Greek-styled local institutions
with their own literature and historiography. (350); see also, by the same author,
‘Un nuovo studio su Giuseppe’, Athaeneum 63 (1985), 184–195, about the book by
T. Rajak, Josephus. The Historian and His Society, London 1983.
30
chapter one
Antiquities is a work that, along with the accounts of the JudeoHellenistic historians, was written “ad maiorem Iudaeorum gloriam”.146
Examining the aims of the work, which has its unity in the “selfdefinition of Judaism in historical terms,”147 he identifies three possible types of audience: the Greek, the Roman and the Jewish.
Josephus introduces Judaism to the Greek world in order to put an
end to erroneous judgements about it and to establish a more
favourable image; to the Roman world with the purpose of earning
respect for the Jews; and to the Jews themselves, in the way he
thought best, so that they could have a basis on which to reconstruct Judaism after the revolt.148 He deliberately places himself and
his work in the category of apologetic historiography, as required by
his very aim: to define the Jewish people on the grounds of its own
memory, in such a way to make it understandable to the Greek
world.149
The second contribution is offered by Mason, who, taking into
consideration the context and the audience of the writings, underlines that in the first-century, the production of a book was a social
business, the result of the common effort of friends and protectors.
Writing was also a personal and social activity that originated in the
author’s status and that of his friends. Josephus too must have had
around him a group that assisted him in his endeavour, and this
was the group to which he had to refer to in his writings.150
Mason attempts to characterize this group. With relation to a certain kind of support that the family of the Flavians gave both to the
Jewish War and Antiquities, he considers the possible continuity of
an audience from one book to the other, but still admits that we
cannot be sure of this hypothesis, due to the lack of direct historical connections.151 It is therefore necessary to look for connections
146
Historiography and Self-Definition, 297.
Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 308.
148
Historiography and Self-Definition, 298–302: A Greek Audience; 302–306: A Roman
Audience; 306–308: A Jewish Audience.
149
Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 309 observes how, for his purpose, he
found a rich tradition that led him to imitate the work of Dionysus of Halicarnassus.
See a comparison with Dionisus’ works in 284–290.
150
‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xvii–xviii.
151
Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xviii, hypothesizes that, as Agrippa II and
his sister Berenice had been of great help in the publication of the first book (Life
361–367), they could also have been of great help in the publication of Antiquities,
along with the mysterious Epaphroditus, mentioned many times by Josephus (Ant
147
sources
31
between the contents of the writings and the general conditions
known to have existed in Rome in the late first century. Jewish
Antiquities is written in Greek and Josephus believes that the whole
Greek-speaking world will find it worthy of study (Ant 1,5). In reality, observes Mason, the use of the Greek language says more about
Josephus’ skills than about his audience. At Josephus’ times, almost
every aristocrat in Rome could read and understand Greek; many
spoke it well and, for particular purposes, some even wrote in Greek.
Mason wonders: “Whom specifically, then, was Josephus trying to
reach?”.152 He considers the possibility of Josephus having in mind
a Jewish audience,153 but notices that throughout the whole book
Josephus seems to be aware of the needs of the gentile readers and
does not take for granted any significant knowledge of Jewish Law,
calendar and traditions. The easiest solution, according to Mason,
is that Josephus intended to reach gentile readers that were deeply
interested in learning about Jewish culture.154 Besides, the attraction
to Judaism was, at that time, a well-known phenomenon: Jewish
Antiquities would have been born within this context.155 Presumably,
its audience tended towards republican-aristocratic political sentiments. From what we can know about the reign of Domitian, the
year in which the book made its appearance (93/94) was a dangerous time in Rome for subjects regarded as subversive, especially
for any kind of pro-Jewish encouragement: even people related to
the sovereign were persecuted, who probably constituted a suitable
audience for the Antiquities in Rome.156 However, that Josephus
relied on a number of readers “for a secondary world-wide readership, in perpetuity (Ant 1,5)”, is not being questioned and it is precisely what he has accomplished.157 The second issue regards, as it
has been already said, the quest for the sources of Josephus’ work.
1,8; Life 430; Ap 1,1; 2,1.196). Moreover, Mason points to the many attempts to
identify Epaphroditus as: Nero’s secretary, teacher of the future philosopher Epictetus,
Domitian’s secretary, and a grammarian from Cheronea who lived at Josephus’
times (96–98); however, none of these theories has solid grounds.
152
‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xix.
153
Refers to the hypothesis put forward by E. Migliario, ‘Per l’interpretazione
dell’autobiografia di Giuseppe’, Athaenaeum 59 (1981), 92–137 (see 92,96,136)
154
Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xix, infers this thesis from the prologue to
Antiquities: 1, 8.9.11.
155
Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xx.
156
Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xxxiv.
157
Mason, ‘Judean Antiquities 1–4’, xxxv.
32
chapter one
Some of the written sources can be distinguished within Jewish
Antiquities. In his paraphrase of the Bible, Nodet remarks, Josephus
uses interpretations that he draws from the background known to
him: many are to be found in Philo, in the Rabbinic literature and
sometimes even in the documents of the desert of Judah. It is evident that he uses a biblical text, about which, the most varied opinions had been expressed.158
Starting precisely from these varied opinions and by means of a
thorough analysis of Josephus’ text and his comparison with parallel forms, Nodet comes to a conclusion that differs from that most
widely proposed, according to which Josephus would have used mainly
the Greek translation of the LXX,159 and he claims that it remains
a high probability that Josephus had actually used a Hebrew copy
from the Temple.160
However, for the period from Alexander the Great until the death
of Judas (Ant 11,304–12,434), we can clearly distinguish some of the
written sources used: the Letter of Aristeas and First Maccabees. The
Letter is, in itself, of the utmost importance, as a privileged source
for the reconstruction of the hierarchies and the offices of the
Hellenistic court,161 and as a document coming from the Hellenistic
period.162 But Josephus’ paraphrase of almost a third of the Letter163
is particularly noteworthy with relation to the high priesthood of the
Ptolemaic age, to the different periods in which both the authors
158
É. Nodet, La Bible de Josèphe, I, Le Pentateuque, Paris 1996, 5– 6.
So claims Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, I, 49 where six principles can be distinguished: 1) variations with
apologetic purposes; 2) influence of Haggadic legends; 3) influence of Hellenistic
versions of the biblical history; 4) influence of the Palestinian Halakhah; 5) influence
of Philo; 6) interpolations of non-biblical writings. Regarding this see also, L.H.
Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1998, in
particular 14–46.
160
La Bible de Josèphe, 32.
161
Troiani, Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, 174. Three official documents are
contained in the Letter: a prÒstagma of the Ptolemaic chancellery, concerning the
liberation of the Jewish slaves in Egypt (§§ 22–25), a letter from Ptolemy to Eleazar
the high priest of Jerusalem (§§ 34–40) and the latter’s answer to the king (§§ 41–46).
See E.E. Bickerman, ‘Notes sur la chancellerie des Lagides’, Revue Internationale des
Droits de l’Antiquité, 2 (1953), 251–267.
162
F. Parente, ‘La lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del giudaismo alessandrino durante la prima metà del I sec. ac’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di
Pisa, series III, vol. II, 1–2 (1972), 177–237; 517–567.
163
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 8–9 n. b.
159
sources
33
had written and to their different ideologies.164 Moreover, it provides
us with a clear example of the way in which Josephus used his
sources.
The relationship between the Letter and its paraphrase has been
examined extensively, through a comparative synopsis of the two
texts, from which it is possible to notice the common passages, the
additions and the omissions,165 and from which emerge the diverse
emphases, the important differences in philological-grammatical aspect
and the meaning of some omissions.166 Cohen observes that, while
the Jewish historian scrupulously adheres to the sequence of events
of the original version, he freely re-creates the language, distorting
it. Cohen does not regard some of the modifications introduced
by Josephus as particularly important; some of them he defines
as clarifying details and others he refers to Josephus’ technical
inconsistency.167
First Maccabees represents the main source for the period 175–142
bce,168 but we neither know if Josephus possessed the entire book169
nor if he had the Hebrew or the Greek version of it. The new
Schürer reckons that, as soon as he was done with 1 Maccabees,
Josephus had used Polybius, and from the point in which Polybius
ends (146 bce) onward, the Josephus had used the Universal Greek
Histories, particularly those of Strabo of Capadocia and Nicholas of
Damascus.170 For the history of the pre-Hasmonean period, Polybius
is the source used, as Josephus himself explicitly declares, with relation both to the aid given by the Jews to Antiochus III against Scopas
164
The Letter of Aristeas, set in the III century bce, is said to have been written in a period that ranges from the beginning of the second century to the midst
of the first century bce. Flavius Josephus writes at the end of the I century ce. See
the discussion on the dating of the letter in chapter 1.5.2.
165
See A. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, Paris 1962, 307–327.
166
The most important of Josephus’ omissions are: 82–171, which contain the
description of Jerusalem and its surroundings, Eleazar’s dismissal from the elders
and the high priest’s apology of the Law; and 187–292, which narrate the feast in
which the king asked a question to each one of the elders, getting an answer from
them.
167
S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian,
Leiden 1979, 34–35.
168
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, I, 50.
169
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I,50; III/1, 183; Marcus, VII, 334 note d; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 55–56.
170
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 50.
34
chapter one
(Ant 12,135–137) and to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant
12,258). Stern talks about direct and indirect use of Polybius in the
last part of the twelfth book and the first part of the thirteenth book
of Antiquities.171 In Against Apion 2,84, in reference to the looting
of the temple carried out by Antiochus Epiphanes, Polybius of
Megalopolis is mentioned along with Strabo the Cappadocian, Nicholas
of Damascus, Timagenes and the chroniclers Castor and Apollodorus.
Wacholder172 claims that the same Nicholas of Damascus that was
a reliable source for Josephus concerning the Herodian period would
have also been a source for the previous period. Josephus himself,
in Antiquities, frequently quotes both Strabo and Nicholas as his
sources.173 Polybius, even though he does not explicitly mention any
Jewish high priest, is in any case important as an indirect source for
the study of the pre-Hasmonean high priests, insofar as it provides
the historical context of the events to which they were contemporary, and, in particular, represents the most important source for the
years 264–146.174 But what really concerns this study is the research
of the sources for the pre-Hasmonean period. Feldman underlines
that Josephus, as a descendant of the Hasmoneans and as a priest,
surely must have heard the oral traditions of his family regarding
the priesthood and the temple.175 Plenty of information (mainly in
the twelfth book) concerns the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood; some
traditions have been identified and hypotheses have been elaborated
about lost histories written in Greek by Jews.176 These would be, in
particular, the history of Alexander the Great’s visit to Jerusalem
(Ant 11,304–305; 313–347)177 and the Tales of the Tobiads (Ant
12,154–236). Regarding the first, there is general agreement on considering the information about Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem as his171
GLAJJ, I, 113, note 11.
Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1962, 58–59.
173
For Strabo see 12,285.319.347; 14,35.68.104.111.138; 15,9; for Nicholas of
Damascus 13,249.347; 14,9.68.104. Regarding the quotations of pagan sources within
Antiquities, with the purpose of supporting the reliability of the narrations, see the
long list by Sterling, Historiography,and Self-definition, 249–250, note 104.
174
F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1993, 19.
175
L.H. Feldman, Josephus’s Portrayal of the Hasmoneans compared with 1 Maccabees,
41 and note 3; 42–43.
176
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 557–558.
177
See also treatment and bibliography in Marcus, Josephus, VI, App. C, Alexander
the Great and the Jews, 512–532 and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 42–48.
172
sources
35
torically groundless,178 inasmuch as it is not present in any other
Greek or Latin work that narrates the deeds of Alexander the Great.
In addition, the account features historical anachronisms.179 Nevertheless,
for a long time the origins and motivations for the narrations have
been sought, and they have also been considered in their literary
form. Büchler distinguished three parts that could be easily separated: the first narration concerned Sanballat, his son-in-law Manasseh
and the relations between Sanballat and Alexander; the second dealt
with the relations between the latter and the Jews and their high
priest Jaddua; the third contained a brief description of the expedition of the Macedonians against the Persians.180 In Büchler’s opinion, two of these narrations would have Jewish origins while the
other would be Samaritan in its origins. The Jewish narrative of
Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem had probably been an answer to that
of the Samaritans, who wished to demonstrate that their temple of
Gerizim owed its foundation to Alexander the Great;181 Jaddua’s
story intended to stress that the temple of Jerusalem was considered
superior to the Samaritan temple.182 According to Büchler, the date
of the narration would correspond to the period immediately after
Cesar’s expedition to Egypt; the tax-exemption for the sabbatical
years granted to the Jews by Alexander is an imitation of the exemption granted by Cesar to the same Jews mentioned by Flavius Josephus
(Ant 14,402). Therefore, insisted Büchler, the account has no historical value for the previous period.183 However, this hypothesis has
not been universally shared: Momigliano, for instance, has proposed
the possibility that the story could have been made up in Egypt in
178
This had been already stated by A. Büchler, ‘La relation de Josèphe concernent Alexandre le Grand’, REJ 36 (1898), 1, but see also A. Momigliano’s categorical statement in ‘Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem’, Athaeneum
57 (1979), 443: “I shall say immediately and dogmatically that I assume that there
is no truth in the visit of Alexander to Jerusalem”.
179
Momigliano, ‘Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem’, 443–444.
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 44–45 points out some chronological mistakes in
the narration: first, that Sanballat had lived in Nehemiah’s time and not in that of
Alexander the Great; and second, that the Jews read the Book of Daniel to Alexander,
in a time in which the book had not yet come into existence, since it was written
around 150 bce.
180
‘La relation de Josèphe’, 3.
181
Büchler, ‘La relation de Josèphe’, 12–13; 25.
182
‘La relation de Josèphe’, 13.
183
‘La relation de Josèphe’, 18,25.
36
chapter one
the period of the struggles of the Palestinian Jews against Syria,
around the middle of the second century bce. The insertion of a
Daniel reference in the story would have been added by Flavius
Josephus in order to prove that the destruction of the first temple
had been followed by periods of prosperity for the Jewish people
under the Persians and the Macedonians.184
Cohen185 has also strived to determine the date and the origins of
Jaddua’s story. He has investigated the literary form, identifying the
combination of two sub-stories: an adventus story, which narrated the
arrival of king Alexander and the welcome of the Jews and the high
priest and an epiphany story, which narrated the divine manifestation
that brought salvation to the temple and the Jews. Both the adventus and the epiphany stories were popular genres in Hellenistic Jewish
literature.186 The aim of the first was to find a place for the Jews in
Hellenistic history, to show that the conqueror of the world regarded
Jerusalem as worthy of a visit and the Jews as worthy of respect;
the aim of the second was to demonstrate the power of the God of
Israel. It is possible that both the stories had circulated independently from one another; they are linked to the Palestinian literature of the second half of the second century bce.187 Notwithstanding
the uncertainty of the hypothesis, an element present in the story of
Alexander’s visit is worthy of interest: before leaving, the sovereign
grants the Jews the right to xrÆsasyai to›w patr¤oiw nÒmoiw (Ant 11,338).
According to Cohen, this would be a hint of a reference to the preMaccabean period, in particular to the time of Antiochus III;188 in
Tcherikover’s opinion, there are reasonable grounds for supposing
that Alexander the Great had been the first Hellenistic sovereign to
make such a concession, not because he had taken a special liking
for the Jews but because this was his usual attitude towards conquered peoples.189
Not only do we not know, adds Tcherikover, whether Alexander
had made a solemn statement addressed to the high priest or if he,
184
‘Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem’, 445–47.
S.J.D. Cohen, ‘Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest according
Josephus’, AJS 7–8 (1982–83), 66.
186
‘Alexander the Great’, 45, 55.
187
Cohen, ‘Alexander the Great’, 66–67.
188
‘Alexander the Great’, 66 and note 78.
189
Hellenistic Civilization, 49; 422 note 30.
185
sources
37
as it happened later on, had sent a letter to the Macedonian official
in charge of the Palestinian affairs, but we also lack further historical data.190 However, beyond the historicity of the event, the reference to the ancestral laws raises an important issue which will
be developed and thoroughly studied in the course of the present
investigation.191
The second story is yet more interesting: the tale of the Tobiads
(Ant 12,154–236). Regarding the value of this account, scholars held
different views: Wellhausen utterly rejected its historical truth;192
Tcherikover pointed out that, setting apart the fabled elements, there
still remains a brief account which is more or less in accordance
with historical reality;193 Goldstein considered that, with the exception of the exaggerated descriptions of the Ptolemaic revenues,
Josephus’ stories were entirely true.194 Gera, finally, believed it essential to disregard completely Josephus’ chronology.195 The Jewish historian, in an attempt to sort out the material, has placed the beginning
of the story after the marriage of Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Cleopatra
I, daughter of Antiochus III in 194/3 bce, but this is incorrect, as
both Joseph and his son Hyrcanus have close links with the Ptolemaic
court in Alexandria. The whole career of Joseph and the first half
of Hyrcanus’ one must have preceded Antiochus III’s final occupation of Syria and Phoenicia in the Fifth Syrian War.196 Gera therefore claimed that Josephus had drawn the account from a previous,
likely Jewish source,197 since the heroes that it glorifies—Joseph and
Hyrcanus—are Jews, and also because of his display of knowledge
about the book of Genesis and its midrashim, and his hostility towards
the non-Jewish peoples of Syria and Phoenicia.198
Regarding the date of this alleged source, we find a clue that
would indicate the second century as terminus post quem in a mistake
190
Hellenistic Civilization, 49.
See chapters 5.3; 7.4.2.
192
Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte, Berlin 1958, 231.
193
Hellenistic Civilization, 127.
194
J.A. Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 123.
195
Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 36–58.
196
Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 36–37, notes 2–3. See also A. Momigliano, ‘I
Tobiadi nella preistoria del moto maccabaico’, Quinto Contributo alla storia degli studi
classici e del mondo antico, I, Rome 1975, 610–611, who reckons that the narrative
corresponds to the time of Ptolemy III Euergetes.
197
See also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 126–142, who hypothesized that
there was a family chronicle.
198
Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 54–55.
191
38
chapter one
made by Josephus, when he says that the name of Ptolemy I Euergetes’
wife was Cleopatra (Ant 12,167). The familiarity with the Ptolemaic
institutions and the favour with which he looked upon the king show
that the story was written before the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty.199
However, rather than being an accurate historical account, the story
is a piece of pro-Ptolemaic propaganda that has more to do with
the concerns of a Jew who lived in the Ptolemaic Egypt than with
the political alignments of the Jewish people.200
It is possible to agree with Gera’s version, taking into account the
chronological mistakes and the inaccuracies of Josephus and his
source,201 without disregarding the importance of the narration as a
way to obtain a deeper knowledge of Ptolemaic Egypt. As Gera himself remarks, papyri and inscriptions related to the tax-collection
confirm some of the details of the narration and deny some others.202
Because of the presence of the figure of the high priest Onias II,
the story represents a source for the high priesthood worthy of consideration, while paying special attention to the above-mentioned
implications. On the other hand, the scarcity of information regarding this period justifies “a closer look at this source”.203 Although it
is a little dated, Motzo’s hypothesis still maintains a certain value
among the various hypotheses related to the sources of Flavius
Josephus, with reference to the period studied in this investigation:
he identified an anti-Samaritan source in Jewish Antiquities.204 It
would be a history of the Jewish Temple, composed between the
years 100–63 bce,205 which would include a large part of the books
199
Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 55. See also Schürer – Vermes – Millar,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 140 note 4, where they
remark that there was no queen of Egypt by this name before the marriage of
Ptolemy V in 194/193 bce.
200
Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 58.
201
About this see also, Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 269, who notices that
the narration, probably originated in Alexandria in the 2nd half of the second century bce, reveals the presence both of big mistakes and of details of such precision
that could imply the use of a reliable source, such as for example a family chronicle
of the Tobiads.
202
Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 53–54. About the problem related to the administration of the Ptolemies, see chapter 4.1
203
D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, Tübingen 1994, 14.
204
R.B. Motzo, ‘Una fonte antisamaritana di Giuseppe’, Saggi di storia e letteratura
giudeo-ellenista, Firenze 1924, 180–206.
205
Motzo, ‘Una fonte antisamaritana di Giuseppe’, 206.
sources
39
XI–XIII.206 It has also been supposed that the sacerdotal documents,
at least those from the time of Herod the Great onwards, were at
Josephus’ disposal; great importance was given to the preservation
of the sacerdotal archives and they were kept with great care.207
We may conclude the discussion about Jewish Antiquities with a
brief reflection on the issue of its historical reliability. The problem
is linked, on the one hand, to the relationship with its sources, and
on the other hand with the presence of conflicting information, both
within the text itself and with respect to the other writings by Flavius
Josephus. Generally, Josephus seems to demonstrate a certain fidelity
to his sources in the parts where they are clearly identifiable.208 In
any case, this fidelity is never slavish imitation, as it instead happens
with all the ancient historians, because in order to achieve his literary, and sometimes biased, aims, he moulds the available material, he adds dramatic features, summarizes, expands and omits.209
The problem becomes particularly complex in the case of the high
priesthood, for which Josephus represents the most important source
and where, beyond him, usually the only possibility is to hypothesize oral traditions or writings of authors that have not reached us
directly. As a matter of fact, we ought to remember that in Jewish
Antiquities we find the broadest swath of information about the high
priests of the pre-Hasmonean period.210 The assessment of this information is a vast and complex problem that can be tackled and partially solved only by means of a parallel examination and a comparison
with other available sources.
1.3.3
Against Apion
These writings, albeit brief, have been defined as the most interesting of Josephus’ works, due to the clarity of the expository level, the
literary style, the deep knowledge of Greek philosophy and poetry
displayed, along with the passionate and lively zeal for the Jewish
206
According to Motzo, ‘Una fonte antisamaritana di Giuseppe’, 205, would be
part of this source, among others, the brief pieces of information about the succession of the high priests; the story about the origins of the temple of Gerizzim;
the visit of Alexander to Jerusalem and the tale of the Tobiads.
207
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, I, 52. About this problem see chapter 3.2.3.
208
The same thing happens with the Letter of Aristeas and 1 Maccabees.
209
See Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 47; Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their
Supporters, 13–14.
210
See chapter 3.2.
40
chapter one
religion.211 The title was not chosen by Josephus himself and was
judged as unsuitable for the purpose of expressing the contents of
the work:212 according to Thackeray, Apion is a general term for
Israel’s enemies.213 The text belongs to the genre of Jewish apologetics and, above all, means to demonstrate the antiquity of the
Jewish people.214
In the first book, Josephus states that, regarding the account of
the oldest events, the Greeks are not reliable, as in fact they had
taken no care to preserve officials records of current events and their
writings were literary rather than historical (Ap 1,20.27).215 On the
contrary, he stresses, the forefathers of his people had taken great
care about keeping such records and had entrusted their priests and
prophets with the task of writing them down (Ap 1,29). Further on
in the book he wishes to make up for the silence of the Greek historians about the Jews; this can be explained by the fact that the
Jews lived inland; further, the Jewish people were known in ancient
times to the Egyptian, Phoenician and Chaldean historians (Ap
1,60–68).216 With the aim of demonstrating that the Jews are not
lesser than other peoples, the Greeks in particular, he uses a series
of testimonies from Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldean and even Greek
historians, intellectuals and men of letters (Ap 1,69–218), thus becoming “a first class source to reconstruct the history of the relationship,
especially cultural, between Greek culture and Jewish thought”.217
The following part and the second book are meant to be a systematic defence against the accusations of which the Jews had been
victims (Ap 1,219–2,278),218 and in this regard, it has been said that
the book displays a certain capacity to understand antisemitism in
the first century.219
211
Thackeray, Josephus, I, xvi.
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, III/1, 610.
213
Thackeray, Josephus, I, The Life. Against Apion, xvi.
214
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 610; Thackeray, Josephus, I, xvi.
215
See TH. Reinach ed., Flavius Josèphe, Contre Apion, Paris 1930, xvi–xvii.
216
See also Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, III/1, 610.
217
Author’s translation by Troiani, Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, 65.
218
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, III/1, 610 ff.
219
Thackeray, Josephus, I, xvi.
212
sources
41
A useful contribution to the research on Josephus’ sources is due
to the long list of writers that Against Apion contains. This list has
led scholars to suppose that Josephus did not actually read all the
authors that he listed, but had at his disposal a compendium of quotations such as Polyhistor’s. Alexander Polyhistor, an author who
lived between circa 80 and 40 bce, has the credit of handing down
to posterity the great majority of Judeo-Hellenistic writers in his work
“per‹ ÉIouda¤vn”, where he gathered excerpts of non-Jewish authors
regarding the Jews that have reached us mainly through the first
Church Fathers, especially Eusebius.220 It is still a matter of debate
which passages were used and to what extent did Josephus use
Polyhistor as a source,221 but the relevance of Against Apion as a
source for this study is determined mainly by the reference to a
ÉEzek¤aw érxiereÁw t«È ÉIouda¤vn (Ap 1,187): this datum will be taken
into consideration in the discussion about the high priests of the preHasmonean age.222
1.4
Assessment of the Historiographic Sources
At this stage, it is important to point out some of the problems that
have arisen from the discussion of these historiographic sources bearing upon pre-Hasmonean high priesthood. These are, in my opinion, the most relevant points, which must be taken into account in
the development of the work:
1) The variety, fragmentation and discordance of the information
provided by the sources and the fact that a significant portion of
220
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 510.
221
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 510, recalls Stern, GLAJJ, I, 157, note 2. See the hypothesis put forward by G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, Leipzig 1904, 51 ff., who claims that
Josephus would have taken all the authors that he mentions from Polyhistor, who
was his only source, and was also used for the Letter of Aristeas and for the First
Book of the Maccabees. The hypothesis about this intermediary source is however
denied by what has been said so far regarding the sources of Josephus, particularly
1 Maccabees, in this chapter, pages 29–30. About the controversial issue of Polyhistor,
Josephus’ knowledge of him and the way in which he used him, see also Sterling,
Historiography and Self-Definition, 263–284 who shares the hypothesis that Josephus
knew Polyhistor and through him other authors such as Demetrius, Artapanus and
the Pseudo-Eupolemus.
222
See chapter 3.4.
42
chapter one
them are based on traditions that have long been lost (family histories, archives).
2) The complexity of the historical periods in which the authors of
the books of the Maccabees and Flavius Josephus lived and to
which the writings refer.
3) The link with Greek-Hellenistic historiography.223
4) The involvement of the authors in the issue of the high priesthood.
This last problem is particularly significant. Flavius Josephus regarded
the high priesthood as “the most important institution of Early Judaism
with regard to cult, prophecy, salvation, and worldly policy”;224 it
was, moreover, closely linked to Josephus’ social status. In the first
lines of Life, he does not hide the pride of belonging to the sacerdotal class: “My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back
to priestly ancestors. Different races base their claim to nobility on
various grounds; with us a connexion with the priesthood is the hallmark of an illustrious line”.225 To conclude this passage, we must
underline once again the importance of Flavius Josephus for this
study of the high priesthood. Morton Smith briefly summarizes those
that he considers the few elements that Flavius Josephus knew in the
first century ce. Among these, almost all of them have a close relationship with the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood. They are the
following:
(1) The names of a few of the high priests (but not their order of succession); (2) the story of a murder committed in the temple by a high
priest; (3) a story of the construction of the Samaritan temple, intended
to discredit the priesthood there; (4) two episodes from a Jewish legend about Alexander (the first in defence of the privileges of Jerusalem,
the second hostile to the Samaritans); (5) a reference from Agatharchides
of Cnidus to Ptolemy I’s capture of Jerusalem; (6) the references to
223
See, regarding this major issue, L.H. Feldman, ‘Josephus’s Historiographical
Predecessors’, 3–13; see also G. Jossa, ‘La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica. Il secondo
Libro dei Maccabei e la Guerra Giudaica di Flavio Giuseppe’, in La storiografia nella
Bibbia, Atti della XXVIII Settimana Biblica 1986, 93–102.
224
C. Thoma, ‘The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus’, in L.H.
Feldman – G. Hata eds., Josephus, the Bible and History, Detroit 1969, 196–215.
225
ÉEmo‹ d¢ g°now §st‹n oÈk êshmon, éllÉ §j fler°vn ênvyen katabebhkÒw. Àsper dÉ
≤ parÉ •kãstoiw êllh t¤w §sti eÈgene¤aw ÍpÒyesiw, oÏtvw parÉ ≤m›n ≤ t∞w flervsÊnhw
metousfla tekmÆriÒn §stin g°nouw lamprÒthtow (Life 1). Translation by Thackeray,
Josephus, I, The Life-Against Apion, London-New York 1926, 3.
sources
43
Jerusalem in the (bogus) letter of Aristeas; (7) Polybius’ account of the
wars of Antiochus III; (8) a letter and a decree of Antiochus III granting privileges to Jerusalem; (9) a cronique scandaleuse about the later
Tobiads; (10) a (bogus) letter from a king of Sparta, claiming kinship
with the Judeans.226
Most of these points will be objects of study in the course of the
present work.
1.5
Other Sources
Along with those already considered, other sources of a different
nature will now be discussed. They contain direct or indirect references to the high priests of the pre-Hasmonean period.
1.5.1
Hecataeus of Abdera
According to Flavius Josephus,227 Hecataeus of Abdera lived at the
time of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I son of Lagus.228 He
would be, then, the oldest indirect source about the Jewish high
priesthood. His most famous book was the Aegyptiaca, a panegyrical
report on the culture, history, political organisation and religion of
the ancient Egyptians. In that book, Hecataeus probably also spoke
about the Jews, as we can deduce from the First Book of Diodorus
Siculus,229 who used him as the main source for the description of
Egypt and the emigration of the Egyptians into foreign lands.230
However, it is again Flavius Josephus who tells us about a book by
Hecataeus completely dedicated to the Jews (Ap 1,183) from which
226
Palestinian Parties and Politics, 150. About the letter to the king of the Spartans,
see chapter 2.1; 3.3.1.
227
ÑEkata›ow d¢ ı ÉAbdhr¤thw, énØr filÒsofow ëma ka‹ per‹ tåw prãjeiw flkan≈tatow,
ÉAlejãndrƒ t“ basile› sunakmãsaw ka‹ Ptolema¤ƒ t“ Lãgou suggenÒmenow . . . (Ap
1,183).
228
This is confirmed by other testimonies; see Jacoby, FGrH, 264. See also Stern,
GLAJJ, I, 20, which locates him around 300 bce, and note 5, where it is said that
in reality we do not know the exact title of the work.
229
Diodorus Siculus is a writer of the first century bce; his works have reached
us throug Photius’ Historical Library. In Photius’ manuscripts we read “MilÆsiow”,
but nowadays scholars think that he would rather be Hecataeus of Abdera, see
GLAJJ, I,34; Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, III/1, 671 and note 267.
230
GLAJJ, I, 169, nr. 55.
44
chapter one
he cites lengthy excerpts.231 Among these excerpts there is a reference to Hezekiah, high priest of the Jews, who, along with many
others followed Ptolemy I Soter, Master of Syria, back into Egypt
(Ap 1,187).232 In Diodorus’s Library of History XL, moreover, there
is a detailed description of the Jews233 which features an important
testimony about both the community of the Jews as the only one
ruled by priests, and the high priest as the one chosen by merit of
his wisdom to interpret the divine orders.234 This description has
allowed some particular characteristics of the image of the Jews portrayed by Hecataeus to be identified, which have been subject of
diverse opinions: Stern, for instance, observes that Diodorus, while
summarizing and abridging his source, introduces stylistic changes
and, in any case “we cannot be sure of the ipsissima verba of
Hecataeus”.235
Stern’s statement reminds us of an old problem. In fact, already
at the beginning of the second century ce, Herennius Philo had
doubted that the fragments quoted under the name of Hecataeus
were part of an authentic book by Hecataeus, precisely because of
the exceedingly favourable attitude towards the Jews, and he had
initially hypothesized that it was all a Jewish forgery, but then he
reckoned that they could be the work of a Hecataeus who had
become submissive to Jewish doctrines.236 The authenticity of Hecataeus’
passages has been debated also in modern times, mainly due to the
presence of some details considered to be anachronistic.237 The new
Schürer denies that such details are really anachronistic, but, even
admitting that they might actually come from the authentic Hecataeus,
claims that some other passages238 can be supposed to be the original
231
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, III/1, 672, where it is said that Ap 1,183–204 deal “with the relations
between the Jews and Ptolemy I Soter, their faithfulness to the law, the organization of the priesthood, and the arrangement of their temple”.
232
See other reference to this passage in chapter 2.1.2 and related discussion in
chapter 3.4.
233
GLAJJ, I, 187, nr. 65.
234
GLAJJ, I, 26–27, nr. 11,5.
235
GLAJJ, I, 21.
236
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 673.
237
See, in particular, B. Schaller, ‘Hekataiois von Abdera über die Juden. Zur
Frage der Echtheit und der Datierung’, ZNW 54 (1963), 15–31.
238
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, III/1, 673 and note 270 where, among the anachronistic details are
sources
45
text “slightly altered by a later Jewish reviser”.239 Stern re-examines
the problem, listing the main arguments put forward by scholars
against the authenticity of Hecataeus’ excerpts.240 In his opinion,
the fact that Herennius Philo had in the past suspected the authenticity of the excerpts still remains a burden for modern scholars.
Nevertheless, he reckons that Philo’s doubts are just the expression
of his personal vision and that the majority of the arguments held
against the authenticity of the fragments can be rejected. None of
the allegedly anachronistic details have been really proven to be such,
and even when it is true that the general tone concerning the Jews
in Against Apion is more laudatory than the chapter about the Jews
in Diodorus, it is necessary to remember that Hecataeus lived in a
period in which the general attitude towards the Jews was positive.
However, there are some expressions and nuances that can hardly
be attributed to the real Hecataeus241 and make possible the hypothesis that Josephus had at his disposal a Jewish revision of Hecataeus’
book, where the tone of the Greek historian regarding the Jews would
have become more laudatory.242 This revision could have been written in the period between Hecataeus and Josephus.243 As Rooke
points out, notwithstanding the obscurity of the author and the problems derived from the fragments themselves, the extract of the writings of Hecataeus of Abdera is an important source “for this early
and obscure period,”244 i.e., the Ptolemaic age. It is the first description known in Greek literature of the foundation and constitution of
listed: the insistence on the eagerness of the Jews to accept martyrdom in order to
defend the Law (Ap 1,191); the reference to a high priest by the name of Ezechias
(Ap 1,187); and the attribution of the tithes to the priests instead of the Levites (Ap
1,188). See also the reference to Ap 1,193; 2,43.
239
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 673 and note 272.
240
GLAJJ, I, 23.
241
GLAJJ, I, 24 where Stern quotes other writers, for example, Theophrastus,
Megasthenes, Clearchus, and above all, quotes also the approval of the destruction
carried out by the Jews of the pagan temples or altars erected in their lands.
242
GLAJJ, 24 note 7.
243
Schürer-Vermes-Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
III/1, 675, note 276. See more about the whole issue, which goes beyond the
boundaries of this research, in ibid., 675 ff. and related notes. See also Stern, GLAJJ,
I, 20–24.
244
D. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, Oxford 2000, 246.
chapter one
46
the Jewish people.245 VanderKam adds another specific element which
is relevant for this study. In his opinion, it is not unlikely that
Hecataeus’ excerpts cited by Flavius Josephus (Against Apion 1,183–184)
“come from the hand of a writer such as Hecataeus”.246 Hecataeus
was in Egypt where he probably met some Jews, among them a Jew
by the name Ezechias who was a chief priest (érxiereÊw). This reference will be investigated later in this study.247
1.5.2
The Letter of Aristeas
This work does not actually take an epistolary shape, but it is rather,
as indicated in the text itself (322), a “diÆghsiw”, a narratio of the tradition which has preserved for us the oldest memory of the LXX,
that is, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.248 It is a literary
composition, 249 historically situated in the reign of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus, although this dating has usually been considered a
fiction.250 Scholars, however, do not agree on a date to be attributed to this document.
We will now mention the main solutions proposed concerning this
problem. One of the studies that has left its mark, due to the opinions for and against it that followed its publication, is that of Bickerman,
who, considering the parallel usage of the titles and the epistolary
greeting formulae in the letter and in dated papyri containing official
documents, places the composition in the second half of the second
century (145–127 bce).251 Among those who accept this hypothesis
we find Tcherikover, who, while considering the possibility that new
sources may change Bickerman’s chronology, reckons that it could
be justified.252
245
The value of the testimony of Hecataeus of Abdera will be treated again in
chapter 4.3.
246
From Joshua to Caiapha. High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis 2004, 115.
247
See chapter 3.4.
248
See Troiani, Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, 24; see Marcus, Josephus, VII, 8,
n.b.
249
D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle. Studies in Jewish Self-Governement in Antiquity,
Tübingen 1994, 7.
250
See, e.g., M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, New York 1951, 5–9 where there
is a list of the objections to the date proposed by the book itself. See also J.J.
Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, New York
20002, 28, and note 148.
251
‘Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas’, ZNWT 29 (1930), 296.
252
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, HThR 51 (1958), 60 note 5.
sources
47
However, new hypotheses have been elaborated. The new Schürer253
relates a tradition of the early second century, which is apparently
dependant on the philosopher Aristobulus and the Letter of Aristeas,
inasmuch as he also, around 180–145 bce, indicates Demetrius of
Phalerum as the author of the Greek translation.254 The new Schürer
notes, moreover, that some elements within the Letter, and particularly the role of the high priest and the state of peace, seem to
indicate the period prior to the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucids.
However, the new Schürer also concludes that no argument in favour
of one or another of the theses can be regarded as decisive.255
Momigliano has offered another relevant proposal; on the grounds
of analogies to be found between the Letter and First Maccabees256
he considers the Letter to be dated prior to 1 Maccabees, around
110–100 bce.257 Bickerman, however, has judged this hypothesis as
unconvincing based upon linguistic reasons.258 Parente, on the other
hand, accepts Momigliano’s hypothesis but modifies it by claiming
that Aristeas must have had at his disposal the Hebrew text of
1 Maccabees. In his opinion, the author of the Letter depends on
1 Maccabees in the Greek form and therefore, the date of the writings must be placed around 90 bce, that is, during the reign of
Alexander Janneus (103–76 bce).259 Finally, according to Collins, who
253
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 680–682.
254
The information that refers to Aristobulus is reported by Eusebius, Praep. Ev.
13,12,2. Aristobulus’ dependence on the letter is claimed by P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic
Alexandria, Oxford 1972, I, 694, who puts forward two reasons to support his thesis: first, when referring to the translation of the Pentateuch, Aristobulus makes reference both to Philadelphus and to Demetrius of Phalerum; the second is given by
the coincidence between the two works. However, Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 680, note 281, remark that
the contrary could be also possible, that is, that Aristeas could depend on Aristobulus,
and even consider a third possibility, that both the authors had used a common
oral tradition.
255
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 682.
256
They would be § 37 of the Letter and 1 Macc 10,25–45 containing the letter of Demetrius to the Jewish ethnos. See A. Momigliano, ‘Per la data e la caratteristica della Lettera di Aristea’, Quinto Contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Roma
1969, 213.
257
Momigliano, ‘Per la data e la caratteristica della Lettera di Aristea’, 218–219.
258
‘Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr (II Macc 1,1–9)’, ZNTW 32
(1933), 250–251, note 55.
259
‘La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del Giudaismo Alessandrino
chapter one
48
reviews the various hypotheses, a possible indication as to the date
can be found in the beginning of the Letter, where the attention is
focused on the issue of the liberation of the slaves. This fact was
certainly invented with the aim of highlighting Ptolemy’s generosity
by showing him as merciful towards the Jews.260 The narrative could
be dated to a later period, with reference to Flavius Josephus, who
reports that after the death of Ptolemy Philopator, the Jews of Onias’
country kept on supporting his widow Cleopatra II against Ptolemy
Physcon. The passage which praises the mercy of the forefathers
could therefore be an appeal to the king, or could also have the
purpose of reassuring the Jews. In this case, the letter could be dated
to the period of Ptolemy Physcon’s rule, between 145 and 116 bce,
which is quite close to the dating proposed by Bickerman. 261
VanderKam, too, considers the different hypotheses and agrees on
a date “in the second century, probably in the earlier part of it” by
underlining the author’s impressive “knowledge of Ptolemaic courtly
practice”.262
This is the proposal which nowadays seems to be more agreeable,
inasmuch as it is based on analysis of the form of the text, on direct
comparisons with other documents and on literary and historical criteria. It is not possible to go beyond this. However, the Letter of
Aristeas is a very important document for the study of the preHasmonean high priesthood, due in particular to the presence of the
high priest Eleazar and the correspondence between him and king
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Ar 35–40; 41–46). This issue will be
approached in depth through the course of this study.263
1.5.3
The Book of Sirach
The book of Sirach is the main source for this study, both from the
historical and the theological pointsof view, due to the fact that it
contains the encomium of the high priest Simon (50,1–24). However,
the passage will be assessed with relation to two issues: a) the transmission of the text; b) the dating of the book.
durante la prima metà del I sec. a.C.’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa,
serie III, 1–2 (1972), 192–193.
260
Between Athens and Jerusalem, 99.
261
This is the opinion of Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 101 and 168, on
the grounds of observations related to Aristeas § 148.
262
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 166.
263
See chapter 4.4.
sources
49
For a long time, the book was known only in its Greek version
(GI), although there was information about the existence of a text
written in Hebrew (HI),264 which was thought to have been permanently lost centuries ago. In 1896 fragments of manuscripts were discovered in Cairo’s Genizah265 and bought by Cambridge.266 Other
fragments from the Caves of Qumran and the Fortress of Masada
were added later on, until the restored collection came up to “about
two-thirds of the Hebrew Ben Sira”.267 Today, fragments of six manuscripts have been gathered, labelled as manuscripts A B C D E F,
of which the longest is MS B.268 The main question is whether these
fragments reflect the original text. Before the discoveries of Qumran
and Masada, some scholars thought that the fragments of the Genizah
represented “medieval retranslations into Hebrew”,269 and discussed
whether such retranslations would derive from an original version
written in Syrian, Persian or Greek. Others, instead, thought that
the Cairo manuscripts transmitted the original Hebrew text of the
book.270 The discovery and publication of the fragments of Qumran
and Masada gave new vigour to the research; Yadin’s new study of
the fragments of Masada is of particular relevance: by means of a
comparison with the Genizah’s manuscript B, Yadin came to the
conclusion that the Hebrew version used by the Greek translator
264
See the Prologue to the Greek version in J. Ziegler ed., Sapientia Jesu Filii
Sirach, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis,
XII/2, Göttingen 19802, 125, v. 22. See also the testimonies in Jerome, Migne, PL
(29) 427–438 and in Rabbinic texts, see P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom
of Ben Sira. AB 039, New York 1987, 8.
265
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 203 and notes 14–16.
266
S.C. Reif, ‘The Discovery of the Cambridge Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira:
Scholars and Texts’ in P.C. Beentjes ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research,
Berlin-New York 1997, 17; for a more extended treatment see also 2–22.
267
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 203. About these posterior discoveries, see Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll
from Masada, Jerusalem 1965; C. Martone, ‘Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran
and Masada’, in P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in modern Research , 81–94.
268
For a deeper study of the discoveries and the successive editions that have
been made, see Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 51–54; M. Gilbert,
‘L’Ecclésiastique: Quel Texte? Quelle Autorité?’, RB 94/2 (1987), 234–237; M.
Gilbert, ‘Siracide’, in L. Pirot – A. Robert – J. Briend – É. Cothénet ed., Dictionnaire
de la Bible, Supplement, Paris 1996, 12 (1996), col 1390–96.
269
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, III/1, 203–204 where the positions of the various authors are taken into
consideration.
270
See also Gilbert, ‘Siracide’, in DBS, col. 1392.
50
chapter one
was closer to Masada’s fragment than any other recension; the fragment of Masada was, therefore, the closest to Ben Sira’s text.271
The views of scholars continued vary; to the problem of the variety of the text types was also added the presence of two different
forms (one shorter than the other) in the Greek text of the Syrian
version and the Vetus Latina.272 Reiterer, assessing the accomplishments of the research of the last 15 years, observes how after the
publication, 100 years ago, of the Hebrew manuscripts, the latest
studies had undertaken a quest for the original text, the ‘Urtext’ 273
and had carried out investigations about the relationship between
the manuscripts themselves. Notwithstanding the difficulty of disentangling the complex puzzle of the development of the text, analyses show that there have been two Hebrew versions: “a shorter and
a longer one”.274
According to Rüger, G I is the foundation for H I (200–175 bce),
while H II, started around the middle of the first century and completed before 150 bce, would be the basis of G II, which, in its turn,
would be the foundation of Vetus Latina.275 However, the oldest text
would apparently be an interpretation, and as a consequence, comments Reiterer: “every scholar is in fact interpreting interpretations”.276
Nevertheless, the most interesting conclusions available result from
the investigation based on the comparison between the manuscripts,277
although we must admit that none of them solves the problem of
the starting point of the original text. As Reiterer underlines, the
271
Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, 7–11.
Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 51–60. See also Gilbert, DBS, col.
1392–3.
273
F.V. Reiterer, ‘Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira’, in
Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in modern Research, 27.
274
Reiterer, ‘Review of Recent Research’, 26.
275
H.P. Rüger, Text und Textform in hebraïschen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte
und Textkritik der hebraïschen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza, Berlin 1970, 112. See
also Reiterer, 26 and note 16.
276
‘Review of Recent Research’, 27
277
Reiterer, ‘Review of Recent Research’, 27–34. Among the studies quoted by
Reiterer, apart from that by Rüger, I consider especially noteworthy those by P.C.
Beentjes, ‘Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern’, Bib 63
(1982), 506–23, who studies the way in which Ben Sira uses the text of the OT;
M.D. Nelson, The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira compared to the Greek and
Hebrew Materials, Atlanta 1988, which compares the Syriac version with the Hebrew
and Greek textual traditions; A. Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con
il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico, AnBib 133, Rome
1995, which intends to analyse the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew
texts.
272
sources
51
relationship of the manuscripts within the Hebrew text and the position of the Greek texts in the two versions and the Syriac version
“are always an interesting topic”.278
The second problem is that of the dating of the book. Examining
this issue, Williams reports the widespread opinion according to which
the writings of Ben Sira must be dated to “the first quarter of the
2nd century bce”.279 This dating was essentially based on the prologue to the Greek version, where the author declares that in the
38th year of king Euergetes, he came to Egypt and discovered a
text written by his grandfather which he decided to translate. According
to the accepted chronology,280 we know two kings by the name of
Euergetes: Ptolemy III or Euergetes I, who reigned 25 years (246–221)
and Ptolemy VIII Physcon or Euergetes II, who began his rule along
with his brother Ptolemy VII Philometor in 170 and reigned on his
own from 145 to 116.281 From the prologue to the book of Sirach,
providing that its authenticity is accepted, it has been generally
deduced that the Euergetes in question was the second one, and the
date in which the Greek translator, grandson of the author, came
to Egypt should be around 132. Moreover, given the interval of time
between grandfather and grandson (around 50 years), and the necessary time for the translation, the date of the writing of the book
of Sirach would be between 200–175 bce.282 Williams, considering
as terminus a quo the year 195 and as terminus ad quem the year 175,
claims that the most likely dating for the book is the latter, the year
in which Ben Sira was around sixty, while his grandson was still a
child.283 However, this solution does not seem to be final, as the
oscillation of hypotheses has demonstrated over the years.284
278
‘Review of Recent Research’, 27.
D.S. Williams, ‘The Date of Ecclesiasticus’, VT 44 (1994), 563–64.
280
Vedi T.C. Skeat, ‘The Reigns of the Ptolomies with tables for converting
Egyptian Dates to the Julian System’, Mizraim VI (1937), 14.16.
281
Williams, ‘The Date’, 563.
282
This has been proposed by P.W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 9: “in the
first quarter of the second century bc”, but see also M. Gilbert, Wisdom Literature,
in M.E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudoepigrapha,
Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, Assen-Philadelphia 1984, 283–324, especially
291, which mentions an agreement reached around 190 bce; J.L. Crenshaw, Book
of Proverbs, New York-London-Toronto 1992, 514 indicates a later date, between
190 and 180. See also Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People
in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 202.
283
‘The Date’, 565.
284
We quote, among others, J.L. Crenshaw, ‘The Book of Sirach’, in The New
Interpreter’s Bible, V, 611, who considers a date around 185 to be quite likely.
279
chapter one
52
Gilbert’s hypothesis is of great interest; he claims that, among the
several possible paths to the solution of the problem, two are the
most important. The first is the one already considered, the second
is the one that tries to date the text by finding the parallels within
the text itself. Among these parallels, Gilbert observes the passage
of Sir 50,1–24, identifying the priest as Simon the Righteous, who
was in office between 200 and 187 and therefore claiming that the
text is to be dated a few years after 198.285
These hypotheses will be object of deeper study. It is particularly
noteworthy, in the context of this study, the fact that, as it has
already been observed, the text of the Sirach has been transmitted
by several linguistic traditions, from which various cultural contexts
emerge. A number of variations are to be found in the passage
related to the high priest Simon. These variations are of the utmost
importance and will be taken into account and assessed in due
course.286
1.5.4
The Book of Daniel
It is, above all, the issue of the dating which determines the importance of this book for this research, putting to one side the problems concerning the text, its literary composition and the diverse
linguistic forms under which it has reached us.287 It is a complex
problem, inextricably linked to the problem of the unity of the book.
Amongst the many solutions proposed, Hartmann and Di Lella
summarize two:
a) A sole author of the Maccabean period, who could have used
and re-elaborated older traditions and written materials, has written the book as we know it;
b) Two or more authors of the third or second centuries bce, and
probably a final compiler, contributed to the composition of the
book.
285
‘Siracide’, DBS, col. 1403, where Gilbert observes that this line has been followed particularly by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 142–151 who dates the book
between 200–180 and by A. Sisti, ‘Riflessi dell’epoca premaccabaica nell’Ecclesiastico’,
RB 12 (1964), 215–256, who confirms the same date and sees, in the book, a tight
link with the Maccabees, whom, in his opinion, are the ones that more faithfully
have been able to interpret and put in action the teachings of Ben Sira (256). About
the issue of Simon’s identity see chapter 3.2.1.
286
See chapter 5.5.
287
About all the above-mentioned problems, see J.J. Collins, Daniel. A Commentary
on the Book of Daniel, Minneapolis 1993, 2 ff.
sources
53
They add a third hypothesis according to which the book is the
result of the work of many authors, the last of them being the final
editor-compiler, who gave the book both its literary unity, focusing
on the figure of Daniel, and its theological unity, encouraging the
Jews to be brave and faithful during the persecution of the Maccabean
period.288 According to Hartmann and Di Lella, the final draft of
the book would be placed around 140 bce, but Porphyry, a neoPlatonic writer, had already stated his conviction that the book of
Daniel “was a Maccabean pseudepigraph”.289
Collins observes that at the beginning of the 19th century, there
was general agreement on the Maccabean dating of the book290 and,
even admitting that this hypothesis is one of the possibilities, notes
that Daniel’s predictions, without question, are particularly relevant
for the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.291 On the grounds of further
considerations, such as the accuracy of the references to the Hellenistic
history in chapter 11 and the use of pseudonymity and ex eventu
prophecy by Jewish writers of the Hellenistic period, Collins claims
that “the balance of probability is overwhelmingly in favor of a
Maccabean date, at least for the revelations in chaps. 7–12 which
clearly have their focus in that period”.292
The problem of the book’s origins, however, is still the subject of
debate. In recent years there have been many attempts to identify
the author or the authors of the book of Daniel with one of the
Jewish groups active during the Maccabean resistance. Collins points
to the view shared by most scholars that they have to be looked for
in the group of the μylyKcm, whose resistance to the persecution is
described in Dan 11,33–35.293 But before him, Kampen had posed
the problem “whether the author(s) or recipients of the book of
Daniel were among the Hasidim”.294 The identification of these groups
288
L.F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, New York 1978, 16.
See P.M. Casey, ‘Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel’, JThS 27
(1976), 15.
290
Daniel, 26. K. Marti, Das Buch Daniel, Tübingen 1901, xiii, proposed a date
between 200 and 140 bce; more recently, Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III/1, 247 propose a further clarification
regarding the period of time ranging from 167 to 163 “if not from 167 to 165 bc.”
291
Collins, Daniel, 26. The same thing was recognised both by Flavius Josephus
and Jerome, who reckons that the events predicted by the Anti-Christ in Dan 11
were foreshadowed under Epiphanes, see ibid., notes 258.259.
292
Daniel, 26.
293
Collins, Daniel, 66–67.
294
J. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Phariseism. A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees,
Atlanta 1988, 29.
289
chapter one
54
and the relations between them is therefore a complex problem and
has been interpreted in many ways,295 which for the time being will
not be investigated,296 while the hypothesis that Daniel had belonged
to one of these groups is still an uncertain issue.297
Going back to the question of the importance of the book as a
historical source, we quote the contributions offered by two scholars: Goldstein, on one hand, makes a thorough comparison between
the predictions of Daniel (Dan 7–12) and the influence that they
have exerted over the books of the Maccabees, identifying precise
historical events among the predictions.298 On the other hand,
Tcherikover cautiously remarks that the Book, written during the
events that took place under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes, could
have been an excellent historical source. However, it was not the
intention of the author of Daniel to write a historical account; for
him, prophecy and vision “took the place of a factual account of
events”.299 It is therefore necessary, in order to use Daniel as a historical source, to discover the key to its allusive language. It is also
necessary to compare every single verse with the events of the period
reported by other sources. For example, Tcherikover highlights that,
if we did not know from 2 Maccabees that Onias had died at Daphne,
we would not have linked this event to vv. 9,26; 11,22 in the book
of Daniel.
These are the verses that concern this research in particular; following Tcherikover’s advice, they will be taken into consideration in
the study on Onias III, along with other sources. Chapter 11 seems
to be of particular interest, where there is a reconstruction of the
relationship between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.300
1.6
Epigraphic Sources
The presence of non-Hebrew epigraphic sources related to the period
which is the object of this study is very important. Notwithstanding
295
See, e.g., Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 229, who identifies the groups
with each other.
296
See a more extended treatment in chapter 5.5.3.
297
See Collins, Daniel, 69.
298
I Maccabees, 42–54.
299
Hellenistic Civilization, 399.
300
For a further investigation, see chapter 5.4.4.
sources
55
the fragmentary character of the information that can be drawn from
them, they offer, for the period characterised by the dominion of
the Seleucids but also for the period of the Ptolemies’s rule, a precious testimony of the presence of a non-Jewish érxiereÊw in a period
contemporary to the Jewish high priest of the pre-Hasmonean age.
The dates of the inscriptions, which can be determined with a certain degree of accuracy, refer to the period from circa 200 to 195
bce.301 Although some of them show, in certain parts, letters that
have been badly damaged by corrosion of the stone resulting in a
text that may be sometimes controversial in its interpretation, they
are in any case important documents, above all with reference to
the strategos-archiereus of “Syria and Phoenicia”.302 From the terminological point of view, moreover, they testify the existence of the title
érxiereÊw in a non-Jewish background and with a non-Jewish
meaning.303
In the course of this research, other sources will be taken into
account when considered necessary, for instance, the Qumran texts.
They will be discussed in the occasions in which they are to be
introduced.
301
For a deeper examination of these inscriptions, see chapter 5.1.1.
“Syria and Phoenicia” is the name that indicates the territories to which Judea
belonged during the Ptolemaic dominion. Under the Seleucid dominion instead, the
name was changed into “Cele-Syria”. See chapters 4.1; 5.1.
303
See chapter 2.1.1.
302
CHAPTER TWO
PHILOLOGICAL ISSUES
The present chapter addresses problems regarding some of the key
terms of this work, namely, érxiereÊw; flereÊw m°gaw; érxiere›w; diãdoxow; prostãthw. The aim is to determine their origin and their
semantic use by comparing them with both the Greek inscriptions
of Ptolemaic and Seleucid background as well as with historiographic
texts.
2.1
Origins and Evolution of the Word érxiereÊw
The first word to be considered is érxiereÊw, about which there will
be a brief excursus concerning its genesis and meaning. Literally, the
word is a compound of the prefix érx, which conveys the notion of
superiority, and the noun flereÊw = priest. The final meaning is “chiefpriest”, or, as it is commonly translated: “high priest”.1 The word
is found frequently in texts from ancient Greece: it is found in
Herodotus’ “Histories” (fifth century bce) where it indicates “superior priests (or high priests)” of ancient Egypt (2,37.142.143.151),2
but there are grounds for supposing that the word was already present in Hecataeus of Miletus (sixth century bce), as Herodotus claims
to draw on information from his writings.3 The Greek historian,
dwelling on the religious traditions of the Egyptian priests and their
laws regarding purity, remarks: “many (not alone one) are dedicated
to the service of each god. One of these is the high priest; and when
a high priest dies his son succeeds to his office”4 (2,37). The érxiere›w appear in the calculation of the generations next to the kings
(2,142), and every érxiereÊw, “sets there in his lifetime a statue of
H.G. Liddell – R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, entry érxiereÊw.
See D. Godley ed., Herodotus with an English Translation, I, Cambridge-London
1981.
3
See FG.H 1a1, F 300.5.
4
See Godley, Herodotus with an English Translation, 321.
1
2
philological issues
57
himself ”5 (2,143). Therefore Herodotus, writing about the existence
of the chief priests in Egypt, underlines the two following characteristics: first, their authoritativeness, because their names are next
to the kings in the calculation of time; second, the rights of succession that are obtained through inheritance from father to son.
In the classical age, the word is found in Plato, who explains that,
every year, whoever has been judged best the previous year will be
appointed érxiereÊw and, as long as the state exists, his name will
be recorded and will be used as an indication of the year.6 In the
Jewish world, the term is found in the Greek translation of the LXX.
Not taking into account the books of the Maccabees which will be
analysed later, the word appears only nine times, four of which are
in 1 Esdras,7 but it corresponds to different forms of the Hebrew
text.8 This is also the case of the occurrences of érxiereÊw in
1 Esdras, where however, along with the form érxiereÊw (5,40;9,40),
or with the other t“ érxiere› = (9,39) expressed in the dative case,
appears the version without arx—.9
These data raised some questions, both regarding the dating of
the word érxiereÊw in a Jewish context and the presence of the title
and the role of the high priest in the Old Testament. According to
De Vaux there are no doubts: the priesthood of ancient Israel had
a chief that was regularly addressed just as “the priest”,10 as appears
evident in the list of Solomon’s ministers (1 Ki 4,2) regarding Jehoiada
(2 Ki 11,9 ff.; 12,8); Uriah (2 Ki 16,10 ff.; Is 8,2); and Hilkiah
5
See Godley, Herodotus with an English Translation, 451.
R.G. Burny ed., Laws, II, 12,957, Plato, XI, London-Cambridge 1926, 492–93.
7
E. Hatch – M.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, I, A–I, Oxford 1897,
rist. Graz (Austria), 1954, 1 Esdras 5,40; 9,39.40.49.
8
In Lv 4,3 for érxiereÊw we find j"yviM;h' ˆheKoh,' in Jos 22,13 simply ˆheKoh.' Instead,
the Hebrew of Jos 24,33 completely disregards the Greek title érxiereÊw. In 1 Ki
1,25 we find the form tÚn fler°a, which corresponds to the same Hebrew form ˆheKoh;'
analogically, but in plural, 1 Chr 15,14 ofl flere›w translates the Hebrew μynIh}Koh.' See
also the critical apparatus in Rahlfs, where for 1 Ki (= III Ki) 1,25 and 1 Chr
(= Paralipomenon I) 15,14 the forms érxier°a and érxiere›w are also recorded
respectively.
9
See in Rahlfs, ESDRAS A’5,40; 9,39 arx>B; 9,40.49 arx>L; see S.S. Tedesche,
A Critical Edition of 1 Esdras, Leipzig 1929, 74, that features: 5,40 iereuw B,h,k; for
9,39 tƒ ierei B,b; for 9,40 iereuw L, k . . .; 9,40 ierei L. See also the recent commentary by Z. Talshir, 1 Esdras. A Text Critical Commentary, Atlanta 2001, 280,
wherein it is said that in 5,40 ˆhk has been drawn on from érxiereÊw (except for
B-text that has flereÊw) and that the Peshitta has abr anhk; 395 (9,30.40.49); 485
(9,39).
10
R. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, Religious Institutions, New York 1965, 378.
6
58
chapter two
(2 Ki 22,12.14), who from the context seem to be the chief priests.
Once in 2 Ki 25,18 and a number of times in 2 Chr (19,11; 24,6.11;
26,20) we find the expression varh ˆhKh that literally means “head
priest, priest-in-head”, while in 2 Chr 31,10 we find the wider formula “the chief priest of the house of Zadok”.11 According to Cody,12
the fact that the king of Israel was the highest authority in terms of
worship, even without bearing the title of priest, can probably explain
the absence of the title “high priest” in the pre-exilic tradition. This
opinion is shared by Morgenstern, who confirms the existence of a
chief priest in the pre-exilic age, but only in relation to a sanctuary
of his own, and who generally bore the name ˆheKoh,' “the priest i.e.
the priest par excellence”.13 This chief priest acted as a counselor to
the king and as his substitute for religious matters. Moreover, from
the terminological point of view, Morgenstern distinguishes ˆhKoh
varoh,; the chief priest of a specific priestly family or the chief priest
of a particular sanctuary, and ldoN:h' ˆheKoh,' the great priest, a later,
post-exilic title. In fact, in his opinion, neither the title nor the role
of the ldoG:h' ˆheKoh' existed in the pre-exilic period.14 According to De
Vaux, after the exile the title of great priest, ldoG:h' ˆheKoh' is scarcely
ever used; it became of common usage only in a later period.15 In
a coin dated at the late Persian period, we find the inscription
“YHÓNN HKWHN”,16 that would confirm the use or the word
ˆheKoh' in the post-exilic period. However, there is much discussion
around this piece of evidence, as to whether hakkohen refers to the
high priest or to another position, for instance, that of governor.17
At this point, it seems useful to make a more thorough comparison with the Hebrew text. Rooke has done precisely this in recent
times. She has taken into consideration the use of the words referring to the high priesthood in the so-called Priestly materials and in
11
BHS 2 Chr. 31,10 abr anhk.
LXX 2 Chr. 31,10 ı flereÁw ı êrxvn efiw o‰kon Sadvk.
12
A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Roma 1969, 103.
13
J. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood’, AJSL 55
(1938), 12–13.
14
Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood’, 183.
15
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, 397.
16
Y. Meshorer, A Treasure of Jewish Coins. From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba,
Jerusalem-Nyack 2001, 14, notes 46–47.
17
About this complex issue, that however concerns an earlier period, see Rooke,
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 229–237.
philological issues
59
the book of Chronicles.18 The references to the texts belonging to
the so-called P material are worthy of interest, especially in relation
to their dating.19 In fact Rooke, examining the legislative texts,20
analysing the narrative texts21 and studying the only passage belonging to the P material that features a genealogical style (Nm 3,1–4),22
observes that the importance of the high priest is emphasized exclusively in the field of worship.
This would be particularly noticeable in Lv 21,10, where the title
wyj;a,me ldoG:h' ˆheKoh' would reflect only the status of primus inter pares, a
worship chief, minister of a community that had other governmental mechanisms as well.23 Regarding the book of Chronicles, as De
Vaux had done before, Rooke observes that the most usual denomination by which all the chief priests of the pre-exilic period were
addressed, from Amariah to Azariah, was varoh; ˆhekoh.' 24
This title has been studied in depth by Bartlett, who reckons that
it would reflect a judicial function vested in the chief priest of the
pre-exilic period in accordance with the duties that he had to perform
18
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 11–39. It is not my intention here to discuss the issue of the attribution of
the various text to the P source, as this work focuses on later books and authors
(the Books of the Maccabees and Flavius Josephus), but the linguistic analysis carried out by this scholar might provide some useful hypothesis for the present investigation. Furthermore, as Rooke herself says, 12–13, note 5, nowadays P is generally
dated at the exilic period, or some time later. Rooke, 185 note 4 dates the book
of Chronicles at 400–300 bce.
19
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 11–39.
20
Concerning the legislative texts, Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development
of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 27–28, states that the most common designation of the high priests refers to the anointing, while the other references regard
the succession, the old age and the garments.
21
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 30–34
where Rooke notices that, in the narrative texts, even without denying the status
of the high priesthood, special emphasis is placed on the position of Aaron as patriarch-founder of the priesthood and of the Aaronites, his descendants, as the only
legitimate priestly class.
22
According to Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood
in Ancient Israel, 35, the brief genealogy seems to concern the prerogatives of the
whole priestly class, rather than to promote Aaron as a particularly significant figure,
due to the uniqueness of his priestly office.
23
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 39.
24
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 213–14:
the statement is made with reference to the following texts: 2 Chr 19,11; 24,6.11;
26,20; 31,10.
60
chapter two
regarding judicial matters.25 Reviewing the terminological problem
related to the high priesthood in the Old Testament, Bartlett points
out the difficulty in establishing if varo was an official title, determining well-defined duties in certain fields, or if it was a generic
title that applied to numerous positions. Nevertheless, it cannot be
attributed hereditary connotations as it was actually bestowed upon
selected men, chosen according to their ability. This must have also
been the case for the chief priests. Likewise, ldoG:h' would not refer
to an individual that came to the high position through hereditary
succession, but to a distinct person, an outstanding figure, a man
that would deserve to be called: the greatest among his brothers (Lv
21,10).26 Rooke confirms the dating of the title in the post-exilic age,
remarking however that it seems to be a functional designation rather
than an ontological one. The post-exilic development from varo to
ldoG:h' must be interpreted, in her opinion, as being connected to the
evolution of the high priest, in the transition from a royal appointment, in which the descent from a particular priestly line was not
necessarily crucial, to the necessity of defining a line of succession.27
As can be deduced from the vast diversity of opinions, it is difficult
both to date the terms accurately and to determine their meaning
with relation to the rights and duties that they involved.
Nevertheless, regarding the problem of the dating of the title ˆheKoh'
ldoG:h,' it is worth noting that we have plenty of evidence to prove
the existence of the title after the exile. Chronologically, the first testimony comes from a papyrus that dates from the fifth century, from
a temple located in Elephantine of Egypt. Concerning this temple,
scholars have long wondered if the community had a high priest or
not and what relation, if any, he had with the Jewish high priest.
All this discussion was caused by the presence of a figure of some
relevance, by the name of Jedaniah, to whom three of the papyri
are addressed.28 Moreover, Jedaniah seems to be one of the propo-
25
J.R. Bartlett, ‘The Use of the Word varo as a Title in the Old Testament’, VT 19
(1969), 1–10.
26
J.R. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, JTS 19 (1968), 14–15.
27
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 214.
28
These papyri were first published by A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth
Century BC, Oxford 1923. See 62–3: the Passover papyrus (AP 21: I–2, 11); 133–34:
a letter of complaint regarding the Egyptians (AP 37: I,17); 135–36: a letter of recommendation for two persons that are travelling to Elephantine (AP 38, I,12). See
also Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel,
philological issues
61
nents of a petition that the temple priests sent in 407 bce to Bagohi,
Judah’s Persian governor, asking for his assistance in the reconstruction of the temple in Elephantine.29 The question arises from a
different reading of the papyrus’ heading: according to Cowley,
Jedaniah was the chief priest and chief of the community; according to Vincent and Porten however, Jedaniah was not the high priest
of the community.30
At the end of this terminological research, one of the most interesting aspects is that, in the letter to Bagohi, Jedaniah does not introduce himself as chief priest, but says that three years before they
had already written to Jehohanan abr anhk.31 In this title Morgenstern
had seen the first record of the expression ldg ˆhk: “The use of this
title in its Aramaic equivalent in this papyrus is unquestionably the
first authentic record of the term which we have”.32
While it is possible to agree with such a conclusion with regards
to the Hebrew language, the issue is more complex for the corresponding Greek terms. The Greek form ı flereÁw ı m°gaw would come
from the Hebrew ldoG:h' ˆheKoh;' while érxiereÊw would be a derivation
from varoh; ˆheKoh.' Bailey provides a list of the records of the form
ı flereÁw ı m°gaw,33 including the ones present in the book of Judith
(4,6.8.14;15,8), that are particularly interesting from the philological
point of view for the dating of the book. Otzen observes that scholars do not a totally agree when trying to establish a date for the
writing of the book. The dates proposed range from the pre-Maccabean
age to the beginning of the Roman period. Nevertheless, a certain
consensus has been reached regarding the dating of the book in the
176, notes 1.2.3. See also B. Porten – A. Yardeni eds., Textbook of Aramaic Documents
from Ancient Egypt, I, Jerusalem 1986, 68–71.
29
See Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 111–14: AP 30: I, 2, 22; 119–121: AP 31:? I,3?21;
125: AP 33: I. See Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood
in Ancient Israel, 176, note 4.
30
See the different readings in Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 111–113: AP 30: I; A.
Vincent, La Religion des Judéo-Araméens d’Élephantine, Paris 1937, 468–74; B. Porten,
Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1968, 48 note 77. See also Porten –
Yardeni eds., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I, 72, l. 17).
31
Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 112: AP 30: I,18. See also Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The
Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 178.
32
J. Morgenstern, ‘A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood’, AJSLL 55
(1938–39), 360. Morgerstern therefore dates the title to 411 bce. See also J.W.
Bailey, ‘The Usage in the Post Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest
and High Priest’, JBL 70 (1951), 222.
33
‘The Usage in the Post-Restoration Period’, 223.
62
chapter two
Maccabean age, because of the general religious atmosphere, the
religious zeal, the ideal of piety, the observation of the law, the
importance of the temple in Jerusalem and the fact that the king
and the court are substituted by the high priest and the senate.34
The book of Judith refers to the high priest as: ÉIvake‹m,35 however,
the testimony of Neh 12,26, where this character is described as the
son of Jehoshua, son of Jehozadak, provides grounds for the dating
of this figure in the Persian period.36 The other two records refer to
high priests of the pre-Hasmonean age. The first can be found in
the book of Sirach and refers to Simon (50,1),37 the second is contained in the greeting lines in the heading of the letter that the
Spartan king Areius sent to Onias flere› megãlƒ (1 Macc 12,20). As
can be easily noticed from a comparison of the texts, in Sir 50,1
there is not an exact correspondence between the Hebrew and the
Greek texts.
The presence of the form ˆhkh confirms nevertheless that this was
the term used to refer to the Jewish high priest circa 200 bce, the
period in which the writing of the Hebrew text has been dated.
Regarding the testimony of the letter, there is still great discussion
among the scholars concerning its authenticity and its authorship,38
but its importance goes beyond its historicity and reliability, as it
34
B. Otzen, ‘Tobit and Judith’, in M.A. Knibb ed., Guides to Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha 011, London-New York 2002, 132. Among the many scholars that
proposed dates for the book, see C.A. Moore, Judith. A New Traslation with Introduction
and Commentary, New York 1985, p. 67 who states that the book was written in the
Hasmonean period, most probably “toward the end of the reign of John Hyrcanus I
(135–104 bc) and beginning of the reign of Alexander Janneus (103–78 bc)”.
35
About this name see the critical apparatus in R. Hanhart ed., Judith, in
Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum
VIII/4, Göttingen 1979, 68 note 6, that also presents the variation in the Latin
and Syriac versions of eliakeim. About this see S. Enslin – S. Zeitlin eds., The Book
of Judith. Greek Text with an English Translation, Commentary and Critical Notes with a
General Introduction and Appendices, Leiden 1972, 79 note 6.
36
Vedi J.C. Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Tobit, Judith, Rest of Ester,
Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh, Cambridge 1972, 83 and
Moore, Judith, 149–150 where there is also a reference to the testimony of 1 Ezra
5,5.
37
In the Hebrew text we find: ˆhkh ˆnjwy ˆb ˆw[mç wm[ traptw wyja lwdg; in the
Greek text it says: S¤mvn On¤ou ÍiÚw flereÁw ı m°gaw. Simeon is a central character
in research about the high priesthood. For the issues regarding his identification,
his historical role and the theological new reading of this character, see chapter
5.5.
38
Concerning this issue see chapter 3.3.1.
philological issues
63
confirms, by the title given to Onias, the linguistic usage that, as has
been said before, is common in the Septuagint’s translation of the
Hebrew ldoG:h' ˆheKoh'.39 Such usage is confirmed by the manuscript
translation of 1 Macc 12,20 and, also in all the most authoritative
Latin testimonies, there is always a confirmation of the title sacerdoti
magno = flere› megãlƒ.40 However, regarding the most regular usage
in the translation of the Septuagint, it is worth noting that the title
in 1 Macc 12,20 does not have the article; according to Ettelson,
this is a unique detail in the Old Testament that is nevertheless common in 1 Macc (14,20; 15,2). This would confirm that the Greek
version of First Maccabees was the work of a sole translator. Apart
from this problem,41 the fact that First Maccabees derives from an
original Hebrew form makes the terminological comparisons with
this book particularly interesting.42
We find almost exclusively érxiereÊw in the terminology of First
Maccabees, contrasting with the canonical usage of the Septuagint,43
as it was underlined by Rooke.44 Rooke still wonders if this terminological usage constitutes a significant element in relation to the
attempt of analyzing the political reality of the Maccabean age and
she identifies two possible explanations. Firstly, the use of archiereus
39
See Ettelson, ‘The Integrity’, 320; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, 397 who claims
that, apart from Lv 21,10, where however the formula that we find is rather descriptive, ı flereÁw ı m°gaw is to be found in the Septuagint in the books of Numbers
35,25.28.32; in 2 Chr 34,9; Neh 3,1.20; 13,28; Hag 1,1.12.14; 2,24; Zec 3,1.8;
6,11; Sir 50,1, always as a translation of the Hebrew form corresponding to ˆheKoh'
ldoG:h.' See also Bailey, ‘The Usage in the Post-Restoration Period’, 223.
40
See the new critical edition of the Latin text, Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam
Versionem ad Codicum fidem iussu Ioannis Pauli PP.II cura et studio Monachorum Abbatiae
Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti edita, Liber I–II Macchabeorum,
Romae 1995: 1 Macc 12,19–29 “et hoc rescriptum epistularum quod miserat Onias
rex Spartiarum Onias Ionathae sacerdoti magno salutem”.
41
Ettelson, ‘The Integrity’, 317. About the issue of the unity of the book, see
chapter 1.1.1.
42
Concerning this statement see chapter 1.1.1.
43
érxiereÊw appears just once, in Lv 4,3. However, it has to be remembered
that it appears four times in Ezra A, the Greek deuterocanonical version of Ezra
and Nehemiah, see Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood
in Ancient Israel, 290–291.
44
In First Maccabees, the word érxiereÊw is to be found only from chapter 10
onwards, and used exclusively to refer to members of the Hasmonean dynasty: six
times referring to Jonathan (10,20.32.38.69;12,3.6), twelve times to the brother Simon
(13,36.42; 14,17.23.27.30.35.41; 15,17.21.24; 16,12) and once to the successor of
Simon, John (16,24). See also Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the
High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 291, note 56.
64
chapter two
indicates that the ones bearing the title were not actually priests, but
chiefs, and therefore érxiereÊw would be a designation linked to the
evolution of the high priesthood. Secondly, the use is a stylistic and
literary phenomenon, with no relation to changes in the political
reality.45 The usage of the term, adds Rooke, could have been due
to a particular coinage that would correspond to the equivalent
coinage in the original Hebrew or to the use of an already existent
Greek word that had previously been inadequate for the nature of
the high priesthood.46 Nevertheless, Rooke herself reckons that the
terminology of First Maccabees had been used with a particular aim
in mind, that is, to reflect a change in the status of the high priesthood.47 It is impossible to put forward an alternative hypothesis for
the time being, mainly because this study is limited to the preHasmonean period.48 However, the most certain conclusion reached
up to this moment seems to be the existence of the Greek form érxiereÊw, that can be dated to a period previous to the Hebrew forms
that indicate the Jewish high priest in the post-exilic period.
Precisely for the period under discussion, there are also some Greek
inscriptions from the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods which can give
us an interesting contribution to the use of the word érxiereÊw. The
study of these inscriptions, which also have great relevance with relation to a historical discussion about the administration of the territories of Palestine and Jerusalem, above all for the period under
Seleucid dominion,49 will be considered here. However, the extent
of the investigation must be limited to determining the meaning and
the use of érxiereÊw in a non-Jewish context.
45
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 292–93
and note 59. See also Bailey, ‘The Usage in the Post-Restoration Period’, 225, who
argues that the different usage of the words regarding the high priesthood “was
related not only to the subject under discussion, but also to the individuality of the
writer choosing it”.
46
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 293.
47
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 294.
48
Concerning the issue of the evolution of the high priesthood in the preHasmonean age, see the summary in Part III.
49
This argument will be developed in chapter 5.1.
philological issues
2.1.1
65
Epigraphic Sources
The presence of érxiereÊw in some epigraphic sources of the third
century, both in a Ptolemaic and Seleucid context, offers an important contribution to the solution of the problem. One such source,50
written in an epistolary form, as it was the general practice of the
Seleucid administrative correspondence and that of the Ptolemies
before them,51 is dated at February-March 209 bce.52 The text contains a letter to the viceroy Zeuxis53 from the Seleucid monarch
Antiochus III, king of Syria (222–187 bce), who definitively took
away Palestine from the Egyptian Ptolemies in 200 bce. In this letter, a man called Nicator who already bore the title ı §p‹ toË koit«now,
the great chamberlain,54 was appointed chief priest of all the places
of worship in the region on this side of the Taurus.55 Other epigraphic testimonies speak about the érxiere›w having a variety of
duties. In a letter from Antiochus III to one of his governors that
dates from 12 October 189,56 an individual, thanks to his merits,
was appointed érxiereÊw,57 chief priest of Apollo, Artemis and the
other flerå of Daphne (11, 21–24). In another letter from Antiochus
III to Anaximbrotus, that dates from 204 bce, the king, as a reward
and an honour to his wife, commands the establishment of chief
priestesses to the queen.58 Finally, and particularly relevant for the
geographical area to which it is related, is an epigraph dated between
197–187 bce59 featuring an inscription from a certain Ptolemy, son
50
SEG 37 (1987), nr 1010. See L. Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 68–69, nr. 5.
E. Bickerman, ‘Notes sur la chancellerie des Lagides’, Revue International des
Droits de l’Antiquité, II (1953), 251–267.
52
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 69.
53
Concerning the name Zeuxis, see Ant 12,148–153, containing the letter of
Antiochus III to Zeuxis with the order to move two thousand Jewish families from
Mesopotamia into Phrygia and Lydia. There has been a long discussion about the
authenticity of this letter, however. See Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 74, note 10.
54
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 70.
55
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 68–69, nr. 5, ll. 29–32: épodede [¤xa]men §n t∞i
§[p°]keina toË TaÊrou Àsper aÈtÚw ±j¤vsen érxier°a t«n fler«n pãntvn.
56
C.B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, London 1934 (anastatic
edition Chicago 1974), 181, nr. 44, ll. 18–29.
57
Welles, Royal Correspondence, 181, nr. 44, ll. 28–29.
58
Welles, Royal Correspondence, 157, nr. 36, ll. 10–13: kr]¤nomen d¢ kayãper [≤m]«n
[épo]de¤k[n]un[tai] [k]atå tØn basile¤[an ér[x]iere›, ka‹ taÊthw kay¤stasyai [§n]
to›w aÈto›w tÒpoiw érxiere¤aw.]
59
W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vol. in 1, Lipsia 1903–1905,
376, nr. 230; Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 81, nr. 6.
51
66
chapter two
of Thraseas, stratagÚw ka‹ érxiereÁw Sur¤aw Ko¤law ka‹ Foin¤kaw ÑErmçi
ka‹ ÑHrakle› ka‹ basile› megãlvi ÉAntioxvi.60 The heading, parallel to
numerous inscriptions of the Ptolemaic period,61 poses the more general problem of the competences of the érxiereÊw. Bickerman,62 referring to the letter of Antiochus III to Anaximbrotus, speaks about
dynastic religion, instituted by the king, with priests appointed by
the monarch, “he who becomes in this manner the high priest of
his own cult”.63 Such monarchical worship would be included among
the other religious practices from other parts of the kingdom.
As Bouché-Leclercq remarks, in ancient times there was no religious hatred in the East, mainly because the different religions neither had dogmas to impose nor had any interest in propagandizing
their ancestral traditions. Sua cuique civitati religio est, nostra nobis est
(Cic, Pro Flacco, 28) was the motto of the times.64 Therefore, the
royal worship coexisted with the other cults, as demonstrated by the
inscription of the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia “to Hermes,
Heracles and to the Great King Antiochus”.65 Was érxiereÊw then
a high priest of the king, as suggested by this last inscription66 and
by the érxiere›w of the letter to Anaximbrotus?67 Actually, other epigraphic testimonies,68 especially the numerous ones related to the
Ptolemaic inscriptions of the Cyprus’ viceroy, bearing the title stratagÚw
ka‹ érxiereÁw t∞w nÆsou,69 refer instead to a kind of supervisor-chief
priest of the worship places.
If there were also other types of high priests for royal worship or
for the local cults it is difficult to determine, while it is quite evident that such an érxiereÊw was appointed by the king and his functions were mainly governmental; i.e., they were of a civil-military
nature (stratagÒw) and religious (érxiereÊw), in the sense that his
60
See OGIS, nr. 230.
OGIS, nrr. 93, 3; 105, 5; 140, 5–6; 143, 1–2; 145, 1–2; 148, 2–3; 151, 2–3;
152, 1; 153, 1–2; 155, 5–6; 157, 1–2; 159, 2; 160, 2–3; 161, 2–3; 162, 2.
62
Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides, Paris 1938, 247 ff.
63
Author’s translation, from Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides, 254.
64
Histoire des Séleucides, Paris 1913, II, 616.
65
Institutions des Séleucides, 255; OGIS, nr. 230
66
See however Boffo’s opposite opinion, among others, in Boffo, Iscrizioni greche
e latine, 85, notes 21 and 22.
67
Welles, Royal Correspondence, 36.
68
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, nr. 5; Welles, Royal Correspondence, nr. 44, ll. 21–24.
69
See also Boffo, I re ellenistici e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore, Firenze 1985,
261–263.
61
philological issues
67
power was exerted over the places of worship. There are two sources
where we find the same meaning of the terms strategos and archiereus,
both addressed to Ptolemy son of Thraseas: one is the inscription
already mentioned, and the other is the so-called Hefzibah dossier
that will be object of further study later in the course of this research.70
From the examination of the Greek inscriptions then, it is possible to elucidate a meaning that seems to refer to the most specific
function of chief of the places of worship, supervisor or superintendent, rather than to the practise of the cult. Finally, we have two
records71 of the word érxiereÊw with reference to the Jewish high
priest which make the semantics of the term more complex. They
are present in Greek authors that take us back to the Ptolemaic age.
2.1.2
Historiographic Sources
The first is to be found in a passage of Hecataeus of Abdera72 and
is preserved in a fragment of Diodorus Siculus. It says that the Jews
do not have a king and that the prostas¤a73 of the people has to
be entrusted to the priest who proves himself to be superior in wisdom and virtue. He is called érxier°a and they consider him to be
the messenger of God’s commands.74 According to Stern, Hecataeus,
therefore, seems to ignore that the office of high priest was passed
down from father to son and that, as far as we know, all the high
priests from the exile to the time of Hecataeus himself were descendents of the house of Zadok.75 Instead, he describes the high priest
as one that is chosen on the basis of his own wisdom and virtue,
and as the interpreter of God’s commands.76
The second testimony is a fragment of the piece of the work Per‹
ÉIouda¤vn by the pseudo-Hecataeus of Abdera,77 that Flavius Josephus
The Hefzibah dossier has been first published by J.H. Landau, ‘A Greek
Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, IEJ (16) 1966, 54–70; also of great significance
is the reconstruction recently carried out by Th. Fischer, ‘Zur Seleukidenschrift von
Hefzibah’, ZPE (33) 1979, 131–138. For a study of this group of documents, see
chapter 5.1.1.
71
F. Parente, Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, 53.
72
Concerning the historical location of Hecataeus see chapter 1.5.1.
73
Concerning this word see chapter 2.3.
74
GLAJJ, I, 26–27, nr. 11, l. 5, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera’, Aegyptiaca, apud: Diodorus
Siculus, Biblioteca Historica, XL,3, 11, 31–35.
75
GLAJJ, I, 31, nr. 5. However, see chapter 3.6, Excursus.
76
For a deeper study of Hecataeus’ testimony concerning the high priest, see
chapter 4.3.
77
See chapter 1.5.1.
70
chapter two
68
has recorded in his Against Apion, wherein he says that when Ptolemy
I Soter ruler of Syria returned to Egypt, many followed him as a
consequence of his gentleness and majesty and, among them, there
was Ezechias the high priest of the Jews.78 Stern79 claims that, in the
context of this last quotation, the word érxiereÊw does not mean the
high priest par excellence but a member of the priestly oligarchy.
Moreover, the frequency of papponymy could indicate another individual, different from the one mentioned by Hecataeus, possibly the
treasurer of the Temple and of the autonomous state of Judea.80
This position is supported by Thackeray, for whom érxiereÊw without the article does not necessarily mean “the high priest”. Therefore,
this érxiereÊw would not be the high priest, but one of the chief
priest dignitaries in Judea.81 However, there are no other examples
of such meaning available for this period, and furthermore, there is
the fact that both Hecataeus and pseudo-Hecataeus use the word to
refer to the chief of the priestly body of a vassal state during the
Ptolemaic period.82
2.1.3
Conclusions
The investigation on the origins and the evolution of the term érxiereÊw has confirmed the permanence of a certain fluidity in the
Greek terminology related to the high priest, a characteristic that
was already present in the Hebrew language.83 Nevertheless, it is a
significant fact that in the books of the Maccabees and in Flavius
Josephus, although it is not the only term used, érxiereÊw is still the
most frequent. Furthermore, in relation to the question about the
origins of érxiereÊw in the Jewish world, it is possible to come to
the following conclusions.
The title was already present in ancient Greece where it indicated
a chief priest, but in the Greek inscriptions of the Seleucid age (third
78
Ap 1,187: œn eÂw ∑n, fhs¤n, ÉEzek¤aw érxiereÁw t«n ÉIouda¤vn. See Stern, I,
35, nr. 12, ll. 18–19.
79
GLAJJ, I, 40.
80
Concerning the problem of Ezechias, see chapter 3.4.
81
Thackeray, Josephus, I, The Life. Against Apion, 238, note 1.
82
Parente, Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, 54.
83
Vedi Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 291. Bailey, ‘The Usage in the Post-Restoration
Period’, 225 underlines how the writer, according to his own choices or depending on particular circumstances, can use different words.
philological issues
69
century bce), it defined the figure of a governmental supervisor of
the places of worship. In the pre-exilic age, the Jewish high priest
was called simply ˆheKoh.' This usage seems to continue also in the
post-exilic age. During this period there was a strong process of
Greek enculturation, mainly due to the Diaspora, that permitted, as
claimed by De Vaux,84 the penetration of the linguistic form érxiereÊw and its adoption in the Jewish context, first of all by Greekspeaking Jews. Maybe as a reaction against such terms and because
of the need to distinguish themselves, different forms were born: the
Aramaic abr anhk; the Hebrew ldoG:h' ˆheKoh;' and the Greek ı flereÊw
ı m°gaw. These forms coexisted for a certain period of time, but then,
due to the usage of some authors85 and to the further diffusion of
Greek linguistic forms, the original form érxiereÊw was finally imposed,
as we can see in Flavius Josephus. In this sense, therefore, Flavius
Josephus was influenced by other writers; among them most certainly are the authors of the Letter of Aristeas and of First Maccabees.
Such usage can be explained also by taking into consideration the
readers to whom Flavius Josephus addresses his work: all the Greeks,
the whole Greek-speaking world, to whom he wants to explain “our
entire ancient history and political constitution, translated from the
Hebrew records” (Ant 1,5).86
Moreover, the title ı flereÊw ı m°gaw offers a precious contribution
to the solution of the problem posed by the contemporary presence
of two chief priests in the region of Coele-Syria, to which Judea at
that time belonged. These chief priests were: the érxiereÊw, Seleucid
official,87 and the érxiereÊw whom, in the same period according to
the testimonies of Flavius Josephus and the books of Maccabees, was
the high priest of the Jews.88 Based on the title of 1 Macc 12,20
and on the more regular usage in the Septuagint, it could be possible to formulate the hypothesis that at the time of Ptolemy son of
84
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, 398.
We have seen, for instance, Hecataeus, pseudo-Hecataeus, the Letter of Aristeas,
1 Esdras, The Books of the Maccabees.
86
Thackeray, Josephus, IV, I–IV, 5, (2). Concerning the problem of the audience
of Antiquities, see chapter 1.3.2.
87
See OGIS, nr. 230; see also Boffo, Iscrizion greche e latine, 80–86, note 6 that
records the presence of Ptolemy son of Thraseas stratagÒw ka‹ érxiereÊw in the
Seleucid environment.
88
Concerning the historical identity of the pre-Hasmonean high priests see chapter 3.1.
85
70
chapter two
Thraseas, that is in the pre-Hasmonean period, the Jewish high priest
was not called érxiereÊw but ldoG:h' ˆheKoh,' ı flereÁw ı m°gaw.
Nevertheless, the varieties present in the LXX alongside the word
érxiereÊw, show also the use of flereÊw, the presence of which could
lead to the idea of a continuity of the custom, typical of the preexilic age, of calling the high priest simply “the priest”: ˆheKoih', ı
flereÊw.89 Lastly, an important element to observe is the parallel usage
of forms lacking the prefix érx- for the nouns that appear particularly in First Maccabees,90 where they seem to indicate a pre-existing Semitic form. Therefore, the books of the Maccabees, but mainly
the historiographical works of Flavius Josephus91 imposed the linguistic usage of the term érxiereÊw to refer to the figure of the Jewish
high priest and, at the same time, they gave birth to other parallel
terms that thus came to constitute the lexical field of the high priesthood. Restricting our study to Jewish Antiquities and the preHasmonean period (Ant 11,347–12,434), along with the noun
érxiereÊw92 we find another noun form (érxiervsÊnh)93 that indicates
the office or the position of the high priesthood; an adjective form
(tim∞w érxieratik∞w in Ant 12,161) and a verb form (érxierateÊv),94
always in the aorist form of the participle, that specifies the duration of the high priesthood. Therefore, even from the sole linguistic
point of view, Flavius Josephus represents the richest source for the
study of the high priesthood, but also from this point of view he is
strictly a debtor of the books of the Maccabees, where we find both
the noun érxiervsÊnh95 and the verb érxierateÊv.96
However, it is important to mention that the term érxiereÊw may
89
This usage is of particular relevance for the hypothesis that H. Stegemann,
Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, Bonn 1971 has formulated, identifying the Teacher
of Righteousness of Qumran as the last priest of the pre-Hasmonean age. See chapter 3.5.
90
1 Macc 14,20; 15,1: flereÊw.
91
K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Leyde 1975, I, entry
érxiereÊw: in the 20 books of Jewish Antiquities the word érxiereÊw is repeated 276
times.
92
Rengstorf counts 26 occurrences (Ant 11,347; 12,16.39.40.42.43.45.51.57.85.
86.89.117.157.160.229.237.239.383.385.387.387.391.393.413.419).
93
Rengstorf counts 9 occurrences (Ant 11,347;12,44.157.163.224.237.238.238.387).
94
Rengstorf: Ant 12,385.413.
95
In 1 Macc it can be found five times (7,21; 11,27.57; 14,38; 16,24); six times
in 2 Macc (4,7.24.25.29; 11,3; 14,7).
96
Only once in 1 Macc 14,47.
philological issues
71
also have different meanings in Flavius Josephus. One of them is
related to the plural form érxiere›w, considered below.
2.2
The Chief-Priests and the Deputy High Priest
The plural form érxiere›w seems to indicate the contemporary presence of more than one high priest. The form is used many times
by Flavius Josephus, particularly in The Jewish War.97
According to the new Schürer, the plural word érxiere›w would
be an indication of a particular distinction for the families from
which the high priests were extracted, whose members enjoyed a
privileged position.98 Jeremias rejects the claim made in the new
Schürer and, while judging the evidence presented as insufficient,99
he finds a rather suitable parallel in Qumran’s War Scroll (1QM
2,1),100 where along with the chief priest and his substitute, twelve
97
Jewish War 1,31 where Onias was mentioned as eÂw t«n érxier°vn. However,
the linguistic form and different tradition in 1,33, where Onias is ı érxiereÁw On¤aw,
also has to be noticed. Concerning the traditions of this high priest of the preHasmonean period, see chapters 3.2.2; 5.6. The term érxiere›w is found yet more
frequently in the history of the period during which Judea was under the Roman
procurators, and the high priesthood was considered a prerogative restricted to a
few families; see Jewish War 2,243 and 2,301–428, where it appears 12 times.
98
Schürer-Vermes-Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 BC–AD 135), II, 233–34, where rather than rabbinic testimonies, the evidence
considered consists fundamentally of two texts: Acts 4,6, according to which the
members of the priestly family, ˜soi ∑san §k g°nouw érxieratikoË, had a position
in the Sanhedrin; and Jewish War 4,148 where regarding the insurrection of the
Zealots soon before the destruction of the temple it says that “êkura goËn tå g°nh
poiÆsantew, §j œn katå diadoxåw ofl érxiere›w épede¤knunto”, that is, they abolished
the claims of those families from which in turn the high priests had always been
drawn.
99
Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social
Conditions during the New Testament Period, London 1982, 175–176 considers the interpretation of the texts on which Schürer’s thesis is based to be extremely controversial. The first text in Jewish War 4,148 could refer either to all the high priest’s
relatives or even to Joseph and Jesus, the dismissed high priests. The second text
in Acts 4,6 has to be related to the function of the érxiere›w rather than to their
origins.
100
F. García Martínez – J.C. Tigchelaar eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition,
I (1Q1–4Q273), Leiden-New York-Köln 1997, 115 “. . .They shall arrange the chiefs
of the priests behind the High Priest and of his second (in rank), twelve chiefs to
serve 2 in perpetuity before Good”. See also J.H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls,
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, II, Tübingen 1995, 1 QM
column 2,1.
72
chapter two
chief priests are present. The chief priest101 is generally identified
with the high priest, the one that in the supreme and most decisive
moment of the history of Israel, the eschatological war described in
the War Scroll, is to be found next to the combatants.102 According
to Jeremias, who also draws on two Misnah texts, the chief priests,
priests of a high rank, that made up the high priesthood of Jerusalem,
are next to the chief priest, the one and only high priest.103 In any
case, the difficulty still remains on establishing whether these chief
priests were priests or heads of the priestly families, as the reference
to the biblical texts seems to suggest.104 Stern claims that at least in
the last generation of the Second Temple, the words érxiereÊw and
érxiere›w were used to mention different members of the high priestly
oligarchy and the high dignitaries of the Temple in Jerusalem.105
Another parallel, interesting due to its date, is the Greek inscription
of the Rosetta stone, which contains a decree issued in honour of
Ptolemy V Epiphanes by the Egyptian priests gathered in Memphis
for his crowning ceremony. The date of the inscription is the 18th
Meshir of the ninth year of the kingdom, corresponding to 27 March
196 bce.106 In the line 6, at the very beginning of the enumeration
of the Egyptian priests, the érxiere›w appear to be the chiefs of the
priestly colleges,107 although the expression could also be a reference
to the explicit meaning of line 36: to›w flereËsi t«n katå tØn x≈ran
fler«n pãntvn, that is, the chiefs of all the temples in the area, according to the double meaning that has been so far identified.108 Apart
from testifying about the presence of many chief priests, the War
Scroll provides other important contributions to the knowledge of
the organisation of the high priesthood: next to the high priest appears
the figure of the whnçmh. The expression appears again in 11QT
101
Also mentioned in the War Scroll at 15,4; 16,13; 18,5; 19,11.
See L. Moraldi, I manoscritti di Qumran, Milano 1994, 319–320 note 4, who
claims that the usage of the form ha-kohen ha-rosh arouses controversy with relation
to the other form used to name the Hasmonean high priest, ha-kohen ha-gadol.
103
Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 177–178.
104
See also Moraldi, I manoscritti, 294, notes 16–17 that refer to Neh 12,7.
105
GLAJJ, I, 40. See also VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 464 who, when
referring to the meaning of high priests, comes to this conclusion: “They were undoubtedly the aristocrats among the clergy, people of rank and pedigree”.
106
About the Greek inscription, see J.A. Latronne, Recueil des Inscriptions grecques
et latines de l’Égypte, Paris 1974, 244–251.
107
Latronne, Recueil des Inscriptions, 267.
108
Latronne, Recueil des Inscriptions, 249.
102
philological issues
73
31,4109 and it has been reconstructed also in 4Q376 1,1.110 The “second priest” or “substitute priest” of the Qumran texts111 clearly
explains what the function of Lysimachus was, left by the high priest
Menelaus, his brother, as his diãdoxow, that is, as his substitute,112
when he was summoned by king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2 Macc
4,29).113 This in fact seems to be the meaning of the word diãdoxow,
along with that of “successor” which the Latin manuscripts have preserved, albeit wrongly, because Menelaus kept his position of high
priest during his absence.114 The word has a parallel form in 2 Macc
14,26, where there is a record of the accusation that the high priest
Alcimus presents to king Demetrius, denouncing Nicanor’s attempt
to exclude him from the high priesthood by proclaiming Judas as
his diãdoxow.115 The passage poses some problems concerning the
text: according to Abel, aÈtoË is related to t∞w basile¤aw and not to
diãdoxon. According to A and numerous codices, the reference of
•autoË = (Luc.) or of aÈtoË (V) to diãdoxon comes from the desire
to determine the kind of succession; Judas would have been appointed
successor to both Nicanor and Alcimus.116
Abel also observes that, under the Lagids, diãdoxow was a title
that applied to the lowest class of the f¤loi or noble courtiers. The
diãdoxow was the one that had been granted the right to occupy the
first vacant position in the rank of the friends.117 The occurrences
109
Y. Yadin ed., The Temple Scroll, II, Jerusalem 1983, column 31,4: “hnvmh ˆhwkh”.
See also F. García Martínez – Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition, II (4Q 274–11Q31), Leiden-New York-Köln 1998, 1250, 11Q 19, 31,4.
110
J. Strugnell ed., Apocryphon of Moses (4Q376), DJD XIX, Oxford 1995, 123;
see also the comments on line 1 (123); and also The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition,
II (4Q 274–11Q31), Leiden-New York-Köln 1998, 742. See in García Martínez,
The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: the Qumran texts in English, Leiden-New York-Köln
1994, 279, 4Q 376 column 1, line 1, this reconstruction of the text: [. . . in front
of the anointed priest, upon whose head the oil of anointing has been poured], 1
[. . . and in front of the seco]nd of the anointed priest. See also García Martínez,
A Study Edition, II, 743, col. l.1 “[before the depu]ty of the anointed priest.
111
See A. Vivian, Rotolo del Tempio, Brescia 1990, 186, note a.
112
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 339, note 29 remarks that the papyri had cast
light on the sense of “substitute, assistant (lieutenant)”.
113
ka‹ ı m¢n Men°laow ép°lipe t∞w érxiervsÊnhw diãdoxon Lus¤maxon tÚn •autoË
édelfÚn.
114
Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem, 178: Menelaos motus est sacerdotio, succedente Lysimacho fratre suo.
115
TÚn går §p¤boulon t∞w basile¤aw aÈtoË ÉIoÊdan diãdoxon én°deijen.
116
See critical apparatus in Kappler – Hanhart, Maccabaorum Liber II, 109, 2 Macc
14,26: aÈtou] post ÉIoÊdan tr. V 46–52 106 311; post én°deijen tr. L’ (eautou L).
117
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 464, note 26.
chapter two
74
of diãdoxow in Second Maccabees (4,29; 14,26); the Qumran texts
that mention a second or deputy high priest (4Q 376; 11QT 31,4);
the parallel use between the Hebrew and Greek terms in order to
indicate someone’s substitution or the office of deputy;118 and finally,
the usage of the word in the Ptolemaic context, all lead to the conclusion (with an acceptable degree of certainty) that there was in the
pre-Hasmonean period, along with the high priest, a deputy high
priest that could stand in for him during his absence.
2.3
The meaning of the terms prostãthw—prostas¤a
Another important term for the present study is prostas¤a; it is
therefore necessary to investigate briefly the meaning and the
antecedents of this term and its derivatives. This word, along with
the noun prostãthw, derives from the medium form pro˝stasyai,
which has more than one meaning: 1) put another before oneself,
choose as one’s leader; 2) put before one; 3) put forward as an excuse
or pretense, use as a screen; 4) put forward, cite as an authority; 5)
prefer, value above.119
The verb pro˝stasyai and the nouns prostas¤a and prostãthw
are used in Hellenistic Egypt to indicate the administration or the
sponsorship of a place of worship. The title prostãthw appears frequently with relation to the Egyptian religious hierarchy and also to
the financial administration.120 The prostèthw toË yeoË is the one that
collects the offerings presented to the divinity.121 An Egyptian priest,
putting in a petition circa 164 bce, uses the aorist participle of the
same verb to call himself: “the chief administrator” of the temple.122
Bickerman compares the functions of the prostãthw in the temple
of Jerusalem (2 Macc 3,4) to those of the §pistãthw in the temples
of Ptolemaic Egypt, who was appointed by the king and whose duty
118
The word translates the Hebrew mi“neh, in 2 Chr 28,7 = the viceroy; sar in
1 Chr 26,11 = assistant/lieutenant to the king; in 1 Chr 18,17 = next to the king,
see Hatch – Redpath, Concordance, I, entry diãdoxow.
119
See Liddell – Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, II, entry pro˝sthmi.
120
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 316–317; OGIS nr 531, 2.
121
W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Ägypten, Leipzig-Berlin 1905, 75.
122
A.S. Hunt – J.G. Gilbart Smyly et alii eds., The Tebtunis Papyri, London 1933,
215, note 781, l.2: toË prostãntow toË §n MoÆrei.
philological issues
75
was to control the expenditures of the sanctuary.123 Goldstein does
not agree with this comparison and claims that “there is no evidence
for the equation”.124 Goldstein also remarks that, whatever the meaning of the Greek title prostãthw, it surely referred to a high ranking civil office.125 In 1 Macc 14,47 the verb prostat°v indicates the
high priest Simeon’s prerogative to preside over all aspects of religious and civil life; in the Greek manuscripts of the book of Sirach
45,24 the same verb is used among the prerogatives of Phinehas and
of his descendants as high priests “to be chiefs over the temple and over
the people”.126 It is precisely the second meaning, i.e., the relationship between the people and the high priest,127 which is of particular relevance for this study. The word seems to have a wider meaning
related to a high ranking office, but in the civil and military fields
rather than in the religious one.128
In the texts of the Greek writers of the Empire, prostas¤a is the
word used to denote the activity of a provincial governor.129 The
forms toË plÆyouw prostas¤a found in Hecataeus of Abdera (Diodorus
XL, 3,5); toË laoË tØn prostas¤an (Ant 12,161); tØn prostas¤an toË
¶ynouw (Ant 12,238.244), seem to be particularly interesting for this
reason and will be taken into consideration later in this study.130
123
‘Héliodore au Temple de Jèrusalem’, Studies in Jewish and Christian History,
II, Leiden 1980, 161–62.
124
II Maccabees, 203.
125
II Maccabees, 201.
126
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 202.
127
This issue will be discussed in chapter 6.1.
128
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 201.
129
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 207.
130
See chapters 4.5; 6.1.
CHAPTER THREE
HISTORICAL IDENTITY AND SUCCESSION
OF THE HIGH PRIESTS
One of the characteristics, evident on a superficial examination of
the sources related to the pre-Hasmonean period, is the contemporary presence-absence of the Jewish high priest. For instance, in reference to the Ptolemaic age, the silence of the Zenon papyri1 regarding
the high priest has been noted and discussed, but we can easily note
that in the following period, that of the Seleucids, historical sources
ignore his presence as well.2 On the other hand, Flavius Josephus
and the books of the Maccabees provide us with names of high
priests in a rather diverse and sometimes contradictory way. These
testimonies are now to be considered, in order to determine whether it is possible to establish a line of succession of the high priests
of this period. This last investigation comes to a closure with the
issues of the period of Intersacerdotium and of Qumran’s Teacher of
Righteousness/High Priest. On the grounds of the our conclusions,
we have considered it necessary to carry out, in an Excursus, a study
1
Regarding the silence of the Zenon papyri, V. Tcherikover, ‘Palestine under
Ptolomies’, Mizraim IV–V (1937), 39 says: “I am inclined to utilize their silence as
an argumentum ex silentio for the absence of a supreme administrative office”. Also
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel,
253 notes how we cannot obtain information about the high priest from the most
important documents of the Ptolemaic period that have reached us, such as the
Rainer papyrus and the Zenon papyri. For a deeper study of this issue in reference to the Syrian and Phoenician territories that made up the Ptolemaic province
that included Palestine and Jerusalem, see the work of A. Passoni Dell’Acqua, ‘Le
testimonianze papiracee relative alla “Siria e Fenicia” in età tolemaica (I Papiri di
Zenone e le Ordinanze reali)’, RivBib 34 (1986), 233–283, which, while pointing
out the absence of any information about the social and religious life of the inhabitants of the Syrian and Phoenician Ptolemaic province, warns about the improper
comparison between texts as different as an archive of private and public business
collected by an officer burdened with responsibilities and financial worries, and the
information that can be drawn from biblical texts, which contains no points to be
compared in this case.
2
E.g. Polybius, whose historical work is considered the most important source
for the years 264–146. See F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1993,
19.
historical identity
77
of the problem of the Zadokite descent of the high priests of the
pre-Hasmonean age.
3.1 The High Priests in the Books of the Maccabees
The presence-absence of the pre-Hasmonean high priests is a characteristic and a distinctive element of the books of the Maccabees. In
the first book there is no mention of the name of any high priest
of the pre-Hasmonean age, the only exception being Alcimus, although
he is not given the title érxiereÊw.3 It is in fact significant that the
Greek word that indicates the title of high priest appears only in the
tenth chapter in reference to Jonathan Maccabee (10,20)4 and is successively attributed to Simeon or John.5 Therefore, the title is given
only to members of the Hasmonean dynasty. The author of First
Maccabees thus shows indifference towards the pre-Hasmonean high
priests and, in certain occasions, even hostility (7,9).
Goldstein dwells on the absence of the high priests Onias and
Menelaus, claiming that the high priests’ names do not appear in
the text because the author had considered them to be part of the
“renegades” (1 Macc 1,11) that contributed to the hellenization of
Judea, thus observing the principle of the damnatio memoriae.6 However,
the mention of Alcimus’ name together with the absence of the title
would mean that the author wanted to disregard his claim of high
priestly legitimacy.7
The author of Second Maccabees, instead, mentions the names
of Onias (3,1), Jason (4,7), Menelaus (4,23) and Alcimus (14,3).
Therefore, Jason and Menelaus, contrary to the Maccabees, are not
3
1 Macc 7,5.9.21.
ka‹ nËn kayestãkam°n se sÆmeron érxier°a toË ¶ynouw sou. érxiereÊw refers to
Jonathan both in the context of documents (10,20; 12,6; 14,30) and within a narrative context (10,69; 12,3), while it is doubtful that it refers to him in the events
of 12, 32.38.
5
The title refers to Simon both within documents (13,36.42; 14,20.27.35.41;
15,17) and narrations (14,17; 15,24; 16,12); and to John (16,24) only in a narrative context.
6
I Maccabees, 73: “Certainly the names of the Oniad high priests and Menelaus
are conspicuous by their absence from First Maccabees”.
7
In Macc 7,14 there is a quotation of the words of the Hasideans, for whom
he was a priest of the line of Aaron; Flavius Josephus, in Ant 12,387, adds that he
did not belong to the family of the high priests. This issue will be discussed later.
See chapter 5.5 for the traditions regarding Alcimus.
4
chapter three
78
subjected to the damnatio memoriae,8 but are still deprived of the office
of high priest. The author of Second Maccabees is explicit and
expresses clearly his attitude towards them. He denies Jason and
Menelaus the title érxiereÊw and judges them negatively, even calling the former oÈk érxiereÊw (4,13) and stating that the latter possessed no qualification for the high priesthood (4,25). Such indignity
is made evident by the purchase of the high priesthood for themselves, first by Jason9 and later by Menelaus, by means of paying
certain amounts of money to king Antiochus.10 Thus, Second Maccabees clearly exposes both the corruption of Jason and Menelaus
and their subjection to a foreign ruler. It judges that their appointment is irregular, and considers that the real high priests are only
Onias III and Alcimus. To both of them, but to Onias III in particular, the title érxiereÊw11 is repeatedly given.
Regarding the problem of the interest of Second Maccabees towards
Onias, a dependency on some sources has been noticed. Schunck
hypothesized that he detected the Annals of the high priests Onias
and Jason, or the official records kept in the Temple of Jerusalem12
among the sources of Second Maccabees. Goldstein claimed that the
great interest shown by Second Maccabees towards Onias III had
to refer to one source in particular: a propagandistic history written
by Onias IV, between April and May 131–129 bce.13 Neither of the
two hypotheses is entirely satisfying, due to the lack of possibilities
of comparison to other supposed sources that, however, have not
reached us.14
8
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 79.
See 2 Macc 4,7 verb ÍpenÒyeusen; cfr. Liddell – Scott, entry noyeÊv, corrupt,
adulterate.
10
2 Macc 4,24: efiw •autÚn katÆnthse tØn érxiervsÊnhn ÍperbalΔn tÚn ÉIãsona.
See Liddell – Scott, entries katantãv, come down to, arrive and Íperbãllv, outstrip, outdo. For a deeper study of the traditions related to Jason and Menelaus,
see chapter 5.7.
11
Nine times to Onias (3,1.4.9.10.16.21.32.33.33) and twice to Alcimus (14,3.13),
but of the latter says that he had wilfully defiled himself and so lost the dignity of
high priest (14,3.7).
12
K.D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, Halle 1954, 126.
13
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity, Judaism and Other
Greco-Roman Cults, Fs. M. Smith, III, Leiden 1975, 85–123. About this thesis, soon
considered out of date by the same author, see chapter 1.2.3.
14
About the problem of the interest shown in Second Maccabees towards Onias
III and the lack of interest in Flavius Josephus, see chapter 3.2.2 and Conclusion.
9
historical identity
79
Therefore, the high priests of the pre-Hasmonean period are characterized by an almost complete “absence” in First Maccabees and
a controversial “presence” in Second Maccabees. The interpretation
of the distinctive traditions in the books of the Maccabees will be
researched in the parallel study of the sources related to the different
high priests.15
3.2
Jewish Antiquities and the Lists of High Priests
Flavius Josephus pays particular attention to the history of the high
priests. His Jewish Antiquities provides information in two different
ways:16 a) within a single tale (20,224–251), at the end of the work,
when he claims it necessary or convenient for his story to give a
breakdown of the high priesthood;17 b) as brief notes inserted in the
narration (11,347–12,434).18 However, there is also diversity in the
data regarding the high priests. Comparing 20,224–251 to the previous information provided by Josephus, a series of incoherencies19
are observed that demand a more careful examination of some problems posed by the lists themselves. Two of them are to be taken
into special consideration: the issue of the high priest Simon, with relation to his identification and to the dilemma: Simon I or Simon II;20
and the problem of the presence of many high priests by the name
of “Onias”.
15
16
About Onias III, see 5.6; about Alcimus, see 5.8.
J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I, Kiel 1882, 29–32.
ÉAnagka›on dÉe‰nai nom¤zv ka‹ tª flstor¤& taÊt˙ pros∞kon dihgÆsasyai per‹ t«n
érxier°vn (Ant 20,224).
17
18
According to Ant 11,347–12,434, the succession of high priests in the period
discussed is as follows: Onias, son of Jaddua (11,247); Simon called the Righteous
son of Onias (12,43); Eleazar brother of Onias (12,44); Manasseh uncle of Eleazar
and then soon Onias, son of Simon the Righteous (12,157), Simon son of Onias
(12,224); Onias son of Simon (12,225); Jesus/Jason brother of Onias (12,234),
Onias/Menelaus brother of Jason (12,238), Alcimus (12,285).
19
See G. Hölscher, ‘Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische
Chronologie’, SHAW 30,3, Heidelberg 1940, 7, which points to a number of contrasts. Here are the ones referring to the pre-Hasmonean high priests: the deposition of Onias-Menelaus is considered a crime in 20,235, while in 12,384 is considered
a just punishment; 20,236 mentions the claim of young Onias to the office of high
priest in Heliopolis, while in 13,63.73 there is no mention of this fact. Furthermore,
in 20,237 the list of high priests includes Jakim (three years), vacant (seven years),
Jonathan (seven years), while in 12,413.434; 13,212 it states: Alcimus – Jakim (four
years); Judas as high priest (three years), Jonathan (four years).
20
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, II, 359–360.
80
3.2.1
chapter three
The Question of Simon I or Simon II
Flavius Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities, mentions two high priests by
the name of Simon. The first in the context of the paraphrase of
the Letter of Aristeas, at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, when,
in reference to the high priest Eleazar there is the story of how he
obtained the office of high priest: after the death of Onias, the successor of Jaddua, his son Simon succeeded him. He was called the
Righteous because of his piety towards God and his kindness towards
the citizens.21 The second Simon held office at the time of Ptolemy
IV Philopator, (221–203 bce)22 and Antiochus III (223–187 bce)
when, in reference to the succession of another Onias, Josephus says
that following the death of Eleazar, his uncle Manasseh took the
position of high priest and, after his own death, the position was
taken by Onias, son of Simon the Righteous.23 In 1927, George Foot
Moore24 proposed a solution that exerted a particular influence on
the further investigation of the problem. He based his hypothesis on
these fundamental arguments:
1) Some rabbinic sources give the name of Simon the Righteous to
a high priest in office during the first years of the second century bce and connect him to Onias, founder of the Egyptian
Temple, of whom he would have been the father.25
2) Moore drew attention to the eulogy of the high priest Simon,
present in the book of Ben Sira (50, 1–24). Considering the possibility of dating this work with quite a high degree of accuracy
from the prologue of the Greek version and, given that the whole
21
teleutÆsantow ÉOn¤ou toË érxier°vw ı pa›w aÈtoË S¤mvn g¤gnetai diãdoxow, ı ka‹
d¤kaiow §piklhye‹w diã te tÚ prÚw tÚn yeÚn eÈseb¢w ka‹ tÚ prÚw toÁw ımofÊlouw eÎnoun
(Ant 12,43).
22
The identification of this ruler, however, is not certain. Some manuscripts identify him as Ptolemy Euergetes, who was Philopator’s father, that is, Ptolemy III
Euergetes (264–221). See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 82 note e.
23
teleutÆsantow går ÉEleazãrou tØn érxiervsÊnhn ı ye›ow aÈtoË Manass∞w
par°laben, meyÉ ˜n katastr°canta tÚn b¤on ÉOn¤aw tØn timØn §jed°jato, S¤mvnow uflÚw
vÖn toË dika¤ou klhy°ntow (Ant 12,157–158).
24
‘Simeon The Righteous’, Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York
1927, 348.
25
‘Simeon The Righteous’, 352, notes 14–15, finds support for these rabbinic
sources in Flavius Josephus’ narrations, Jewish War 1,31–33; 7,420–436 where Simon
is the father of that Onias who, at the time of the fight between Antiochus Epiphanes
and the Jews, would have fled to Alexandria of Egypt under king Ptolemy VI
Philometor, who granted him permission to build the temple in any place in Egypt.
historical identity
81
passage—according to the opinion of many scholars—suggests that
the author had been a contemporary of the recently deceased
high priest, it was possible, according to Moore, to conclude that
Simon the Righteous had lived one hundred years before the date
proposed by Josephus.26
3) As a confirmation of his theory, Moore pointed to a particular
chronological connection within the eulogy of Simon, in the reference to the repairs (Sir 50, 1b–4) credited to the high priest:
he actually interpreted this as the restoration of the temple and
the fortifications of Jerusalem, by then destroyed as a consequence
of the war between Syria and Egypt. He claimed to have found
proof for this in the Antiquities 12,141 where, among the various privileges granted to the Jews as a reward for their warm
reception and their cooperation against the Egyptian, there is a
list of materials required for the completion of the works on the
temple, for the porticoes and for the building of any other necessary part.27
Thus Moore refuted the identification that Flavius Josephus made
of Simon I as Simon the Righteous. According to him, both the references in the Antiquities appeared under dubious circumstances: the
first was to be found in Josephus’ introduction to his paraphrase of
the Letter of Aristeas and the second in his preamble to the Tales
of the Tobiads.28 Moreover, in both occasions, the name Simon was
in the context of a genealogy, but the author did not really say anything about Simon, apart from the fact that he was pious and virtuous, which is merely an explanation of the term “Righteous” that
does not clarify the ultimate reasons.29 Finally Moore claimed that
the fact that Josephus had given the name of “Righteous” to a Simon,
son of Onias and father of another Onias, high priest at the time
of Ptolemy I, instead of giving it to the Simon contemporary with
Antiochus the Great, to whom it had been given by the rabbinic
26
‘Simeon The Righteous’, 353 and note 19. See chapter 1.5.3 for a discussion
of the dating of the Sira.
27
Moore, ‘Simeon The Righteous’, 353–355.
28
Moore, ‘Simeon The Righteous’, 362. See also J. VanderKam, ‘Simon the
Just. Simon I or Simon II?’, in D.W. Wright – D.N. Freedman – A. Hurvitz eds.,
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and
Literature, Fs. J. Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 311.
29
Moore, ‘Simeon The Righteous’, 362.
82
chapter three
sources, “is a mere confusion of Simons, and that even the existence
of this ‘Simon I’ is problematical”.30
As it was said before, Moore’s hypothesis has had many followers;31 apart from the almost unanimous placement of the high priest
Simon ca. 200 bce, nowadays there are many scholars32 who agree
with the idea that, in fact, Simon I is a duplication carried out by
Flavius Josephus, and that only one Simon called the Righteous did
actually exist, the one remembered in the book of Ben Sira. An
important testimony that supports this thesis is the one by Eusebius
of Cesarea, confirmed by Jerome33 whom, in the context of the succession of the high priests starting from the death of Alexander the
Great, after mentioning Onias and Eleazar, cites “ßterow ÉOn¤aw”,
another Onias, followed by Simon, whose name became famous by
the celebrity of Jesus, son of Sira.
Furthermore, there is general agreement34 on the vision of the
public works mentioned in Sir 50,1b–4 as linked to the passage in
Ant 12,141, which is located in the context of the so-called Seleucid
letter (Ant 12,138–144). Antiochus III King of Syria sent this letter,
according to Flavius Josephus, soon after the victory over Ptolemy
and the conquest of Palestine. Bickerman, who devoted a particular
study to this letter,35 established a connection between these public
works and the decision regarding the Jews of Jerusalem, taken by
Antiochus III after the Fifth Syrian War and announced to Ptolemy
himself, “to restore their city which has been destroyed by the haz-
30
Moore, ‘Simeon The Righteous’, 364.
See, for instance, Marcus, ‘The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the
Righteous)’, in Josephus, VII, 732–736 and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 437
note 112.
32
Apart from Moore, see, for instance, Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, 149,
note 7; J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, Paris 1972, 66 note 1.
33
Migne, Eusebii Caesariensis, Demonstrationis Evangelicae, PL 22, VIII, 393, 615: meyÉ
˜n ßterow ÉOn¤aw, ˆn diad°xetai S¤mvn, kayÉ ˜n ÉIhsoËw ı toË Siråx §gnvr¤zeto, ı tØn
kaloum°nhn parãneton Sof¤aw suntãjaw. Migne, Commentariorum in Danielem Libri, PL
25, IX, 24, 545: Post quem alter Onias, cui successit Simon, quo regente populo,
Jesus filius Sira scripsit librum qui Graece paranetÚw appellatur.
34
Abel, Histoire de la Palestine, I: de la conquête d’Alexandre jusqu’à la guerre juive, Paris
1952, 96: “Quant à l’exécuteur de ces réparations, nous pensons le reconnaître dans
le grand prêtre Simon, fils d’Onias, loué au chapitre 50 de la Sagesse de Jésus Ben
Sira”. See also T.R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBL 075, Atlanta 1986,
1986, 234.
35
E. Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, in Studies in Jewish and
Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, 44–85; see also Marcus, Josephus, VII, 743–766.
31
historical identity
83
ards of war, and to repeople it”.36 Later in the text, the king himself specifies his intentions regarding the public works favouring the
temple, that seem to recall the works carried out by Simon: “and
that the work on the temple be completed, including the porticoes
and any other part that it may be necessary to build” (Ant 12,141).37
Recently though, due in large measure to the work of VanderKam,38
the hypothesis proposed by Flavius Josephus, by which Simon the
Righteous would be the first Simon that succeeded the father Onias,
son of Jaddua, in the first years of the Ptolemaic age, has been
renewed. VanderKam underlines the importance of Josephus’ testimony “by default”,39 that is, because of the lack of other sources,
even if the nature of the material is rather controversial and poses
numerous problems. He approaches the matter of the identity of
Simon the Righteous in three stages: a) examination of the sources;
b) refutation of Moore’s hypothesis; c) formulation of the hypothesis by which Simon I would be Simon the Righteous. In the first
place, VanderKam criticizes Moore for using the rabbinic texts as
sources; in his opinion such texts should not be taken into consideration, as they have no worth as historical sources.40 He next examines what he calls “Moore’s handling of Sir 50:1–21”, judging it as
unconvincing and underlining the fact that the name Simon the
Righteous is never given to the praised high priest, who is always
simply called Simon. Even given the possibility of this Simon being
the Righteous, he wonders: “but when did he live?”.41 Finally,
VanderKam demolishes the other two elements that constituted the
foundations of Moore’s hypothesis. In his opinion, the hypothesis of
the author being an eyewitness to Simon’s liturgical service or having lived shortly before is not supported by anything solid, considering that the expressions used for the description of Simon the high
36
Ant 12,139: ka‹ tØn pÒlin aÈt«n énalabe›n katefyarm°nhn ÍpÚ t«n per‹ toÁw
pol°mouw sumpesÒntvn ka‹ sunoik¤sai . . . Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 71.
See Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, 45 and 51 note 28 about the
meaning of énalambãnv.
37
Ant 12,141: ka‹ tÚ per‹ tÚ flerÚn épartisy∞nai ¶rgon tåw te stoåw ka‹ e‡ ti ¶teron
ofikodom∞sai d°oi. Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 73. See Bickerman, ‘La
Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, 44.
38
J. VanderKam, ‘Simon the Just. Simon I or Simon II?’, 303–318. See also
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 137–153.
39
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 303.
40
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 313.
41
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 314.
84
chapter three
priest have only literary and poetical value.42 Furthermore, he disregards the validity of Antiochus III’s letter as evidence, both because
it is not addressed to any high priest, and because, notwithstanding
the presence of some similarities, when comparing the text of the
letter and the text of the book of Ben Sira, it is not possible to be
certain that both of them refer to the same damages, the same
restoration works, and therefore to the same historical period.43 On
the contrary, VanderKam mentions a motivation of a literary nature
in Simon I’s favour: the fact that chapter 50 has to be included
within the praise of Israel’s ancestors, and furthermore, that it represents a conclusion to this praise.44 These chapters deal with the
exaltation of the ancient heroes of Israel who “lived in what was
the distant past already in Sirach’s time”.45 Thus maybe Simon should
be regarded as one of these, one of the ancestors. The final conclusion of VanderKam concerns the necessity to rely on Josephus’
information, notwithstanding the lack of further historical evidence.46
The identity of Simon the Righteous thus remains an open problem, closely related to the assessment of the lists, and more generally speaking, to Flavius Josephus’ historical reliability.47
3.2.2
The “Onias” High Priests
The data examined hereafter correspond to the second problem,
which concerns the presence in Jewish Antiquities of many high
priests bearing the same name Onias.
A first Onias is mentioned as the successor of Jaddua (11,347); a
second as the son of Simon the Righteous and grandson of the previous Onias (12,157). This Onias II is at the very centre of the Tales
42
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 314–315.
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 315–316.
44
VanderKam, 315 refers to the hypothesis formulated by R.T. Lee, Studies in
The Form of Sirach 44–50, 12.
45
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?’, 315.
46
‘Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?, 318: “There is no historical evidence
that relates it to Simon II”.
47
See also the hypothesis formulated by Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’,
117, for whom the issue should be dealt with in the context of the way in which
Josephus uses the source (Onias IV), that is, in an anti-Zadokite, anti-Onias fashion. According to Goldstein, note 120, Josephus places Simon I at the beginning
of the third century as Simon the Righteous, and with the help of Onias IV, depicts
Simon as an ephemeral supporter of the ungodly Tobiads. See further discussion
on this source in chapter 1.2.3.
43
historical identity
85
of the Tobiads (12,160–236) and dies at the same time as Joseph,
the hero of the tale (12,224). A third Onias succeeded Simon son
of the second Onias, and received a letter from Areius, king of the
Spartans (12,225). The issue gets even more complicated with relation to the presence of a son of Onias (12,387) who, after the appointing of Alcimus as high priest, flees to Egypt and founds a temple
there. The name of the father of this Onias is linked to another
high priest with the same name and to the information that the son
was too young at the time of his father’s death and, therefore, king
Antiochus had passed the high priesthood on to the father’s brother
(12,237). Then, according to this passage in Antiquities, the founder
of the temple would be an Onias IV, but no other mention is made
of him. The name Onias can also be found in Jewish War 1,31 as
ÉOn¤aw m¢n eÂw t«n érxier°vn.48 He appears involved in internal struggles, after which he exiles the sons of Tobias, who had the support
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Later on though, when it is Antiochus’ turn
to have the upper hand, he seeks the protection of Ptolemy and is
granted a territory in the district of Heliopolis, where he builds a
citadel and a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem.49
According to Grabbe,50 the whole account of Ant 12,237–241 is
extremely confusing: Jason inherited the high priesthood after the
death of his brother Onias (III?); then Antiochus deprived him of
this office and granted it to his brother, who was called both Onias
and Menelaus. According to Jeremias, Josephus “mistakenly duplicates”51 Onias, and his account “seeks to conceal the irregularity in
the succession of Jason” and is “obviously wrong”: it actually means
to disguise Menelaus’ illegitimacy.52
Goldstein53 sees the problem in connection to the meagre space
that Josephus dedicates to Onias III, in comparison to Second
Maccabees. Josephus’ pro-Hasmonean tendency or bias, and his intention of removing all possible claims of the Oniad-Zadokite54 line
See, regarding the plural form érxiere›w, chapter 2.2.
Jewish War 1,33. See also 7,423–432, where it is said that Onias was the son
of Simon. About the differente traditions regarding Onias III, see chapter 5.6.
50
L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, I: The Persian and Greek Periods,
Minneapolis 1992, 281.
51
Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, 184 note 112.
52
Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, 184 note 114.
53
Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 85–123.
54
Concerning this, see chapter 3.6: Excursus.
48
49
86
chapter three
would have led him to reduce Onias “to a nonentity”55 with the aim
of eliminating the importance of his religious figure. Whatever the
motive, the coincidence of Ant 12,239, that all of Simon’s three sons
held the office of high priest, seems to be odd and contrived, to say
the least!
The identification of Onias (III or IV) is an important historical
problem in relation to the foundation of the temple in Egypt; this
problem is going to be tackled later on.56
3.2.3
The Issue of the High Priests’ Succession
At the end of the nineteenth century, Willrich57 wondered whether
Josephus had found a list handed down from one high priest to
another or had made up one himself. He criticized the hypothesis
of two other scholars. Firstly, the one proposed by von Destinon,
who noted different claims in Flavius Josephus and believed that the
origins of the list of high priests of Antiquities 20 were to be found
in a list mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion 1,7; the occasional
information about the high priests within the narration of books 11
and 12 should be traced back to a different source.58 Secondly, the
hypothesis formulated by Schlatter, who claimed that the source of
Antiquities was Eupolemus, who in his turn would have picked up
the list from Polyhistor.59 According to Willrich, both these hypotheses were groundless: the first one, because the quotation from Against
Apion seemed to be too vague and did not demonstrate anything
related to the existence of priestly archives; the second, because,
unfortunately, Eupolemus’ and Polyhistor’s works have been lost and
therefore a direct comparison is out of the question.60
55
Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 117.
See chapter 5.6.1.
57
M. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung, Göttingen 1895,
107 ff.
58
Von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I, Kiel 1882, 29–30, note 1.
59
A. Schlatter, ‘Eupolemus als Chronolog und seine Beziehungen zu Hosephus
und Maneth’, ThStKr 4 (1891), 633–649.
60
About the hypothesis concerning these authors, see Schürer – Vermes – Millar,
History of the Jewish People, III/1, 510–512; 517–520. Regarding Eupolemus there
has been some scholarly progress. Particularly interesting in this respect is the study
by B.Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, Cincinnati 1974, 70,
in which the second chapter concludes with the following statement: “The basic
questions, those of the provenance, dating and identity of Eupolemus, have been
solved”.
56
historical identity
87
Willrich himself devoted particular attention to the examination
of the succession of the high priests from Jaddua to Menelaus and
supported Josephus’ dependence on Jewish legends. Starting from
these, he would have carried out synchronisms, calculating six governments of high priests with relation to the period that he had to
cover, from Alexander the Great to Onias III (181 bce). From the
legend of Alexander the Great, Josephus would have taken the synchronism Alexander-Jaddua and from the legend of Aristeas the one
between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Eleazar. From the same legend,
Josephus knew that Jaddua had been succeeded by his son Onias,
and he identified him with Simon the Righteous, while Eleazar,
whose father is not mentioned in Aristeas, became the brother of
the same Simon. It is not clear how he included in the list Manasseh,
Eleazar’s uncle, and Onias II, who belongs to the period of Philopator
and Epiphanes. Anyway, Willrich ruled out the possibility of Josephus
having access to a list handed down orally. In his opinion, such a
list had never existed. If it had existed, Josephus could have spared
himself the effort of collecting here and there succession lists belonging to different legends. This would be proved by the fact that he
took information from Pseudo-Hecataeus (Ap 1,22), information concerning a high priest by the name of Ezechias, in office at the time
of Ptolemy I, and so creating a conflict between him, Onias I and
Simon the Righteous.61 In Willrich’s opinion, then, the list of the
high priests would have been made up on grounds that lack historical evidence, that is, upon Jewish legends.
Thirty years later Moore reached a similar conclusion, stating that
the very fact of the repetition of the name Onias for many high
priests and the presence of incongruent pieces of information demonstrated the fact that the succession of the high priests has no historical value and has been included with the sole aim “to locate the
stories in time and give them a historical colouring.”62 In his opinion, the list of high priests seemed hardly reliable, especially when
it referred to the high priests under Antiochus Epiphanes. Moreover,
Josephus did not care at all about the inconsistencies with reference
to Jewish War and differed also with the statements of Second
Maccabees. Regarding the use of a possible list of high priests, Moore
61
62
Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 110–111.
Moore, ‘Simeon the Righteous’, 361.
88
chapter three
claimed that Josephus, even if he actually had one, would not have
used it.63
Hölscher disagreed with this statement and, in 1940, proposed a
theory of his own that has kept a certain value up to the present
day.64 He claimed that the only possible way to pass judgement on
the list of Ant 20,224–251 was in connection with the analysis of
the sources of Antiquities. According to him, while Josephus in Jewish
War 1,31–2,116 strictly follows Nicolaus of Damascus regarding the
time of Herod and Archelaus, in Antiquities he bases his narration
upon a Jewish-made work that, before him, had gathered together
the great majority of the material from historical sources.
Among the various data that Josephus would have drawn from
this work, Hölscher indicated “die fortlaufende Reihe der Hohenpriesternamen”.65 The critical judgement on Herod would demonstrate that this insertion of names was the work of an anonymous
Jewish writer. Therefore, Hölscher claimed that Josephus had taken
the list of 20,224–251 from a source that included it as a series of
names, possibly obtained in the temple archives. Lists of priests,
mainly of high priests, would have been kept in the temple archives
from ancient times.66 In his opinion, Josephus’ list had to be considered valid for the line of succession of the high priests, at least
up to the period of the existence of the temple. It was very unlikely,
however, that it had held chronological data regarding the time
in which they took office and the length of their rule. Perhaps,
the author had obtained these data from the tradition or from his
own memories, and when they were not available, he had inserted
them in the historical account of his source according to his own
63
Moore, ‘Simeon the Righteous’, 362–363. With reference to Menelaus, Moore
notices that while in 2 Macc 4,23 he was an “intruder”, brother of Simon from
the tribe of Benjamin, in Ant 12,384 he is turned into a high priest of unquestionable, legitimate line of descent. (363). About the transformation of Benjamin
into Bilga, see Goldstein, II Maccabees, 201, note 4.
64
Hölscher, ‘Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie’,
3–9.
65
The author of such a list would have been an aristocratic priest, all in favour
of the nobility and against plebeians, ardent supporter of the house of the Hasmoneans
and full of hatred for the usurper Herod. For these reasons he would reject Nicolaus
of Damascus. Given that he appears at the time of Mount Vesuvius’ eruption in
79 (Ant 20,144), this author must be related to the kingdom of Titus: see Hölscher,
‘Die Hohenpriesterliste’, 3–4.
66
Hölscher, ‘Die Hohenpriesterliste’, 8.
historical identity
89
calculations.67 This anonymous Jewish writer still constitutes a problem, as no evidence about him has ever reached us and so there is
no possibility of comparing any data.
Generally speaking, it is possible to state the most accepted hypothesis has been that of the dependence of the lists on the archives:
from Reinach and Thackeray,68 who believed in the existence of
priestly records at the time of the Second Temple; to Ricciotti, to
whom the information provided by Josephus concerning the succession of the high priests (and quotes also 20,224–251) has to come
from some priestly-annalistic chronicle that had drawn on the documents kept in the Temple archives;69 and to Schunck,70 who believed
he had identified, even though he referred to the sources of Second
Maccabees, the annals of the high priests Onias, Jason or official
records kept in the temple of Jerusalem.
In more recent times, VanderKam has claimed that it “is possible that he (a priest from a prominent family) had access to documentary evidence”.71 He sees a confirmation in Against Apion, where
Josephus states, regarding the archives of the high priests, that the
most convincing proof of the accuracy of such documents is the fact
that, for 2000 years, their high priests had been appointed in a line
of succession from father to son §n ta›w énagrafa›w (Ap 1,36).
However, not even the hypothesis of the origin of the archives
solves the problem of the inconsistencies in the information provided
by Josephus. In fact, the various attempts to reconstruct the succession of the high priests made during the last thirty years, and we
quote only Le Moyne, Jeremias and Bickerman,72 have not provided
any definitive contribution to the resolution of the argument. It is
difficult to agree with the extreme position assumed by Willrich,73
67
Hölscher, ‘Die Hohenpriesterliste’, 9.
Th. Reinach ed., Flavius Josèphe, Contre Apion, Paris 1930, 8 and note 1; Thackeray
ed., Josephus, I, 174–175, vv. 28–29 and note a.
69
G. Ricciotti, Flavio Giuseppe. Lo storico giudeo-romano, Torino 1949, I, 129.
70
Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, 126.
71
VanderKam, ‘Simon the Righteous’, 317. See also From Joshua to Caiaphas, 153.
72
J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, Paris 1972, 66, note 1, instead of the succession
recorded by Flavius Josephus—Onias I, Simon I, Eleazar, Manaseh, Onias II, Simon
II, Onias III and (Onias IV, Leontopolis)—proposes Onias I, Simon the Righteous,
Onias II, (Onias III, Leontopolis). Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, 184 note
112 and 185–188; Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 144 reconstructs the following list: 1. Jaddua (II), ca. 330 bce; 2. Onias I, ca. 300 bce; 3. Simon I; 4.Onias
II, ca. 225 bce; 5. Simon II, ca. 217 bce; 6. Onias III; 7. Jason.
73
Juden und Griechen, 114.
68
chapter three
90
according to whom nothing certain can be drawn from the list of
high priests, from Jaddua to the last legitimate representative, other
than the fact that circa 200 bce Simon the Righteous was in office
following and preceding an Onias, since we cannot deny the value
of parallel testimonies concerning other high priests. Perhaps the
most acceptable position might be the intermediate hypothesis formulated by Saûlnier and Perrot, who claim that Josephus’ incoherencies are due to an incomplete documentation in which the
succession of the high priests had already been purposefully altered,
or to the use of an exhaustive list in which he made changes, thus
provoking a number of chronological inconsistencies.74 The impossibility of solving this problem derives from the lack of other direct
sources. Yet it remains an unquestionable fact that we get these data
from Josephus and it is only through comparison with parallel sources,
even if scarce, that any further hypothesis could be formulated about
the succession of the high priests of the pre-Hasmonean age. It is
not possible to go further but only to take the advice given by
Hölscher and VanderKam: both of them sound a note of caution
regarding the nature of the material and the need to verify, time
after time, the accuracy of the data.75
3.3
The “Absence” of the High Priests
The second datum is now to be considered: that of the “absence”
of the Jewish high priests. Considering the conflicting yet numerous
bits of information that the books of Maccabees and Flavius Josephus
provide us with, the absence of the pre-Hasmonean High Priests
from the documents of the time, included both in Second Maccabees
74
C. Saûlnier, with the collaboration of C. Perrot, Histoire d’Israël, III. De la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du temple, (331 AC–135 AD), Paris 1985, 467, where it
is stated that the simplest hypothesis would be that Flavius Josephus had established
two erroneous synchronisms, firstly situating Simon the Righteous in the same period
of Eleazar and Ptolemy II and then placing Onias II and Hyrcanus Tobiad at the
time of Ptolemy V. As he knew of the existence of a high priest by the name of
Simon under the rule of Antiochus III, he was forced to add a Simon II. See also
408.
75
Hölscher, ‘Die Hohenpriesterliste’, 8; VanderKam, ‘Simon the Righteous’, 303.
See also VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 113 where he notes that “There are
several reports about high priests and one about a possible high priest in a few
sources that are difficult to fit into a chronological sequence”.
historical identity
91
and Jewish Antiquities, is in fact significant. The problem has been
analysed by scholars such as Bickerman, starting from the previously
mentioned Seleucid letter (Ant 12,138–144).76 It is a letter written
by Antiochus III, addressed to the same Ptolemy son of Thraseas
mentioned in the inscription of Soli in Cilicia, in which the situation of Jerusalem in the Seleucid Empire was established, according
to the style corresponding to the Seleucid chancellery.77
In the first part of the letter (12,138–139), there is a record, among
other things, of the reception of the Jews at the arrival of the king
to the city metå t∞w gerous¤aw, while in the second part (12,140–144)
there is a list of the measures taken in favour of the Jews, especially
the right granted to the Jewish ethnos to rule according to the ancestral laws and the tax exemption for the gerous¤a, the priests, the
temple scribes and singers.78 There is no single mention of the Jewish
high priest in the edict, but according to Bickerman this is not at
all surprising; before the time of the Maccabees, he claims, the high
priest,79 usually depicted as chief of the Jews after the restoration of
the temple, is never mentioned in the official records. The same
absence is noticed in the documents included in Second Maccabees:
over a total number of seven documents in epistolary form, two of
them were sent by the Jews to their fellow countrymen80 and four
were received by them,81 regarding international relations, but none
of them is addressed to a high priest. This fact would indicate, rather
than the absence, the absolute lack of political authority of the high
priest and the fact that the Jewish nation was represented mainly by
76
Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, 44–85 supports the authenticity of the document. See also Marcus, Josephus, VII, 751, Appendix D: Antiochus
III and The Jews.
77
Concerning the inscription of Soli in Cilicia, see OGIS, 230; Boffo, Iscrizioni
greche e latine, 80–86, iscr. nr. 6. About the issue of Ptolemy son of Thraseas see
chapter 5.1.1.
78
politeu°syvsan d¢ pãntew ofl §k toË ¶ynouw katå toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw, épolu°syv
dØ gerous¤a ka‹ ofl flere›w ka‹ ofl grammate›w toË fleroË ka‹ ofl flerocãltai (Ant 12,142).
79
See in Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 81 “le grand sacrificateur”.
80
See the address of the letter: “The Jews in Jerusalem and those in the land
of Judea, to their Jewish kindred in Egypt” (1,1–9), and the identification of the
senders as “The people of Jerusalem and of Judea and the senate and Judas”
(1,10–2,18).
81
Letter of Antiochus IV to the worthy Jewish citizens (9,19–27); Letter of Lysias
to the people of the Jews (11,17–21); Letter of Antiochus V to Lysias (11,22–26);
Letter of Antiochus V to the senate of the Jews and to the other Jews (11,27–33);
Letter of the envoys of the Romans to the people of the Jews (11,34–38) .
92
chapter three
the gerous¤a, the council of elders, that later, also under the Maccabees,
will continue to be mentioned besides the high priest. This position
is strongly supported by Bickerman.82 These statements are still
arguable and widely questioned; a completely satisfying solution concerning both the problems of the authority of the high priest and
the presence of the gerous¤a in this period has not yet been reached.83
3.3.1
The Letter from Areius to Onias (1 Macc 12,20)
There is however an exception in the title of a document addressed
to a high priest of the pre-Maccabean age: it is the letter of Areius,
king of the Spartans, where we find the following heading: “áArhw
basileÁw Spartiat«n On¤& flere› megãlƒ xa¤rein” (1 Macc 12,20). The
document is to be considered in the context of the traditions concerning a supposed kinship of Jews and Spartans through Abraham,
contained in three letters.84 Apart from the issue of the tradition,
which is in itself quite complex due to the difficulties in tracing its
origins,85 there is also a discussion among the scholars about the
authenticity of the letters86 and in reference to the one examined,
there are different opinions about who it was addressed to. Some
scholar attributes the letter to Onias I,87 another believes it to be
82
Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 71, note c; 182, note 191. See also Marcus,
Josephus, VII, 760–761.
83
See the conclusive synthesis of these problems in chapter 6.
84
Momigliano, Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica, 141–170, examines
three documents included in the First book of the Maccabees: in 12,6 ff. there is
a letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, that mentions a previous letter prÚw ÉOn¤an
tÚn érxier°a, to be found in 12,20 ff.; in 14,20, the third letter of the Spartans is
addressed: S¤mvni flere› megãlƒ. See also F.M. Abel – Starcky, J. ed., Les Livres des
Maccabées, Paris 1961, 231–233.
85
About this, see the hypothesis formulated by Momigliano, Prime linee di storia
della tradizione maccabaica, 144–146 and Goldstein, I Maccabees, 457–458. See also
W.O.E. Oesterley, I Maccabees, in R.H. Charles ed., APOT, Oxford 1963, 112, note
21 where he states: “The probability is that while the details can scarcely be accepted
as true, the broad fact of diplomatic relations of some kind between the Jews and
the Spartans is to be accepted as true.” Likewise, J. Sievers, ‘Josephus, First Maccabees,
Sparta, The Three Haireseis- and Cicero’, JSJ 32,3 (2001), 245, where he notices
how the tradition of a kinship of Jews and Spartans is also mentioned in 2 Macc
5,9.
86
Abel – Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 183. See also Momigliano, Prime linee
di storia della tradizione maccabaica, 142, for whom “le prime due lettere sono apocrife, la terza autentica.” See a recapitulation of the problem in Sievers, ‘Josephus,
First Maccabees’, 244–45, note 16.
87
A. Sisti, I Maccabei, Libro Primo, 1968, 256, note 23–26. See also M. Simonetti
historical identity
93
authentic, but attributes it to Onias II.88 There is discussion over the
title given to Onias89 and also over the contrast with Jewish Antiquities,
where the letter is reported in relation to Onias III, but it is found
without a title.90 The problem therefore involves also Flavius Josephus’
attitude towards Onias III to whom, as has already been noted,
the title of érxiereÊw is repeatedly given in Second Maccabees.91
VanderKam investigates the problem of the letter by confronting the
two versions of 1 Maccabees (12,20–23) and Jewish Antiquities
(12,226–227) and by handling four headings.92 In the second heading he first refers to the various hypotheses about the identity of the
king and the high priest and finally concludes that Onias I is most
likely the high priest to whom the letter of the Spartan king is
addressed. However this problem is strictly linked to that of the
authenticity of the letter, namely the problem “if the letter itself is
a forgery and not an authentic document”.93 VanderKam notes that
other sources give us relevant data about king Areius I and about
the common ancestry of Jews and Spartans in the line of Abraham.
For example, Flavius Josephus reports a decree from the city of
Pergamum (Ant 14,225) in the last third of the second century bce
that speaks about a friendship between the Jews and the citizens of
Pergamum in the time of Abraham. It is most likely that Hecataeus
of Abdera was the source for the common ancestry of Jews and
Spartans.94 In conclusion, VanderKam retains that Areius I, king of
Sparta (309–265 bce) sent a letter to Onias I, the successor of Jaddua
and first high priest of the Hellenistic age, who “was high priest until
at least 309 bce and almost certainly for some time after this”.95
ed., Flavio Giuseppe. Storia dei Giudei. Da Alessandro Magno a Nerone. («ANTICHITA’ GIUDAICHE», Libri XII–XX), Milano 2002, 579 note 78, where there is an identification,
though hastily made, between the letter found in Antiquities and 1 Macc 12,20–22.
88
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 445–460.
89
1 Macc 12,20 flere› megãlƒ. About the problem of the heading, see chapter
2.1.1.
90
Ant 12,226–227, see also 13,167. Apart from this one, there are yet other
differences: see Sievers, ‘Josephus, First Maccabees’, 245.
91
Concerning this problem see chapter 3.1
92
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 126: 1) the textual evidence, 2) the king and the high
priest in question, 3) the nature of the text in its existing versions and 4) the
Abraham connection.
93
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 130.
94
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 135.
95
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 128. See also 127.
chapter three
94
According to VanderKam, this letter would demonstrate that “the
high priest was considered the leading government official in Jerusalem
in this time”.96
This last hypothesis is very interesting, even if it seems not to find
sufficient support in the documentary evidence. However, the title
of the recipient of the letter (1 Macc 12,20) challenges the assertion
that the pre-Hasmonean high priest possessed no political authority
whatsoever.97 Therefore, this possibility should not be completely
ruled out.
3.4
The “érxiereÊw” Ezechias
There is another érxiereÊw mentioned in Against Apion 1,187 who
brings us back not only to the problem of presence-absence, but
even more specifically to the problem of the political authority of
the pre-Hasmonean high priest in the Ptolemaic age. The issue is
related to a hypothesis about the partial autonomy of Judah during
the Ptolemaic period, formulated by Lapp98 and based on the discovery of pottery located in the province of Judah that he dated at
the Ptolemaic age. Lapp focused his attention particularly on two
groups of pottery discovered in Ramat Ra˙el in 1959–60. A first
group of handles had, “near their upper attachment a circular impression containing the palaeo-Hebrew yhd and another symbol consisting of a circle containing a crossbar”;99 a second group had, always
near their upper attachment, a circular seal containing a five-pointed
star with five letters between its spikes constituting the name yrslm,
that in his opinion dated “to the third quarter of the third century
bc.”100 Concerning the symbols, he noted that they were considered
official emblems of rule, especially the five-pointed star or pentacle
that was regarded as the symbol of the high priest, both at Qumran
and in the pseudoepigraphic101 literature.
96
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 137.
See Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 126. See also Preface, 1 note 2.
98
P.W. Lapp, ‘Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from Judah’, BASOR 172 (1963),
31–34.
99
‘Ptolemaic Stamped’, 22 note 1; 23.
100
‘Ptolemaic Stamped’, 28.
101
‘Ptolemaic Stamped’, 30 and note 41, where it is said that it could be a symbol of the monarchy, particularly the late-Hasmonean one.
97
historical identity
95
Taking into consideration the administrative policy of the Ptolemies
and the intricate tax system that was in existence during their rule,
Lapp suggested the possibility that there had to be, as in other territories, fiscal officials of the crown that operated in Judah independently of temple authorities. Therefore, in addition to the high
priest, there was a governor in Judah that could have been a Jew,
“a fitting testimony to the fact that the Ptolemies were experts in
the art of coöptation”.102 Lapp’s further claim establishes that this
position included its own independent tax system; the different inscriptions yhd and yrslm would have had the aim of distinguishing the jars
containing taxes in kind for the Ptolemaic representative (those bearing the official government symbol) from the jars containing the taxes
destined to the temple’s treasury in Jerusalem (the ones with the high
priest’s symbol). In conclusion, Lapp came up with the following
hypothesis: “While the high priest was not governor, it is not unlikely
that the governor was an important temple official”.103
This hypothesis seemed to be backed up by a tiny silver coin discovered in 1931 in the area of Beth-Zur,104 which has the Athenian
owl and two words in pointed Hebrew letters on one side, while the
other side is plain. One of the words can be completed with the
addition of some missing letters, but as this can be done in more
than one way, the consequence is that it can also be read in different
ways.105 The other word was interpreted as the name YHZQYW,
Ezechias, the name of the person who had minted the coin.106 This
102
‘Ptolemaic Stamped’, 33.
‘Ptolemaic Stamped’, 34. Compare this statement with what is said in chapter 5.1.1.
104
O.R. Sellers – R.W. Funk – J.L. McKenzie – Paul and Nancy Lapp, ‘The
Excavation at Beth-Zur’, ASOR 38 (1968), 2 ss.
105
W.F. Albright, ‘The Seal Impression from Jericho and the Treasures of the
Second Temple’, BASOR 148 (Dec. 1957), 29 in the first place read it as
[Ye]hohan[an], but later on he corrected this reading according to the suggestion
made by E.L. Sukenik, ‘Paralipomena Palæstinensia’ JPOS 14 (1934), 184, but adding
a further correction to the reconstruction YHD, Aramaic name of Judah in YHDW,
see 28 and note 3. About the reconstruction in YHD, see also N. Avigad, ‘A New
Class of Yehud Stamp’, IEJ 7 (1957), 148.
106
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 226 and note 15, revisiting the events concerning the discovery of the coin,
notices how, following further discoveries of other coins, another word was identified
next to the first one as HPÓH, the governor. The first to make this reading was
L.Y. Rahamani, ‘Silver Coins of the Fourth Century from Tell Gamma’, IEJ 21
(1971), 158–160.
103
96
chapter three
name has generated a series of hypotheses, due to its presence also
in Against Apion, as was already mentioned. In this work, Flavius
Josephus declares that he has taken two pieces of information from
the work of the writer Hecataeus of Abdera107 that featured the news
about the victory in Gaza of Ptolemy son of Lagus over Demetrius
son of Antigonus, and the news about how, soon after the battle of
Gaza, Ptolemy became ruler of Syria and many wanted to follow
him into Egypt, due to his leniency and gentleness (Ap 1,186). Among
them, adds Josephus, there was also Ezechias érxiereÁw t«n ÉIouda¤vn,
of whom it is said that he was sixty-six years of age, and that he
was highly esteemed by his countrymen because of his intelligence,
his oratory skills and his experience in the business (Ap 1,187). Finally
there is also a reference to an honour that he had been given (Ap
1,189).108 The contemporary presence of the name Ezechias in the
Beth-Zur coin and in Against Apion has led some scholars to conclude that even before the Ptolemaic age, the coin belonging to the
autonomous province of Judah was minted by the high priests.109
The information according to which many Jews, attracted by
Ptolemy’s liberality, followed him into Egypt, is confirmed by a verse
in Jewish Antiquities (12,9) in which the name Ezechias is not mentioned. Moreover, Josephus describes how, after Alexander, the high
priest Jaddua died and was succeeded in the office by his son Onias
(Ant 11,347). The very fact of the absence of the name Ezechias in
the literary sources that refer to the high priests of the period studied generated the hypothesis that the word érxiereÊw could have
another meaning, different from high priest: it could be for instance
a chief-priest in charge of the financial administration, or a member of the priestly oligarchy vested with some responsibility.110 Parente
107
About Hecataeus of Abdera, see the discussion in chapter 1.5.1.
ı ênyrvpow teteuxΔw t∞w tim∞w taÊthw.
109
Avigad, ‘A New Class of Yehud Stamp’, 149; Albright, ‘The Seal Impression
from Jericho and the Treasures of the Second Temple’, 29. See also Tcherikover,
Hellenistic Civilization, 56 who, attempting a historical reconstruction of the period,
seems to agree with this hypothesis.
110
In 1936 A.T. Olmstead, ‘Intertestamental Studies’, JAOS 56 (1936), 244 referred
to Ezechias as “a high priest, his chief financial officer, what the Greeks called
dioikÆthw”. See GLAJJ, I, 40, note 187 where Stern, while pointing to the fact that
no high priest by such name appears in the lists of high priests provided by Josephus
in this period, nor in any other period, notices that the name is found among the
priests and the sacerdotal houses during the period of the Second Temple. See
Jewish War 2,429. According to Stern, in the context of the quotation of pseudo108
historical identity
97
seems to agree with this hypothesis and denies the possibility of the
existence of a high priest by the name of Ezechias. Instead he claims
that this Ezechias would be a Persian governor and hypothesizes
that, starting from the certified meaning of the word érxiereÊw used
by the Seleucid chancellery, during the Ptolemaic period the high
priest had received from the king an official recognition, not as the
political leader of the people but as the head of the priestly class
and responsible for the worship.111
Finally, there is the hypothesis formulated by Millar which is particularly suggestive and noteworthy. Concerning the first Hellenistic
period, he quotes the evidence of a series of coins similar to the
ones of the late Persian period that bore the inscription ‘Ye˙ez˚iyo
ha pe˙ah’ and had also the word Yehudah and the portrait of
Ptolemy I. In his opinion, these coins “tend to suggest a continuity
of Judaea as a political unit into the Ptolemaic period”,112 but raise
the problem of Ezechias, high priest of the Jews. In reference to the
word timÆ in Ap 1,189, he suggests the hypothesis that, from the
very beginning of the Ptolemaic period, the high priest appointed
by the king acted as a substitute for the Persian pe˙ah. This could
explain why different sources refer to Ezechias as high priest and
governor; the double function could be reflected in the rebuke that
Joseph the Tobiad directs against Onias II (Ant 12,161) in the context of a scene that clearly seems to belong to the Ptolemaic period,
more precisely to the kingdom of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–21
bce).113 Moreover, it could explain the lack of unanimity in the legitimation of Ezechias as high priest and his absence from Josephus’
list.114
However, there is too much negative data concerning the presence of Ezechias érxiereÊw: the absence of the name from documents where names of high priests of the period are found; the
Hecataeus, the word érxiereÊw does not mean high priest par excellence, but refers
a member of the sacerdotal oligarchy, maybe the treasurer of the temple and of
the autonomic state of Judea. This is also the opinion of Thackeray, Josephus, I,
Against Apion, 238, note 1, for whom érxiereÊw without the article does not necessarily mean “the high priest”.
111
Parente, Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, II, Torino 1985, 54. Concerning
this issue, see also chapter 2.1.2.
112
F. Millar, ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflection on
Martin Hengel’s “Judaism and Hellenism” ’, JJS 29 (1978), 7
113
Concerning this problem, see chapter 4.5.
114
Millar, ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution’, 7–8.
chapter three
98
difficulty in establishing the precise meaning of the word érxiereÊw
and the presence of the name Ezechias among the priestly and highpriestly houses;115 and finally, the uncertainty in the identification of
the character due to the hypothesis put forward by some scholars
that the high priest Ezechias “was a later Jewish fabrication,”116 all
make the possibility of Ezechias being a high priest remote.117 The
hypothesis that he was governor appears to be more plausible.118 He
was not a governor of the Ptolemaic age though, but of the Persian
period, as Meshorer seems to believe. However, he declares that,
because of the presence of coins with the title PÓH and coins without any title next to the name Ezechias, “At this stage, we are unable
to provide a satisfactory explanation”.119 The question remains open.
3.5
The Period of the Intersacerdotium
In Jewish Antiquities, Flavius Josephus states that after the death of
Alcimus the office of high priest remained vacant for seven years
(20,237).120 This information, however, contradicts another piece of
information that Josephus repeats three times: he says that after the
death of Alcimus, the people appointed Judas to be high priest
(12,414.419), and adds to the same information that Judas remained
in office for three years (12,434).121 Consequently, the period of intersacerdotium would be reduced to four years. Josephus indirectly confirms
115
See Jewish War 2, 429.
GLAJJ, I, 40, note 187. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 32 saw Ezechias’s emigration into Egypt as a reflection of the events related to the kingdom of Antiochus
Epiphanes, when Onias fled to Egypt. To him, therefore, the high priest Ezechias
was a later Jewish fabrication.
117
See Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 226–29 where there is a list of the difficulties that constitute a hindrance for
the identification of the Ye˙ezqiyah of the coins with the Ezechias of Against Apion.
See also VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 118; according to VanderKam “the
name Ezechias should be removed from consideration as one of the high priests at
the Jerusalem temple during the reign of Ptolemy I”.
118
See B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews”: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora,
HCS, 21, Berkeley 1996, 89.
119
Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins. From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhva,
Jerusalem-Nyack 2001, 16. See also VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 118: “He
was a governor for a long time, spanning the transition from the Persian to the
Hellenistic period”.
120
died°jato dÉaÈtÚn oÈde¤w, éllå diet°lesen ≤ pÒliw §niautoÁw •ptå xvr‹w érxier°vw oÔsa.
121
tØn dÉ érxiervsÊnhn ¶tow tr¤ton katasxΔn.
116
historical identity
99
this in Ant 13,46, where he says that Jonathan “put on the highpriestly robe, this being four years after the death of his brother
Judas—for there had been no high priest during this time”.122
The information about Judas’ high priesthood has been questioned
by scholars, and has generally been considered unreliable. The new
Schürer, even underlining Judas’ dominion and declaring: “It is not
in itself inconceivable that Judas also usurped the functions of the
High Priest”,123 believes it to be highly improbable. Firstly, this is
because there is no mention of it in First Maccabees; secondly,
because in his opinion, at that time there was a legitimate claimant
in the figure of Onias IV; and finally because Josephus himself talks
of a seven-year vacancy. Jeremias considers the information to be
biased, pointing to motives of a chronological nature, given that,
according to 1 Macc 9,3 Judas would have died before Alcimus.124
Also Sacchi125 and Simonetti126 regard as more reliable the information given in Ant 20,237, where there is no mention of Judas’
high priesthood; Josephus himself in his autobiography provides a
further motive supporting this hypothesis, wherein he writes that the
first Hasmonean high priest was Jonathan (Life 4).127 Potgieter also
has made important contribution to the discussion.128 This scholar
wonders how Josephus can possibly depict Judas as a high priest,
since the author of First Maccabees does not ever mention him as
such. In her opinion, Josephus “uses the elimination method,”129 by
122
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities, 249.
The History of the Jewish People, I, 170, note 31.
124
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 188 note 129, where Jeremias places the death
of Judas in the month of Nisan in the year 152 of the Seleucid age, that is in April
160 bce. To Goldstein, I Maccabees, 372, note 3, in accordance to the absolute
chronology in 1 Macc 9,54 the death of Alcimus should be dated to the next year,
153 of the Seleucid age, that is, between the spring 159 and the spring 158 bce.
125
The History of the Second Temple Period, JSOT.S, 245.
126
Simonetti, Flavio Giuseppe. Storia dei Giudei, 596, note 223.
127
ÉIvnãyou érxier°vw, toË pr≈tou §k t«n ÉAsamvna¤ou pa¤dvn g°nouw érxierateÊsantow.
128
J.A. Potgieter, ‘The High Priests in 1 Maccabees and in the Writings of
Josephus’, in C.E. Cox ed., VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989, Atlanta 1991, 393–429.
129
‘The High Priests in 1 Maccabees’, 411, where Potgieter perceives little respect
in the use of the word flervsÊnh instead of érxiervsÊnh, when referring to the
appointment of the high priest Alcimus (1 Macc 7,9) when the office of the high
priesthood is mentioned with relation to Alcimus, even though he is not described
as high priest, but as a claimant to the title (1 Macc 7,21). However we think that
123
100
chapter three
which he eliminates Alcimus and other lawful claimants such as
Menelaus and Onias IV. According to Potgieter, the author of First
Maccabees would already show disrespect towards Alcimus, but
Josephus goes further by placing Judas above all the previous high
priests throughout the narrations of the tragic death of the high priest
Menelaus (Ant 12,385) and the flight of the legitimate successor Onias
IV (Ant 12,387). The elimination method, concerning Alcimus, consists in denying him a genealogy (Ant 12,387), describing him as a
man who associated with the wicked and renegade Jews (Ant 12,391),
omitting the data present in 1 Maccabees (7,9.14) concerning his lineal descent from Aaron and his appointment by Demetrius I, and
inverting the order of the deaths of Alcimus and Judas compared to
1 Maccabees (Ant 12,413/1 Macc 9,54).130 Moreover, the same
scholar points out how the assumption of the position by Judas creates chronological problems that Josephus attempts to overcome by
omitting every date, but that still remain throughout the period in
which, according to Josephus, Judas was the high priest.131 The reason why Josephus describes Judas as high priest should be seen in
the light of the peace treaty with Rome: if Judas was the one who
made the treaty with Rome, says Potgieter, then “he had to be the
legitimate Jewish head of the state;” she further adds, “The legitimate head of state in Judea at that time was the high priest”.132 The
arguments put forward by Potgieter are interesting and in partial
agreement with what has been proposed by previous scholars. However,
on certain occasions, as in this case, the arguments seem to go beyond
the historical documentation available.133 Anyway, they confirm the
scholars’ scepticism regarding the reliability of the information about
Judas’ high priesthood.
a testimony of philological nature forces too much the intentions of Flavius Josephus.
About the problems concerning Alcimus’ traditions see chapter 5.5.
130
‘The High Priests in 1 Maccabees’, 411–412. Concerning Alcimus’ traditions,
see chapter 5.8.
131
‘The High Priests in 1 Maccabees’, 413–414, where Potgieter states that
Josephus tries to solve the problem by omitting the date of the invasion of Jerusalem
by Bacchides.
132
Potgieter, ‘The High Priests in 1 Maccabees’, 414.
133
About this issue, related to the period studied, see, chap. 6.
historical identity
3.5.1
101
The Teacher of Righteousness as High Priest?
Above all, the issue of the vacancy in the high priesthood is still to
be considered. Stegemann underlined this fact in 1971, when he
stated the impossibility of the intersacerdotium, since the feast of the
Day of Atonement, in conformity with the Torah, could not be celebrated without a high priest.134 Based on the double conviction that
in the post-exilic age, “bezeichnet absolutes ˆhwkh den aharonidischen Hohenpriester”,135 and that such a title results from some of
the Qumran texts,136 Stegemann put forward the hypothesis that
Qumran’s Teacher of Righteousness, to whom such a title was
attached, would be the high priest of Jerusalem, removed from office
by Jonathan Maccabee.137 It is not within the scope of this work to
dwell on the implications related to the community of Qumran.
However it is important to analyse those studies after Stegemann’s
work that relate to the existence or non-existence of a high priest
after Alcimus.
Five years after Stegemann, Bunge138 reproposed the possibility of
the existence of a high priest, claiming that the letter of Demetrius I
(1 Macc 10,25–45) chronologically preceded Jonathan’s appointment,
and consequently, the two allusions to a high priest contained in it
(vv. 32,38) referred to an individual who had been in office between
the death of Alcimus and Jonathan’s assumption of the office of high
priest.139 In 1 Macc 10,32 Demetrius releases his control over the
Akra and gives it t“ érxiere›; in 10,38 he grants the annexation to
Judea of the three districts taken from Samaria: mØ ÍpakoËsai êllhw
§jous¤aw éllÉ μ toË érxier°vw. As Abel140 first noted, 1 Maccabees
omits the name of the high priest, contrarily to Flavius Josephus,
who names Jonathan (Ant 13,48).
There is, however, a further problem: the authenticity of the letter had already been discussed before Bunge, generating different
134
H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, Bonn 1971, 214. See also
VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 245.
135
Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, A. 80, note 328.
136
Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, A. 81 where Stegemann quotes 1QpHab 2,8;
4QpPs 37, 2,19; 3,15.
137
Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, 211. See also 212–220.
138
G.J. Bunge, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden
und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer’, JSJ 6 (1975), 27–43.
139
‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 33.
140
Les Livres des Maccabées, 185, notes 25–26.
102
chapter three
opinions.141 The issue has been thoroughly tackled by Murphy
O’Connor, who proposed to establish whether the letter of Demetrius
could really be dated to a time prior to the letter of Alexander Balas,
and if it was authentic,142 to assess the reliability of the two allusions
to a high priest that it contains (10,32.38). Murphy O’Connor observed
that in the current structure of 1 Maccabees 10, the order of the
letters according to the scheme: first letter of Demetrius (vv. 3–5)—
letter of Alexander (vv. 18–20)—second letter of Demetrius (vv.
25–45), caused difficulties and contradictions that could be avoided
by accepting the hypothesis that Demetrius had written only one letter dated before any contact between Alexander and Jonathan took
place. He thus accepted Bunge’s conclusion concerning the dating
of the letter, but proposed an alternate hypothesis regarding its contents, based on the fact that, while the first letter would correspond
to “the tenor of the actual letter of Demetrius”, the second, which
contains the two references to a high priest quoted above, would be
“a redactional creation whose details lack any historical validity.”143
He returned to the problem of the authenticity of the letter from a
stylistic point of view, characterised by a mix of first person singular, first person plural and impersonal imperative,144 and by comparing the features it had parallel with the letter of Antiochus III
(Ant 12,138–144).145 After a thorough analysis, he came to the conclusion that the letter of Demetrius was a combination of two authentic documents: a letter containing promises, and a document-like
decree granting concessions, plus a number of editorial additions.146
In his opinion, v. 32 would be an editorial element inserted by the
supporters of the Hasmonean dynasty as a reference to Jonathan,
while v. 38 would belong to an authentic Seleucid document that,
as Bunge has shown, has to be dated before the appointment of
Jonathan as high priest. Murphy O’Connor’s conclusion was, therefore, that v. 38 should refer to the individual that occupied the high
141
See Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 184.
See the synthesis of the problem of the authenticity of the letter and the solution proposed by J. Murphy O’Connor, ‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness
(I Macc x, 25–45)’, RB 83 (1976), 402–406.
143
‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 402.
144
‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 403, 417, 419.
145
‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 404–406.
146
‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 419.
142
historical identity
103
priesthood after Alcimus’ death, and, thrown out by Jonathan, became
the Teacher of Righteousness of the Essenes.147
Murphy O’Connor’s word is far from being the last. The debate
on Stegemann’s hypothesis has continued and it has developed around
the philological question, mainly related to the question if ˚hkh,
which Stegeman claims unquestionably means “high priest”. In 1980,
Burgmann revisited the issue of the intersacerdotium, from the starting
point of what he called “die acht Thesen Stegemanns”.148 Burgmann
examined, among others, Stegemann’s “Die Kardinalthese”,149 according to which ˆhkh, is the title of high priest, and the claim that it
refers to the Teacher of Righteousness in the pesharim, demonstrating that the Teacher of Righteousness had unquestionably held the
office of high priest between 159 and 152 bce. Although Burgmann
remembered that De Vaux had already formulated the equation ˆhkh =
high priest, he admitted that Stegemann had to be credited with the
understanding of the value of this equation in the pesharim; however,
he still thought that “seine Lösung nicht richtig ist”.150 He proposed
a new solution, according to which the sectarians of Qumran would
have claimed the title of ˆhkh for the founder of the community, the
“Teacher of Righteousness”, although he had not held such an office
(nor any other) in Jerusalem. They denied this title to Jonathan, the
successive high priest of Jerusalem, because they considered him an
usurper, to such an extent that they called him “Frevelpriester”.151
According to Burgmann, then, the problem of the vacancy in the
high priesthood still remains unresolved.
Wise reconsidered the philological side of the question in 1990.
He examined the biblical examples quoted by Stegemann as proof
that ˆhkh was a title that indicated the high priest in the post-exilic
period.152 Among the various texts, he examined Sir 50,1153 in order
147
‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 419–420.
H. Burgmann, ‘Das umstrittene intersacerdotium in Jerusalem 159–152 v.
Chr.’, JSJ 11/2 (1980), 143, where Burgmann discusses Stegemann’s first thesis,
according to which 1 Maccabees would not mention any high priest previous to
Alcimus because they had nothing to do with the Maccabean revolt. Consequently,
the fact that the Teacher of Righteousness as high priest is not mentioned in this
book would not be at all surprising. See also Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, 19.
149
‘Das umstrittene intersacerdotium’, 173.
150
‘Das umstrittene intersacerdotium’, 174.
151
‘Das umstrittene intersacerdotium’, 176.
152
O. Wise, ‘The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: two Approaches’, RdQ 56 (1990), 590–594.
153
Wise, ‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 592–594, especially 593, note 21.
148
104
chapter three
to claim, based on the textual uncertainty that it presents, that “even
this apparently straightforward example of HKHN as high priest
cannot be claimed as definitive evidence for Stegemann’s thesis”.154
According to Wise, not a single example among the ones proposed
by Stegemann was without uncertainties, and this applied also to the
numismatic and epigraphical evidence.155 Therefore, in Wise’s opinion, the references to the Teacher of Righteousness as ˆhkh do not
always suggest that he was a high priest, either in or out of office.
Nevertheless, he proposed another approach to the problem by looking for the connections between First Maccabees, the Temple Scroll
and the Teacher of Righteousness.156 The first stage in the development of this approach was the study of the connections between
the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document, above all in reference to the laws of purity and common features with the book of
Deuteronomy; hence the claim, supported by other scholars, that the
Temple Scroll was regarded as an eschatological Deuteronomy and
that it was created by the Teacher of Righteousness as if he were
a new Moses.157 In the second stage, attention was focused on the
connections between 1 Macc 10 and the Temple Scroll. Bearing in
mind the studies carried out by Bunge and Murphy O’Connor already
mentioned, he agreed with the hypothesis that the letter was a missive between Demetrius and the unknown high priest of the intersacerdotium, and furthermore, noticing close links between 1 Macc
10,34–35 e 11QT 43 and 52, concerning the regulations related to
the pilgrimages to Jerusalem,158 he also suggested an identification
between the Teacher of Righteousness and the high priest of the
intersacerdotium. Therefore, at the basis of this conclusion, which is
also Stegemann’s conclusion, there is only one philological reason
related to the contents of two texts. However, as Wise himself concluded, “Adhuc sub iudice lis est”.159
This debate has continued throughout the last decade. A particular contribution to the question has been made by some studies of
the Qumran manuscripts, regarding the identification of the wicked
154
155
156
157
158
159
Wise, ‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 594.
‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 594–602.
‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 602.
‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 603–606.
‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 608, 610–11.
‘The Teacher of Righteousness’, 613.
historical identity
105
priest and his conflict with the Teacher of Righteousness. The contributions made by Rainbow and Puech are very interesting.160 Their
demonstration starts from the hypothesis that the son of Onias III
was not the Onias who fled to Egypt, as has often been accepted
on the grounds of Flavius Josephus’ testimony (Ant 12,237.387),161
but a probable Simon III.162 However, while in Rainbow’s opinion,
no convincing proof “contradicts Josephus’s statement that there was
an intersacerdotium”,163 Puech demonstrates the contrary starting
from the identification of the wicked priest in the Qumran texts,
underlining the presence of a large number of hypotheses about this
character, most of them certainly unacceptable164 in his opinion. After
examining two manuscripts from Cave 4 (4Q523; 4Q448),165 Puech
states that, apart from 4Q448, where it seems that the context of
the psalm could be applied to Jonathan Maccabeus,166 4Q523 has
to refer to the same Jonathan.167 In his opinion, the openly favourable
attitude towards Jonathan in 4Q448 should be related to the fact
that Jonathan was then a military leader, but not yet the high priest
in office, while 4Q523 would have been written in the period when
Jonathan was high priest. In the language of this fragment, and in
its hostile tone towards the wicked priest, Puech sees grounds for
supposing a historical context that seems to refer to the moment in
160
See P.A. Rainbow, ‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, JJS
48/1 (1997), 30–52; É. Puech, ‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le
Maître de Justice?’, in B. Kollmann – W. Reinbold – A. Stendel eds., Antikes Judentum
and Frühes Christentum, Fs. H. Stegemann, Berlin-New York 1997, 137–158.
161
About this issue see chapter 5.6.1.
162
See Rainbow, ‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 44; Puech,
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?’, 155.
163
‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 48, note 62.
164
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?’, 146 where
Puech refers to those that date him to the 1st century bce or ce, identifying him
as Judas the Essene, Onias the Righteous, Saddoq the Pharisee, John the Baptist,
Jesus of Nazareth, James the Lord’s brother, Judas the Galilee, Menahem, and also
to those that date him at the beginning of the second century bce, identifying him
as Ben Sira, Onias III, Mattathias and Judas the Maccabean. See also Rainbow,
‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, 30, note 1.
165
É. Puech, ‘Jonathan le prêtre impie et les débuts de la communauté de
Qumrân’, 4Q Jonathan (4Q523 et 4Q PsAp (4Q448, RdQ 17 (1997)), 241–270).
166
Puech, ‘Jonathan le prêtre impie et les débuts de la communauté de Qumrân’,
256, col. B, l. 2: ˚lmh ˆtnwy l[. Concerning the debate on the identification of the
character see Ibidem, 256–263.
167
For an analytical study of the two manuscripts, see Puech, ‘Jonathan le prêtre
impie et les débuts de la communauté de Qumrân’, 241–258.
106
chapter three
which Jonathan led his troops in some kind of violent action or intervention against the temple of Jerusalem. By such means Jonathan
would have seized the temple’s treasure, and this deed would have
coincided with his assumption of the high priesthood and the expulsion of the high priest in office, who had thus became the Teacher
of Righteousness.168 Therefore, Puech comes to identify the Teacher
of Righteousness with the high priest, which seems to rule out the
period of vacancy in the high priesthood after Alcimus.
Puech also wonders if the office of high priest had been vacant
from 159 to 152, mainting that the only possible high priest between
the death of Alcimus and Jonathan’s assumption of the office (159–152
bce) would have been the son of Onias III, who was a child (Ant
12,237) at the time when first Jason and then Menelaus were high
priests, and was still too young when Alcimus was appointed (Ant
12,387). Logically, he eventually had to lay claim to his legitimate
right,169 and this would also explain why Jonathan did not assume
the high priesthood immediately after the death of Alcimus, while
“the land of Judah was undisturbed for two years” (1 Macc 9,57).170
According to Puech, the absence of this high priest from the list of
Josephus’ sources would stand as evidence of the damnatio memoriae
concerning this exiled Zadokite, founder of the Essene movement,
and of the fact that he was not included in the official list, as he
had performed the duties of a high priest without the authority’s
approval.171 Puech’s answer doesn’t seem however to be conclusive,
as the identification of the individual in the two manuscripts found
in Cave 4 with Jonathan Maccabeus is still controversial. In conclusion, we refer to Sievers’ position, who in 1990 criticized Stegemann’s
explanation concerning the silence of First Maccabees about the
eventual succession of Alcimus, judging both the lack of interest of
First Maccabees towards the high priesthood of the Teacher of
Righteousness and the damnatio memoriae as unjustified assumptions.
In Siever’s opinion, therefore, “it is more likely that, as Josephus
states and 1 Macc implies, from 159 to 152 there was no high
168
Puech, ‘Jonathan le prêtre impie et les débuts de la communauté de Qumrân’,
267–8.
169
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III)’, 148.
170
Translation by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 379.
171
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III)’, 150.
historical identity
107
priest”.172 The lack of a high priest, added Sievers, is unusual but
not unique. For instance, it is unlikely that Menelaus performed his
duties in a temple subject to Judas’ control (see 1 Macc 4,42), or
that a rival officiated at Yom Kippur before Jonathan’s assumption
in 152 bce (1 Macc 10,21).173 Nevertheless, the debate is still open
to further research, which up to now seems to have focused particularly on the clarification of the relationship between Jerusalem’s
high priest and the Qumran community. The issue of the intersacerdotium will be approached again in the present investigation with
relation to the study of the traditions of the high priest Alcimus.174
3.6 Excursus: Zadok’s Tradition
In a study dating from 1968,175 Bartlett dealt with the problem of
Zadok and his successors in Jerusalem during the pre-exilic period,
with the aim of verifying if the position of head priest was restricted
exclusively to Zadok’s descendants. He carried out a thorough comparison between the traditions kept in the genealogical lists of the
Books of Chronicles and those present in the lists of 1 Esdras and
2 Esdras, and other sources, especially the information obtained from
the Deuteronomistic history.176 He then came to the following conclusions: the tradition concerning Zadok dated back to the author
of the books of Chronicles, who had combined several series of names
present in other lists, adding a further group of names made up
from the members of the priestly families of David’s times. In particular, he had used the lists present in 1 Esdras (LXX Esdras A)
8,1–2; 2 Esdras (Vulg. 4 Ezra) 1,1–3; Ezra 7,1–15; LXX Esdras B
21,10 ff. (= MT Nehemiah 11,10 ff.)177 in order to link Aaron and
Johazadak, and presumably the whole list of the post-exilic priests
to the time of the Chronicler and of Zadok’s group which was probably instigated by the Chronicler.178 Anyway, according to Bartlett,
172
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 76.
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 76, note 16.
174
See chapter 5.8.
175
J.R. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, JTS 19 (1968), 1–18.
176
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 2–7.
177
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors’, 2. See also the comparative table of the
genealogical lists of the priests of Jerusalem.
178
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors’, 7 specifies the composition of this group
in the following way: Ahitub-Zadok-Ahimaaz-Azariah-Johanan. The importance of
173
108
chapter three
it remained clear from the work of the Chronicler that the descendants of Aaron were considered the most important priestly family
in Israel and that Zadok and his successors were incorporated into
this family.179
Even before Bartlett, Meek180 had gone over the same ground and,
regarding the history of the relations between Zadokites and
Aaronites,181 claimed that during the time of the exile, among the
various priestly classes, the Aaronites constituted the dominant priesthood in Jerusalem, taking advantage of their situation by purchasing the most important positions of the sanctuary for themselves.
Through the line of Phinehas, the priesthood was restricted to the
Aaronites (Nm 25,12). In the period of the return from Babylon,
the Zadokites increased in number, while, mainly after the schism
between Jews and Samaritans, the power of the Aaronites had diminished. The Chronicler devised the project of joining Zadokites and
Aaronites together, establishing a connection between Zadok and
Eleazar son of Aaron (Ezra 7,1 ff.; 1 Chr 5,27–34 ff.; 6,35) by means
of a fictitious genealogy and, through another genealogical invention, he turned Jehozadak into Jehoshua’s father. This Jehoshua was
the son of Seraiah who, according to 2 Kings 25,18 (See Jer 52,4)
had been the last of the head priests of the pre-exilic period (1 Chr
5,40). In this way the Zadokites would be included in the line of
succession of the high priesthood.182
Nevertheless, in more recent times, Rooke183 has claimed that the
inclusion of Zadok as a descendant of Aaron in the genealogy provided by 1 Chr 5,27–41 stands against the narrative traditions in
which he seems to come from unknown origins.184 The assertion of
Zadok’s biological descent from Aaron is the expression of the conZadok’s tradition in the books of Chronicles is underlined also by J. Liver, ‘The
“Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, RdQ 6 (1967), 22. About the
various theories on Zadok’s origins see also Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood,
88–93.
179
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors’, 16.
180
T.J. Meek, ‘Aaronites and Zadokites’, AJSLL 45 (1929), 149–166.
181
Concerning the complex issue regarding the origins of the Aaronites and their
relations with Levites and Zadokites see Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood,
146–173.
182
Meek, ‘Aaronites and Zadokites’, 165.
183
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 198–199.
184
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 196.
historical identity
109
viction of the Chronicler that Zadok was a legitimate member of
the priestly organisation. This conviction is manifest in Zadok’s portrait in Chronicles (especially in 1 Chr 29,22), and in the apparent
lack of conflicts of any kind between Aaronites and Zadokites in the
accounts of Chronicles.185 Rooke herself, however, points to the inconsistency and the uncertainty in what has to do with Zadok’s origins,
evident also in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 24,6). It is difficult to
take seriously the idea of Zadok as a genuine Aaronite, and “All in
all, Zadok is a surprisingly shadowy figure in Chr”.186
3.6.1
The “Zadokite” Descent of the High Priests
The origins of Zadok’s tradition are undoubtedly a difficult question
to answer, but just as complex is the question of why the Zadokites
acquired so much importance during the post-exilic period, to such
an extent that they became the family through which the highy
pristly line of descent was founded.
Once again the problem was posed by Bartlett who noticed that,
while before the exile the hereditary succession of the high priests
was clearly started, “the Deuteronomistic historian never makes an
explicit point of it as the Chronicles does”.187 In his opinion, there
were two motives that could have led to the interest in the establishment of a line of descent of the priestly family of Jerusalem: the
legislation of Josiah’s reform and the destruction of the temple along
with the death of the chief-priest caused by Nebuchadrezzar. Josiah’s
reform, claimed Bartlett, accentuated the distinction between two
priestly families, namely the Levites and the priests of Jerusalem. In
Ezekiel’s final vision, which in his opinion could date from the fifty
185
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 198–199.
186
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 206. The inconsistencies and incoherencies present in the narrations regarding Zadok had already been noticed before. See, among others, H.H. Rowley,
‘Zadok and Nehushtan’, JBL 58/2 (1939), 113, who reckoned that, out of two
genealogies correspondent to Zadok (2 Sam 8,17 and 1 Chr 24,3), one was certainly the product of a corruption of the text, and the other was a late creation;
Ch.E. Hauer, ‘Who was Zadok?’, JBL 82 (1963), 89–94, who hypothesized that
Zadok would be a Jebusean priest of Jerusalem, a deserter before the conquest of
Jerusalem by David; Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 89, who already
underlined how “The question of Zadok’s origins is a vexing one because of the
lack of reliable information thereon in the Bible”.
187
‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 9.
chapter three
110
years following Josiah’s reform, a distinction was made between ‘the
priests, the keepers of the charge of the house’ and ‘the priests, the
keepers of the charge of the altar’ (40,45–46).188 Of the latter it is
said they are “qwOdx; ynEb”] (40,46), those among the sons of Levi that
are allowed to approach the Lord to minister unto him (40,46).
Bartlett observed how the insistence on the Levitical descent in
Ezekiel’s text was notable. They were priests because they were
Levites, not because they were qwOdx; ynEb;] they were qwOdx; ynEb] because
it seemed natural to classify them under the name of the Davidic
priest in Jerusalem. Ezekiel probably invented the title, but there is
no proof that it was based on preserved genealogies.189
3.6.2
The qwdx ynb
In the post-exilic age, the same expression is found in a number of
texts discovered at Qumran, thus suggesting a possible Zadokite connection in the Qumran texts.190 In a study carried out in 1967,191
Liver wondered about the identity of these qwdx ynb and noticed that
in the context of the Rule of the Community (1QS 5,1–3; 7,10) they
seemed to constitute the founding core of the sect, the spiritual fathers
of its corpus juris and of its ideology.192 Also the Rule of the Congregation
(1QSa 1,1–5), in his opinion, portrayed a similar situation, with a
further specification of their function. They were the highest authority in the sect and, next to them, were the chiefs of the Congregation’s
family, apparently the community elders that had no particular duties.
The status of the Zadokite priests, according to Liver, had its concrete expression in the Benedictions (1QSb 3,22–25), in which their
duty concerned didactic rather than cultic functions: they acted as
supervisors of the obedience of the people to the commandments
188
Translation by Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 17.
Bartlett, ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 17–18.
190
The hypothesis of the Zadokite origin was suggested firstly with relation to
the Damascus document, by S. Schechter, ‘Fragmente of a Zadokite Work’, in
Documents of Jewish Sectaries, edited from Hebrew Mss in the Cairo Genizah Collection, I,
Cambridge 1910, re-printed. New York 1970, vii–xix, and mainly xiii, xxi. For a
general vision of the problem see P.R. Davies, ‘Zadok, Sons of ’, in L. Schiffman –
J.C. VanderKam eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, Oxford 2000, entry Zadok,
Sons of, 1005–1007. See by the same Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology
in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atlanta 1987, 51–72.
191
J. Liver, ‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, RdQ 6
(1967), 18–28.
192
‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, 5.
189
historical identity
111
and the Law of God.193 Therefore, in Liver’s opinion these texts
were a proof that qwdx ynb was not a generic name, but was meant
to indicate a precise connotation of a priestly hierarchy. Besides, the
meaning of the expression was only genealogical where Zadok was
referred to as the ancient “father” of these priests, that is, their pater
eponimos from the post-exilic period to the Hasmonean revolt.194 Liver
claimed that in the post-exilic period, “the house of Zadok” was
mainly the family of the high priest.195
In fact this identification is far from being certain; according to
Bartlett, for example, the expression itself “is a misleading and artificial
phrase”, inasmuch as we know nothing about a “house of Zadok”
of any significance from the time of Solomon onwards. The only
Zadokites that we know are the ones included by the author of
Chronicles or by one of his predecessors in a list of priests of Jerusalem,
whose descent was traced back to Zadok and, after all, there is no
proof that any particular priest of the post-exilic period considered
himself as a member of the Zadokite family.196 In more recent times,
Vermes197 has reconsidered the expression qwdx ynb in Qumran, noticing its absence from two manuscripts belonging to Qumran’s Cave
4, namely 4QSb (4Q256) and 4QSd (4Q258), while it is present in
the corresponding section of 1QS 5.198 In his opinion, this absence
can be explained either by the fact that the scribes of 4QSb and
4QSd had eleminated the reference, but this would contradict the
respectful attitude of these manuscripts towards priesthood; or, more
likely, it is explained by the fact that the original version of the text
did not mention the qwdx ynb, because only later did the group of
the Zadokite priests join the primitive community.199 In particular,
Vermes compares these data with the accounts of 1 and 2 Maccabees
and with Flavius Josephus, in which, contrary to the former, we find
references, albeit contradictory, to the foundation of Onias’ temple.200
193
‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in The Dead Sea Scrolls’, 6.
‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in The Dead Sea Scrolls’, 7.
195
About the expression “the house of Zadok”, see 2 Chr 31,10. See also Liver,
‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in The Dead Sea Scrolls’, 22.
196
‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 16–17.
197
See ‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok—Priests—
Congregation’, in H. Cancik – H. Lichtenberger – P. Schäfer eds., Geschichte—
Tradition—Reflexion, Fs. M. Hengel, I ( Judentum), Tübingen 1996, 379–384.
198
‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community’, 379–380.
199
‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community’, 380–381.
200
‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community’, 381–383. Concerning the traditions concerning the foundation of the temple of Leontopolis, see chapter 5.6.1.
194
112
chapter three
Vermes identifies a number of elements that led him to the conclusion that part of the Zadokites of Jerusalem, perhaps the majority,
did not follow Onias into Egypt and could have joined the original
core of the community, thus causing a Zadokite pre-eminence.201
It is also necessary to mention Davies’s claim. He hypothesizes
that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls could be derived from (or influenced
by) groups that were ideologically or socially linked to the Zadokite
priesthood. This might be due to the fact that the Zadokite priests
had been expelled by the Hasmoneans or because, as a consequence
of halakhic differences, they had willingly abandoned the temple and
its administration. Due to the various ideologies and communities
reflected in the Scrolls, he observes that it would be reckless to classify all the authors of the Scrolls under the Zadokite label, although
a connection with the usurped priesthood of Jerusalem cannot be
excluded. Finally, Davies admits: “It is unfortunate, then, that we
know so little of this line”.202
Another element worth of consideration regarding the preHasmonean high priesthood is an expression found in the book of
Ben Sira. In the middle of a hymn located at the end of the book,
exclusively in the Hebrew203 text, it says:
wdsj μlw[l yk ˆhkl qwdx ynbb rjwbl wdwh (51,12i)
Give thanks to him who has chosen the sons of Zadok as priests,
for his faithfulness is forever.
In the close proximity between this blessing and the blessing of the
house of David204 Liver found grounds for supposing that it was not
201
‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community’, 381–384. Among the elements
considered by Vermes: 1) Josephus makes a clear distinction between those who
belong to Aaron’s line of descent and those who are members of the high priest’s
family (Ant 12,387; 20,235; 1 Macc 7,13). The latter, in his opinion, are entitled
to “a quasi natural claim to leadership over the lower ranks of the priesthood”;
2) Onias IV’s secession is explained as the consequence of sacerdotal rivalries ( Jewish
War 7,431) and it was anyway a move of little importance made by a few Jews
(Ant 13,75); 3) Josephus offers an exegetical justification (or inspiration) for the construction of the temple of Leontopolis (Ant 13,64; Jewish War 7,432; Ant 13,68).
202
See ‘Zadok, Sons of ”, in L.H. Schiffman – J.C. VanderKam eds., Encyclopedia
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1007.
203
Concerning the text, the hypothesis has been formulated that it could be a
text originated in the Qumran sect. This hypothesis is rejected by Liver; see ‘The
“Sons of Zadok” the Priests’, 23.
204
Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, MSB 51,11.
historical identity
113
addressed to the priests in general, but to the high priests.205 Other
scholars shared this hypothesis. According to Tcherikover, for instance,
the expression “The Family of Onias” is just a modern name given
by scholars to the priestly dynasty from Onias onwards, or only to
the family of Onias III. The family’s official name was “the sons of
Zadok”.206 Actually, Tcherikover thought that during the exile, the
concept of “sons of Zadok” had been substituted for the wider concept of “sons of Aaron” (Ezra 44,15; cf. Nm 25,10 ff.). Therefore,
in his opinion, there are grounds for supposing that in the Hellenistic
age all priests were seen as “sons of Zadok”, and this had developed into an absolute identification between “sons of Aaron” and
“sons of Zadok”.207 Minissale regarded the above-mentioned absence
of the quoted passages of the book of Ben Sira in the Greek text
as a support for the thesis that saw a Zadokite origin in the high
priesthood. In his opinion, such absence would demonstrate the
authenticity of the passage, as the praise of the Zadokite priesthood
is coherent with Ben Sira’s pro-Zadokite approach that was not
shared by the grandson, who had removed it because he did not
want to support the Hasmonean priesthood of his time.208 However,
as Le Moyne209 remarks, it is impossible to give a final answer to
the question whether the qwdx ynb are priests or high priests. Furthermore, he notices that the text of the book of Ben Sira could refer
instead to the priesthood.210 Nevertheless, the book of Ben Sira, especially because it contains the praise of Simon the high priest, has
been connected to a Zadokite ideology and, according to Hayward,
it would be possible to reconstruct some aspects of this ideology on
the basis of the portrait that Ben Sira makes of the high priest Simon.
In his opinion, this portrait “conveys a distinct theological message
about the Zadokite high priest as he offers sacrifice.”211 However,
205
‘The “Sons of Zadoq” the Priest’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls, 22.
Hellenistic Civilization, 454, note 8.
207
Hellenistic Civilization, 493, note 37.
208
Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide, 224, note 115.
209
Les Sadducéens, 73.
210
Les Sadducéens, 73, note 8, where he interprets: “«pour le sacerdoce», lkhn”. Le
Moyne adds that, if it is a liturgical text, “prêtre peut très bien désigner ici le grand
prêtre”.
211
R. Hayward, ‘Behind the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Sons of Zadoq, the Priests
and Their Priestly Ideology’, Toronto Journal of Theology 13/1 (1997), 10. These features are listed in the following way: I/ The Zadokite High Priest as a Modern
Adam, 11–12; II/ The Zadokite High Priest as Builder, 12–13; III/ Simon the
206
114
chapter three
this claim seems to be too overreaching and not based on the text.
Others have different opinions: for example, according to Mulder,
“In Sirach there is likewise no trace of a Chronistic idealisation of
the first High Priest Zadok”.212
Therefore, the text of the book of Sirach does not provide enough
grounds for stating the presence of a Zadokite descent linked to
Simon the high priest. Nevertheless, Zadokite descent still continues
to be assumed by scholars: according to Sacchi, for instance, Menelaus’
assumption of the office of high priest would indicate, along with
the end of Zadokitism, the end of certain values upon which Zadok’s
priesthood was based. When Menelaus becomes high priest, he wants
to be a priest of YHWH, even believing that, according to the principle established by Ezra, the law could be changed even if guaranteed by a power external to Israel.213 In recent years, Boccaccini,
taking into consideration the list of fourteen names of high priests
from the building of the Second Temple until the eve of the Maccabean
revolt, has stated that, although the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the list has been an object of debate, and although the continuity of the bloodline was sometimes interrupted, “yet there are
no doubts about the historicity of Zadokite supremacy”.214 In fact,
the uncertainty expressed by Davies about the Zadokite origins of
Qumran concerns the Zadokite origins of the high priesthood in the
pre-Hasmonean age as well, insofar as the continuity of the Zadokite
line in the Oniads is not based on sufficient historical evidence. Apart
from the evidence of the book of Ben Sira, already discussed, no
explicit reference to a Zadokite lineage of the high priests of the
pre-Hasmonean age is to be found in the sources studied. Therefore,
we cannot talk conclusively about historical evidence for a biological descent from Zadok of the high priests of the pre-Hasmonean
age; as Bartlett suggests, all we can say based on the available sources
Zadokite as Focal Point of Covenant, 14–15; IV/ Simon the Zadokite as Embodiment
of Wisdom, 15–16; V/ Simon the Zadokite as Embodying Israel, 16; VI/ The Feast
of Sukkoth, 16–18.
212
See Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon
the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of
Israel, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 78, Leiden-Boston 2003,
218.
213
The History of the Second Temple Period, JSOT.S, Sheffield 2000, 226. See also
223–227.
214
Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History, from Ezechiel to Daniel, Michigan/
Cambridge 2002, 43.
historical identity
115
is that “the Jerusalem priests began to be thought of as ‘the sons of
Zadok’ or the ‘house’ (i Sam. ii,35) of Zadok not before the exile”.215
3.7
Part One: Conclusion
Reaching the end of this part, we have gathered a series of data
that make it possible to come to some partial conclusions that allow
the formulation of a hypothesis for further investigation:
1) The office of high priest is referred to in several ways; among the
words used there are: flereÊw m°gaw and érxiereÊw. Furthermore,
the same word érxiereÊw was used to indicate the duties of a
Seleucid official.216
2) There are notable uncertainties concerning the historical identity
of some of the Jewish high priests217 and it is difficult to trace
their line of succession.
3) The system of succession abides by the practice of papponymy.
The discovery in 1962 of the fourth-century legal papyri executed
in Samaria and concerning the succession of the governors in
Samaria has provided a precious source of information about such
practice. “The naming of a child after his grandfather”218 that
determines the genealogy of the governors in Samaria would also
apply to the genealogies of the Judean Restoration from the sixth
to the tenth generation after the return. Thanks to this practice,
Cross reconstructed the line of high priests in the days of Darius
III and Alexander: Johanan father of Jaddua, Jaddua father of
Onias I, who would be no other than Johanan IV.219 Actually,
in Josephus’ list, the list of names: Onias-Simon-Onias-SimonOnias220 could be an indication of either the rule of the father-son
215
‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, 18.
Concerning the problem of the development of the semantics related to the
high priest, see chapter 2.1.
217
Also worthy of mention is the hypothesis formulated by R.B. Motzo, ‘Una
fonte antisamaritana di Giuseppe’, Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica,
F. Parente ed., Rome 1977, Parte VI, Ricerche Flaviane, 656, note 1, who opens
a debate on the existence of Eleazar, the high priest of the Letter of Aristeas. See
again the doubts about the pre-Hasmonean high priests expressed in Bickerman,
The Jews in the Greek Age, 144–145.
218
F.M. Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 5.
219
‘A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration’, 5–6 and note 12.
220
Ant 11,347; 12,43; 12,157; 12,224; 12,225.
216
116
chapter three
succession or the rule of the grandson named after the grandfather. However, the addition of Eleazar and Manasseh among
the names introduces new elements that would mean a succession through indirect kinship. Stern observes that it was known
that other members of the house, apart from the eldest son of
the previous high priest, laid claim to the high priesthood, but
he points to the fact that after the death of Simon I, the office
was inherited by his brother Eleazar, and Eleazar in his turn was
succeeded by his uncle Manasseh.221
It is difficult to answer the questions raised by such successions,222 for they might concern internal issues regarding the families of the high priests, as recorded by Josephus with relation to
the Persian period, or perhaps a development within the high
priesthood that cannot be established with precision, due to the
lack of further data. The claim of biological descent from Zadok
of the high priests of the pre-Hasmonean age lacks historical support. The assumption of the Zadokite origins of the high priests
has to be looked for within an ideology that was developed during the post-exilic period.
4) The presence-absence of the pre-Hasmonean high priests in the various sources is then closely related to the ideology of the authors.
Therefore it constitutes in itself an important datum that must
be taken into consideration throughout the research process and
demands a thorough examination of the available sources from
several interconnected points of view. It is also necessary to be
aware of the simultaneous presence of historical, ideological and
theological data in the sources studied.
221
GLAJJ, I, 31, note 5. Marcus, Josephus, VII, 733 says that most surprisingly,
in Josephus’ list, the young son of Simon I would have been preceded, not only
by his uncle Eleazar but also by Manasseh, his uncle’s uncle. See also J.C. VanderKam,
An Introduction to Early Judaism, Michigan/Cambridge 2001, 177.
222
See the question asked by Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 114: “Ob Eleazar und
Manasse mehr Fleisch and Blut gehabt haben als Simon (II) und Onias (II), wer
will das entscheiden?”.
Alcimus
(7,5.9.21)
1
Maccabees
Alcimus
(14,3)
Menelaus
(4,23)
Onias (3,1)
Jason (4,7)
2
Maccabees
Simon the
Righteous (12,43)
Eleazar (12,44)
Manasseh (12,157)
Simon (12,224)
Onias (12,225)
Jesus/Jason,
(12,234)
Onias/Menelaus,
(12,238)
Onias, son of the
high priest (12,387)
Alcimus (12,285,
12,413)
Judas
(12,414.419.434:
three years)
Intersacerdotium
(4 years).
Onias (11,247)
Jewish Antiquities
(11,347–12,434)
Intersacerdotium
(20,237: 7 years)
Iakimus (Alcimus)
(20,235)
Onias/Menelaus
Jewish Antiquities
(20,234–251)
Onias son
of Simon
(7,423)?
Onias, one
of the high
priests (1,31)?
Jewish War
Ezechias?
(1,187)
Against
Apion
Table of the High Priests of the pre-Hasmonean Age
Eleazar
(1 ss.)
Aristeas
Simon
(50,1)?
Ben Sira
historical identity
117
Alcimus (162–159)
Menelaus (172–162)
Jason (175–172)
Onias II (until
175 bce)
Simon the Righteous
(after 200 bce)
Onias
Simon the Righteous
(200 bce)
Onias
Jeremias
Willrich
Onias II (225 bce)
Simon II (217 bce)
Onias III
Jason
Onias I
Onias I (300 bce)
Simon I
Onias II
Simon the Righteous
Onias III
Jason
Onias IV
Menelaus
Eleazar
Saûlnier-Perrot
Bickerman
Table of the High Priests of the pre-Hasmonean Age
Reconstruction Hypotheses
Menelaus (172–162)
Interlude: Onias IV?
Alcimus (162 to
160–159 bce)
Onias I [309–265]?
Simon I
Eleazar [283–246]?
Manasseh
Onias II [246–221]?
Simon II [221–204]
Onias III (?–175 bce)
Jason (175–172)
VanderKam
118
chapter three
PART TWO
RECONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER FOUR
THE RULE OF THE PTOLEMIES AND THE
JEWISH HIGH PRIEST
The central part of this research (chapters IV–V) proposes a reconstruction of the high priests’ history under the rule of the Ptolemies
and the Seleucids. In this chapter the general data regarding the
Ptolemaic administration of the region called Coele-Syria Phoenicia
will be compared with more circumscribed information regarding
the high priests of Judea. The purpose of this comparison of data
is: a) to find out whether there was a governor similar to the Persian
pe˙ah in the above-mentioned territories; b) to learn about the juridical status of the Jews during the period, about their political position and the possible factions and political divisions within the people;
c) to investigate what were, under this foreign rule, the tasks, the
role and the political autonomy assigned to the high priest. During
the Ptolemaic period, the presence of the high priest appears in the
different sources linked to the names of Eleazar and Onias II.
Nevertheless, before these records, the testimony of Hecataeus of
Abdera is also important for the high priesthood, as it is generally
dated to about 300 bce.
4.1
The Ptolemies and the Administration of Syria-Phoenicia
We have fairly precise information about the way in which the
Ptolemies ruled over Egypt.1 In accordance with a typically oriental
concept, the entire territory was the king’s personal possession, and
his chief assistant was the dioikhtÆw, who had the responsibility of
the finances, the economy and the administration of the whole country. As Egypt was divided into nÒmoi or provinces, and these in their
turn were divided into toparx¤ai, there were other officials in each
1
M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, Oxford
1941, 255–415; see also C. Préaux, L’economie royale des Lagides, Paris 1939;
C. Bouché – A. Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, I (323–181 ac), Paris 1903.
122
chapter four
district: a strathgÒw, in charge of the military matters, and an
ofikonÒmow for the administration of the finances and the trade.2
The issue that is most directly related to this study is whether the
Ptolemies maintained the same bureaucratic apparatus in places other
than Egypt, or if they conceded to the allied countries subject to
them a certain autonomy, both legal and economic in nature, and
also in the exercise of power. This research concerns the territories
that included Palestine and Jerusalem, which under the Ptolemies
were part of the so-called province of “Syria and Phoenicia”.3 However,
this nomenclature poses problems, both concerning the fluctuation
of the terminology4 and the borders of the territory, which were the
particular object of six wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids
between 300 and c. 170–168 bce.5 Hengel underlines the strategical and economical importance of this province, as it represented a
defensive bastion for Egypt, apart from being a permanent supplier
of timber—much needed to ensure the naval strength of the
Ptolemies—and a reservoir from which to draw mercenary troops
for the army.6 Smith remarks how the territory of the Jewish peo-
2
M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the
Early Hellenistic Period, Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1974, I, 19; C. Bouché – A.
Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, I, 154. Regarding the cronology of the Ptolemies, see
E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der ersten Ptolomäer auf Grund der Papyri, LeipzigBerlin 1925. T.C. Skeat, ‘The Reigns of the Ptolemies’, Mizraim 6 (1937), 12 ff.;
W. Huß, Der makedonische König und die ägyptischen Priester. Studien zur Geschichte des ptolemaiischen Ägypten, Stuttgart 1994.
3
This was the official designation of the province by the Ptolemaic chancellery;
see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I,7; II, 3 note 4. The name is found the Rainer
papyrus, first published by H. Liebesny, ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II.
Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh and Sklaven in Syrien und Phönikien
(PER Inv. Nr. 24.552 gr.)’, Aegyptus 16 (1936), 258, left column, 33–34 e‡ tinew t«n
katå Sur¤an ka‹ Foi[n¤khn]; see also right column, 14.19. The text was re-printed
by J. Bingen ed., Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, I, Göttingen 1952,
156–158 (SB 8008). Another testimony is to be found in Pol 5, 87,6, see F.W.
Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I, Oxford 1957, 616 note 87,6.
4
See A. Passoni Dell’Acqua, ‘Le testimonianze papiracee relative alla “Siria e
Fenicia” in età tolemaica (I Papiri di Zenone e le Ordinanze Reali’, RivBib 35
(1986), 233–34 and note 4. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 7, observes how the
sources frequently mention only Syria; “where that is the case, both Palestine and
Phoenicia are also meant.” Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 428, note 55, points
to three mentions of this official name: SB 8008 (lines 33 and 51 fragment b + c);
Ar 22.
5
R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, Leiden 1976,
11–13. Concerning the history of the conquest of Ptolemy I Soter, see F.M. Abel,
‘La Syrie et la Palestine au temps de Ptolémée I Soter’, RB 44 (1935), 559–581.
6
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 6.
ptolemies and high priest
123
ple was occupied over and over again. It has been calculated that,
in the Ptolemaic period alone, foreign troops occupied Jerusalem on
ten or twelve occasions, and for considerably long periods of time
it was guarded by Greek garrisons.7
As observed by Bagnall, we are much better informed about the
administration of Syria-Phoenicia,8 mainly because of the Rainer
papyrus (c. 261 bce)9 and the papyri belonging to the Zenon archive.10
The Rainer papyrus in fact contains fragments of two prostãgmata,
royal ordinances issued by Ptolemy Philadelphus.11 The first decree
(II 1–37) provides the skeleton of the provincial administration: the
Íparx¤a was the basic unit of the government, each one with a
ofikonÒmow in charge of the financial bureaucracy.12 On a lower level
there were the kvmãrxoi, who constituted the first administrative unit
in the village. The tax collectors, that is the tel«nai, did not themselves collect the taxes, but served to ensure that the amount collected was exact. The task of collecting the taxes belonged to the
king’s officials. These tel«nai are mentioned twice in the Zenon
papyri, always in relation to the sale of slaves. In a letter that dates
from 258, the tel≈nhw is the person who fixes the taxes on the purchase of a slave.13 In another letter dating from the following year,
257, the duties of the tel«nai seem to concern licenses and taxes
7
Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, New York and London
1971, 63–64; 230 note 47.
8
The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions, 18.
9
It is the same papyrus already mentioned (see note 3), in reference to the
denomination “Coele-Syria”, see Liebesny, ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II
Philadelphos’, Aegyptus 16 (1936), left column, 1–37; right column, 1–26.
10
The total number of the papyri concerning Palestine is very small, considering the huge number of papyri in the Zenon archive: notes, accounts and memoranda related to the trip across Palestine made by Zenon on request of Apollonius,
Egypt’s dioikhtÆw, between December 260 and April 258. About the collection of
Zenon’s papyri, see C. Edgar, Zenon papyri, 5 vol., Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire 79, Cairo 1925–1940.
11
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 60; Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History
of the Hellenistic World, I, 340.
12
D.W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, Oxford 2000, 252, note 27, hypothesizes, on the grounds of the presence of
such titles in Polybius (5,70,10) that the Ípãrxoi could have been the governors of
this region, but Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions, 14 and note 20,
had already pointed out that the ordinary meaning of the term in the Greek and
Hellenistic ages is that of “a subordinate commander in a general sense”. In his
opinion, Polybius’ testimony cannot solve the problem of the existence of a governor, although “It is not unlikely that a military governor existed.”
13
Pap. Cair. Zen. 5, 59804, 3 (toÁw tel≈naw).
124
chapter four
on the acquired goods.14 There were also village tax collectors called
kvmomisyvta¤.15 In a letter found among Zenon’s correspondence,16
a tax farmer in Beth-Anath, in Palestine, has to control the payment
of the taxes in kind (cereals or wine) owed by the peasants. According
to Hengel, this situation seems to be in accordance with the information from Flavius Josephus in Jewish Antiquities, where he describes
the auction to obtain a contract for the provincial tax collection in
Syria and Phoenicia. The candidates would gather in Alexandria,
under the direct control of the Ptolemies. Every year, Josephus tells
us, the king would sell the contracts that granted the tax collection
rights to the wealthiest people in every city.17 Hengel reckons that,
most probably, the Ptolemies would appoint officials to work alongside the successful tax collectors, as they did in Egypt, “so that each
supervised the other”.18 This fact seems to confirm Tcherikover’s
opinion, according to which: “Ptolemaic statesmanship in Palestine
was essentially equivocal”.19
Through the papyri we are thus able to outline the general features of the military and civil administration of the Syro-Phoenician
territory. It was however an extremely heterogeneous territory; precisely because of such heterogeneity20 and the aspiration for autonomy among the people, it was hypothesized that the Ptolemies had
chosen “the path of concession”,21 as they were aware of the situa-
14
Pap. Cair. Zen.1, 59093,12 (to›w tel≈naiw). See also Bagnall, The Administration
of Ptolemaic Possessions, 20.
15
Tscherikover, ‘Palestine under the Ptolomies’, 467; Rostovtzeff, The Social and
Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, 344.
16
See Papiri greci e latini, Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci
e latini in Egitto, Firenze 1920, V, 554, col. II,13. See also Rostovtzeff, The Social
and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, 344; III, 1401 note 139; Passoni
Dell’Acqua, ‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 262.
17
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 22. See also ibid., II, 16 note 136 where he
remarks that the information recorded by Josephus about the partition of the taxes
between Ptolemy V and Antiochus II is not a historical fact, because it is located
in Ptolemy III Euergetes’ period. Nevertheless, the issue of the contracts for tax
collecting seems to be confirmed by Zenon’s correspondence, especially Pap. Cair.
Zen. 1, 59036,7, see Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World,
I, 338. For a deeper study of the Ptolemaic taxation system, see Préaux, L’Economie
royale des Lagides, 61ff.
18
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 22.
19
Hellenistic Civilization, 72
20
See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 20 who considers the heterogeneity of the
territory both from the ethnical and geographical points of view.
21
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 72.
ptolemies and high priest
125
tion. Furthermore they had set up an administration that was less
rigid than its Egyptian counterpart and than the ones in other countries subjected to their dominion. For example, they would have left
local chiefs in their places, and allowed some of them to fulfill a
political function in the territory.22 But, always on hypothetical grounds,
it was added that, in any case, “the Ptolemies did not follow this
road to its conclusion”23 because they could not afford to grant such
extensive rights to a country that was as close to Egypt as Palestine.
This issue has been long discussed mainly regarding the question
of the uniformity or diversity of the methods used by the Ptolemies
for ruling the subject regions. Bagnall, criticizing Bengtson’s opinion
that described the methods of the Ptolemaic rulers as uniform, analyses the documents that had reached us from different areas and
demonstrates that the administrative method “might be greatly divergent”.24 Instead, Hengel shares Bengtson’s position, claiming that the
Ptolemies, due to the geographical characteristics and the economical structure of Egypt, had been forced to adopt “a centrally directed,
tightly organized system of administration”.25
Finally, the question about the possible existence of a governor or
a chief-administrator of the province of Syria-Phoenicia has its major
hindrance, according to some scholars, in the absence of any reference to such a position in the Zenon papyri.26 Passoni Dell’Acqua
observes that, although it constitutes an argumentum e silentio, this could
be a proof of the absence of such an official and of the fact that
Palestine then depended directly on the dioikhtÆw.27 The importance
of the territory could validate this hypothesis.28
22
See also Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 74: “Security and revenues were
practically the only matters with which the king or his governor concerned himself ”.
23
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 72.
24
The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions, 251.
25
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 18.
26
Tcherikover, ‘Palestine under the Ptolemies’, 38: “One question is, to be sure,
passed over in silence in the Zenon papyri: the question of the chief administration of Ptolemaic Syria. Was there one high official competent for the administration of the entire country?”
27
‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 276.
28
Passoni Dell’Acqua, ‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 246 remarks that the preeminence of some territories, among which was the Syro-Phoenician zone, caused
the tightening of the link with the central government: the Ptolemaic currency was
used in such territories; they were directly taxed and directly administered by
Ptolemaic civil servants protected by a net of garrisons. Rostovtzeff, The Social and
Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, 347, points out, in particular, the building
chapter four
126
In any case, the value of the papyri for the historical study of
Palestine is enormous,29 mainly because they belong to a period lacking in other historical sources.30 The Zenon archive provides us with
the proof of the existence of at least one military katoik¤a. A papyrus
that dates from 259 bce mentions a settlement of a cleruchy at B¤rta
in the Ammanitis, of which a man called Toub¤aw31 was the leader.
This name, as Passoni Dell’Acqua states, is mentioned in 7 documents for a total of 15 times,32 and is generally identified as one
belonging to the house of the Tobiads, already known in Nehemiah’s
times.33 In Jewish Antiquities, Flavius Josephus mentions a certain
Joseph, who was highly regarded by the inhabitants of Jerusalem:
his father was Tobias and his mother was the sister of the high priest
Onias.34 This datum deserves further study, especially with relation
to the Judean territory and the presence of the Jewish high priest.
4.2
The situation of Judea under the Ptolemies
The information regarding the situation in Judea and its relations
with the Ptolemaic rule is scarce and controversial.
The first problem arises from the name Ioudaia. We do not find
any such toponym in the Zenon archive, but only the ethnical
ÉIouda›ow.35 However, the name is to be found in other documents.
In a fragment of Hecataeus of Abdera36 reported by Diodorus Siculus,
the settlement of a numerous group led by Moses after the flight
of a Ptolemaic fortress between Judea and Idumea, in the citadel of Beth Zur. See
O.R. Sellers – R.W. Funk – J.L. McKenzie – P. and N. Lapp, ‘The 1957 Excavation
at Beth-Zur’, ASOR 37 (1968), 8– 17.
29
The tax collection system plays an important role in the story of Joseph the
Tobiad (Ant 12,154) and involves also the history of the high priest Onias II, see
chapter 4.3.3.
30
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 60. In Zenon’s archives we find Greek names
that seem to refer to military (ékrofÊlaj, fulakãrxai) and civil offices (dikastÆw,
grammateÊw, érxuphr°thw) and that would be the confirmation of the presence of
military garrisons. See Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions, 16–17
and notes 27–28; Passoni Dell’Acqua, ‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 277–278.
31
Pap. Cair. Zen. 5, 59802, 2.
32
‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 255, note 138.
33
‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 257, note 151.
34
Ant 12,160: Tvb¤ou m¢n patrÒw, §k d¢ thw ÉOn¤ou toË érxier°vw édelf∞w gegon≈w.
For a deeper study of the history of the high priest Onias II, see chapter 4.5.
35
‘Le testimonianze papiracee’, 252, 256.
36
See discussion on this source in chapter 1.5.1.
ptolemies and high priest
127
from Egypt “efiw tØn nËn kaloum°nhn ÉIouda¤an” (XL,3,2), which is not
far from Egypt, is mentioned.37
In Against Apion 1,179, Josephus quotes the testimony of Clearchus
of Soli, disciple of Aristotle and also active about 300 bce. In one
of his works, De somno, he refers to a meeting between Aristotle and
a man of Jewish descent, native of Coele-Syria. Clearchus points out,
at that moment, that the Jewish lineage comes from Indian philosophers and as in India the philosophers are called Calani, hence the
name of the Jews in Syria, that are called after the place they live in.38
Hengel notes how Hecataeus, at the end of the fourth century,
already knew the name Ioudaia;39 however, even if this is true, neither from the testimony of Hecataeus nor from Clearchus of Soli’s
is it possible to come to any conclusion other than the name was
known. According to Prato, we certainly cannot obtain clues of a
precise administrative identity for the region, mainly because of the
particular historiographical perspective of the testimonies.40
The evidence provided by a series of tiny silver coins of the YHD
type seems to be of a higher relevance. These coins are named, in
palaeo-Hebrew characters, “YHD”,41 which is the Aramaic name of
the province. Others that date from later times feature the inscription YHDH, the Hebrew name of the province.42 There has been
a long discussion over the dating of the coins. In particular, the
change of the name has been considered by Rappaport, among other
scholars, as linked to the end of the Persian dominion and related
to the Ptolemaic dominion.43 Furthermore, Rappaport himself excluded
the direct responsibility of the Greek administration in the coinage
37
Stern, GLAJJ, I, 26, note 11,2.
38
prosagoreÊetai går ˜n katoikoËsi tÒpon ÉIouda¤a.
39
Judaism and Hellenism, II, 15 note 123.
See G. Prato, ‘Ebrei ed ebraismo nell’ottica storiografica greca: l’esempio delle
istituzioni’, in Biblia ed., Due grandi sapienze: Bibbia ed Ellenismo. Atti del Seminario
Invernale 25–28 Gennaio 2001, Settimello 2002, 47–70. Regarding Hecataeus, a deeper
study will be carried out in 4.3.
41
The coins were first given this name by E.L. Sukenik, ‘The Oldest Coins of
Judaea’, JPOS 14 (1934), 180.
42
Such as Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in
Ancient Israel, 225.
43
This is, for example, the opinion of U. Rappaport, ‘The First Judean Coinage’,
JJS 32 (1981), 8, who dates the YHDH coins to the brief period in which Ptolemy I
ruled over Palestine (301–282 bce) on grounds of the presence of Ptolemy’s portrait on one side and the coined eagle on the other.
40
128
chapter four
of the currency, claiming instead that this was probably given to the
high priest.44
Meshorer, in a study from 1982 in which he proposed a classification
of the YHD coins according to their typology and chronology,45 had
already claimed that the most frequent type, YHDH, was a development of the Ptolemaic age, but belonging to a later stage, as it
would be a reflection of the period corresponding to the rule of
Ptolemy II.46 Meshorer has covered the same ground in a more
recent study, underlining that many more coins had been discovered in new excavations carried out after the Six Days War in 1967,47
and that the interesting group of Jewish coins minted under Ptolemaic
rule is extraordinary, inasmuch as, contrary to the Persian period in
which numerous cities or city-states would issue their own independent currency, the practice “was not customary”48 during the Ptolemaic
period, when the rulers favoured a centralized type of government.
Meshorer reckons that the coins ought to be referred to the kingdom of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 bce), son of Ptolemy I.
The positive relations that existed between Ptolemy I and the Greek
population support this hypothesis, according to Flavius Josephus’
testimony (Ant 12,6–7; 11,108) and the Letter of Aristeas.49 These
documents would be the background to another gesture that the
sources do not mention: “the granting of minting privileges”.50
Confirmation that the coins were minted in this period is also found
the presence on the coins of a queen’s head; this feature is also
found in the coins belonging to the kingdom of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus.51
This hypothesis is certainly suggestive, as it would demonstrate the
concession of some autonomy, albeit partial, to Judea; or, at the very
least, it demonstrates the granting of some particular privileges.
However, the argument is not without weakness, as it does not find
44
Rappaport, ‘The First Judean Coinage’, 11.
Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, I: Persian Period through Hasmoneans, New
York 1982, 13–34.
46
Ancient Jewish Coinage, 18.
47
A Treasury of Jewish Coins. From the Persian Period to bar Kokhva, Jerusalem-Nyack
2001, 1.
48
A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 19.
49
About the Letter of Aristeas, see also chapter 1.5.2.
50
Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 20.
51
A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 20.
45
ptolemies and high priest
129
any support in other sources.52 The testimony of the Letter of Aristeas
also represents a special type of source, and drawing historical information from it as proposed by Meshorer seems to be a reckless act,
to say the least.53
On the other hand, regarding the situation of Judea under Ptolemaic
dominion, the historiographical sources present scarce information,
sometimes even contradictory. Tcherikover54 considers the existence
of two different historiographical traditions: one that describes Ptolemy
Soter as an enemy of the Jews, and another that depicts him as
their friend. The first one is to be found in Jewish Antiquities, where
it is said that Syria fell into the hands of Ptolemy son of Lagus,
called Soter, that is Saviour,55 and “suffered the reverse of that which
was indicate by his surname” (Ant 12,3). The reference made here
is to the occupation of Jerusalem: Ptolemy entered the city on the
Sabbath as if to sacrifice, while the Jews were not expecting any
hostile act, and “he became master of the city without difficulties
and ruled it harshly” (Ant 12,4).
Flavius Josephus attributes such a narrative to Agatharchides of
Cnidus (Ant 12,5), a historian of the second century bce, who made
a negative comment about the Jews, ¶ynow ÉIouda¤vn legÒmenon, namely,
that they were forced to submit to a hard master because of their
untimely superstition (Ant 12,6).56 A second narrative is included
among the testimonies regarding the flight of numerous Jews to
Egypt, by Hecataeus of Abdera, as recorded in Against Apion 1,186.57
52
See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 123, who, regarding Rappaport’s
hypothesis, observes: “The data are too meagre to confirm his inference, but at
least the extant evidence makes it an attractive possibility.” However he claims that
such a power could be exercised by the high priest only in the very earliest postPersian decades.
53
For a discussion of the historical value of the Letter, see chapter 1.5.2.
54
Hellenistic Civilization, 55–56.
55
See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 3 note d, where there is a recollection of the testimony of Pausanias, according to whom the inhabitants of Rhodes had given
Ptolemy this name.
56
This tradition is also present in Against Apion 1,209–212. Simonetti, Flavio
Giuseppe. Storia dei Giudei, 566, note 3, concerning the reference to Agatharchides,
claims that it is preferable to think that Josephus had drawn this quotation of Strabo
from Nicolaus of Damascus. Furthermore, regarding the prohibition to fight on the
Sabbath, he points out that the memory of this event had henceforth become topical (Ant 12,274; 13,12; 18, 319.354).
57
In 1,187 Josephus also says that among these Jews there was also Ezechias,
érxiereÊw of the Jews. About this issue see chapter 3.4.
130
chapter four
After the battle of Gaza, Ptolemy became master of Syria; many
inhabitants of the region, once they knew about his kindness and
humanity, wanted to follow him into Egypt. This information, however, contradicts the one recorded in the Letter of Aristeas, where
it is said that Ptolemy, coming back from his Syrian campaign, had
brought 100,000 Jewish prisoners to Egypt: out of these prisoners,
the best 30,000 were enrolled in the army and the others were sold
as slaves.58 Flavius Josephus likewise remembers this event, yet in a
different way: after the conquest, Ptolemy would have taken a large
number of prisoners both from the hill country of Judea and the
district around Jerusalem and its neighbouring places, and would
have brought them to Egypt and settled them there.59 By virtue of
their well-known faithfulness to the observation of oaths and covenants,
he also gave some privileges to those coming from Jerusalem, such
as the same civil rights granted to the Jews of Alexandria (Ant 12,8).60
The various traditions61 have always found an explanation in the
complexity of the Palestinian political situation. This region was conquered by Ptolemy four times62 and it is difficult to reconstruct the
events because of the scarcity of the historical information and because
“other reconstructions are equally possible.”63 From those texts we
have drawn the certainty that Jerusalem was a conquered city, but:
“We do not know, for instance, whether royal troops occupied the
citadel of Jerusalem in peace-time or whether the Jews furnished
recruits for the Ptolemaic army; we do not even know whether there
was a royal governor in Ptolemaic Jerusalem”.64 Also the information about the relations between the Ptolemaic administration and
the Jewish community are uncertain. Polybius tells us that on the
occasion of the Fourth Syrian War, in the aftermath of the victory
of Raphia, several cities competed in their demonstrations of loyalty
towards the Ptolemaic king (5, 86,8).
58
Ar 17–27. The liberation of these slaves took place under Ptolemy II Philadelphus,
with relation to the so-called translation of the LXX.
59
kat–kisen ëpantaw (Ant 12,7).
60
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 5, note d, notices how this information is in part taken
from the Letter of Aristeas; however, this statement regarding civil rights is not present in Aristeas.
61
Concerning the contrasting tradition of the volunteers and the freed war prisoners see E. Will – C. Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, Nancy 1986, 69–70.
62
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 56 (320, 312, 302 e 301).
63
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 58.
64
Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 74.
ptolemies and high priest
131
It is difficult to establish whether there were philo-Ptolemaic and
philo-Seleucid parties in Jerusalem. The whole tale of the Tobiad
family seems to prove that they existed but we do not have definitive
evidence. Polybius adds that maybe men do adapt themselves to the
necessities of the moment everywhere, but particularly “the natives
of these parts are naturally more prone than others to bestow their
affections at the bidding of circumstances” (5, 86,9).65 The attitude
of the Jews does not seem to be different during the Fifth Syrian
War. Polybius provides us with further information, in which he says
that the people of Gaza were unique in their loyalty to the Ptolemaic
king. From this we can deduce that the rest of the inhabitants of
Syria-Phoenicia offered little or no resistance to the advance of the
Seleucid army.66 Nevertheless, in this war for the final conquest of
Jerusalem, Antiochus III was helped by the Jews to seize the city’s
Ptolemaic fortress. This king then expressed his gratitude towards
the Jews by issuing a decree that granted them permission to live
katå patr¤ouw nÒmouw, in accordance with laws of their country (Ant
12,138–144).67
According to Bouché-Leclercq,68 the Syro-Phoenicians had always
preferred the Lagid’s dominion over the Seleucid rule. It was again
Polybius who asserted this, when writing about a War in Syria in
227 bce, commenting “for the peoples (ˆxloi) of Coele-Syria have
always been more attached to that house than to the Seleucidae”
(5, 86,10).69 Scholars have focused their attention on the identity of
such ˆxloi: some have seen in them a reference to a distinction
between the masses and the aristocracy,70 and it has been argued
that the aristocrats would have been pro-Syrian or pro-Ptolemaic.71
65
R.W. Paton, ed., Polybius, The Histories, III, LCL 138, Cambridge-London
1972.,213. See Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 18 and 19, note 55.
66
The Histories, 16, 22. See Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 19.
67
katå patr¤ouw nÒmouw: translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities,
73. Concerning this issue see chapter 5.3.
68
Histoire des Lagides, 154–156.
69
tª går ofik¤& taÊt˙ mçllon ée¤ pvw ofl katå Ko¤lhn Sur¤an ˆxloi proskl¤nousi.
Translation by Paton, Polybius, The Histories, III 213. See Bouché – Leclercq, Histoire
des Séleucides, 154, note 2.
70
F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I, Oxford 1957, 615–616.
71
Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford 1941,
I, 350, supposes that the country folk opposed Egypt, and the privileged inhabitants of the city, that would be Polybius’ ˆxloi, would have been pro-Ptolemaic.
But see also ibid., III, 1403 note 147.
132
chapter four
An important matter is that of the alleged involvement of the high
priest in the quarrels between the different political factions.72 The
book of Daniel gives us an important reference with the expression
ÚM][' yxeyriP; ygEb]W (11,14).
4.2.1 ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W
The eleventh chapter of the book of Daniel contains a long prophecy
regarding the succession of kings, from the Persian sovereigns to
Antiochus Epiphanes.73 In the fourteenth verse we can find the expression that has long been the subject of investigation and has given
rise to various hypotheses.
According to Schlatter, the B ene parißim74 would be the Tobiads
involved in the anti-Seleucid resistance.75 For Meyer they would be
the pro-Seleucid or the Hellenizer party that led the revolt put down
by Scopas.76 Finally, for Täubler they would be a Messianic movement that, having developed in the period between Antiochus III’s
withdrawal from Gaza and the re-conquest of Jerusalem by Scopas
in the winter of 201/200, would have had the aim of liberating the
people from any foreigner submission.77 At first sight it seems that,
although there is substantial agreement on the historical moment in
question, there is however no consensus about the reading of the
passage. Tcherikover, reviewing the history of the interpretations of
11,14, criticizes the last two positions; in particular he criticizes
Meyer’s position because it is based on the general assumption that
the Seleucids were pro-active Hellenizers while the Ptolemies were
indifferent towards Hellenization; he criticizes Täubler’s position
because it bases the existence of a Messianic movement upon a single passage, leaving unresolved doubts.78 Therefore, according to
72
Concerning this issue see also chapter 4.2.1.
Concerning the division of the text, see J.J. Collins, Daniel. A Commentary on the
Book of Daniel, Minneapolis 1993, 37.
74
See the work of A. Schlatter, ‘Die Bene parisim bei Daniel: 11,14’, ZAW 14
(1894), 145–151.
75
Schlatter, ‘Die Bene parisim bei Daniel’, 149.
76
E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, Stuttgart-Berlin 1921, II, 127,
who claims regarding Dn 11,14: “Es ist die seleukidische oder, wie sogleich sagen
können, die zum Hellenismus neigende Partei, die sich erhebt, aber dann dem
Skopas erliegt”.
77
E. Täubler, ‘Jerusalem 201 to 199 bce. On the History of a Messianic Movement’,
JQR 37 (1946), 1–30.
78
Hellenistic Civilization, 78, where Tcherikover claims that Meyer’s thesis lacks
73
ptolemies and high priest
133
Tcherikover, there are few data that can be justifiably drawn from
Dan 11,14 and surrounding verses, such as the historical period,
which would correspond to the period of the war between Antiochus
III and Ptolemy V (201–198 bce), and the negative attitude of the
author of the book.
There are grounds for supposing that the so-called ‘men of violence’ were part of a wider movement adverse to the Ptolemies, or
that they had originated in a group that, albeit reduced, was formed
by prominent and influential members that had set up a powerful
military organization. The movement failed, but we do not know if
this failure was caused by internal factors, such as the lack of popular support, or external, i.e., the intervention of a foreign force that
put down the revolt.79 Tcherikover therefore recommends caution in
the interpretation “of vague sentences”80 such as this one in the book
of Daniel. Nevertheless, based on the testimony provided by the book
of Sirach (50,1–24), he comes up with the hypothesis that there was
a Seleucid party led by the high priest Simon the Righteous.81
Research on the interpretation of this passage continued in the following years, although no new ground was broken at first. For example, it was again proposed that the ‘men of violence’, could have
been a party formed by the high priestly class and the aristocracy,
the Tobiads in particular, as Schlatter had already claimed, with the
high priest Simon the Righteous as leader.82 It has been also hypothesized that perhaps the so-called pro-Seleucid faction would have
clung to the hope of throwing off the foreign invaders completely
and this would explain the reference to the fulfilment of the vision
in the last part of the verse.83 Again the theory that the ‘men of
violence’ mentioned in 11,14 “belong most likely to a Jewish,
historical justification regarding Hellenization; but if we interprete the rebellion of “the
violent” as a reference to a fight against Ptolemaic rule, the most obvious idea is
that the insurgents were supporters of the Seleucids. See also 79.
79
Hellenistic Civilization, 437, note 111.
80
Hellenistic Civilization, 79.
81
For a discussion on this issue see chapter 5.5.
82
A. Lacocque, Le Livre de Daniel, Paris 1976, 165. This hypothesis was later supported also by J.E. Goldingay, Daniel, Dallas 1989, 297, although he dismisses the
alleged involvement in the anti-Seleucid resistence that Schlatter had proposed and
claims that the expression in 11,14: “is actually a term used to suggest violation of
the holy rather than merely violence. There is no polemic against violent action
here”.
83
Lacocque, Le Livre de Daniel, 166.
134
chapter four
pro-Seleucid party”84 was again proposed, even though the reference
to the fulfilment of the vision was interpreted mainly as an attempt
(by the Jews or at least by a part of them) to legitimate the proSyrian activity, appealing to a prophetic vision. The author of the
book would condemn these Jews because they supported Antiochus
III, Antiochus IV’s father.85
Collins’ contribution is worthy of note; pointing out the obscurity
of the verse, he refers to two further elements: Jerome’s testimony
and the re-interpretation of the Greek version.86 In Porphyry’s Adversus
Christianos, reported by Jerome in his Commentarium in Danielem XI:
13–19, regarding the war between Antiochus III and the Ptolemaic
commanders there is mention of internal divisions among the Jews.
Following these divisions, the high priest Onias would have fled to
Egypt, where he built a temple.87 Further on in the text it is said
that Scopas, commander of the Ptolemies, after having conquered
Judea, brought some of the Jews into Egypt.88
Collins points out that the reference to the flight of Onias the
high priest and the foundation of the temple ought to be dated to
a later period with respect to Jerome, meaning that his narrative is
not reliable in this case. However, he observes the negative connotation denoted by the expression ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W, claiming that the
probable reference to the pro-Seleucid party has to be understood
in the context of the events at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Daniel’s attitude is tendentious and does not represent all Jewish
opinion, as we can deduce from Josephus’ narrative, in which there
is an emphasis on the positive reception given to Antiochus III and
a record of the privileges that the king granted to the Jews (Ant
12,138–144). Furthermore, Collins shares the hypothesis proposed by
Tcherikover that Simon the Righteous was leader of the pro-Seleucid
84
L.F. Hartman – A.A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 023, New York 1978,
291.
85
Hartman – Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 292.
Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 379–380.
87
Migne, PL 25, col. 562: “Pugnantibus contra se Magno Antiocho et ducibus Ptolemaei,
in medio Judaea posita in contraria studia scindebatur: aliis Antiocho, aliis Ptolemaeo faventibus.
Denique Onias sacerdos assumptis Judaeorum plurimis fugit in Aegyptum, et a Ptolemaeo honorifice suceptus, accepit eam regionem quae Heliopoleos vocabatur: et concedente rege, templum
exstruxit in Aegypto simile templi Judaeorum”.
88
Stern, GLAJJ, II, nr. 464 L: “cepitque Iudaeam et optimates Ptolomaei partium secum
abducens in Aegyptum reversus est”.
86
ptolemies and high priest
135
party. 89 It is precisely in Jerome’s narrative that Sievers sees
confirmation for the claim that, during the Syrian Wars of the third
century, some Jews took the side of the Seleucids while others maintained their loyalty to the Ptolemies.90 The Greek version of the text
of Daniel 11,14 is also an important element, as it introduces variations that seem to indicate a decisively pro-Ptolemaic interpretation.91 The study carried out by van der Kooij has confirmed this
theory. Van der Kooij has compared the Hebrew text and the Greek
version of Daniel 11,1492 at both linguistic and syntactical levels and
regarding the context in which both texts are located in the respective versions.93 The biggest differences between the two texts concern two expressions:
Dan 11,1494
TM
Ël,m,Al[' Wdm]['y" μyBir'
LXX diãnoiai énastÆsontai §p‹ tÚn basil°a
TM
WacN"yI ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W
LXX ka‹ énoikodomÆsei tå peptvkÒta toË §ynouw
sou
many shall stand up against
the king
thoughts stand up against the
king
violent men among your own
people shall lift themselves
and he shall rebuild the ruins
of your people
The Greek text of 11,14 is inserted in a passage (11,1–12,3) that
Daniel himself calls ˜rama and prostãgmata (10,1). According to van
der Kooij, Daniel 11,14 is one of the prostãgmata; therefore the
text is treated as a prophecy regarding certain events ‘in the last
89
Daniel, 380.
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 15 and note 62, where there is a reference
to the comment on Daniel, and to Stern, GLAJJ, 2.464L, 464N. The problem of
the optimates Ptolomaei partium will be reconsidered in chapter 5.1.1.
91
Collins, Daniel, 380.
92
MT Wlv;k]nIw“ ˆ/zj; dymi[}h'l] WacN"yI ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W bg,N,h' Ël,m,Al[' Wdm]['y" μyBir' μheh; μyTi[ib;W
LXX ka‹ §n to›w kairo›w §ke¤noiw diãnoiai énastÆsontai §p‹ tÚn basil°a AfigÊptou:
90
ka‹ énoikodomÆsei tå peptvkÒta toË ¶ynouw sou ka‹ énastÆsetai efiw tÚ énast∞sai
tØn profhte¤an, ka‹ proskÒcousi.
93
A. van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek of Daniel
11’, in J.W. van Henten – H.J. De Jonge – P.T. van Rooden – J.W. Wesselius
eds., Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, Leiden 1986,
72–80. See also ibid., 74–76, for the semantic contrast and the translation of the
texts.
94
Translation by van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek
of Daniel 11’, 74,77.
chapter four
136
period of days’.95 In the Greek version, the first part of the verse
says diãnoiai, which has to be understood in the sense of a plot or
political intrigue against the Egyptian king. It does not mean insurrection at all (Wdm]['y" ÚM][' yxeyriP; ynEb]W), but reconstruction of the ruins
(ka‹ énoikodomÆsei tå peptvkÒta toË ¶ynouw sou) that, according to van
der Kooij, should be considered in relation to the reconstruction
mentioned by Josephus in the letter that Antiochus III writes to
Ptolemy of Thraseas (Ant 12,148).96 The end of the verse “ka‹
proskÒcousi” has “diãnoiai” as subject and indicates that “the plans
will fail”.97 Further to this analysis, van der Kooij observes how,
while MT Dan 11,14 condemns the anti-Ptolemaic actions committed by violent men in Judea, LXX Dan 11,14 reflects a positive
reinterpretation (or reactualization) of the prophecy “attesting a very
positive view on king Ptolemy V Epiphanes”.98
The text of Daniel 11,14, throughout its interpretations and reinterpretations, is still an important document regarding the assessment
of the situation in Judea. There certainly were opposite factions, as
Jerome later states, in the period corresponding to the end of Ptolemaic
rule; but, as Smith stresses, “unfortunately we know almost nothing
of the parties involved”.99
4.2.2
Hypothesis Outline
Daniel’s testimony does not add anything to the question of the
administration of Judea in the Ptolemaic age. The paucity and ambiguity of the information regarding this period has therefore led scholars to contrasting positions, from the statement that the Ptolemaic
administration never made any exception or granted any kind of
autonomy to the Jewish ¶ynow and its high priest,100 to the assertion
95
Van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek of Daniel 11’,
77 thus renders the Greek expression: §n to›w kairo›w §ke¤noiw.
96
Van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek of Daniel 11’,
77–78. Concerning Ptolemy of Thraseas, see chapter 5.1.1.
97
Van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek of Daniel 11’,
79.
98
Van der Kooij, ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Greek of Daniel 11’,
80. See also note 31 where there is a mention of the Rosetta stone, in which the
Egyptian priests honour Ptolemy V Epiphanes because of the privileges granted to
the Egyptian temples, the restoration of peace and security in Egypt and the punishment of the rebels.
99
Palestinian Parties, 157.
100
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 24.
ptolemies and high priest
137
of the acknowledgement of socio-political rights to the chiefs of the
various peoples included within the Ptolemaic dominion, among these
the high priest of Jerusalem, with the aim of earning the sympathy
of influential political circles.101 Avigad maintains that in such a small
territory as Judea, “there could scarcely have been a division between
temple and state administration. The autonomy granted to Judah by
the suzerain power was of a religious nature, and the temple incorporated the interests of the whole community”.102
Judea has also been described as a “Temple State”103 on the
grounds of a passage found in book XVI of Polybius’ Histories, now
lost but quoted by Flavius Josephus, in which there are two testimonies. The first says that Scopas, Ptolemy’s general, overthrew tÚ
t«n ÉIouda¤vn ¶ynow. The second, reported soon after, refers to Antiochus
III’s occupation of the territory and states that those Jews living near
that temple which was called Jerusalem, joined him.104 This would
then indicate a Temple-State, with territories and inhabitants that
were under feudal rule of the high priest and the priestly class.
However, other scholars judge such a theory to be most unlikely,
both in relation to the same testimony of Polybius already quoted105
and to the successive situation of the Jews under the Seleucids.106
Recently, an inscription on a stele from Arsinoe in Cilicia, published in 1989,107 has contributed to a deeper study of the problem of the administration of the province. The stele contains two
documents: a letter of Thraseas to the city of Arsinoe (1–18), and
a decree issued in the city of Nagidos (19–56). Although this decree
appears on the stele after the letter, it corresponds to a previous
date proposed as the period of the rule of Ptolemy III Euergetes
101
Tcherikover, ‘Palestine’, 55.
Avigad, ‘A New Class of Yehud Stamps’, IEJ 7 (1957), 152.
103
This hypothesis has been supported, for instance, by J.C. Dancy, A Commentary
on I Maccabees, Oxford 1954, 37. This issue will be revisited in chapter 6.3.
102
104
ka‹ t«n ÉIouda¤vn ofl per‹ tÚ flerÚn tÚ prosagoreuÒmenon ÑIerosÒluma katoikoËntew
(Ant 12,136).
105
Parente, Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, 52 holds that Polybius’s testimony
means that: Judea was clearly a “people” (¶ynow).
106
Regarding this issue, the documents about the Seleucid age contained in Jewish
Antiquities are of high relevance, and will be studied later. See 5.2.2.
107
It was published in 1989 by E. Kirsten – I. Opelt, ‘Eine Urkunde der Gründung
von Arsinoe in Kilikien’, ZPE 77 (1989), 55–66 and then submitted to revision by
C.P. Jones – Ch. Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia’, Phoenix
43 (1989), 317–346.
chapter four
138
(246–221 bce).108 Jones and Habicht have reconstructed the historical context of the inscriptions. Aetus, son of Apollonius, citizen of
Aspendus in Pamphylia served as strathgÒw in Cilicia under Ptolemy
II Philadelphus (283–246 bce). During a military operation, he conquered a place where he founded a city to which he gave the territory taken from Nagidos, a neighbouring city. At that time, Thraseas
son of Aetus was the strathgÚw Kilik¤aw (24–25) and he had to settle the question of the ownership of the territory that both Nagidos
and Arsinoe claimed to own. He asked the inhabitants of Nagidos
to give up the territory, but “seems also to have treated Nagidos as
the mother-city of Arsinoe”, asking its inhabitants to formulate the
terms that would regulate the relations between the two communities. In response to Thraseas’ request, the Nagideis passed a decree.109
It is of notable interest that both Aetus and Thraseas appear in the
Arsinoe inscription; therefore both father and son governed as strategists of Cilicia.110 This information is important in relation to the
background of the family of Ptolemy son of Thraseas, whose name
is mentioned in inscriptions with the title of stratagÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw.
However, before returning to this issue,111 it is necessary to consider
the data drawn from the sources concerning the Jewish high priests
of the period in which Judea was under Ptolemaic rule.
4.3
Hecataeus of Abdera and the High Priesthood
In a passage attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera, conserved in a fragment of Diodorus Siculus,112 we find the following passage:
diÚ ka‹ basil°a m¢n mhd°pote t«n ÉIouda¤vn, tØn d¢ toË plÆyouw prostas¤an
d¤dosyai diå pantÚw t“ dokoËnti t«n fler°vn fronÆsei kai éretª pro°xein.
toËton d¢ prosagoreÊousin érxier°a, ka‹ nom¤zousin aÍto›w êggelon g¤nesyai
t«n toË yeoË proostagmãtvn113 (XL, 3,5)
For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the
people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior
108
For an identification of the sovereign as Ptolemy III Euergetes, see JonesHabicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe’, 335–36.
109
Jones – Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe’, 318–319.
110
Kirsten – Opelt, ‘Eine Urkunde der Gründung von Arsinoe in Kilikien’, 56,
20.24.
111
For a further analysis see 5.1.1.
112
See discussion in chapter 1.5.1.
113
Stern, GLAJJ, I, 26, nr 11. See also Parente, Il pensiero ebraico cristiano, 53.
ptolemies and high priest
139
to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high
priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God’s commandments. (trans. F.R. Walton)
Generally, it is accepted that this fragment, due to its ethnographic
character, had been part of a work attributed to Hecataeus, maybe
the Aegyptiaca.114 For a long time scholars have wondered whether
this testimony of Hecataeus reflected the historical reality of the Judea
he lived in. Different answers have been given to this question over
the years.
According to Tcherikover, the expression toË plÆyouw prostas¤a
would prove that, in Hecataeus’ time, the high priest was the central personality in Judea. The high priest of that age would have
been the sole mediator between the king and the people. Judea,
whose autonomy during the Persian period had been only of a cultural and intellectual nature, had therefore taken its first step towards
political independence.115
Stern sees a reflection of the contemporary situation of Hecataeus’
Judea in the statement, “diÚ ka‹ basil°a m¢n mhd°pote t«n ÉIouda¤vn”,
but he observes that Hecataeus seems completely to ignore the period
of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. A similar omission takes place
in the following statement that the high priest is chosen fronÆsei
kai éretª. Again, Hecataeus seems to ignore the fact that in the
period of the Second Temple the high priesthood was passed down
from father to eldest son, in direct succession, and that all the high
priests from the time of the exile down to Hecataeus belonged to the
Zadokite house and were descendents from Jehoshua ben Jehozadak.
Even though Stern himself expresses some doubts about the conclusiveness of such assertions,116 these and other idiosyncrasies present
114
The fragment, preserved in Diodorus Siculus, has reached us through Photius.
It is actually longer than the one inserted here (XL, 3,1–8). It narrates how the
Jews, expelled from Egypt, colonised Judea under the guidance of Moses. It says
that Moses founded Jerusalem, built the temple, established worship, gave the law
and the constitution and organised the system of the twelve tribes. Apart from that,
he established various rules regarding the education of the young and children, and
about war and burial rites. For this summary of the contents see Rooke, Zadok’s
Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 246. G.F. Sterling,
Historiography and Self-Definition, Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, LeidenNew York-Köln 1992, 78, divides the contents into two parts: the origins of Israel
(XL, 3,1–3) and its politeia (XL, 3,4–8).
115
Hellenistic Civilization, 58–59.
116
GLAJJ, I, 31 where Stern observes that there were some exceptions to that
140
chapter four
in the text117 have led many scholars to the formulation of a theory
according to which Hecataeus’ fragment would be an interpretatio
graeca of Jewish history. Jaeger has shared this conviction since 1938,
and has supported the hypothesis that Hecataeus, in his description of the Jewish state, would have been interested in the problem
of the ideal state as it had been conceived by Plato and his
contemporaries.118
This hypothesis is also shared by Hengel, for whom Hecataeus
had represented the Jewish state “as a true ‘aristocracy’ along the
lines of the Platonic utopian state”.119 Mendels however follows another
interpretation. In his opinion Diodorus Siculus (XL, 3,3–8) would
have reflected some ideas derived from certain priestly circles at the
end of the fourth century bce, in accordance to the model of the
Greek politeia.120 Sterling, reviewing the different interpretations, considers the possibility of this third hypothesis: the Jewish state governed by priests who are chosen because of their merits and virtue
and not because of their birth is “a good Platonic politeia”. 121
Nevertheless, he observes that within this positive portrait of the
Jewish community Hecataeus also noted a characteristic that “would
later be turned against the Jews, i.e., separatism”.122
Rooke claims that it is much more realistic to consider Hecataeus’
passage as an expression “of Diaspora priestly self-definition”, rather
than a reflection of a historical reality. In her opinion, Hecataeus’
account cannot be used as evidence that at the end of the fourth
succession line, for instance the cases of Eleazar and Manasseh. Concerning the
issue of Zadokite descent, see chapter 3.6 Excursus: Zadok’s tradition.
117
See Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 248, who quotes, among other irregularities, the portrait of Moses as the
founder of both Jerusalem and the temple.
118
W. Jaeger, ‘Greeks and Jews. The First Greek Records of Jewish Religion
and Civilization’, JR 18 (1938), 142.
119
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 256.
120
D. Mendels, ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish «patrios politeia» of the
Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL,3, ZAW 95 (1983), 98. Prato, ‘Ebrei ed ebraismo
nell’ottica storiografica greca’, 65, reckons that Mendels’ thesis could be shared only
in part, because, as much as Hecataeus’ scene allows us to catch a glimpse of the
society in times of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Greek interpretative covering does not
permit one to grasp the typical structures of that society.
121
Historiography and Self-Definition, 80 and note 105. Concerning the reference to
Plato, see G.P. Goold ed., Plato, V, The Republic, Cambridge-London 1930, 413–415
(414C–415D).
122
Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 80.
ptolemies and high priest
141
century the high priest had become the political chief of the Jewish
people, “because there are too many question marks over its historical reliability”.123 One of these question marks is the lack of other
contemporary sources with which to compare Hecataeus’ account.124
However, VanderKam still considers Hecataeus’ description of the
high-priestly office as an extremely important issue. Above all in the
use of the 2 words êggelow and proskune›n125 he identifies the portrait of the high priest as one who “carried out important cultic
functions, taught Torah and enjoyed great prestige”126 and perhaps
could exercise political functions. VanderKam contradicts Rooke’s
opinion about the total absence of comparative material but also
concludes: “the question of historicity remains”.127
Fifty years earlier Walton, engaging the problem of Hecataeus’
fragment, noticed a further element in the portrait of the high priest:
the attribution of the prophetic function, in which the high priest is
depicted “as a mouthpiece for the continuing revelation of God’s
will”.128 As a conclusion, Hecataeus’ description cannot provide us
with an answer to the question regarding the role of the high priest
in the Hellenistic age, because it goes beyond the historical evidence,
opening a much more theological perspective.
4.4
Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas and in Flavius Josephus
The high priest Eleazar is the central character of the Letter of
Aristeas,129 which features three documents of an official nature:
a prÒstagma130 issued by the Ptolemaic chancellery regarding the
123
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 250.
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 249.
125
VanderKam From Joshua to Caiaphas, 121–122, explains the meaning of the
first word with the parallel passages in Mal 2,7 and the book of Jubilees 31,13–17;
he interpreters the second word with the parallel use in two passages of Sirach
50,16–17; 20–22.
126
See From Joshua to Caiaphas, 122
127
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 122 n. 36.
128
F.R. Walton, ‘The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera’, HTR 48 (1955),
256. The statement refers to the expression: ka‹ nom¤zousin aÍto›w êggelon g¤nesyai
t«n toË yeoË proostagmãtvn (XL,3,5).
129
Concerning the issues regarding the style and date of the Letter, see chapter
1.5.2.
130
See Bickerman, ‘Notes sur la chancellerie des Lagides’, 259–60, concerning
the definition of prostagma as “ordre”: written or orally-transmitted order.
124
142
chapter four
liberation of the Jewish slaves in Egypt (Ar 22–25); a letter from
Ptolemy to Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem (Ar 34–40); and
the latter’s answer to the king (Ar 41–46).131 Beyond the issue of the
authenticity of these documents132 and of their possible relation to
other texts,133 the reference to the high priest Eleazar and his title
is of the utmost interest. The comparison with the way in which
Flavius Josephus depicts the same high priest is also greatly relevant.
In Jewish Antiquities, he paraphrases Aristeas’s Letter, but he also
introduces some significant modifications.134
Pelletier135 has thoroughly compared both texts. He has taken into
consideration the epistolary correspondence between Ptolemy and
Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas and in Jewish Antiquities. He pays
particular attention to the letter from Ptolemy to Eleazar, and to
the answer from Eleazar to Ptolemy.136 Pelletier137 draws attention
to the fact that the headings of both letters138 reveal the usage of
the administrative correspondence of the time. In Flavius Josephus,
the addressee of Ptolemy’s letter presents the addition of the article
(t“ érxiere›). This responds either to the necessity to determinate
the high priest, or to avoid confusion with the names.
In Eleazar’s reply, the biggest difference is caused by the change
of place of the noun érxiereÁw.139 In the Letter of Aristeas, the
131
F. Parente, ‘La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del Giudaismo
Alessandrino durante la prima metà del I secolo a.C.’, Annali della Scuola Superiore di
Pisa, II, 1 (1972), 190 ff.
132
Generally, they are considered inauthentic; see Parente, Il pensiero politico ebraico
e cristiano, 191.
133
Parente, ‘La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del Giudaismo’,
191–193, indicates, for the prostagma of Ar 22–25, the decree found in the Rainer
papyrus, while for the letter of Eleazar he considers possible dependence upon 1
Macc 10,21–45.
134
In Jewish Antiquities, Flavius Josephus, after having mentioned the high priest
Onias, focuses his attention on Eleazar, remembering how he succeeded his brother,
the high priest Simon called the Righteous (12,43–44) whom he calls by the title
érxiereÊw eleven times (12,16.39.40.42.43.45.51.57.85.86.89.117). He explicitly refers
to the Letter of Aristeas as tÚ ÉArista¤ou bibl¤on (Ant 12,100). It is generally accepted
that Josephus’ paraphrase corresponds to about one third of the complete Letter.
See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 8–9 note b.
135
Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 95–125.
136
Ar 35–40//Ant 12, 45–50; Ar 41–46//Ant 12, 51–56. See synopsis by Pelletier,
Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 307–327.
137
Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 111 and see notes 46 and 47.
138
Ar 35: basileÁw Ptolema›ow ÉEleazãrƒ érxiere› xa¤rein ka‹ §rr«syai.
Ant 12,45: basileÁw Ptolema›ow ÉEleazãrƒ t“ érxiere› xa¤rein.
139
Ar 41: ÉEleãzarow érxiereÁw basile› Ptolema¤ƒ f¤lƒ gnÆsiƒ xa¤rein;
Ant 12,51: ÉArxiereÁw ÉEleãzarow basile› Ptolema¤ƒ xa¤rein.
ptolemies and high priest
143
address formula ÉEleãzarow érxiereÊw is in the nominative, but in
accordance with the Ptolemaic usage that admits only the noun
basileÊw as the first word, the name Eleazar precedes the title érxiereÊw. According to Pelletier, Aristeas seems to acknowledge in
Eleazar the authority of sovereign, without bestowing the title upon
him, “because what he holds instead of the title is his quality of high
priest”.140
In the final part of both headings, Josephus omits the final greeting of the verb §rr«syai in the first and the polite expression f¤lƒ
gnÆsiv addressed to Ptolemy in the second. This could be due to
the fact that his interest is focused on the contents of the document
and not on the sentimental element or on the relationship between
the characters.141 Pelletier underlines another important difference of
a grammatical nature between the Letter and Flavius Josephus: while
in Aristeas king Ptolemy uses the pluralis maiestatis for the decrees
and generally switches to the singular in colloquial conversation, in
Josephus Ptolemy always speaks in the singular, thus highlighting the
autocratic character of the Greek-Egyptian monarchy.142 On the contrary, in the case of Eleazar, Josephus keeps the convenient pluralis
maiestatis, more in accordance to the dignity of the character and his
majesty.
In Pelletier’s opinion, this reveals the influence of the books of the
Maccabees, in which the Lagid and Seleucid monarchs switch from
one modality to the other when discussing international relations,
depending on the tone, whether of personal familiarity or of authority, that they want to set. However, the Jewish high priests do not
ever use the singular in what pertains to the discussion of international affairs. The Letter of Aristeas omits the singular from the
Lagid chancellery.143
Even more significant than the analogies are the differences, or
better, the omissions144 found in Josephus’ paraphrase. In the Letter,
Eleazar is described performing his liturgical duties145 (Ar 96–98) with
the sumptuous garments characteristic of the high priest in the Old
Testament (Ex 28–29): the ephod with the stones, golden bells all
140
Author’s translation of Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée,
112: “car ce qui lui tient lieu de titre c’est sa qualité de grand prêtre”.
141
Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 109, 112,b.
142
Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 210.
143
Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 211.
144
Josephus’ omissions concern 82–171; 187–292, see Marcus, Josephus, VII, 9.
145
Ar 96: §n tª Leitourg¤&
144
chapter four
around the skirts of the robe, the girdle, the logion on the breast with
the twelve stones, each engraved with the names of the chiefs of the
tribes of Israel, the consecrated plate of gold with an engraving featuring the name of God fastened on the front of the turban. Such
a depiction enhancing the sacrality of the high priest146 is absent
from Flavius Josephus’ paraphrase, although Josephus himself, in
other passages, dedicates lavish descriptions to the priestly vestments
and the garments of the high priest.147 The section of the Letter in
which Eleazar appears as an interpreter of the Law (Ar 128–171) is
also omitted in Josephus’ paraphrase.
The deep differences between the text of the Letter and its paraphrase can be interpreted only in the light of the aims that both
authors had when writing their works. Concerning the former, nowadays there is general agreement on its lack of historical value;148 furthermore, it is accepted among scholars that king Ptolemy’s initiative
of having the Torah translated from Hebrew to Greek has the aim
of providing, so to speak, an authoritative and prestigious frame for
the story.149 On the other hand, the apologetic value of the Letter
is generally acknowledged.150 It doesn’t seem to be concerned only
with the generic, albeit important, aim of favouring the Greeks’
knowledge of the Jewish world, but means to pursue a specifically
political goal. The whole letter in fact highlights the good relations
between a Ptolemaic king and a Jewish high priest. It strongly emphasizes the religious and sacred aspects of the high priest (Ar 96–99).
If, as seems probable, the Letter was written when the dominion of
the Hasmonean high priests had already been consolidated, Eleazar’s
description might have had a political intent against the high priest
in Jerusalem, whose connotations were political rather than religious.151 Nevertheless, claims Parente, if we also consider the fact
146
The author of the Letter recalls the impression caused by Eleazar’s appearance (96), both in terms of terror and dismay, and of emotion and admiration (99).
147
See Jewish Antiquities 3,151–178; Jewish War 5,228–237.
148
D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle. Studies in Jewish Self-Governement in Antiquity,
Tübingen 1994, 13: “No one takes the Letter to be an historical reliable account”.
See also A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, Paris 1962, 53–55. See the discussion of the Letter in chapter 1.5.2.
149
L. Troiani ed., Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, in Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento,
V, Brescia 1997, 28.
150
Vedi Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 54.
151
The first high priest of the Hasmonean dynasty was Jonathan in 152 bce; see
1 Macc 10,21.
ptolemies and high priest
145
that the Letter was written during the Seleucid dominion, we cannot disregard the possibility of a pro-Ptolemaic propagandistic intent.152
According to Goodblatt, the Letter is not historical but does reflect
a historical reality and allows us to catch a glimpse of the political
regime in Jerusalem. It could also be taken as proof of the survival
“of the priestly monarchy during the century of the Ptolemaic rule
in Judah”.153 However, Goodblatt himself points out how the majority of scholars prefer to date the Letter to a later period. Moreover,
as Tcherikover points out, the interest of the Letter is almost exclusively focused on the temple, on the magnificent appearance of the
high priest before the people and on the priestly class.
The absence of all this in Josephus could cast light on the intentions that lie behind the Jewish historian’s paraphrase of the Letter:
his bias towards the Hasmoneans had led him to exclude precisely
the sections of the text in which the author of the Letter had shown
a propagandistic, anti-Hasmonean intent.154
According to Simonetti, from all the material available in the
Letter, Josephus would have chosen, apart from the story of the
translation, the story regarding the liberation of the slaves and other
privileges granted to the Jews by the sovereign, which is in line with
his tendency to judge positively everything that various kings of previous times had done for the Jews.155
But it is still necessary to reflect on another problem. Goodblatt
reports Tcherikover’s statement according to which, in the Letter of
Aristeas, the high priest Eleazar would be depicted as a head of
state, although the author does not mention this explicitly.156 Certainly,
the epistolary correspondence suggests great familiarity and reciprocal esteem. According to Pelletier, above all it demonstrates that the
highest representative of the most important monarchy of the time,
that of the Ptolemies, treated the high priest of Jerusalem as an
equal, of whom he was nevertheless the sovereign.157
152
Parente, ‘La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del Giudaismo’,
548–549. Concerning the issue of the date of the Letter, see chapter 1.5.2.
153
The Monarchic Principle, 13.
154
Hellenistic Civilization, 120; 454 note 5.
155
Simonetti, Flavio Giuseppe. Storia dei Giudei, 567, note 7.
156
The Monarchic Principle, 13, note 23.
157
Flavius Josephus adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée, 206; but Pelletier adds: “dont il
était pourtant le suzerain”. However, see also the previous statement, ibid., 112,
according to which the heading formula of the letter that Ptolemy sends to Eleazar
would bestow upon the high priest the rank of sovereign.
146
chapter four
However, already in 1931, Tramontano warned about the danger of accepting rash statements regarding the expression f¤lƒ gnÆsiƒ
of Ar 41, such as “the writer lives at the time of a Pontiff-King who
is treated as an equal of Philadelphus”.158 This idea may be present
in the paraphrase of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; his omission of the expression could be part of the already mentioned proHasmonean bias, the implication being that during that period there
had been an ideological shift in the high priesthood.159 Likewise,
VanderKam agrees with a non-historical character of the Letter of
Aristeas. However, he notes two important data both in this Letter
and in Areius’s letter to Onias.160 Firstly, a foreign ruler corresponds
with a Jewish high priest and “there is no hint of a civil ruler alongside of, above, or below the high priest”.161 Secondly, we have “perhaps the most extraordinary data about the high priest” in the section
of the letter in which Eleazar answers Aristeas’ questions on the
Law: Eleazar appears as one who “perhaps was a skilled interpreter
of the Torah”.162
The character of Eleazar, then, goes beyond the historical dimension not only because his very existence can be questioned,163 but
also because his depiction seems to be representative of Flavius
Josephus’ political ideology. In the prologue to Jewish Antiquities,
while exposing the motives that drive historians into writing, he takes
himself as an example and mentions Eleazar as his role model, as
he “was particularly anxious to have our Law and the political constitution based thereon translated into Greek” (Ant 1,10–11).164
But even earlier Josephus had introduced his own work by pointing out that it was intended to embrace “our entire ancient history
158
Author’s translation of R. Tramontano, La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, Napoli
1931, 66.
159
This argument, however, goes beyond the limits of this study, which is restricted
to the scene of the high priesthood in the pre-Hasmonean age.
160
See chapter 3.3.1.
161
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 167.
162
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 160, 167.
163
See G. Garbini, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, Brescia 2001, 114, who claims
that it is fair to doubt the existence of a high priest Eleazar in the first decades of
the third century bce. See also note 174.
164
tÚn ≤m°teron nÒmon ka‹ tØn katÉ aÈtÚn diãtajin t∞w polite¤aw efiw tØn ÑEllãda
fvnØn metabale›n (Ant 1,10–11). Translation by Thackeray, Josephus, IV, Jewish
Antiquities I–IV,7.
ptolemies and high priest
147
and political constitution” (1,2).165 Mason166 underscores the importance of the political constitution of the Jews in Flavius Josephus and
observes how the historian insistently declares that its authentic form
is “that of priestly aristocracy”.167 This form, in his opinion, has
already been assumed in the prologue, where the high priest Eleazar
is the leader of the Jews. The duty of preserving the laws, Mason
continues, is inherent to the role of high priest and this is made evident by the attention that the historian devotes to the determination and identification of the high priests in the different historical
periods.168 Therefore, it is not possible to make any inferences regarding the political situation in Judea during the Ptolemaic rule from
the evidence of the Letter of Aristeas, and, even less, about the political role of the high priest in that period. However, Mason’s and
VanderKam’s remarks provide us with important elements for further investigation, especially regarding the relation between the high
priest and the Law/or laws.169
4.5
Onias II and the issue of the prostas¤a
Another high priest about whom we have documentary evidence is
Onias II. Flavius Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities, tells us that he was
the son of Simon the Righteous, but he did not receive the office
of high priest immediately after his father’s death because he was
too young. In fact, he was preceded in the high priesthood first by
his uncle Eleazar (12,43–44), Simon the Righteous’ brother (12,158),
and then by Manasseh, Eleazar’s uncle.170 Only after the death of
the latter did he receive the “honour”.171
ëpasan tØn parÉ ≤m›n érxaiolog¤an ka‹ [tØn] diãtajin toË politeÊmatow.
Translation by Thackeray, Josephus, IV, Jewish Antiquities I–IV,5.
166
Jewish Antiquities 1–4, in L. Feldman ed., Flavius Josephus, III, Leiden 2000,
XXV–XXVI.
167
Jewish Antiquities 1–4, XXVI.
168
See Mason, Jewish Antiquities 1–4, XXVI, whom, in order to justify his statements, quotes Ant 4,152; 5,318; 6,122, 242; 10,150–152; 11,73,90 and the synoptical succession lines in Ant 10,151–153; 20,224–251.
169
For a deeper study of this issue, see chapters 6.4; 7.4.2.
170
tØn érxiervsÊnhn . . . par°laben (12,157); see Liddell – Scott, entry paralambãnv = receive from another, esp. of persons succeeding to an office, or by
inheritance.
171
tØn timØn §jed°jato (12,157), see Liddell – Scott, entry §k-d°xomai = take or
receive from another. It is interesting to note the use of the noun timÆ to indicate
165
148
chapter four
The Jewish historian pays particular attention to the period during which Onias II was in office. Josephus interweaves his story with
the story of Joseph the tax collector, son of Tobias, nephew on his
mother’s side of the same high priest, and the story of Hyrcanus,
son of Joseph.172 We refer with special interest to a certain moment
in the narrative in which Joseph rebukes Onias for not taking care
of the interests of his fellow citizens and for bringing the nation into
danger by withholding the money “on account of which, Josephus
said, he had received the chief magistracy and had obtained the
high-priestly office”173 (Ant 12,161).
The story poses, above all, a chronological problem. Josephus
places it in the period following the conquest of Palestine by Antiochus
III, but the contents of the affair seem rather to be related to the
dominion of the Ptolemies. The point in question is that of the placement of Onias’ refusal, about which it is said that: “he roused the
anger of King Ptolemy”174 (Ant 12,158). Manuscripts PLAW specify: tÚn EÈerg°thn ˜w ∏n patØr toË Filopãtorow,175 but this would contradict Ant 12,154, where it is said that the Ptolemy in question is
Ptolemy V Epiphanes, husband of Cleopatra I, to be dated to the
beginning of the second century bce, while Ptolemy Euergetes is
Ptolemy III, husband of Berenice II, who ruled between 247 and
221 bce.
the honour of high priest. Garbini, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, 114–115, note 12,
considers such successions, paying special attention to the inconsistencies. First and
foremost, if Simon the Righteous left only an infant son when he died, that would
mean that his high priesthood had been quite brief, as had been the ones of Eleazar
and Manasseh, given that the addition of the number of years corresponding to
the high priesthoods of both of them has to be equal to the years of Onias II’s
childhood and adolescence. Furthermore if, according to the Letter of Aristeas,
Eleazar’s high priesthood is dated between 280–270, then the high priesthood of
Onias I would have lasted three or four decades, while Onias II would have lived
about one hundred years, seventy or eighty of them as high priest. Last but not
least, we have to bear in mind the fact that Josephus identifies Simon the Righteous
with the son of Onias I, and this contradicts both the rabbinic tradition and the
testimony of the book of Ben Sira. Therefore, Garbini reckons that Josephus has
made up the story of Simon’s infant son in order to create a time gap in which
to insert the nonexistent Eleazar of Aristeas.
172
That is the so-called story of tale of the Tobiads (Ant 12,154–236). See discussion in chapter 1.3.2.
173
diÉ ì ka‹ toË laoË tØn prostas¤an labe›n aÈtÚn ¶lege ka‹ t∞w érxieratik∞w
tim∞w §pituxe›n: translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities, 85.
174
efiw ÙrgØn §k¤nhsen tÚn basil°a Ptolema›on: translation by Marcus, Josephus,
VII, Jewish Antiquities, 83.
175
See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 82,2.
ptolemies and high priest
149
The debate on this question has given birth to different proposals regarding the dating. Marcus believed that the variation was an
interpolation and proposed a date towards the end of Euergetes’
reign (221 bce),176 while Tcherikover claimed that the events described
by Josephus had to be dated before 200 bce, when the region was
still under Egypt’s rule. He also indicated an approximate order for
the events related to the story, from the birth of Joseph (270–260)
to the death of Hyrcanus (175–170).177 This position is followed by
Goldstein, for whom numerous facts would guarantee that the words
that identify the Ptolemy in the story with Ptolemy III Euergetes are
“the original reading,”178 and by Momigliano, who specifies that the
story refers to the period in which Palestine was under direct Ptolemaic
rule and that Tobias has to be dated to the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285–247 bce) and Joseph to the time of Ptolemy
Euergetes.
Therefore, Flavius Josephus’ reference to the period of Ptolemy V
Epiphanes is inaccurate.179 Furthermore, Hengel maintained that the
chronological sequence proposed by Tcherikover was the closest to
reality and dated Onias’ refusal to pay the taxes towards the end of
the Third Syrian War, when Seleucus II Callinicus launched an
attack (that ended in failure) in 242–241, and Ptolemy III Euergetes,
once the war was ended, paid a visit to Jerusalem “perhaps connected with the new ordering of circumstances there”.180
In recent years, the question has been the subject of debate between
Daniel Schwartz and Gideon Fuks. In 1998, against what already
seemed to be the communis opinio, Schwartz again sustained Josephus’
statement regarding the historical context in which the Jewish historian had situated the Tales of the Tobiads, that is, the beginning
of the second century bce.181 Examining the arguments against
Josephus’ reliability, he devoted special attention to eight points
176
Josephus, VII, 82, note c.
Hellenistic Civilization, 128, 130.
178
J.A. Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity,
Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Fs M. Smith, III, Leiden 1975, 94.
179
A. Momigliano, ‘I Tobiadi nella preistoria del moto maccabaico’, Quinto
Contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, I, Roma 1975, 610–611.
180
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 219 where Hengel also establishes the dates 239–217
within the 22 years during which Joseph was the general tax collector.
181
D.R. Schwartz, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, in M.
Goodman ed., Jews in a Graeco Roman World, Oxford 1998, 47–61.
177
150
chapter four
concerning the Tales of the Tobiads. Three of them are of special
relevance. One point which Schwartz studied was the addition tÚn
EÈerg°thn. He warned against a hasty identification of the sovereign
in question and pointed out that all modern editors (Naber, Nieser,
Reinach) preferred other witnesses that omitted it instead. He claimed
that the addition was a mistake in a correction inserted by scribes.182
In the second point, Schwartz examined some passages of Jewish
Antiquities that are regularly quoted in order to contradict the historical context proposed by Flavius Josephus. The Jewish historian
states twice that Joseph’s career lasted for 22 years (Ant 12,186.224),
and that he was succeeded in office by his son Hyrcanus, whose
career lasted for seven years during the kingdom of Seleucus IV
and ended with his suicide at the moment of the accession to the
throne of Antiochus IV (Ant 12,236), that is, in 175 bce. In any
case, Josephus dates the beginning of Joseph’s office at the time
of the wedding of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I Syra. This event,
according to Livius and Porphyry, happened in 193 bce, but Josephus dates it at 204 bce, in the first years of Ptolemy V’s rule. The
Fifth Syrian War, according to the Jewish historian, had finished
at the end of Ptolemy V’ reign and the king had been married
soon after the Seleucid victory, although Josephus’ chronology
regarding the Fifth Syrian War contradicts that of Polybius, who
dates it at 202/201 bce.
According to Schwartz, apart from the problem of the different
dates among Josephus, Polybius and Porphyry, what is really relevant in order to assess the chronology of the Tobiads is the fact that
in Josephus precisely twenty-nine years separate Ptolemy V’s accession to the throne (204 bce) from that of Antiochus IV (175 bce).
This would mean that, although Josephus could have mistaken the
dates of the war and the wedding, he knew perfectly well which
Ptolemy he was talking about. Then Schwartz concludes: “Are we
really so sure we know better?”.183
Finally, in the third point, Schwartz criticised the conviction that
the Tobiad in the Zenon Papyri could have been the father of Joseph
son of Tobias, and therefore the latter’s career ought to be dated
182
183
Schwartz, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, 53–54.
Schwartz, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, 56; see also 55.
ptolemies and high priest
151
to the third century bce. In his opinion, this datum could only mean
the continuity of the Tobiads, and nothing else.184 In conclusion,
Schwartz believed that the dating proposed in the past by scholars
like Droysen and Hofmann should be maintained and that dismissing the testimony of Josephus was an imprudent action.185
In 2001 Fuks replied to Schwartz’ position, declaring his complete
support of the hypothesis of a Ptolemaic context for the Tales of the
Tobiads.186 In his opinion, one of the points ignored by Schwartz
was the fact that, as it is possible to infer from Ant 12,224 the Onias
of the Tales of the Tobiads could not be other than Onias II, who
prospered under Ptolemaic rule. Furthermore, he listed a series of
internal references found in the Tales of the Tobiads187 that would
justify his conviction that such tale ought to be dated to the second
half of the third century bce. Schwartz followed with a reply in
which he refuted all of Fuks’ arguments, particularly the identification
of the high priest Onias and his historical dating.188 He claimed that
Onias’ identification in Ant 12,224 could not be used as a guide to
the chronology of the Tales of the Tobiads, as Josephus, in this passage, had combined a eulogy of Joseph (12,224a) and a fragment of
a priestly chronicle (12,224b) that concerned Onias, whose son was
Simon and whose grandson, Onias, received the Spartan letter.
Josephus didn’t know that Areius was a king, so he erroneously
identified the first Onias as Onias II, and then added “Joseph’s uncle”
to his depiction. Anyway, 12,224–225 refer, in order, to the deaths
of Onias I, Simon I and Onias II. Once admitted, as in 12,160,
that Onias the nephew of Joseph is Onias II, the problem is where
to situate Joseph the Tobiad chronologically. Schwartz maintains
that, although we do not know when the sister of Onias II was born
and had children, there are reasonable grounds for supposing that
her son Joseph had lived around the same period than his cousin
Simon, son of Onias, whom Fuks himself dates at about 200 bce.
184
Schwartz, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, 59–60.
Schwartz, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, 59,61.
186
G. Fuks, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note’, JJS 52 (2001),
354–356.
187
‘Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note’, 356 where there is a list of
the elements present in Ant 12,159.180.181.183.196.220.
188
D.R. Schwartz, ‘Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated
Autonomy be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks’, JJS 53 (2002), 146–151.
185
152
chapter four
But this, concludes Schwartz, would date Joseph’s activities to the
beginning of the Seleucid dominion.189
This debate highlights the chronological difficulty in the historical
research on the high priesthood. The dating of Onias II thus remains
uncertain, between the rule of the Ptolemies and that of the Seleucids.
The problem appears quite complex also in the attempt to establish
the motivation that determined the action of the high priest Onias
II. Above all, the expression toË laoË tØn prostas¤an has been subjected to investigation by some scholars, regarding whether tØn
prostas¤an is a synonym of t∞w érxieratik∞w tim∞w, another way of
indicating the office of the high priesthood, or if it has a different
meaning, indicating also a civil rule. Büchler, for instance, identified
prostas¤a and érxieratikØ timÆ as the same office, while in Momigliano’s opinion, the high priesthood and the prostas¤a were two
different offices.190 According to Parente, the word prostas¤a would
have a specific meaning, indicating not so much a position but rather
a function performed by the high priest, but independent from the
priestly one, to such an extent that, in a given moment, the prostasia was assumed by a different character: Joseph, from the Tobiad
family.191
This variety of opinions leads to the necessity of linking the expression to the contents of the narration and the diverse interpretations
of the story. When Onias declares his carelessness regarding the matters that trouble him, Joseph asks his uncle if he would give him
permission to go as an envoy to Ptolemy “on behalf of the nation”
(12,164: Íp¢r toË ¶ynouw). When Onias gives it, Josephus goes up to
the temple and called the people together in assembly (12,164: tÚ
pl∞yow efiw §kklhs¤an), who listen and return thanks to him (12,165).
Then Joseph prepares his visit to the king, announcing that he would
soon visit him, with the intention of being their “prostãthw” (12,167)192
189
D.R. Schwartz, ‘Once Again on Tobiad Chronology’, 149–150.
See Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden, Wien 1899–Hildesheim 1975, 79–80; I Tobiadi
nella preistoria del moto maccabaico, 612–613.
191
Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, 54.
192
See the translation of prostãthw (Ant 12,167) in Josephus, VII, 89, “their protector” and in T. Reinach, Oeuvres complètes de Flavius Josèphe, Tome troisième, Livres
XI–XIV, Paris 1904, 84, “dont’il était le patron.” According to Parente, Il pensiero
politico ebraico e cristiano, 55, the fact that Joseph has assumed the position before
seeing the king and the fact that he discussed with the king the payment of the
taxes demonstrates that the prostasía was not an office appointed by the king, but
that it had to consist essentially in a guarantee for the payment of the taxes.
190
ptolemies and high priest
153
and, having arrived at the palace of king Ptolemy, he is appointed
tax collector of the region (12,179).
According to Tcherikover, the refusal of Onias II to pay the taxes
was political in nature and hid Onias’ attempt, maybe linked to the
victories obtained in 242 bce by Seleucus Callinicus over Ptolemy
Euergetes, to break the bonds with Egypt and change to the Syrian
side. Both the resistance of the supporters of the Ptolemies, whose
main representative was Joseph son of Tobias, and the brief duration of Seleucus’ successes caused Onias’ attempt to remain an isolated incident “which brought no change in the Jewish political
situation”.193
Again, Tcherikover, commenting on Joseph’s successive career,
remembered that the prostas¤a was, according to Hecataeus’ testimony, in the hands of the high priests at the beginning of the
Hellenistic period and that the collection of the taxes was totally or
partially concentrated in the hands of the prostãthw. It was therefore clear, in his opinion, that the position of prostãthw entailed an
administrative or financial responsibility, apparently the highest one
in Judea; according to Flavius Josephus it was transferred from Onias
to Joseph son of Tobias.194
According to Goldstein, the episode of Onias and Joseph would
thus demonstrate that the high priest gave up his power, leaving “to
Joseph the prerogative of being the people’s spokesman before the
king”,195 but Tcherikover already reckoned that while the whole affair
did not provoke any changes in the external policy of the country,
in the sense that the Ptolemaic rule remained intact, it instead provoked the first crack in the building of Jerusalem’s theocracy: Onias
was deprived of an important responsibility in the collection of the
taxes, and Joseph seemed to become “not just a financial official but
the people’s political representative to the king”.196
Moreover, Tcherikover pointed out how strange and artificial
seemed Onias’ depiction: he is passionately fond of money, he thoughtlessly endangers the country and his fellow countrymen (12,162), he
193
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 129.
See Hellenistic Civilization, 132, where Tcherikover himself claims that it is in
every way difficult to know exactly the nature of the office of prostãthw. Vedi
Momigliano, I Tobiadi nella preistoria del moto maccabaico, 614.
195
Goldstein, ‘The Tales of Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity, Judaism
and Other Greco-Roman Cults, III, 87.
196
Hellenistic Civilization, 133.
194
154
chapter four
resigns the prostas¤a showing no care whatsoever about the high
priesthood; declaring that he is ready to leave it if that were possible, he does not even want to go to the king because he is not interested at all about such matters (12,163).197 Further, Joseph, addressing
the people, talks about the carelessness of his uncle (12,164).198 In
Tcherikover’s opinion, the whole affair of the transference of power
from Onias to Joseph as narrated in the Tales would in fact be hiding a conflict between the different factions that co-existed in Jerusalem
at that time,199 whereas Goldstein claims that Onias’ depiction could
be explained by the fact that the original author of the Tales was
a philo-Ptolemaic Jew who had no interest in suggesting that there
had been a pro-Seleucid plot involving the high priest himself under
the rule of Ptolemy III.200 But according to Gera, Josephus referred
to Onias’ refusal to pay the taxes “by a brief joke at his expense
and nothing more”;201 in his opinion, the intention of the author of
the Tales would be no other than to glorify Joseph. Onias’ refusal
to pay the taxes would be only a means to this end.202
Among the various interpretative possibilities taken into consideration, Hengel’s proposal is worthy of deeper study. According to
him, a conflict would emerge between two groups: the Tobiads and
the Oniads. The increasing power of the former group, due to the
support of the Ptolemies first and later of the Seleucids, had fostered
the weakening of the Oniads to the point that the position of the
high priest was at stake. In any case, such conflict represented a split
within the Jewish ruling class, “which made a decisive contribution
to the later conflict under Antiochus IV”.203
197
198
199
ka‹ tØn érxiervsÊnhn dÉ, efi dunatÒn §stin, •to¤mvw ¶xein époy°sytai.
diå tØn ÉOn¤ou toË ye¤ou per‹ aÈt«n ém°leian.
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 133.
Goldstein, ‘The Tales of Tobiads’, 97, claims that the author of the tale of
the Tobiads had been the high priest Onias IV; see 108.
201
See Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 54. The observation refers to Ant
12,172, where Joseph says to Ptolemy: “Pardon him because of his age; for surely
you are not unaware that old people and infants are likely to have the same level
of intelligence”, translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 91.
202
Gera, ibid., finds grounds for his hypothesis in an inaccuracy that he noticed
in a detail regarding the collection of the taxes. The introduction of elements alien
to the regular usage among the Ptolemies, such as the fact that Joseph uses an
army to collect the money from the inhabitants of Syria and Phoenicia, would be,
in his opinion, “a deliberate deviation from truth.” See Ant 12,180–184. However,
this hypothesis seems to disregard the complexity of the problem.
203
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 270.
200
ptolemies and high priest
155
This hypothesis must still be verified, as well as the question about
the function of the prostãthw,204 to which only partial answers have
been given. Hengel’s suggestion situates us at the eve of a new dominion over Judea, that of the Seleucids. A verification of his answer
and an attempt to answer the questions that have so far remained
unsolved will be possible only after a thorough study of the sources
related to the second section of the core of this study, focused on
the issue of the rule of the Seleucids and the Jewish high priest.
204
This issue will be revisited in the final conclusions; see chapter 6.3.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE RULE OF THE SELEUCIDS AND THE JEWISH
HIGH PRIEST
The present chapter follows the same methodology for historical
reconstruction used in chapter four. The general data regarding the
Seleucid administration of the region called Syria-Phoenicia will be
compared with the traditions regarding the high priests of Judea in
those times. The narratives related to the high priests are the object
of specific study in the second part of each chapter, by means of a
comparison between the different traditions in existence. The issue
of the persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes deserves a thorough analysis, especially with relation to the involvement of the high
priest.
The high priests considered here are: Simon in the two versions
(Greek/Hebrew) of the book of Ben Sira;1 Onias III, about whom
there are several historiographical, sometimes contradictory, traditions; Jason and Menelaus, the so-called “Hellenizer” high priests.
Finally, the traditions about Alcimus lead to the conclusion of this
part of the study.
5.1
The Seleucids and the Administration of Coele-Syria
The Syrian Seleucids took over Palestine,2 which was under Ptolemaic
rule, after a long series of wars, the so-called Syrian Wars, of which
the Fourth (219–217) and Fifth (202–198) in particular affected the
Palestinian territory.3 The main cause for these wars, both for the
1
Regarding the problem of Simon, see chapter 3.2.1 where Simon the Righteous,
who seems to be the Simon of Sir 50,1–24 in the research, has to be dated towards
200 bce. See J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, Paris 1972, 70, note 4; 66 § 47, note 1.
2
For the term “Palestine”, see D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to
161 BCE, Leiden 1998, 3 note 1.
3
Concerning the historical period, and especially the account of the Syrian wars
between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, see A. Bouché – Leclercq, Histoire des Séleucides,
Paris 1913/14, I, 72–87; F.M. Abel, Histoire de la Palestine, Paris 1952, I, 72–87;
E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, Nancy 1966–67; W. Tarn, The Heritage
seleucids and high priest
157
Ptolemies and the Seleucids, was the strategic importance of the
region. As Gera has pointed out, Palestine was an advanced defensive position for the Ptolemies, and for the Seleucids it constituted
a launching platform for offensives.4 The wars ended in 198 bce
with the victory of Antiochus III, who gained complete sovereignty
over the Ptolemaic province of Syria and Phoenicia, which was renamed Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. On the basis of the inscription5
dated between 197–187 already studied, where a certain Ptolemy
son of Thraseas is mentioned as “stratagÚw ka‹ érxiereÁw Sur¤aw
Ko¤law ka‹ Foin¤kaw,” it has been generally accepted that “CoeleSyria and Phoenicia” became the official name of the territories that
Antiochus had seized from the Ptolemies.6 Bickerman, analysing the
numerous geographical entities7 and the usage of the expression
Coele-Syria in the diverse sources where it appears, points out that
the term, which at the beginning was related to physical geography,
is soon found within the domain of political geography.8 He also
points out that while Hecataeus of Abdera demonstrates knowledge
of a country by the name of Judea, Eratosthenes distinguished the
country of the Jews from that of the Coele-Syrians.9 However,
of Alexander, in J.B. Burny – S.A. Cook – F.E. Adcock eds., The Cambridge Ancient
History, VI, Cambridge 1927, 461–504; D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219
to 161 BCE, Leiden 1998, 3–35. See also M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that
shaped the Old Testament, Columbia University Press, New York and London 1971,
231 note 57, in which there is a list of the wars and of the army leaders responsible for the operations in Palestine. For a deeper study about the strategos of CoeleSyria and Phoenicia, see H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der Hellenistischen Zeit, II,
München 1952, 159 ff.
4
Diodorus Siculus, XVIII,43,1, writing about Ptolemy’s campaign, had already
observed: ır«n d¢ tØn te Foin¤khn ka‹ tØn Ko¤lhn ÙnomazÒm°nhn Sur¤an eÈfu«w
keim°naw . . . See Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean, 7–9; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism.
Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia 1974, I, 6–7.
5
OGIS 230. See Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, Brescia,
1994, 81, nr 6. Concerning the same inscription see chapter 2.1.1.
6
However, Stern, GLAJJ, I, 14, note 2 claims that the meaning and the extension of Coele-Syria had greatly varied throughout the time; see likewise Tcherikover,
Hellenistic Civilization, 423, note 36. See also E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek
Age, Cambridge-London 1988, 123.
7
‘La Coelé-Syrie. Notes de Géographie historique’, RB 54 (1947), 256.
8
‘La Coelé-Syrie’, 258.
9
‘La Coelé-Syrie’, 259. Eratosthenes is quoted by Strabo in his work Geographica.
According to Stern, GLAJJ, I, 89 note 1, the passage in question, which describes
the situation in the desert part of Arabia, is however an explanation added by
Strabo himself. See also GLAJJ, I, 311, note 117. Concerning Hecataeus in Diodorus
XL,3 see GLAJJ, I, 26, nr 11.
158
chapter five
Bickerman himself admits a certain confusion regarding the use of
the term by authors such as Flavius Josephus and Strabo and comes
to the conclusion that the name Coele-Syria and Phoenicia given by
Antiochus III to the recently conquered Lagid Syria, towards the
end of the second century bce, due to the expansion of the Jewish
state, was used only to refer to the territories of the former Seleucid
kingdom in South Lebanon that were out of Jewish control.10
In his fundamental work, Rostovtzeff focuses on the differences
between the two empires, both because of the geographical extension of each and the heterogeneous character of the population. In
fact, while the Ptolemies ruled over a rather compact set of territories, the Seleucids exercised their authority over a group of regions
that differed greatly from each other in every aspect. Therefore, in
his opinion, “It was impossible to apply to the Seleucid dominions
any general organization such as that which was introduced in Egypt
by the Ptolemies.”11
Actually, the issue of the size and the diversity of the territories
that constituted the Seleucid empire had already been studied by
Bickerman. In a famous work from 1938, he pointed to a deep
difference between the two empires, from the historical point of
view,12 underscoring the size of the territory that extended from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, making the Seleucid kingdom a universal empire. Nevertheless, from the juridical point of
view, he claimed that the Seleucid state does not differ at all from
the Lagid state.13 With this statement, Bickerman intended to point
out the personal nature of the Seleucid king’s dominion, also made
evident by the fact that the empire lacked an official name; in fact,
for the ancient writers it was just a basile¤a named after the king.14
10
‘La Coelé-Syrie’, 268.
The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, 430 See also F.W.
Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1993, 123, who emphasizes the territorial oscillation of the Seleucid empire between the year 312, in which Seleucus I
occupied Babylon, and the year 129 bce, in which, due to the territorial losses following the death of Antiochus VII, the dominion of the Seleucids was exercised
only over a small zone in northern Syria.
12
E. Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides, Paris 1938, 7.
13
See Institutions des Séleucides, 6 where Bickerman adds “ou mieux, de tous les
royaumes qui dérivent de la conquête d’Alexandre”.
14
See Institutions des Séleucids, 3 and note 5 where there is a reference to the
% t∞w
expression used in 1 Macc 2,19, that indicates the king’s territory as “§n o‡kv
basile¤aw toË basil°vw”.
11
seleucids and high priest
159
Such a personal character was reinforced, in Bickerman’s opinion,
by the presence of a particular category of courtiers, the f¤loi toË
basil°vw.15 According to Bickerman, the expression meant not only
a certain familiarity with the monarch, but also a body, an order
strictly linked to the king and divided into several ranks: friends,
honoured friends, first friends.16 Bickerman recognised in the friends
and relatives of the king a sort of hierarchy and identified an example of promotion within this hierarchy in Jonathan Maccabeus’ cursus
honorum (1 Macc 10,20). The institution was then widely recorded by
the time of the Maccabees, but Bickerman claimed that it already
existed by the time of the foundation of the Syrian kingdom under
Seleucus, who would have followed the example of Alexander and
the Macedonian princes. However, the organisation of the court
ranks would have belonged to a later period. Anyway, the f¤loi toË
basil°vw, according to Bickerman, already formed an order under
Antiochus III.17
Bickerman also noticed the importance given to the administration of the finances in the Seleucid empire. There was an individual designated ı §p‹ t«n prosÒdvn in charge of this administration,
an official in charge of the revenues, assisted by the diokhta¤, although
their role and functions still remain unknown.18 There were also an
ofikonÒmow and a Ïparxow, which would suggest the idea that the
eparchy was the last administrative sub-division of the Seleucid-state.19
However, as Bickerman observed, while the papyri provide us with
plenty of information about the Ptolemaic fiscal system, there are
few details regarding that of the Seleucids.
15
See Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides, 40.
Institutions des Séleucides, 41, note 8 where, concerning the friends of the king,
1 Macc 7,8 and Ant 13,225 are quoted, and note 10, in which, concerning the first
friends, there are quotations of 1 Macc 11,27 and 2 Macc 8,9. Again Bickerman,
Institutions des Séleucides, 42 note 8, admits moreover the existence of a fourth category of courtiers: the relatives of the king.
17
Institutions des Séleucides, 45; see also 43–44.
18
Institutions des Séleucides, 128.
19
Institutions des Séleucides, 130. See also 203. See also A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of
the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 1937, 1971, 246 who claims: “It is difficult to
form any coherent picture of the Seleucid administration of Syria.”
16
160
5.1.1
chapter five
The strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw Ptolemy of Thraseas
In recent times, however, some Greek inscriptions dated to the period
of Antiochus III’s rule have made a new and important contribution, particularly to the historical and geographical aspects of this
research, as they concern the problem of the administration of the
territory that included Judea. Above all, the inscription of Soli in
Cilicia20 appears to be relevant and, on its basis, we must believe
that under Antiochus III’s rule Coele-Syria included the territory of
Judea and was commanded by a stratagÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw. From the
same inscription we have also discovered the name of the man who
occupied this position at the beginning of Antiochus’ kingdom: Ptolemy
of Thraseas. He was, as already has been noted, the son of the
Thraseas mentioned in the inscription of Arsinoe.21 However, from
this inscription, all that we know about him are his titles, as his
duties are not described.
A group of written documents discovered in 1960 near Hefzibah,
a few kilometres from ancient Scythopolis, have contributed to the
solution of the problem. The dossier22 contains several orders issued
by king Antiochus, including a series of privileges granted to a Ptolemy
strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw (III,9; IVa,20; V,28), and two ÍpomnÆmata
sent to the king by this same Ptolemy.23 Polybius24 identified the individual in question as one of Ptolemy IV’s generals in 219 bce, who
later on changed sides and joined the Seleucids, entering the service
of Antiochus III. The dates of the documents refer to the years of
the Fifth Syrian War, and therefore coincide with the date of the
inscription of Soli in Cilicia.25 Even though some parts of the letters
are completely ruined because of the erosion of the stone, thus making the text difficult to interpret, the dossier is worthy of interest
regarding the function of the character mentioned several times as
strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereuw of a territory named “Syria and Phoenicia”.26
20
See note 3.
See chapter 4.2.2. The name “Ptolemy” is present also in the so-called “Seleucid
letter” (Ant 12,138–144) and also there he is identified as Ptolemy of Traseas. See
also 5.2.2.
22
See chapter 2.1.1.
23
Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, 59, III,10; IVa,20: basile›
ÉAntiÒxvi ÍpÒmnhma parå Ptolema¤ou strathgoË ka‹ érxier°vw.
24
Pol 5, 65,3.
25
J.-L. Robert, BE 627, REG (83) 1970, 470. See ch. 2.1.1.
26
Concerning this expression, see Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near
21
seleucids and high priest
161
From the reading of the second of Ptolemy’s memoranda27 in particular, we see that he appears as the owner of a vast territory and
many villages. Perhaps some of them were already his own, as personal property or as inherited possessions, while others had been
given to him by the king.28 He asks and obtains privileges regarding these lands, among them that nobody was to be granted permission to §pistaymeÊein.29 The request has been generally understood
as a petition of exoneration from the lodging of soldiers in the villages that belonged or were attributed to Ptolemy: under no circumstances could the troops be quartered in such villages and so all
damages would be avoided.30 One of the documents, according to
Bertrand, seems to be perfectly enigmatic.31 The key word in the
text is §gklhmãtvn (l. 12), which is linked to the verb énap°mphtai
(l.14), a technical term used to mean “remit a matter”,32 and could
indicate, among the duties of the strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw Ptolemy,
the role of judge in the court of appeal to settle the controversies
between villages. According to Bertrand, the text33 would therefore
be a memorandum from Ptolemy to king Antiochus, in which he would
ask the king for the privilege to administer justice in the territories
Hefzibah’, 66. See in 59, IIIa, 15–16: §p‹ tÚn §n S[ur]¤ai k[ai] F[o]in¤khi [s]trathgÒn.
E. Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jerusalem’, in E. Bickerman ed., Studies in
Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, 46, note 3, observes that in this case
the Ptolemaic name of the province is maintained, while in the heading of Soli of
Cilicia the new Seleucid name Sur¤a Ko¤lh ka‹ Foin¤kh is used instead.
27
Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, 59, IVa, 20–26.
28
Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, lI,Va, 22–23: efiw tåw
! [t]!rikÚn ka‹ efiw [ëw] pro[s]°tajaw.
Íp[arx]oÊ!saw moi k≈[m]!aw [§g]!ktÆsei ka‹ efiw [t]Ú pa
See also the comment in 66. About “hereditary possessions” see also Boffo, Iscrizioni
greche e latine, 82. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions, 15, note 23,
points out that the description of part of Ptolemy’s possessions as efiw tÚ patrikÒn
suggests that he, and maybe also his father previously, owned the villages under
some kind of concession scheme, maybe a dorea, from the Ptolemies.
29
Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, 59, IVa, 24; see Liddell –
Scott, entry §pistaymeÊv = to be billeted or quartered.
30
J.-L. Robert , BE 627, REG (83) 1970, 472–73; see also Landau, ‘A Greek
Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, 61, IVa, 24–26. Regarding the énepistayme¤a,
see Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, Chicago 19742, 70: inscription
of Batoikaikè concerning the privileges granted to Zeus’ sanctuary; about its dating
see Robert, BE, 627, 471.
31
This is document III, Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’,
60. See J.M. Bertrand, ‘Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah’, ZPE (46) 1982, 167–174.
32
Author’s translation of Bertrand, ‘Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah’, 168: “renvoyer
un affaire”. See Liddell-Scott, entry énap°mpv “remit; of a higher authority referring to delegates”.
33
Bertrand, ‘Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah’, 169–174.
162
chapter five
under his jurisdiction. In some cases, for instance, to settle the quarrels between the peasants in his villages and the peasants of the other
villages, this privilege would have been exercised by his fiduciaries,
such as the economist and the administrator of the place; but in
case of murder or other serious crimes, the strategos had to deal with
the problem personally. Ptolemy himself held the office of strategos of
Syria and Phoenicia at that time. The reconstruction suggested by
Bertrand is interesting regarding the jurisdictional powers of the
strathgÒw ka‹ érxiereÊw, although to be considered reliable it would
need further and more trustworthy documentary evidence.
Piejko, reconsidering the inscription of Hefzibah and the interpretation proposed by Bertrand, wonders about the powers of Ptolemy
as strathgÒw and as érxiereÊw and comes to the conclusion that,
from the Hefzibah dossier, it can be inferred with a certain accuracy that his authority as a delegate in Josephus (Ant 12,138) “seems
to be real and extensive.”34 It is however difficult to distinguish
Ptolemy’s powers as strathgÒw from his responsibilities as érxiereÊw:
there are no indications of any type, that could lead us to identify
the office as religious. Maybe the expression [mh]yen‹ §jous¤an e‰nai
§pistaymeÊein35 that states, as has been previously noted, the privilege
not to lodge troops, could also be referred in particular to worship
sites located in the territories owned by Ptolemy or the ones that
had been assigned to him near the villages; the title of érxiereÊw
then would only be an indication of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, from the comparison with the inscription of Arsinoe,
we can deduce that Ptolemy belonged to a family of governors, originally coming from Aspendus in Pamphylia. A large number of citizens of Aspendus are recorded as civil and military officers under
the Ptolemies.36 To these names must be added, after the inscription, those of the two governors of Cilicia: Aetus and Thraseas, father
and son.37
34
F. Piejko, ‘Antiochus III and Ptolemy son of Thraseas: the Inscription of
Hefzibah reconsidered’, L’Antiquité Classique LX (1991), 255.
35
Landau, ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, 59, IVa, 24.
36
See Jones – Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia’, 337;
see L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine, Paris 1963, 375–415.
37
Jones – Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription’, 338, recall the name of another
citizen of Aspendus, Meas, author of a dedication to Hermes and Heracles for the
sake of king Ptolemy’s prosperity, and the sake of queen Berenice and their children,
that has been discovered near Arsinoe. See also ibid., note 59 and SEG 31, 1321.
seleucids and high priest
163
Moreover, there is also the problem of Ptolemy’s defection from
the Seleucid side, along with the date of this defection. Among the
various hypotheses, the one that links the treachery to the aftermath
of Ptolemy V’s accession to the throne (March–August 204) and to
the events that led to the Fifth Syrian War beginning in 202 bce,38
seems most likely.
Among the motives for the defection, the following were adopted:
Ptolemy’s fear of losing his rule over Syria and Phoenicia as well as
his private property; the weakness of the Ptolemies compared with
the Seleucids; the increasing power of the new court members hostile to Ptolemy in Alexandria and the kind treatment that the Seleucid
king had already granted to those that had defected in the previous
Syrian War.39 Beyond the various hypotheses concerning the dating
of the defection and the motives that provoked it, it has been generally
accepted that Ptolemy was the first and only member of his family
to defect to the Seleucid side. However, a new inscription found on
a granite statue discovered in Tyre and dedicated to Ptolemy IV
Philopator (222–205 bce) and queen Berenice by Thraseas son of
Aetus, strategos of Syria and Phoenicia,40 has broken new ground; in
fact, Thraseas appears as Ptolemy IV’s strathgÒw and thus seems to
occupy the same position that his son had occupied for Antiochus
III.41 Rey Coquais talks about “a real dynasty of governors”42 and
argues that the family43 was in any case so important that no king,
neither Lagid nor Seleucid, could dispense with their services if they
were to control the territory.44 A confirmation for such a hypothesis
38
See Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 83.
Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean, 31–32.
40
SEG 39,1596b: Yras°aw, ÉAetoË EÈs°beiow, strathgÚw Sur¤aw ka‹ Foin¤khw”.
See J. Rey-Coquais, ‘Apport d’inscriptions inédites de Syrie et de Phénicie aux listes
de divinités où à la prosopographie de l’Égypte héllenistique ou romaine’, in
L. Criscuolo – G. Geraci ed., Egitto e Storia Antica dall’Ellenismo all’Età Araba. Bilancio
di un confronto. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Bologna, 31 August–2 September 1987,
Bologna 1989, 614–617. See also Jones-Habicht, 345–346 and note 94.
41
Jones – Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic Inscription’, 346; Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine,
82–83.
42
Author’s translation of ‘Apport d’inscriptions’, 617: “une véritable dynastie de
gouverneurs”.
43
Concerning the origins of the family, according to the inscription of Arsinoe,
Aetus as a native from Aspendus in Pamphylia, it has also been hypothesized that
Thraseas was a citizen of Alexandria in Egypt and honorary citizen of Athens.
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 86 and note 86 and Jones – Habicht, ‘A Hellenistic
Inscription’, 342–343.
44
‘Apport d’inscriptions’, 617; see also Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 86.
39
164
chapter five
could come from a passage in Second Maccabees, where in the context of the quarrel between the high priest Onias III and Simon,
the prostãthw toË fleroË, it says that the latter went to Apollonius of
Thraseas, who was strategos of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia at that time
(3,5).45 The reading Yrasa¤ou has drawn much discussion among
the experts:46 it has been read by Habicht as: “dem Sohne des
Thraseas”,47 thus adding another link to the family. However, the
problem of the extent of the power implied by the office of strathgÚw
ka‹ érxiereÊw still remains unsolved. An observation made by Gera
is interesting; he considers the meaning of the expression “optimates
Ptolemai partium” used by Jerome in his commentary on Daniel 11,14
to indicate the leaders of the pro-Ptolemaic faction.48 He puts forward the hypothesis that the Ptolemy mentioned is not Ptolemy V
Epiphanes but rather “Ptolemy son of Thraseas, the last Ptolemaic
governor of Syria and Phoenicia who became its first Seleucid strategos.”49 In his opinion, Jerome, who based his work upon Porphyry,
had mistaken the governor Ptolemy for the king Ptolemy, and therefore had thought that the Jewish chiefs were loyal to the governor
whereas they were in fact faithful to the king. Gera also highlights
the fact that Ptolemy of Thraseas, by virtue of the office inherited
from his father and of the established bonds with the local population, exerted a remarkable influence over the inhabitants and the
chiefs of Syro-Phoenicia. When he changed his allegiance to Antiochus
III, he could easily favour the Seleucid conquest: in the Fifth Syrian
War the Jews also fought for Antiochus III and remained loyal to
him even during the counteroffensive that led the Ptolemies to the
temporary conquest of Judea in 201/200 and to the exile of the proSeleucid Jewish leaders. There were also Jews that helped the Seleucid
army seize control of the city of Jerusalem.50 Moreover, Gera observes
45
∑lye prÚw ÉApoll≈nion Yrasa¤ou tÚn kat’ §ke›non tÚn kairÚn Ko¤lhw Sur¤aw ka‹
Foin¤khw strathgÚn.
46
See the possible variations of the lection Yrasa¤ou in the critical apparatus of
Kappler – Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II, 55. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 194 reads:
“Tharseas.” He observes that Thraseas “was much more common as a name and
is the reading of many witnesses to the text.” In his opinion “the scribes would
turn the rare name into the common one,” see II Maccabees, 204, note 5.
47
2. Makkabäerbuch, Gütersloh 1976, 210 and note 5b.
48
Judaea and Mediterranean, 28–34. About the quotation of Daniel, see 4.2.1.
49
Judaea and Mediterranean, 29.
50
Judaea and Mediterranean, 33–34. About the issue regarding the existence of proSeleucid and pro-Ptolemaic factions, see also 23–28; 34, note 108.
seleucids and high priest
165
that the favourable attitude of the Jews towards Antiochus III was
no different from that of the other populations in Syria-Phoenicia,
and was mainly based on practical reasons.
Gera refutes the possibility of establishing “the existence of Jewish
factions which consistently supported either the Ptolemaic or the
Seleucid dynasty”51 and claims that the favourable attitude of the
Jews towards the Seleucids was due to the links that the aristocratic
leaders had with their governor rather than to an ideological motive.
This opinion regarding the interpretation of Jerome differs from others already studied52 and does not seem to be justified by strong evidence, as Jerome does not provide clear references about Ptolemy
of Thraseas, whereas, as it was already shown, he enriches the information regarding the existence of factions and divisions. Concerning
the existence of ideological motives, the subject becomes more complex,53 but it is one thing to say that there were bonds between the
aristocratic chiefs and their governor, or rather with the strathgÚw
ka‹ érxiereÊw of the Coele-Syria, and another to refute the existence
of factions that supported one or the other dynasty.
Notwithstanding the difficulties highlighted, from the epigraphic
evidence so far considered it is possible to open new lines of research.
It allows us to formulate some working hypotheses with the aim of
solving the problem of the supposed double-role of governor and
high priest of the Jews:
1) There was a strategos who, already in the Ptolemaic age, exerted
his own authority over the territories of Syria and Phoenicia, renamed as Coele-Syria in the Seleucid period, that also included
Judea within its borders. The same title is also found for other
members of the same family.
2) The Seleucids welcomed most favourably the “traitor” Ptolemy
of Thraseas, bestowing upon him the title of strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw, a new title in the family that would indicate, along with
51
Judaea and Mediterranean, 34; see also 35.
Among others, see again Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 79–82, who reckons, for instance, that the Tobiads were the leaders of the pro-Seleucid faction,
while the brother Hyrcanus is associated with the supporters of the Ptolemaic
dynasty.
53
Particularly relevant for this aim is the study carried out by Smith, Palestinian
Parties, 151–156, which considers the existence of ideological groups linked to the
social divisions dating from the time of Nehemiah, and distinguishes separatist and
assimilationist ideologies. See Conclusion.
52
chapter five
166
that of military commander, also the position of supervisor of the
cult.54 The latter included, as the dossier of Hefzibah seems to
demonstrate, the privilege of administering justice, at least in the
territories under his jurisdiction; this is recorded in the inscription of Arsinoe, too, where Thraseas settles the dispute about the
sovereignty over the territory between the city of Arsinoe and the
city of Nagidos.
3) It seems necessary now to define the relationship between the
figure of the strathgÚw ka‹ érxiereÊw, civil official of the Seleucids,
and the érxiereÊw or high priest of the Jews.55 Such relationship
is to be examined within the context of the wider problem of the
juridical status of Judea under Seleucid rule, which could allow
us to understand something more about the social situation of the
Jews.
5.2
The Jews of the Diaspora under the first Seleucids
Bickerman claims that the Jews are the only ¶ynow of which we know
the structure under the Seleucids.56 In fact, there are a certain number of documents available, both in Second Maccabees and in Jewish
Antiquities, the majority of which are nowadays considered authentic.57
These documents allow us to investigate the situation of the Jews
under Seleucid dominion. The study of the condition of the Jews of
the Diaspora before the Seleucid dominion over Judea is also worthy of interest, in order to establish a comparison with the situation
of the Jews during Antiochus III’s occupation.
Flavius Josephus is a privileged source for the study of this issue.
In the first testimony in Jewish Antiquities concerning the founder
of the dynasty, Seleucus I, he poses an important question that has
been widely discussed: that of the granting of citizenship (polite¤a)
to the Jews “in the cities which he founded in Asia and Lower Syria
54
Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 80, nr 6.
See also F.M. Abel, Histoire de la Palestine, I, 106.
56
Institutions des Séleucides, 164–165.
57
Concerning Second Maccabees, see the study carried out by C. Habicht, ‘Royal
Documents in Maccabees II’, HSCP 80 (1976), 1–18; for the documents found in
Ant 12,138–153 see the review of the various opinions of scholars in Marcus,
Josephus, VII, 743–766; E. Bickerman, ‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges
juives’, in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, 24–43.
55
seleucids and high priest
167
and in his capital, Antioch, itself, and declared them to have equal
privileges with the Macedonians and Greeks who were settled in
these cities” (12,119).58
The assertion is confirmed in two other texts by the same author.
In Against Apion, regarding the Jews that lived in Antioch and were
called Antiocheans, it is said that their founder Seleucus (2,39)59 had
granted them the right to citizenship. This is also claimed, albeit
more indirectly, in Jewish War, where it is said that especially in
Antioch the Jewish race is densely interspersed among people from
all over the world, “partly owing to the greatness of that city, but
mainly because the successors of king Antiochus had enabled them
to live there in security” (7,43).60
The historical reliability of such written evidence has drawn much
criticism from the experts: Marcus, for instance,61 notes that they
contain exaggerations of an apologetic nature that constitute grounds
for suspicion. He points out that in Jewish War there is no mention
whatsoever of Seleucus’ policy concerning the Jews; therefore, the
Antiochus in the passage of the Jewish War would be in reality
Antiochus III.62 The same doubt is indirectly confirmed by other
scholars.63 Therefore, taking into consideration both the fact that
during Seleucus I’s reign the Jewish community was too small to
justify specific legislation as well as the context in which the statement of Jewish War is found, there is a tendency to believe that
Josephus is talking about the policy of the Seleucids after Antiochus
III. An Antiochus without a surname, it is claimed, is much more
likely to be the well-known Antiochus III rather than the obscure
Antiochus I.64 Another reference to Seleucus is present in Jewish
Antiquities, where it is said that the king considers the Jews to be
58
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities, Books XII–XIV, 61.
See Thackeray, Josephus, I, 306, who, in note d, quotes both the reference to
Ant 12,119 and the information of Jewish War 7,110 concerning the fact that the
rights of the Antiochean Jews were written on bronze tables when Titus visited the
city.
60
Translation by J. Thacheray, Josephus, III, The Jewish War, IV–VII, 517.
61
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 737–742.
62
See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 739.
63
See Thackeray, Josephus, III, The Jewish War, IV–VII, 517, note: “Antiochus I
Soter (reigned 280–261 bc) is apparently meant.” See also Vitucci, Flavio Giuseppe.
La Guerra Giudaica, 586, note 3.
64
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 739.
59
168
chapter five
worthy of citizenship65 and that “the proof of this is the fact that he
gave orders that those Jews who were unwilling to use foreign oil
should receive a fixed sum of money from the gymnasiarchs to pay
for their own kind of oil” (12,120).66
Nevertheless, this text was also criticized for being apologetic and
referring to Antiochus III.67 Another Seleucid king prior to Antiochus
III is Antiochus, Seleucus’ grandson, whom the Greeks called Theos.68
Josephus mentions him in relation to an upheaval of the Ionians at
the time of Marcus Agrippa, against the citizenship granted to the
Jews by the king (Ant 12,125). According to Marcus,69 the passage
must be seen in relation to Ant 16,27–30, where Nicolaus of Damascus
is depicted as the advocate of the preservation of the privileges of
the Jews in Ionia, that were, however, granted by the Romans. As
a consequence of this and the former observations, Marcus claims
that it is highly unlikely that the Jewish communities of Syria and
Seleucid Asia were granted citizenship or particular privileges before
Antiochus III.70 While it is improbable on the grounds of such evidence to assert historically the existence of citizenship rights or particular privileges for the Jews, it is however possible to state, at least
with a certain degree of accuracy, that the Seleucids continued the
policy of tolerance that the Ptolemies had begun.
Regarding this issue, Bickerman’s observation is important:
In the ancient world, because each city and each people was considered a particular and peculiar unit, a conqueror had to determine the
future of each such unit newly added to his dominions. In general, he
confirmed the pre-existing position of the city.71
Josephus’ text confirms the enthusiastic welcome that the Jews gave
to Seleucus and the fact that precisely on the grounds of such
favourable reception, the king declared them to have equal privileges with the Macedonians and Greeks who were settled in these
cities (Ant 12,119). Nevertheless, doubt and uncertainty still linger
65
66
polite¤aw aÈtoÁw ±j¤vse (Ant 12,119).
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 61.
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 739.
68
This would be Antiochus II (261–247 a.C.).
69
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 741.
70
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 742.
71
Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 124. See what was said about the tradition of the visit of Alexander to Jerusalem in ch. 1.3.2.
67
seleucids and high priest
169
over the extent to which such privileges were made effective. In fact,
while on one hand it has to be admitted that the written evidence
regarding both Seleucus I and Antiochus II is scarce and contradictory, on the other hand it must also be admitted that there are
no other data in existence that refute what was said by Josephus,
and this at least allows for the benefit of doubt. The following period,
that of the rule of Antiochus III the Great over Judea, casts new
light on the problem, as more information is available.
5.3
Antiochus III and the Juridical Status of the Jews
Jewish Antiquities contains three documents72 issued by Antiochus
III in favour of the Jews, that appear to be particularly important
in order to determine the juridical position of the Jewish ¶ynow.73
The first one (12,138–144) contains a letter addressed to a certain Ptolemy, generally identified as Ptolemy of Thraseas,74 in which,
according to the traditional style of the Seleucid chancellery, the situation of Jerusalem in the Seleucid Empire is established.
In the letter,75 the king remembers the kind welcome of the Jews
when he arrived in the region and the favourable reception he was
given in their city, the meeting with the gerous¤a, the offering of
food supplies for his army and the help provided against the Egyptian
garrison.
As reward and with the aim of restoring and repopulating the
city, damaged by the events of the war, he announces the concession
72
Ant 12,128–144; 145–146; 147–153.
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 82. See also Marcus, Josephus, VII, 743–766:
“Appendix D, Antiochus III and the Jews,” where, before focusing on the contents
of the documents, there is an analysis of their reliability and the problem of the
fake documents. He confirms the need of dealing skeptically with the documents
quoted by Josephus and also by the authors of the Letter of Aristeas or Second
Maccabees; they are prone to exaggerate the kind of disposition that the first
Ptolemies or Seleucids showed towards the Jews, or even, as Flavius Josephus does,
to mistake, carelessly or deliberately, social privileges for citizenship and civil equality (746). However, he reckons that the above-mentioned arguments “are, of course,
secondary to the arguments based on parallels found in genuine inscriptions of
Hellenistic kings” (747).
74
See chapter 5.1.1.
75
The letter has been thoroughly studied by E. Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide
de Jérusalem’, in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden, 1980, 44–85, who
supports its authenticity. See also Marcus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XII–XIV, Appendix
D, 743–766 and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 82.
73
170
chapter five
of a number of privileges, namely a contribution of animals for the
temple sacrifices, wine, oil, flour, grain, salt and frankincense, importation of wood for the temple reparations, personal tax exemptions,
crown-tax exemption and exemption of the salt-tax for the gerous¤a,
the priests, the scribes of the temple and the temple-singers, exemption of every tax for three years and permanent reduction of a third
of the taxes for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, liberation of slaves and
restitution of property (Ant 12,139–142). But the central and most
controversial point of the letter is the statement that all those who
belong to the nation “shall have a form of government in accordance with the laws of their country”, that is, should rule themselves
katå toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw (12,142).76
Tcherikover notices that this is one of two documents in which
this right is explicitly referred to in the Hellenistic age;77 regarding
the meaning of pãtrioi nÒmoi, however, he refutes Bickerman’s statement that limited the reference of the expression to the Law of
Moses,78 claiming that the concept of Law expressed in the letter is
extremely wide and therefore includes “not only the elements of the
Jewish religion, but the maintenance of political institutions; the form
of the regime, the methods of social organization”.79
According to this interpretation, then, the right to abide by ancestral laws would also include the confirmation of Jerusalem’s theocracy and of the authority of the high priest.80 Such a conclusion
seems to be totally opposite to that of Bickerman, already considered in a previous chapter.81 Instead, according to Bickerman, from
the preamble of Antiochus’ letter it would appear that the Jewish
nation was governed by the gerous¤a, a body that already existed
in the Ptolemaic Jerusalem.82
Bickerman questions why this letter is addressed to the governor
of the province rather than to the Jews. It is a choice that might
76
The expression “katå toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw” is translated by Marcus, Josephus,
VII, Jewish Antiquities, 73. Another and more common translation is “according to
the ancestral laws.” This is one of the main themes of the present study; for a
deeper analysis see also chapters 6.4; 7.4.2.
77
Hellenistic Civilization, 82–83. See the discussion concerning the document of
Ant 12,147–153, below in this chapter.
78
Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 71; see Idem, The Jews in the Greek Age, 125.
79
Hellenistic Civilization, 83.
80
Hellenistic Civilization, 83–84.
81
See chapter 3.3.
82
The Jews in the Greek Age, 125.
seleucids and high priest
171
have depended on the circumstances,83 but in any case, based on
evidence regarding the use of the diplomatic chancellery it is possible to believe that Antiochus III had sent a copy of his letter to
Ptolemy to Jerusalem, and that Josephus’ text is drawn from an
official copy of the letter that was in Jerusalem.84 The letter corresponds to the juridical principles of the Greek public Law, according to which Antiochus III had to establish the juridical status of
the conquered cities.85 In Bickerman’s opinion, the letter would reflect
the situation of divisions and factions present within the city.86 As a
reward for the help received, according to Hellenistic traditions, the
monarch was morally obliged towards the city; the first privilege that
a Hellenistic king would grant to the conquered city was the reestablishment of the city’s juridical status. Thus, remarks Bickerman,
concerning Jerusalem Antiochus commands: “And all the members
of the nation shall have a form of government in accordance with
the laws of their country” (12,142).87
It is, however, necessary to determine the value of this order: first
and foremost, there is the need of establishing the meaning of the
term ¶ynow; it is also necessary to clarify to what extent the ancestral laws were applied. According to Bickerman, ¶ynow in Antiochus’
letter referred only to the Palestine Jews that became subjects of the
king in 200 bce.88 While in a Greek pÒliw the confirmation of the
83
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 66 quotes both 1 Macc 10,66 where the letter written
by king Demetrius I to the nation of the Jews in 152 is reported (granting them
numerous benefits), and 1 Macc 11,30 , featuring the letter in which Demetrius II
in 145 announces to his minister Lastene the concession of favours to the Jews,
sending to the high priest Jonathan and the nation of the Jews a copy of his decision.
84
Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 66, points out that in the letter reported
by Josephus both the final greeting “¶rrvso” and the date are absent, as it often
happened with the copies. See also 67.
85
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 67–68.
86
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 68, where in order to prove the existence of the divisions and the preeminence of the Seleucid party, Bickerman reports: the passage
of Daniel 11,14 and the related comment of Jerome (see note 123); Polybius text
(16,36), where it is said that Scopas, Ptolemy V’s general, forcably submitted the Jewish
people, and again Jerome (see ibid., note 125), who recalls how, when the Egyptians
left Palestine for good and returned to their land, the chiefs of the Ptolemaic party
followed suit. This issue has been already discussed in chapter 4.2.1.
87
politeu°syvsan d¢ pãntew ofl §k toË ¶ynouw katå toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw, translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 73. Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 69, interprets
“tous ceux qui sont de ce peuple vivront sous le gouvernement des lois de leurs
pères”.
88
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 69 and note 134.
172
chapter five
ancestrals laws would generally mean the enjoyment of a more or
less broad autonomy, in Jerusalem it meant a completely different
thing.89 Here it signifies that Antiochus III granted the inviolability
of the prescriptions of the Torah, thus following the example of the
Lagids of Alexandria. Furthermore, this decree would demonstrate
that the type of government adopted by the Jews under the Seleucids
is aristocratic. The Jewish nation is represented by the gerous¤a; the
presence of the high priest as the leader of the people is recorded
for the first time in 145/4 bce.90 However, according to Bickerman,
the privileges granted to the Jews are rather mediocre.91 Jerusalem’s
situation, in fact, does not seem to be different from that of other
dependent cities.92 In conclusion, the most important element that
can be gathered from Antiochus III’s decree is the confirmation of
the Mosaic Law, and the fact that the Torah was therefore a royal
law.93
Nevertheless, Will and Orrieux note that from a thorough study
of the decree, the royal benevolence and the benefits that came along
with it did not lack certain shadows.94 They observe that the king
does not address the Jews directly, but through one of his subordinates; the absence of the high priest is ambiguous, maybe due to
the fact that Antiochus felt somehow suspicious of him, as the high
priest in office at that time, Simon II from the priestly dynasty of
the Oniads, was favourable to Ptolemy.
In answer to Bickerman, they pose further objections: if Judea was
aristocratic, they claim, the high priest was its expression.95 Moreover,
by committing himself to respect the pãtrioi nÒmoi of the Jews, the
king implied a commitment to respect the religious, ritual, sacerdotal originality of the Jewish community.96 Recognising the pãtrioi
nÒmoi was, according to them, implicitly renouncing the dynastic
89
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 71. See also note 140.
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 82, where Bickerman quotes the letter of Demetrius II
to Jonathan (1 Macc 11,30); see also note 89. Also, the tax exemption granted to
the ministers of the divine worship would confirm the particular structure of the
city of Jerusalem; see note 84.
91
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 83.
92
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 83–84, quotes two decrees issued in favour of two Greek
cities.
93
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 84.
94
E. Will – C. Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, Nancy 1986, 98.
95
Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 99.
96
Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 100.
90
seleucids and high priest
173
worship. This was the result of a political calculation, because Antiochus
III was well aware that if a Hellenistic monarch tried to receive
divine honours from the Jews, they would probably have refused to
do so.97
In reality, the problem of the contents of the pãtrioi nÒmoi remains
unsolved, mainly regarding the figure of the high priest. Will and
Orrieux also remark that Bickerman’s position, for whom before the
Maccabean age the high priest never appears in public documents
and therefore has no political relevance, seems to contradict the data
he himself gathered: namely, the high priest was the one to bear
the real responsibility for Judea before the royal power, and in addition was the one responsible for the conscription and for the payment of the tributes, representative of the central authority in the
absence of any of the local central governors, and direct interlocutor
of the Coele-Syrian strategos.98 But also this position seems to go
beyond what can really be drawn from the document. It is not possible to obtain further clarification regarding the figure of the high
priest from other documents in Jewish Antiquities that will be briefly
considered.
The second document (12,145–146)99 is an edict issued by Antiochus
III concerning the temple and Jerusalem. It contains two ordinances
from the king: first, the prohibition of foreigners and also of the Jews
entering the temple, with the sole exception of those who, katå tÚn
pãtrion nÒmon, (12,145) have purified themselves; second, the ban on
the introduction of impure animals’ meat and skin into the city, and
of the breeding of such animals. For those that broke these orders,
the prescribed fine amounted to three thousand silver drachmae to
be paid to the priests.
Regarding this last measure, it has been observed100 that in these
cases the priests performed the duties of treasury officers, a function
linked to their activity as intermediaries between God and mankind. There are grounds for supposing that they also performed an
97
Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 111 and note 11.
Will – Orrieux, 99, note 3 quote in regard to this observation: Bickerman,
The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, Leiden
1979, 37.
99
Regarding this document, see the study carried out by Bickerman, ‘Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusalem’, Studies in Jewish and Christian
History, II, Leiden, 1980, II, 86–104.
100
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 85.
98
174
chapter five
atonement rite to make amends for human transgression, in accordance with the commandment present in Lv 5,14 and in Nm 5,5 ff.
The text of the document, however, seems to be confuse and imperfect in some parts; therefore a hypothesis has been put forward that
claims, on the basis of the unlikelihood of some of the prohibitions—
such as the fact that the Jews could have allowed impure animal
skins inside the temple—that these regulations had been written by
an officer appointed by Antiochus III. This individual, ignoring the
exact nature of Jewish ritual, had followed a formula used for the
protection of the cults of various Hellenistic and Syrian cities, applying it also to Jerusalem.101
The third document (12, 147–153) is a letter from Antiochus to
his officer Zeuxis,102 in which he orders the removal of two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylon in order to resettle them in the rebellious provinces of Phrygia and Lydia, with
the aim of looking after the interests of the Seleucid government
there. At the same time it is established that these families were to
be provided with houses and land to grow crops, and would be discharged from paying taxes on the produced goods for ten years.103
Also in this letter Antiochus remembers his promise to the Jews
“nÒmoiw aÈtoÁw xr∞syai to›w fid¤oiw” (12,150), that is, to use their own
laws. What is significant in all three documents is the insistence on
the maintenance of the laws.
Although Tcherikover believes that Antiochus’ documents do not
offer enough historical material for the study of the political situation of Judea within the Seleucid state, he still admits that they contain “very important details.”104 Among these details, there is the
confirmation to the Jews of the political and religious foundations of
Jewish public life and the role of the gerous¤a as the supreme and
permanent administrative institution in Jerusalem, assistant to the
high priest.
101
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 763–764.
Bickerman, ‘Les privilèges juifs’, 37, supports the authenticity of the document, or at least, of a forgery dating from the time of Antiochus III, based on the
heading. The title “father” referring to Zeuxis is typical of the Seleucid hierarchy;
the greeting formula was common at the time of Antiochus II, but it fell into disuse a generation after his death. See also note 30.
103
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 764–767, bringing the discussion back to the issue of
the authenticity of the letter, talks about an apologetic alteration of the original letter, visible in the parts where it refers to the piety of the Jews (Ant 12,150).
104
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 87.
102
seleucids and high priest
175
There is insufficient evidence to back up Tcherikover’s “details”
regarding the documents examined. Apart from the repeated yet
generic statement of the confirmation of the pãtrioi nÒmoi, it is not
possible to draw from the documents of Antiochus III information
regarding the juridical status of Judea and the effective role of the
gerous¤a. Furthermore this last document does not speak at all about
the Jewish high priest. Nevertheless, from the first document it is
possible to infer the existence of a Jewish ¶ynow which is structured,
but internally divided. On one side there are the privileged classes:
those that are linked to the temple but also the gerous¤a105 (12,142);
on the other side there are the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But also
among these inhabitants there are differences: the present inhabitants; those that would come back to settle and those that had been
taken away as slaves (12,144). Bickerman observes that this last group
is not composed of war prisoners, but of inhabitants of the city taken
away by soldiers from both armies during the three campaigns of
202–200 bce, with the aim of enslaving or selling them, especially
those belonging to the adverse party.106 However, in the document
in question it is not clear what the political identity of such parties
was.
The historical investigation into the relationship between the
Seleucids and the Jews will now move to cover the period in which
Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eupator were kings. It is
during the rule of Antiochus IV that several events occurred which
are relevant in order to proceed in our research on the high priesthood.
5.4
Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Issue of Persecution
In the period that followed Antiochus III, the most important issue
is that of the religious persecution of the Jews. From the data examined, it can be gathered that up to this period there had been tolerance towards the Jewish people and their religious identity; that
they had even enjoyed privileges, first granted by the Ptolemies and
later by the Seleucids. However, under Antiochus IV the situation
of the Jews seemed to have suffered radical changes: from being
105
Bickerman, ‘La Charte Séleucide’, 59, observes: “Ce qui est remarquable, c’est
de voir à Jerusalem, une ville sainte, le clergé cedant le pas au Sénat de la nation”.
106
‘La Charte Séleucide’, 64.
176
chapter five
subject of benefits, they turned to be object of violent persecution.
This is what the available evidence supports. The question is in fact
rather complex and closely linked to another major issue of the history of the period: that of the so-called “Hellenization” of Judea. As
already noted, this problem is approached from a particular viewpoint in this work, that is, its implications for the high priesthood
in that period. From a methodological point of view, it seems to be
appropriate to proceed first from the examination of documents found
in the books of Maccabees and in Jewish Antiquities, and then to
refer to the narrations present in the same sources. It is an attempt
to establish a distinction between history and ideology. The royal
documents, in this sense, appear to be particularly relevant, both
because they often include dates and because the ideology that they
imply seems to be less influenced by later events.
5.4.1
The Documents of the Persecution
Above all, Second Maccabees constitutes the richest source: in fact
five documents in epistolary form issued by the royal court are contained within the narratives and are closely tied to the court.107
The first one (9,19–27) is located in the context of the narrative
of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (9,1–29). The king, after
his declaration of repentance before God (vv. 1–18), in a letter
addressed To›w xrhsto›w ÉIouda¤oiw ta›w pol¤taiw (v. 19), appoints as
his successor his son Antiochus, whom he remembers to have entrusted
and commended to the Jews during his travels to›w ple›stoiw Ím«n
(v. 25).108 Finally, he urges and begs the Jews to remember the
privileges that they have been granted, both publicly and privately
(v. 26),109 and to maintain the goodwill that had been shown towards
both himself and his son, as well. In the closing of the letter, Antiochus
expresses his trust that his son will follow his policy and will treat
the Jews with moderation and kindness (v. 27).
107
These documents have been examined with particular attention by C. Habicht,
‘Royal Documents in Maccabees II’, HSCP 80 (1976), 1–18. They have no parallels in other sources about the persecution; see J. Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources
for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14, SubBib
20, Roma 2001, 62–64; 80–82.
108
The word pleisto›w makes one think about a part of the Jews.
109
memnhm°nouw t«n eÈergesi«n koin∞
$ ka‹ kat’ fid¤an.
seleucids and high priest
177
This document, however, poses numerous problems. Above all
there is the question of its authenticity,110 starting from the heading
of the letter (9,19),111 which has drawn much criticism from the scholars. The objections are mainly of a literary nature, inasmuch as they
are concerned with the order of the words, the greeting formula and
the addition of strathgÚw, that do not match the pattern of the
Seleucid chancellery.112 According to Meyer,113 the letter is authentic, but originally it would have been addressed to the Antiocheans,
the king’s fellow countrymen, rather than to the Jews. In his opinion, the name ÉIouda¤oiw “eine absurde Interpolation ist”,114 that would
have been inserted in a heading that originally said simply to›w
xrhsto›w pol¤taiw. This manipulation carried out by the historian
would have had the intention of confirming Antiochus’ repentance
by means of a slight addition. According to Abel, in any case, it is
not necessarily a matter of the Jews of Jerusalem.115 Bickerman considers the document to be authentic, but observes that it does not
mention Antiochus’ punishment at all, neither does it say a word
about the king’s repentance mentioned in the narrative part. In his
opinion, it is certain that the heading of the letter had been altered
to suit Jewish propaganda, as is shown in the manuscript tradition.
Another element that would confirm the ideological intention behind
the author of Second Maccabees is that, unlike the narrative in which
it is inserted, in the letter the king expresses his hope of escaping
from his disease; this datum is confirmed by other sources.116 Habicht
talks about “a literary product,”117 while Goldstein remarks that it
110
See Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 5–7.
To›w xrhsto›w ÉIouda¤oiw to›w pol¤taiw pollå xa¤rein ka‹ Ígia¤nein ka‹ eÔ prãttein basileÁw ka‹ strathgÚw ÉAnt¤oxow.
111
112
Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 5–6, pointing out the mistakes found in the
address, remarks that out of thirty-five letters written by the Seleucid kings, of which
the heading is known, the formula appears generally invariable, following the succession: king-name-address-greetings. See also Goldstein, II Maccabees, 357 notes
19–27 and 359, note 19.
113
Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, II, Berlin 1921, 460–462.
114
Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, 461.
115
Les Livres des Maccabées, Paris 1949, 402.
116
‘Les privilèges juifs’, 35 and note 24. See, concerning the corruption of the
text, Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 403, and mainly notes 20b–21a. Regarding the
other sources, Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 404, note 22, quotes Pol 33,6,12 and
1 Macc 6,8.
117
‘Royal Documents’, 6.
178
chapter five
is so different from the procedures followed in the Hellenistic royal
letters that the experts had considered the letter to be a fake.
Furthermore, Goldstein notes that among the documents that have
reached us, there are many petitions addressed to a king, but never
a petition made by a king.118 Given the unquestionable presence of
errors and the fact that later hands have deformed the original document,119 he also claims that this poses a methodological problem:
“how can we restore the letter to its original form or at least to the
form which lay before Jason of Cyrene?” He believes that the words
that in several places Jason misunderstands “obviously lay before
him” and “must have stood in the original.” This is also valid for
the words of the heading to›w pol¤taiw, which, according to him, was
written in the original text.120
Regarding this question, Goldstein also claims that the letter must
be addressed to the Jews “who are already citizens.”121 Such Jews
would be the Antiochean Jews, who cannot be addressed as “people” insofar as they are just a community of citizens of the Antiochean
Republic122 and who, as it appears in Second Maccabees, must have
received liberal treatment from Antiochus IV, as individuals or in
communities.123 In conclusion, as the document is generally considered fake today, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source for the
assessment of the issue that we are examining.
The other four documents, successively found in chapter 11 (16–21;
22–26; 27–33; 34–38), are of greater interest. In the context of the
book, they are located after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes124
(9, 26–28) and deal with a peace treaty with the Jews.
118
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 359.
In this case, the scholar refers particularly to vv. 20–21; see II Maccabees, 360.
See also the discussion about the same verses in Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 403,
note 20.
120
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 360.
121
II Maccabees, 361.
122
Regarding the existence of the so-called “Antiochean Republic,” see with relation to 2 Macc 4,9 the discussion in chapter 5.7.1.
123
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 371, note 26, refers to 2 Macc 9,26: t«n eÈergesi«n.
124
Regarding the complex problem of the chronology of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’
death, see M. Zambelli, ‘La composizione del Secondo Libro dei Maccabei e la
nuova cronologia di Antioco Epifane’, Miscellanea greca e romana 16, Roma 1965,
203–209, who reviews the oldest hypotheses and then, based on the cuneiform document BM 35603, supports the date of November-December 164 bce. For a contrast with the Babylonian text see A.J. Sachs – D.J. Wiseman, ‘A Babylonian King
List of the Hellenistic Period’, Iraq 16 (1954), 202. See also Schürer – Vermes –
Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 128.
119
seleucids and high priest
179
The first one (11, 16–21) is a letter of Lysias t&« plÆyei t«n ÉIouda¤vn
(v. 16), in which he mentions his negotiations with two Jewish representatives, John and Absalom, who had presented a written statement. Lysias declares that he had informed the king and promises
his help to the Jews in exchange for a favourable attitude towards
the interests of the state. The attention is focused mainly on the
term pl∞yow; in Habicht’s opinion it would indicate an unconstitutional body. John and Absalom are termed envoys (ofl pemfy°ntew)
not ambassadors (presbeuta‹), and their names are Jewish not Greek,
as were the names of the Hellenizer Jews around the high priest
Menelaus. According to Habicht, they would not be the Jews that
followed the leadership of the high priest Menelaus, but a group of
Jewish rebels.125 Who these rebels were, however, is not explained.
Abel observes that the term pl∞yow is often in the papyri applied to
defined groups of individuals. In his opinion, the term would perfectly suit the disorganised masses of the time, although it could be
considered as a synonym of d∞mow.126 According to Goldstein, pl∞yow,
that is, community, multitude, mass, is a neutral word “connoting
neither privileged status, nor its absence.”127 The particularity here
is that the word is used in the address formula of a letter: Lysias
could have employed it deliberately, inasmuch as he did not recognise the delegates John and Absalom.128 Nevertheless, Goldstein himself does not rule out the possibility that the Jews could have chosen
such an appellation themselves, as “the multitude” or “the many”
for “many” (rabbìm) was an expression used for pious Jews “who
hitherto had made common cause with the Hasmonaeans, but were
now willing to make peace in return for and end to the persecution.”129
Sievers does not share the idea of such possibility; in his opinion,
tÚ pl∞yow indicates a part of the Jewish people, maybe the majority, by contrast “to the royalists in the Akra.”130 Although the ideological identification still remains uncertain, the opinion that it would
be a group of Jews has prevailed. The date of the letter has been
125
‘Royal Documents’, 10.
Les Livres des Maccabées, 426.
127
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 409, note 16–17.
128
See 2 Macc 11,17. Confront the same statement in Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 10.
129
See II Maccabees, 409, note 16–17.
130
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 45. See also Tcherikover’s opinion,
Hellenistic Civilization, 438, note 24.
126
180
chapter five
indicated as 148 bce, the 24th of the month of Dioscorinthios (11,21),
but it is not possible to be sure, because the name of the month is
corrupt.131
The second document (11,22–26) is a letter from king Antiochus
V to Lysias. It is some sort of amnesty132 written after the death of
Antiochus IV: it revokes the father’s decisions, according to which
the Jews had to adopt Greek customs, and adds that the temple had
to be returned to them; they also had to be allowed to politeÊesyai
katå tå §p‹ t«n progÒnvn aÈt«n ¶yh (11,25). The letter has no date.
The third document (11,27–33) from king Antiochus is addressed
t∞
$ gerous¤a
! t«n ÉIouda¤vn ka‹ to›w êlloiw ÉIouda¤oiw (11,27). In it,
Menelaus is mentioned as the one who had communicated to the
king the desire of the Jews to devote themselves to their own affairs.
The king then issues some kind of amnesty or pledge of friendship for all those who return home before the 30th of Xanthicus;
they will enjoy impunity and will be permitted to use their own food
(“dapanÆmasi”)133 and live according to their own laws as they used
to live before. The date is 148, the 15th of the month of Xanthicus.
This can be estimated as the middle of March 164 bce, which could
mean that the author of the letter is Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
This letter seems to be particularly relevant in relation to the possible date of the amnesty. In fact, if the author was really Antiochus
IV as Habicht states, he would be the same king “who put an end
to the persecution and re-established by this letter the freedom of
religion and the validity of the Law.”134 Goldstein does not seem to
share this opinion, and instead claims that the author of the letter
was Antiochus V, who was in Antioch at that time, where Menelaus
went in order to present him with the petition.135 According to Sievers
the date of the letter poses the biggest problem, especially because
the end of the amnesty (30th Xanthicus) is too close to the date of
the letter (15 Xanthicus). Furthermore, the successive letter of the
Roman delegates is dated exactly the same day (2 Macc 11,38).
131
‘Royal Documents’, 9. See also Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 427, note 21;
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 411, note 21.
132
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 417.
133
See Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 43 who, regarding “dapanÆmasi”
(11,31) wonders: “(dietary regulations?)”.
134
As Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 11.
135
II Maccabees, 419.
seleucids and high priest
181
However, as the permission to observe Jewish Law is granted in the
letter (2 Macc 11,31), it could be claimed that this could not have
happened before its abrogation (167 bce). Therefore, in his opinion,
there is a certain degree of probability that the year, if not the month
of the letter, is correct.136 The month however poses a further question: whereas Goldstein remarks that the month indicated as Xanthicus
according to the Macedonian use corresponds to the month of Adar
according to the Babylonian and Jewish calendars, Sievers considers
the possibility of identifying this month with the month of Nisan, in
accordance with the statements of Flavius Josephus (Ant 2,311.318;
3,248); therefore the amnesty could include Passover. However, Sievers
himself warns that such an identification could reflect a development
dating from the first century ce.137
The fourth document (11,34–38) is a letter from the Roman delegates to the d∞mow of the Jews.138 Abel observes that the ambassadors address the d∞mow of the Jews as a political body;139 Goldstein
instead claims that the term d∞mow would imply a recognition of the
rebels, represented by John and Absalom, as a semi-autonomous
group, and from this we can deduce that John and Absalom represented a significant part of the Jews.140 The letter appears to be inextricably linked to the first one (11,16–21): the Romans declare
themselves in agreement with all that has been granted by Lysias,141
but demand to know the extent of the decisions that still have to
be made by the king in order to intervene in favour of the Jews.
The date is the same as in the third letter.
Habicht states his support of the authenticity of all four letters,
highlighting the almost unanimous agreement of scholars on this
issue.142 Nevertheless, two questions still remain unanswered: first,
whether the author had inserted the letters in their own context;
136
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 43, note 8. See also Habicht, ‘Royal
Documents’, 13 note 26.
137
See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 418; Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters,
43, note 8; 44, note 9.
138
t«
& dÆmv
& t«n ÉIouda¤vn (11,34).
139
Les Livres des Maccabées, 430.
140
II Maccabees, 425.
141
Actually, in the letter of Lysias, the concessions were granted by the king; see
11,18.
142
‘Royal Documents’, 12: “In my opinion, it can be safely said that the question of authenticity is now settled in favour of all four letters.” See also notes 21–23.
182
chapter five
second, what could their possible dating be.143 According to Habicht,
even though the indication of the same month appears in the dates
of the third and fourth letters, the years are not necessarily a reason for suspicion: both the letters come from the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes and are dated between the beginning of October 165,
when the king was in the East, and late September 164 bce.
The amnesty granted in the third letter should have ended in late
March 164 bce. Moreover, the third letter, that of the king, is not
later than number 1 and number 4 as has long been accepted, but
is actually the first document of all four. It contains an amnesty for
all the Jews willing to go back to their affairs before the end of
March 164, and it would have been written “very early in 164, if
not late in 165 bc”,144 before Lysias’ military campaign, which had
started when the deadline of the amnesty had expired, that is, not
before 164 bce. The military campaign took place, therefore, after
the amnesty, which obviously did not turn out as expected; hence
Lysias’ intervention and the following negotiations, this time dealing
directly with the rebels.145 Therefore, Habicht reconstructs the chronological order of the letters as follows: first, that of the king to the
Jews (11,27–33). Second and third are that of Lysias to the Jews
(11,16–21) and that of the Roman delegates to the people (d∞mow)
of the Jews (11,34–38); they are part of the negotiations and were
written before the end of the Seleucid year 148, that is, before
September 164 bce. Fourth and last is that of king Antiochus V to
Lysias (11,22–26). Nevertheless, Habicht has doubts about the existing connection146 between this last letter and the peace achieved after
the second campaign of Lysias described in 1 Maccabees chapter 6
and in 2 Maccabees chapter 13; he believes that the letter has the
value of a document which states a policy change. Although it seems
to be identical to the letter written by his father147 regarding the
granted concessions, it actually features a significant difference: while
Epiphanes’ concessions favour only those willing to lay down arms
143
To the first question, Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 12, answers: “He certainly
has not.” See also 13 ff.
144
‘Royal Documents’, 15. See also 14.
145
In the Second Book of the Maccabees, Lysias’ first campaign and the successive negotiations precede the letters; see 11, 1–15.
146
‘Royal Documents’, 16, note 29.
147
If, as it seems, 11, 27–33 has to be attributed to Antiochus IV.
seleucids and high priest
183
within a certain period of time, those of Antiochus V are extended
to all the Jews. The young Antiochus, recently crowned king, would
thus declare in this letter that after his father’s death, “things have
changed.”148 Habicht’s hypothesis is worthy of attention, and although
it is not shared by everybody,149 it offers in any case “the most plausible explanation of these letters and their chronology.”150
These letters, anyway, appear as the only official documents related
to the religious persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Beyond
the difficulties presented by their chronology and location, it is possible to draw some conclusions from them:
1) The letters’ addressees are numerous and their designation is
uncertain and varied. They constitute, however, an indication of
the divisions present at that period: pl∞yow, gerous¤a, d∞mow could
correspond to different groups, perhaps also to factions not only
among the Jews but within the Seleucid regime as well.151
2) The figure of Menelaus in the third document is particularly
significant: although he is not given the title of high priest, he
appears in any case as the representative of the Jewish nation
before the king,152 and perhaps even more, as the representative
of the king before the Jewish nation.153 According to Habicht,
king Antiochus V regarded Menelaus as the legitimate high priest
“and the spokesman of the Jewish nation before the king.”154
3) The presence of the gerous¤a is also interesting in this document.
According to Habicht, inasmuch as it was recognised by the king,
it could only be a body that cooperated with the high priest.155
Noteworthy, however, is the fact that one of the addressees is
precisely the gerous¤a while, as already noted, Menelaus is not
given the title of high priest. Concerning this point, Goodblatt
wonders whether the letter is reflecting a conflict between Menelaus
and the gerous¤a—a situation which is, in his opinion, explicitly
148
Habicht, ‘Royal Documents’, 17 and note 30; see also 15, 17–18.
See for instance Goldstein, II Maccabees, 426–428: “Conclusions on the
Chronology and Meaning of the Letters in 11:16–38”.
150
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 43, note 6.
151
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 426.
152
See in 2 Macc 11, 29 verb §nefãnisen, da §mfan¤zv, which means: 1) manifest; exhibit 2) declare; explain. See Liddell – Scott, entry §mfan¤zv.
153
p°pomfa (2 Macc 11,32).
154
‘Royal Documents’, 17.
155
‘Royal Documents’, 11.
149
184
chapter five
referred to in 2 Macc 4,44—and if the intention of the king in
the letter could be to mediate between them. Goodblatt however,
calls for caution when dealing with these “very unsettled”156 times.
On the other hand, Goldstein, contradicting Bickerman and
Hengel’s theories, which states that Menelaus and the senate would
have “planned”157 the persecution themselves, claims that the letter proves that Menelaus made an appeal for the end of the persecution and that the senate presumably rejoiced when the king
responded favourably to the plea. Therefore, this letter in particular seems to be an important document in what concerns the
relations between gerous¤a and high priest.
4) In relation to the more specific problem of the persecution, it has
to be observed that it is impossible to obtain explicit information
from the documents examined in 2 Maccabees. Some information can be indirectly158 drawn from the hints given by the demands
repeatedly made by the Jews, sometimes expressed in a generic
fashion,159 sometimes more explicitly as a desire to return to their
own law and customs.160 From such demands it can be easily
deduced that an attempt had been made to impose Greek customs (11,24), and from the mention of the temple restoration
(11,25) it is quite obvious that it had been previously taken away
from the Jews, but nothing further is added about that.
Moreover, there is another indirect testimony regarding the persecution in a document found in Jewish Antiquities (12,258–267). It
consists of a petition made by the Samaritans before Antiochus
Epiphanes, and Antiochus’ answer to it; the document dates from
166 bce, that is, in the heat of the persecution.161 In it, the Samaritans
petition not to be treated like the Jews, stating that they are different
from them both in race and in customs and claiming to be Sidonians
156
157
The Monarchic Principle, Tübingen 1994, 18.
II Maccabees, 420. About the traditions regarding Menelaus, see chapter 5.7;
5.7.2.
158
The letter written by Antiochus IV before his death mentions only the privileges;
see 2 Macc 9, 26.
159
See, e.g. 11,16–20; 35–37.
160
See 11,24–26.29.31.
161
Regarding the issue of the reliability of the document and its contents, we
refer to the study carried out by E. Bickerman, ‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphane’, in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden
1980, 105–135.
seleucids and high priest
185
from Shechem (12,259), that is, Cananeans.162 Furthermore, they
declare that the observance of the Sabbath had been introduced by
their forefathers out of superstition, and demand that their temple,
so far nameless, be known as Temple of Zeus Hellenios (12,264).
According to Bickerman, this request does not mean that the
Samaritans introduced a Greek cult in the temple of Gerizim, thus
changing their traditional religion; rather, the Greek title would correspond to the anonymous title “El”. Moreover, from this request it
can be understood that the Samaritans continued to observe the
Torah, to celebrate the Sabbath as usual and to offer sacrifice to
God Almighty upon Mount Gerizim. This document is important
precisely because it was written during the persecution.163 The problem is posed by the introduction of Greek customs. Again Bickerman
remarks that Antiochus III, in 200 bce, had validated the Torah in
Jerusalem, but in 167 Antiochus IV had imposed other laws upon
the Jews. At the time of the persecution, the Seleucid government
was not punishing the Jews because of the Mosaic Law as such, but
rather for their loyalty to this law after its repeal by a royal edict
in December 167.164 Bickerman’s hypothesis is indeed interesting, but
as he himself admits, needs further development.165
The data gathered as a conclusion of the examination of the official
acts regarding the persecution under Antiochus IV and Antiochus
V’s regimes still offer a fragmented and partial picture of the situation in Judea at that times. In order to search for further explanations, they will now be compared to the information available from
the books of the Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities, where we find
some passages concerning the Jewish high priests of that period.
162
Bickerman, ‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphane’,
118–120.
163
‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphane’, 128–129.
Concerning the dating, see also Marcus, Josephus, VII, 136 n. b.
164
‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphane’, 134.
165
‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphane’, 135. Goldstein,
II Maccabees, 523–539, rejects Bickerman’s reading of the document. According to
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 23 the Samaritan request constitutes a
noteworthy example of dissociation-compliance. The petition is an attempt to prove
loyalty to the Seleucid government and, if genuine, it proves the existence of a
Hellenizer party in Samaria.
chapter five
186
5.4.2
The Narratives of the Persecution
Both the books of the Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities deal extensively with the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the
Jews, but not in the same way. We intend to refer particularly to
those narratives that include the presence of the high priest, without disregarding common elements and contrasting parallels.166 From
the narrative of 1 Maccabees emerges, first and foremost, the negative connotation of Antiochus Epiphanes, described as “a wicked
shoot” (1,10: r¤za èmartolÒw), and an expression of manifest arrogance (1,21: Íperhfan¤a) in both actions and words, especially regarding the looting of the temple (1,21–24). Everything seems to have
its origins in him, as the expression “in those days” (1,11: ÉEn ta›w
≤m°raiw §ke¤naiw) indicates. The events that precede the persecution
are: the plundering of the city, the building of the Akra (1,31–33),
and the several decrees issued by the king, containing a series of
bans that appeared under the form of general law to be obeyed by
all the kingdom (1,41.51). Their contents are mainly focused on the
command: “for all to become one people and for each to abandon
his own customs,”167 (1,41) a demand that seems to be attributed
solely to Antiochus. Before that, however, the author had emphasized the presence of “lawless men” (1,11: uflo‹ paranÒmoi), so described
by virtue of their request of openness towards other nations, and
who are considered responsible for the initiative by “some of the
people” (1,13: tinew épÚ toË laoË) of building a gymnasium “according to the customs of the gentiles” (1,15: katå tå nÒmima t«n §yn«n).
The rest of the account reports the development of the persecution,
which starts with the erection of the “abomination of desolation”168
and is then unleashed through the building of altars, the destruction
of the books of the law and the condemnation to death of the Jews
166
167
See Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 2 ff.
1 Macc 1,41: e‰nai pãntaw efiw laÚn ©na ka‹ §gkatalipe›n ¶kaston tå nÒmima
aÈtoË.
Translation by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 206.
168
The Greek expression bd°lugma §rhm≈sevw (1 Macc 1,54) has been generally
translated in this way. Regarding its meaning, see Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 25
note 54; 28–29: Excursus I; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 224 notes 54–59; 144–157.
Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees, 53–55, claims that the erection of the abomination of desolation would imply the institution of a mixed worship. See also H.H.
Rowley, ‘Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation’, Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen
Septuagenario, 7 (1953), 303–315.
seleucids and high priest
187
that adhered to the law (1,55–61). Throughout this, however, there
is no mention whatsoever of a high priest, nor is there an explicit
confrontation between Judaism and Hellenism. As Schwartz remarks,
one of the characteristics of 1 Maccabees is its lack of distinction
“between ‘Greek’ and ‘non Greek’ gentiles,”169 its lack of awareness
of a conflict between two cultural entities: Hellenism and Judaism.170
In Second Maccabees, which provides us with the greatest amount
of information concerning this period, the perspective seems to be
different;171 the book is focused especially on Judean internal processes
in which the high priests Jason and Menelaus are found as main
characters. It is in fact the high priest Jason who asks for the introduction of some Greek customs on the grounds of his own authority (4,9: diå t∞w §jous¤aw), and makes every endeavour to make his
countrymen turn “over to the Greek style of life” (4,10: §p‹ tÚn
ÑEllhnikÚn xarakt∞ra).172
Antiochus is concerned about issues of foreign policy, worried in
particular about the dangers coming from Egypt, which had been
taken over by Ptolemy VI Philometor. His visit to Jerusalem corresponds to this period: 2 Maccabees emphasizes that he was welcomed magnificently, with a torchlight parade and shouts of applause
(4, 22).173 In the following section of the narrative emerges the negative figure of Menelaus: he secures for himself the high priesthood
and orders Onias’ murder. Although the gerous¤a sends envoys to
the king to bring charges against Menelaus, the king acquits him
(4,23–50).
The author of 2 Maccabees indicates that Menelaus remained in
office thanks to the greed of those in power and he grew in wickedness, “having proved himself to be a plotter against his fellow Jews”174
169
S. Schwartz, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the
Hasmonean Expansion’, JJS 42 (1991), 22.
170
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 23.
171
See the synoptic chart of 1 and 2 Maccabees concerning the persecution of
Antiochus IV in R. Doran, ‘The First Book of Maccabees’, in The New Interpreter’s
Bible. A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, IV, Nashville 1996, 9.
172
Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 216. Concerning the reference to these
demands, see chapter 5.4.1.
173
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 217. Regarding this visit to Jerusalem, it has been
claimed that it was due to the fact that the king wanted to make sure that the
influence of the Egyptian party, still present in the city, would not compromise the
safety of his southern border. See Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 337.
174
m°gaw t«n polit«n §p¤boulow. Translation by Golstein, II Maccabees, 219.
188
chapter five
(4,50). The position of the king appears conditioned by internal
events; the opposition to Menelaus becomes a civil war: Jason175 is
the leader of the revolt, but it fails. The internal disorder called for
the intervention of the king, who took to believe that Judea was in
revolt (5,11): the taking of the city by storm, the order to massacre
the citizens of Jerusalem, the looting of the temple, the oppression
of the people by his governors (5,11–12) were the actions carried
out by Antiochus against the Jews. The author points to the malice
towards the Jewish citizens that lay beneath the king’s actions (5,23).176
Further on, according to the narrative, the persecution that at the
very beginning had a political nature, being the consequence of the
upheavals that had taken place in Judea, turns into a religious persecution: Antiochus commands one of his envoys to force the Jews
“to depart from their ancestral laws and to cease living by the laws
of God” (6,1).177 The author dwells on the description of the misfortunes
that befell the nation of the Jews: debauchery, orgies, defilement of
the altar, prohibition against keeping the Sabbath, obligation to celebrate the king’s birthday by partaking in the sacrifices, obligation
to participate in the festivals of Dionysus, and finally, death for those
Jews who “refused to go over to the Greek way of life”178 (6,9).
The narrative of 2 Maccabees is wider and more complex than
the first narrative considered. The relations between Hellenism and
Judaism are crucial in this book. Schwartz observes how, precisely
in 2 Maccabees, the Maccabean revolt is a Kulturkampf, a battle
fought between Judaism and “ ‘EllenismÚw’ (the earliest attestation of
the word in this sense)”179 rather than between people. The perspective
175
In 2 Macc 5, 5 Jason starts the revolt following to the false news of the king’s
death.
176
The expression épexy∞ d¢ toÁw pol¤taiw Iouda¤ouw ¶xvn diãyesin (5,23) is generally attributed to Antiochus IV. Concerning this point, see the discussion in
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 261–262, notes 23–24, 263, where he highlights that through
this sentence the author expresses his conviction that Antiochus was following his
passions, while before there had been a motive to understand the king’s actions
against the Jews as a punishment for the rebellion against his rule.
177
metaba¤nein épÚ t«n patr¤vn nÒmvn ka‹ to›w toË yeoË nÒmoiw mØ politeu°syai:
translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 269. The presence of the verb politeÊesyai
is noteworthy. Again Goldstein, 229, note 11, observes how the Greek word politeia
is used by Greek Jews, included Philo and Josephus “for the law of the Torah.”
For a deeper study on this issue see chapter 6.4.
178
mØ proairoum°nouw metaba¤nein §p‹ tå ÑEllenikå: translation by Goldstein, II
Maccabees, 267.
179
‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout’, 23.
seleucids and high priest
189
of the relationship between the Jews and king Antiochus IV is also
different. At the beginning emphasis is placed on the positive relationship between the king and the inhabitants of Jerusalem who welcome him magnificently (4,21–22); and the king shows no direct
interest in a reform, allowing the high priests freedom to act as they
wish. His attitude, however, changes toward the outburst of violence
that takes place in the city: he becomes a political and a religious
persecutor (5,11–16). The involvement of the high priests in this dark
period of Jewish history is a particularly interesting problem that
arises from these narratives: it will be developed in a later stage of
this study.180
The third narrative is found in Jewish Antiquities. Flavius Josephus,
who makes only a fleeting reference to Antiochus Epiphanes’ accession to the throne (12,234), focuses his attention firstly on the succession to the high priesthood,181 but soon after refers to the contrasts
between Jason and Menelaus. They divide the people, or rather the
plêthos (12,239: tÚ plÆyow), into two factions: on the one hand the
Tobiads, that take Menelaus’ side; and on the other hand “the majority of the people”182 who follow Jason. While in 1 Maccabees some
of the people ask permission to observe the dikaiomata of the gentiles
(1,13), in 2 Maccabees it is Jason who demands the introduction of
some reforms (4,9), and in Jewish Antiquities the request for changes
is made by Menelaus and the Tobiads. They ask the king permission to leave their ancestral laws (toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw) and their
politeia, in order to follow the king’s laws and adopt the Greek politeia
(12,240–241).183
It has been observed that in the following section of the narration, Josephus paraphrases 1 Maccabees,184 but differences can be
detected between the two texts. At first sight, the narrative of king
Antiochus’ arrival in Jerusalem after his return from Egypt185 seems
180
See chapter 7.5.
Ant 12,237–239. This passage, extremely confusing, has already been discussed; see chapter 3.2.2.
182
Ant 12, 240: tÚ d¢ pl°on toË laoË. Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish
Antiquities XII–XIV, 121.
183
See the Greek term polite¤an, repeated twice in 12,240. It has generally been
translated as “way of life.” See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 123.
184
See Marcus, Josephus, VII, 122, note a, who locates the paraphrase between
12,242 and 13,214.
185
We find the first difference concerning the motivations for the return, as while
in 1 Macc 1,20 it says simply that Antiochus “§p°strecen” that is, turned back, in
Ant 12,246 it says that he left Egypt because he feared the Romans.
181
190
chapter five
to be different: while in 1 Maccabees it is said that king Antiochus
entered Jerusalem “with a strong army” (1,20),186 in Jewish Antiquities
it is said that in the hundred and forty-third year of the reign of
the Seleucids, namely 169 bce, king Antiochus marched against
Jerusalem but took the city without fighting, as the gates had been
opened for him by members of his own party (Ant 12,246).187 Also
regarding the massacre mentioned in 1 Maccabees,188 Ant 12,247
states that Antiochus “killed many of those who were in opposition”.189
This text is parallel to what Flavius Josephus says in Jewish War,
which was written before Antiquities. He reports in the Jewish War,
in the context of the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy VI, that
following disagreements among the Jews, the sons of Tobias who
had been exiled by Onias, eÂw t«n érxier°vn,190 asked Antiochus to
let them be his guide for the invasion of Judea. The king agreed to
their suggestion and leading a mighty army he took the city and
slaughtered a great number of Ptolemy’s followers (1,31–32).
The differences between the narratives of 1 Maccabees and Flavius
Josephus thus result from an attentive analysis of the less evident
terms. However, a further problem remains unsolved: while in 1
Maccabees the massacre is linked to the defiling and the plundering of the temple during the first arrival of Antiochus in Jerusalem
in 169 bce (1,21), in Jewish Antiquities the massacre and plundering
of the temple take place two years later, during the second occupation
of Jerusalem, in the period when the Akra was built (12,248–251).
According to 1 Maccabees, it was not the king who returned to
Jerusalem for a second time, but a tax-gathering official191 (1,29) sent
by him. This chief collector, who plundered the city and ordered
the construction of the Akra (1,33),192 is identified with Apollonius
§n ˆxlv
! bare› : translation by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 204.
Nevertheless, the difference could be dramatically diminished if the term ˆxlow
was not a reference to the army but to the crowd of king supporters that permitted him to enter the city.
188
§po¤hsen fonokton¤an (1 Macc 1,24). See the meaning of the word proposed
by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 210–211, 24.
189
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, 125.
190
Jewish War 1,31. Regarding the expression “one of the chief priests”, see discussion in chapter 2.2. Regarding the tradition concerning Onias and the temple
in Leontopolis, see chapter 5.6.1.
191
êrxonta forolog¤aw. See Goldstein, I Maccabees, 21 note 29–30.
192
Regarding the building and the meaning of the Akra, see chapter 5.7.2.
186
187
seleucids and high priest
191
the commander of mercenary soldiers from Mysia mentioned in
2 Macc 5,24.
5.4.3
The Interpretation of the Persecution
The narratives about the persecution consequently show remarkable
differences and this is the main reason why both the persecution
and the figure of Antiochus IV have been, and still are, subject of
debate and investigation. We will make brief reference to some of
the most important investigations into this issue, one which, although
not directly referring to the topic of this work, still constitutes its historical background and an essential prerequisite.
First and foremost, the fact has been highlighted that the assessment of the persecution has been deeply influenced by the available
sources, which are less than clear in the way in which they narrate
the events and are strongly influenced by their ideology.193 Scholars
have concentred particularly on the character of the persecutor:
Antiochus IV. Tcherikover, trying to find a motive for such a persecution by a man that had been educated in the atmosphere of
religious tolerance that was typical of Graeco-Roman culture, studies the way in which ancient historians as Polybius, Livy and
Diodorus194 depict him. He highlights the fact that, while on the one
hand they point out Antiochus’ unique temper (irritable, nervous,
full of profound inner contradictions, always prone to do extraordinary deeds and to astound the world), on the other hand, what
the sources narrate about his political activities entails a much more
positive portrait of the king. In relation to these activities, Antiochus
is depicted as “a ruler with realistic and logical political aspirations.”195
193
E. Will – C. Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, Nancy 1986, 112, observe, for
example, that Antiochus IV has been known in history as a persecutor of Judaism,
but this reputation is due to a Judeo-Christian tradition derived from the Maccabean
revolt, that turned Antiochus into an Anti-Christ-like figure. Tcherikover, Hellenistic
Civilization, 176–177 points out how Jewish historiography had depicted Antiochus
as “the evil one” and reminds how such a negative portrait has reached the modern age, likened to characters such as Caligula and Nero. C. Saûlnier – C. Perrot,
Histoire d’Israel III, De la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du temple (331 AC–135 AD),
Paris 1985,125 point out that “la persécution, longuement relatée dans 2 M., est
une composition litteraire particulièrement élaborée qu’il convient de voir avec un
regard critique.”
194
Hellenistic Civilization, 176–178.
195
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 177.
192
chapter five
However, Tcherikover himself criticizes the widespread opinion of
the nineteenth century, which stated that the sole motive behind
Antiochus’ policy was his great devotion to the Greek spirit and culture. In his opinion, the Hellenistic spirit of Antiochus, as that of
his predecessors, was expressed “in a purely external political form”196
rather than by arguments of a spiritual nature; he regarded Hellenism
as a political means to reinforce the state. According to Tcherikover,
the events in Jerusalem as described in 1 Macc 1, 41–43 would be,
therefore, the result of a policy carried out by the Seleucid Empire.197
In recent times Collins has observed that, nevertheless, this hypothesis seems to contradict the policy generally followed by the
Hellenistic kings: there is no record whatsoever of an attempt to suppress religious practices of any other people. Polybius (30, 25,13),
when describing the greatest festival that Antiochus Epiphanes held
in Daphne in 166, talks about representations of all the gods. According
to Collins, this contrasts with the supposed desire to unify the Empire
under one religious cult.198 Again Tcherikover claims that in the past
scholars had ignored “a very vital link in the chain of events,”199
that is, the Jewish rebellion that preceded the persecution, about
which he considers it necessary to determine its motives, extent and
ideological basis. In his opinion, Antiochus would have revoked the
privileges granted to the Jews, and would have submitted them to
the pagan Syrian garrison of the Akra. These soldiers, by performing their own cults in the temple, outraged the pious Jews, thus provoking the uprising and the consequent decision of Antiochus to
forbid them to practice their religion.200
After Tcherikover, Goldstein focused his attention on “The Four
Punitive Actions of Antiochus IV,”201 observing that Jason’s coup de
196
Hellenistic Civilization, 180.
Hellenistic Civilization, 180–181.
198
Daniel, 63–64.
199
Hellenistic Civilization, 186.
200
Hellenistic Civilization, 189–200.
201
II Maccabees, 89–96. He identifies four punitive actions against the Jews and
the Samaritans in the books of the Maccabees 1) the king’s sacking of Jerusalem
in 169 bce and appointment of officials to control the Jews and the Samaritans (1
Macc 1,20–24; 2 Macc 5,11–23); 2) the expedition of Apollonius in 167 bce and
the building of the Akra (1 Macc 1,29–40; 2 Macc 5,24–26); 3) the royal decrees
issued at the beginning of the Spring 167 bce that banned obedience to the Torah
and demanded the observation of the imposed cult (1 Macc 1,44–53; absent in
2 Macc); 4) the forced obedience to the decrees (1 Macc 1,54–63; 2 Macc 6–7;10,5).
197
seleucids and high priest
193
main and the violent opposition of the pious Jews to Menelaus were
misunderstood by the king as a rebellion against himself. Moreover,
the Jews were so used to thinking in terms of sin and punishment
that almost all the sources “go no further to find the king’s motive
for acting as he did: he must in some way have been the rod of
God’s anger.”202
In the panorama of studies that exist about this argument, the
position of Will and Orrieux is noteworthy. The great Jewish crisis
would have broken out after the order that the Romans had given
to Antiochus IV while he was in Eleusis to leave Egypt. The conditions under which this order was issued are not clearly established
in the available sources. According to these scholars, in the context
of 1 Maccabees, Antiochus IV’s behaviour does not seem to have
any justification at all; it is only on the basis of other texts such as
Daniel that it could be supposed that Antiochus, exploding with rage
over his diplomatic defeat, would have taken revenge on Rome by
attacking Jerusalem.203 Furthermore, they observe, the authentic text
of the edict that, according to 1 Maccabees, would have originated
the forced Hellenization of Jerusalem is not recorded in any source.
This is rather surprising if we take into consideration the number
of Seleucid documents that both 2 Maccabees and Flavius Josephus204
include. Although from the remaining decrees it is possible to identify those sections that ought to constitute the core of the contents—
namely, the restoration of the temple and the permission to live
according to the Greek customs—there still remains the problem of
the meaning of the expression §p‹ tå §llhnikå, which is impossible
to explain.205 In any case, according to Will and Orrieux, the political and religious aspects of the Jewish revolts are inextricably intertwined; they progressively turned against the apostates and against
202
II Maccabees, 91. In his exposition, Bickerman uses also the book of Daniel.
Regarding the information about the persecution drawn on the book of Daniel, see
5.4.4.
203
See Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 141–142, where there is a reference to Dan 11,29–30,
which on the first reading seems to suggest that Antiochus had come to Jerusalem
twice—this reading however is soon contradicted—and where it is confirmed that
the text of Daniel does not demand the existence of a cause-effect relation between
the prompt discouragement of the king in Eleusis and his rage against the Jews,
stating that “en bonne rigueur, il n’y a là qu’un rapport chronologique, d’ailleurs
precieux” (142).
204
Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 139–143.
205
Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 144–145.
194
chapter five
the royal authority that supported them. This would also explain the
passage from the political persecution to the religious one, which
would essentially consist in the suppression of the worship of YHWH.206
Millar has also participated in the debate,207 criticising the assumption of modern historiography, which sees the changes only in relation to a reform of the structures and ideologies of society, insofar
as they cannot be reconciled with the existence of the monarchy. In
his opinion, both pagan and Jewish sources reflect, instead, the view
that Antiochus IV wanted some total changes, contrary to the tolerance exercised by the ancient monarchies that, albeit controlling
the introduction of foreign cults, were fundamentally respectful of
the existent gods and the cults of the different localities.208
Antiochus IV distinguished himself by introducing two innovations:
he was the first Seleucid king to use the title “god manifest” (Theos
Epiphanes), as is recorded on coins, and he abandoned the traditional
devotion to Apollo, exchanging it for a form of devotion to Zeus.
In the first stage of Hellenism in Jerusalem, his role consisted in the
establishment of the king’s right to appoint the high priest, urgently
seeking much needed money and establishing a general attachment
to the Greek way of life, as was expected from every Hellenistic
king. The massacre in Jerusalem and the plundering of the temple
treasure in 169/8 bce, between the Egyptian military campaigns, do
not need any particular explanation: Flavius Josephus quotes a number of pagan historians that claim that Antiochus’ actions were motivated by money. Millar takes into consideration also the sources
about the persecution of Antiochus;209 in his opinion, they would
prove the transformation of the temple cult, as attested by Diodorus.210
Furthermore, he also tackles two of the issues that are particularly
linked to the problem of the high priesthood: the influence of the
Hellenizer Jews on Antiochus’ decisions and the nature of the cult
established in the temple. He regards Ant 12,384–385 as the most
concrete and specific evidence for Menelaus’ responsibility in Antiochus’
persecution (the source reports on the death of Menelaus, instigated
206
Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 151–152.
‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel’s
“Judaism and Hellenism” ’, JJS 29 (1978), 12–21.
208
Millar, ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution’, 12 and note 35.
209
‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution’, 13–16. Concerning the
sources, see Dan 11,30; 1 Macc 1,29–64; 2 Macc 5,22; 24–26; 6,8–9; Ant 12,251–264.
210
See also Stern, GLAJJ, I, 181–183, nr 63.
207
seleucids and high priest
195
by Lysias with the aim of appeasing the Jews). However, the persecution did not imply the creation of a syncretistic cult, but instead
the forced suppression of Judaism. Millar criticizes the concept of
reform, reckoning that the given conditions would not have permitted it. If there was a reform attempt, initiated within the community, it remained confined to Jason’s high priesthood. In his opinion,
the evidence for a Hellenizer party that instigated Antiochus IV is
very slight. The crisis arose from Antiochus’ attempt to forcibly
impose the abolition of Judaism and the adoption of paganism,
although Millar observes that the sources mention new ways of
sacrificing on the altars of the holocaust; however, they do not make
“any reference to the Holy of Holies or to establishment in the temple of any pagan cult-statue.”211
Nevertheless, Millar’s statements are not altogether shared by other
scholars. Among others, Goldstein criticizes Bickerman’s hypothesis
as unsustainable. According to him, “Antiochus imposed the heterodox cult in response to requests from apostate Jews.”212 In his
opinion the imposition of unorthodox worship would not correspond
to Menelaus’ will and is not supported by the sources. Goldstein also
criticises his own first solution to the problem213 and believes rather that
the problem is linked to the presence of the garrison of the Akra
in Jerusalem.214 Tcherikover’s reconstruction, too, is unlikely in Goldstein’s opinion because the imposed cult was not a Syrian paganism,
211
See ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution’, 19. See also 18–19,
where Millar justifies this statement by comparison with the sources: Dan 11 where,
although references are made to the abomination of desolation (v. 31) and to the
establishment in Jerusalem of a foreign garrison that worshipped a foreign god
(v. 39), there is no specific information about the cult itself; 2 Macc 6, which quotes
the dedication of Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus Olympius and of the temple on Mount
Gerizim to Zeus Xenius, and maybe talks about ritual prostitution and pagan altars;
1 Macc 1, which narrates that many from Israel sacrificed to idols (v. 43), and that
the king issued orders regarding the building of sacred precincts for the idols, and
remembers that the abomination of desolation was erected on the altar, and other
altars were built in the cities of Judea (v. 54). Diodorus XXXIV/V, 1 notices that
Antiochus sacrificed a swine on an altar. Josephus, in Jewish War 1, 34 mentions
a sow sacrificed on the altar, and in Ant 12,253 says that Antiochus had erected
a pagan altar over the Altar and sacrificed swine on it.
212
II Maccabees, 100.
213
See II Maccabees, 103–105 where he refers to the hypothesis that the imposition of an unorthodox cult would rather correspond to the king’s will. Antiochus,
being an admirer of the Romans, would have imitated the policies they followed
for dealing with the Bacchanals, regarded as a subversive cult.
214
II Maccabees, 106, 111.
196
chapter five
but a heterodox Judaism. Antiochus did not forbid the Jews to follow their religion, but rather he imposed other cults upon them.215
Prato has also gone over the same ground, studying the persecution both through the sources that he defines as contrasting and
biased towards the Maccabean movement, and through some hypotheses of modern scholars, to which he contributes his interesting
hermeneutics.216 He observed that, in the books of the Maccabees
and Flavius Josephus, when referring to the reformist measures adopted
by Jason and to the acts of persecution of Antiochus IV, the word
ÑEllhnismÒw is used to indicate the adoption of foreign customs.217
The denomination “Hellenic” would thus define that which is foreign and therefore also that which is imposed as contrary to one’s
own customs, while, on the other hand, the expression metaba¤nein
§p‹ tå ÑEllhnikå (2 Macc 6,9) could be used by the Seleucids against
the Jews to mean the introduction of “Syrian” or foreign customs
in a defined region.218 According to Prato, therefore, Antiochus IV
“would have acted against the Jews due to political motives, but with
measures that involved the religious tradition.”219 The reforms in
themselves did not have any religious implications, but have been
understood in that sense by later literature, on account of the interpretation that the Jewish world has given of itself and that has contributed both to Israel’s separatism and to considering Hellenism as
a type of paganism.220 Sievers, in his analysis of Antiochus IV’s persecution,221 has taken into consideration the complexity of Jewish
society and has identified several possible ways to respond to the
persecution. 222 His precise definition of the usage of the term
215
II Maccabees, 99.
‘La persecuzione religiosa nell’ermeneutica maccabaica: l’ellenismo come
paganesimo’, Ricstorbib 1 (1989), 101–121. The report of Sacchi regarding Menelaus,
who is held responsible for the slaughtering described in 2 Macc 5,11–14, is quite
interesting. According to P. Sacchi, Storia del mondo giudaico, Torino 1976, 97, Menelaus,
having obtained a non-Zadokite priesthood, intended to be a priest of Yahweh,
even though he did not want the Torah. Maybe the idea had been accepted that
a nation’s law had to be its king’s law.
217
Prato, ‘La persecuzione religiosa’, 114–115 quotes the texts from 2 Macc
4,10.13.15; 11,22–26; Ant 12,257–264.
218
Author’s translation by Prato, ‘La persecuzione religiosa’, 116 and note 32.
219
‘La persecuzione religiosa’, 117.
220
‘La persecuzione religiosa’, 119–120.
221
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 19–26.
222
See The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 21: (1) active collaboration, (2) voluntary compliance, (3) compliance under compulsion, (4) paralysis, (5) evasion, (6) alleviation, (7) non violent-resistance, (8) armed resistance.
216
seleucids and high priest
197
“Hellenizer” is also noteworthy; if taken literally, the word suggests
familiarity with Greek language and culture, meaning a rejection of
the Jewish traditions and vice-versa.223
Nevertheless, according to Sievers, many of those who adhered to
Antiochus’ decree were not only members of the aristocracy, but
also inhabitants of the villages and soldiers that did not know Greek.
On the other hand members of the Jerusalem aristocracy “apparently with Greek education, joined the revolt and offered non-violent
resistance.”224 It is also important to make two more specifications.
Firstly, that until the time of Antiochus IV, Jewish society had been
rather stable, but the interference of the monarch in the succession
of the high priesthood favoured the divisions within Jerusalem’s aristocracy and these had wide repercussions in the rest of the population. Secondly, that the persecution was very violent in Jerusalem,
where Menelaus’ followers were stronger and the Seleucid garrison
was closer. From the sources however, particularly from 1 Macc 1–2,
it can be deduced that it was widespread, affecting people all over
Judea.225
5.4.4
The testimony of Daniel (9,26; 11,30)
One of the possible responses to the persecution belonging to the
“alleviation” category is identified by Sievers within the context of
apocalyptic literature, particularly in the book of Daniel, where the
persecution is understood “as a temporary trial that preceded the
approaching new age.”226 Nevertheless, at the same time the reader
is encouraged to resist the temptation of abandoning the “holy
covenant” (Dan 11, 30.32). These observations demand a more attentive examination of some passages in Daniel.
The first reference that seems to be significant in relation to this
study is the one found in 9, 26. The first part of the verse refers to
the murder of j"yviM; (the anointed one)227 who, according to the calculation made on the basis of the chronological indication of the
sixty-two weeks,228 has generally been identified as the high priest
223
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 21.
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 22. See also 21.
225
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 25 and notes 99.100.
226
See The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 24.
227
See Hebrew text: j"yviM; trEK;yI J.J. Collins, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of
Daniel, Minneapolis 346 translates: “the anointed one will be cut off.”
228
Regarding the queries raised by this indication, see Collins, Daniel, 358.
224
198
chapter five
Onias III, whose murder had been commissioned by Menelaus circa
171 bce (2 Macc 4,31–34).229 In the second part, the action more
explicitly refers to king Antiochus IV. The text, rather cryptic in its
meaning, seems to hint at someone’s complicity, perhaps the Syrian
soldiers quartered in Jerusalem or the Jews themselves.230 Such complicity is made evident at the beginning of 9,27: “He will make a
strong alliance with the multitude”231 (μyBir"l; tyrIB] ryBig“hiw)“ . According
to Collins, in the “multitude” (μyBir)" there would be a reference to
the alliance of Antiochus Epiphanes with the Hellenizers. Collins
points to a yet more explicit reference to the Hellenizers in 11,30,
where an extensive account of the persecution is reported: regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, it says that after the withdrawal from Egypt:
vd,/q tyrIB] ybez“[øAl[' ˆbey:w“ bv;w“ hc;[;w“ vr,/q tyrIB]Al[' μ['z…w“ bv;w.“
He will return and rage against the holy covenant. He will act and
turn and attend to those who abandon the holy covenant.232
Hengel233 interprets this passage as a reference to apostasy; Goldingay
instead sees the deeds as a reaction against Jason’s attempt to occupy
the city and seize power against Menelaus and the Tobiads. The
text would then mean that Antiochus had “re-established the authority of the Tobiad leadership.”234 However, it seems that this interpretation goes far beyond the author’s intention.
As Collins points out, the book of Daniel, because of its genre, is
of limited usefulness for establishing an exact sequence of events.
Nevertheless, it provides us with “a distinct view of the persecution
that is very different from 1 Maccabees.” Daniel does not approve
of the actions of the Hellenizers, but they are still “minor figures in
the drama.”235 In fact, the book does not refer to a cultural conflict
229
Regarding this interpretation of Daniel’s text, see for example Tcherikover,
Hellenistic Civilization, 399; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 239; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism,
I, 280; II, 185 note 142; Collins, Daniel, 356. See also TyrIB] dyGIN“ (Dan 11,22), an
expression that modern scholars generally interpret as a reference to Onias III; see
Collins, Daniel, 382.
230
Dan 9,26: aB;h' dygIn: μ[' tyjiv]y" vd,/Qh'w“ ry[ih;w.“ “The host of a ruler who is to
come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Regarding this translation and the
different readings of the text, see Collins, Daniel, 346, note 64, about the interpretation, Ibidem, 357.
231
Collins, Daniel, 346.
232
Translation by Collins, Daniel, 367.
233
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 195.
234
J.E. Goldingay, Daniel, Dallas 1989, 302.
235
Daniel, 65. It seems important to point out that the book mentions “many”
seleucids and high priest
199
between Judaism and Hellenism, and there is no indication of hostility towards Hellenic culture as such. The fundamental issue is that
of Antiochus Epiphanes’ Ïbriw, of his rebellion against the God of
heaven, of the arrogance of a king who raises himself higher than
any god. Therefore, to Daniel, the conflict “is not cultural, but religious.”236 It is also made manifest in the king’s interference with the
Jewish cult and the law. However, although the visions are clearly
anti-Syrian, they are not pro-Ptolemaic. Daniel does not conceive of
serving any foreign power after the end of Antiochus’ dominion, and
he has no project for a new administration. His interest is focused
on the removal of the impious king and the establishment of God’s
sovereignty.
Collins reckons that the attempt to suppress a religion, as shown
by the available evidence, “poses the greatest puzzle of all these
events.”237 Therefore, concerning this puzzling issue, Daniel’s texts
can be considered as an extra piece of evidence in addition to the
ones so far studied, although, as already noted, great caution should
be exercised in their assessment, due to the difficulty and the obscurity of the language.
Nonetheless, some elements can be drawn from the reading of
Daniel: a) the reference to the violent death of the anointed one
(9,26: j"yviM); ; b) the probable alliance of Antiochus IV with the “multitude” (9,27: μyBir)" ; c) Antiochus’ action against the holy covenant
(11,30: vd,qø tyrIB)] and again the complicity of a few, described as
“those who forsake the holy covenant” (11,30: vd,qø tyrIB] ybez“[)ø .
5.5
Simon ˆhkh and flereÁw ı m°gaw
The Hebrew text of Sir 50,1–24,238 commonly referred to as “the
praise of the high priest Simon,”239 is placed at the conclusion of
(μyBir)' , of “those who abandon the holy covenant” (vd,qø tyriB] ybez“[)O ; Collins and the
great majority of the scholars identify these as “Hellenizers”.
236
Collins, Daniel, 66.
237
Collins, Daniel, 63.
238
For the Hebrew text, see P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, Leiden
1997, 88–90. For English translation of two versions of chapter 50, see O. Mulder,
Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of Significance of Simon the High
Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Father’s in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel,
JSJ.S., Leiden-Boston 2003, 259–261; 314–316.
239
R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906, 476, talks about “Lob des
200
chapter five
the section 44,1–50,24. This section has been subject to investigation regarding its particular literary form.240 It has been considered
“a splendid example of didactic narrative”,241 “the oldest Midrash”242
and a study has been carried out about the concept of sacred history that lies beneath its particular literary form.243
The first verse of the Hebrew text starts with the celebration of
the greatness of a character whose name is soon after indicated as
“Simon the Son of Jochanan the priest” (50,1: ˆhkh ˆnjwy ˆb ˆw[mç),244
where we find the use of the term “the priest” (ˆhkh) in reference
to the high priest.245 The text then goes on with an enumeration of
the public works that he has carried out (50,2–4), and further on
describes the high priest in a liturgical service (50,11–24).
From v. 5 to v. 10, a series of intensely parallelistic poetic lines
highlight the glory and the majesty of the high priest, surrounded
by the people as he came out of the house of the curtain (50,5).246
Some of them refer to cosmic terminology: the moon, the sun, the
rainbow; some others refer to the magnificence of the nature world:
the rose, the lily, the green shoot on the incense tree, the fire, the
olive tree and the cypress (vv. 6–10).247 Then follows the remembrance of a liturgy: the high priest, dressed in his glorious robe, goes
Hohenpriesters Simon”; P.W. Skehan – A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A
New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary, AB 39, New York 1987, 550
describes it as “panegyric”; T.R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, Atlanta
1986, 206 as “The Form of Encomium”.
240
See F.V. Reiterer, ‘Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira
(1980–1996)’, in P.C. Beentjes ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings
of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW 255, Berlin-New
York 1997, 55–57. For a summary of the relation between Sir 50 and the precedent section, see O. Mulder, ‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH
God of Israel/God of All in Sirach 50’, in R. Egger-Wenzel ed., Ben Sira’s God,
Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001, BZAW
321, Berlin-New York 2002, 222–223.
241
Skehan-Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 30.
242
Reiterer, ‘Review of Recent Research’, 55.
243
See, for example, B.L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in
Praise of the Fathers, Chicago 1985, 56; R. Petraglio, Il libro che contamina le mani. Ben
Sirac rilegge il libro e la storia d’Israele, Palermo 1993, 17–20.
244
MsB 50,1 ˆhkh ˆnjwy ˆb ˆw[mç
wm[ traptw wyja lwdg
245
About the usage of the term meaning “high priest” see chapter 2.1.
246
MsB 50,5 tkrph tybm wtaxbw
lham whygçhb rdhn hm.
247
For a deeper study of the meaning of these metaphors, see O. Mulder, Simon
the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest
as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel, JSJ.S
78, Leiden-Boston 2003, 125–145.
seleucids and high priest
201
up to the holy altar of sacrifices, receives the offering of the victim’s
portions from the hands of the priests, holds out his hand for the
cup of the libation and pours out grape juice at the foot of the altar
(vv. 11–15). The ceremony ends with a blessing: the high priest raises
his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, who
bow down in worship a second time. The words of invocation and
blessing ask for wisdom of heart and peace for all the people, for
God’s mercy to be always upon Simon, and for Phinehas’ covenant
“which shall not be broken for him and for his descendants as long
as the days of the heavens endure” (50,24).248
In relation to the Hebrew form (H), the Greek text (G) of Sir
50,1–21 features a number of variations of a lexical and grammatical nature, but in the context of this research, only the most relevant ones are to be considered:
1) In the Greek text, the verse 50,1 lacks the first hemistich,249
and Simon is mentioned as On¤ou ÍiÚw flereÁw ı m°gaw.250
2) Verse 50,12c: in the context of the liturgical ceremony performed by the high priest, the Greek text says: “with a garland of
brothers around him”, while the Hebrew version says: “a garland of
sons around him.”251
The biggest difference in verses 50,22–24 can be easily perceived
in the table below. Notwithstanding the notable discrepancies in single terms,252 the most noteworthy difference is in v. 24, in the context of the blessing. As it obviously turns out from the synoptic
reading of the texts, in the Hebrew text the high priest Simon requests wisdom and peace for his people,253 and the mercy of the
Lord and the perpetuity of Phinehas’ covenant for himself 254 and his
248
MsB 50,24 b: μymç ymyk w[rzlw wl tr [.]y al.
MsB 50,1 a: wm[ traptw wyja lwdg. A. Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide.
Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico, AnBib
133, Rome 1995, 223, claims that the Greek author refers to Joseph in this verse.
250
MsB 50,1 b: ˆhkh ˆnjwy ˆb ˆw[mç. About the form: flereÁw ı m°gaw, see chapter
2.1.
251
G 50,12 c: kuklÒyen aÈtoË st°fanow édelf«n.
MsB 50,12 b: μynb trf[ wl bybs.
252
M. Fang Che-yong, ‘Usus nominis divini in Sirach’, V.D. 42 (1964), 14. For
a wider comparison between the Hebrew and the Greek texts see R. Smend, Die
Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 476–491; C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple. A non Biblical
Sourcebook, London-New York 1996, 38–84; See also Petraglio, Il libro che contamina
le mani, 389 ff.; Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 60 ff.
253
MsB 50,23: μkl = to you, and also: μkynyb = between you.
254
MsB 50,24 a: ˆw[mç μ[ ˆmay = be kept with Simon.
249
larçy yhla yyy ta an wkrb ht[
μjrm μda ldgmh
wdsj ˆw[mç μ[ ˆmay
wl tr [.]y al rça
bbl tmkj μkl ˆty
Abiding is his mercy towards Simon
and the covenant with Phinehas will stand firm for him
which shall not be broken for him and for his descendents
as long as the days of the heavens endure.
sjnyp tyrb wl μqyw
ymç ymyk
w[rzlw
50,24
He gives wisdom of heart
and He will be in peace in your midst.
μkynyb μwlçb yhyw
50,23
Now bless YHWH, the God of Israel
who works wonders on earth.
He who advances humankind from the womb
and deals with him according to his kindness.
≈rab twç[l alpmh
wnwxrk whç[yw
50,22
May his loving kindness be entrusted to us
and in our days may He liberate us.
§mpisteÊsai mey’ ≤m«n tÚ ¶leow aÈtoË
ka‹ §n ta›w ≤m°raiw ≤m«n lutrvsãsyv ≤mçw.
50,24
May he give us a joyful heart
and may peace come in our days,
in Israel as in the days of old.
d%≈h ≤m›n eÈfrosÊnhn kard¤aw
ka‹ gen°syai efirÆnhn §n ≤m°raiw ≤m«n
§n Israel katå tåw ≤m°raw toË afi«niow
50,23
Praise then now the God of all,
who does great things in every place,
who increases our days from the womb
and who treats us according to his loving kindness.
Ka‹ nËn eÈlog≤sate t%« Ye%« pãntvn
t%« megãla poioËnti pãnt$h
tÚn ÍcoËnta ≤m°raw ≤m«n §k mÆtraw
ka‹ poioËnta mey’ ≤m«n katå tÚ ¶leow aÈtoË.
50,22
Table of Hebrew and Greek Texts (MS B//LXX Sir 50,22–24) with Mulder’s translation
202
chapter five
seleucids and high priest
203
descendants.255 In the Greek text, there is instead no specific reference to the high priest, and the blessing is addressed to the Israelites
in general, along with their high priest.256
The omissions in the Greek version of the book of Ben Sira, especially that of v. 24 which completely ignores the high priest Simon,
have been explained in relation to the evolution the high priesthood
at the time of the translator; that is, by the fact that “the high priesthood was no longer in the hands of those who stood in the covenant
of Phinehas.”257
According to Lee, the Hebrew text exalts the high priest Simon
and his sons along with him (50,12b), “providing a picture of the
ideal high priest for the benefit of Onias,”258 and thus exalting the
legitimate priesthood.259 Minissale puts forward his own interpretation: he thinks that, in the period following Simon’s high priesthood,
the fighting among his sons, Menelaus’ assumption of the office and
the appointment of Jonathan Maccabeus as high priest in 152
(1 Macc 10,15–21)260 must have perplexed the author of the Greek
version, who deliberately dropped Simon’s name, favouring the people over the high priest and overlooking Simon’s hereditary rights.261
Therefore, the attention of scholars has been focused particularly
on the figure of Simon and his political ideology. According to
Tcherikover, the author of the book of Ben Sira emphasized that
Simon was an official of the Seleucid king262 who possessed authority and was responsible for the building of public works in Jerusalem.
Later, Goldstein supposed that the high priest Simon led the Jews
to change their allegiance from the Ptolemaic to the Seleucid empire.263
255
MsB 50,24 b: w[rzlw wl = for him and for his descendants
50,23 a: d!≈h ≤m›n = may he give us; 50,23 b: ka‹ gen°syai efirÆnhn §n ≤m°raiw
≤m«n = may there be peace in our days.
257
Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach, 238.
258
Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach, 239.
259
See Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, III/1, 200.
260
About the historical period see Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 138–163.
261
Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide, 222, notes 111 and 223, discusses Menelaus’
non-priestly origins (see note 111), but this statement is controversial and nowadays
seems to be outdated. See below.
262
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 80–81; Th. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu
Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973, 168.
263
J. Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in Christianity, Judaism and Other GrecoRoman Cults, Studies for Morton Smith at sixty, III, Judaism before 70, Leiden 1975, 100.
256
chapter five
204
Others reckon that when Antiochus III conquered Palestine, he
became “the defender of his people’s interests,” carrying out public
works to fortify the city.264 Nevertheless, Smith warns about the dangers of an excessive simplification of the political ideology of the high
priest. In his opinion, instead, Simon “for his part, seems to have
been all things to all men,”265 and represents the high priesthood of
Jerusalem which had to cope with the difficult situation of handling
the administrative and military affairs of Palestine.
In view of these hypotheses that look for an interpretation of a
historical nature and of a certain relevanc, it is important to remark that
both the Hebrew and Greek versions agree on focusing their attention
mainly on the sacred and religious competences of the high priest,
exalting them in the figure of Simon. The importance of the text
must also be understood in the context of the theology that it conveys. Precisely these theological implications are the ones that enlighten
us about the text, and that make us understand the high regard in
which the high priesthood was still held in the third century bce.266
5.6
Onias III in 2 Maccabees and Flavius Josephus
There are several historiographical traditions, sometimes even contradictory,267 regarding Onias III, Simon’s successor. The longest one
is found in the Second book of the Maccabees, at the time of Seleucus
IV Philopator (187–175 bce), and is focused on the disagreement
between the high priest Onias and “a certain Simon from the clan
of Bilgah who held the post of chief administrator of the temple”
(3,4),268 over the agoranomia of the city.269 A series of queries are raised
264
W.D. Davies – L. Finkelstein, ‘The Hellenistic Age’, The Cambridge History of
Judaism, II, Cambridge 1989, 69.
265
Palestinian Parties and Politics, 186.
266
For a theological re-reading of the high priest Simon see in chapter 7.1; 7.3.
267
See 2 Macc 3–4 and Ant 12,225.237. The passages in Dan 9,26 and 11,22
are generally attributed to Onias III as well.
268
Simvn d° tiw §k t∞w Balgea ful∞w prostãthw toË fleroË kayestam°now: translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 194. See a study on prostãthw in chapter 2.3. The
participle kayestam°now means that he had been appointed or elected for this office,
which therefore was not hereditary. He was therefore an official, a government
commissioner, responsible for the management of the sanctuary’s treasure. See
Bickerman, ‘Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem’, 161. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 201.
269
per‹ t∞w katå tØn pÒlin égoranom¤aw (2 Macc 3,4).
seleucids and high priest
205
by verse 3,4. The first one concerns the reading “§k t∞w Balgea
ful∞w”, present in ancient Latin and Armenian manuscripts, while
the Greek manuscripts attest “§k t∞w Beniamin ful∞w”.270
De Bruyne, however, claimed that the name Benjamin should be
corrected, according to the Latin versions, into Bilga or Balgea, a
name found among the priestly families that had returned from captivity.271 Tcherikover noted the difficulty of scholars in accepting the
reading “Benjamin”, as it raised the problem of Menelaus’ high
priesthood. Given that Menelaus was Simon’s brother (2 Macc 4,23),
he would belong to the same tribe and therefore he would not have
a priestly origin. Such a case, commented Tcherikover, would not
have passed unnoticed by the sources. In his opinion, the fact that
in the Latin versions the rare name “Balgea” appears instead of the
well-known name Benjamin is an indication of the existence of two
different traditions in the Greek manuscripts: the lectio difficilior Balgea
was changed by the copyist, who did not understand it, into
Benjamin.272 Hengel thinks that the original reading was Balgea,273
and most scholars today prefer this version,274 although sometimes
individual scholars prefer the “tribe of Benjamin”, even when this
has no justification.275 Moreover, regarding the usage and meaning
of fulÆ there is still controversy among scholars. According to Hengel,
the use of the term, unusual in the LXX, could perhaps be explained
by the fact that the Egyptian priestly caste was divided into fula¤.276
270
See critical apparatus of 2 Macc 3, 4 in Kappler – Hanhart, Maccabaeorum
liber II, 55.
271
‘Le Texte Grec des deux premiers Livres des Machabées’, RB 31 (1922),
46–47. See also E. Bikerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer, Berlin 1937, 65, note 1 and
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 316 note 4.
272
Hellenistic Civilization, 403–404.
273
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 279. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 201, note 4, reports the
same opinion.
274
See, for instance, Prato, ‘La persecuzione religiosa nell’ermeneutica maccabaica:
l’ellenismo come paganesimo’, 108 note 11, who remarks regarding the reading
Bilga of the Vetus Latina, against the Benjamin of the Greek codices, that the Vulgate
and the Syriac version is favoured in the critical edition of the text in W. Kappler –
R. Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II, 55.
275
See, for example, H.H. Rowley, ‘Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation’,
307–309; and, more recently, Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem ad Codicum
Fidei iussu Ioannis Pauli P.P. II edita cura et studio Monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti
Hieronymi in Urbe Ordinis Sancti Benedicti edita, Rome 1995, 168, which presents the
following version of 2 Macc 3,4: Simon autem de tribu Beniamin praepositus templi = text of the Vulgata.
276
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, II, 185 note 139, regarding this use, makes a
206
chapter five
Both Tcherikover and Goldstein admit a double meaning: that of
tribe, and that of “clan”277 or “watches”.278
The second query regards the meaning of the office that Simon
and the high priest quarrelled over: that of agoranomia. We have no
further information about this office in Jerusalem, although it is possible to judge its importance based upon the disagreement reported
in 2 Maccabees. In Greek cities an agoranomos was the superintendent of the marketplace: he controlled the quality of the goods, the
licences, the legal validity of transactions and he could also have
religious duties.279 Abel observes that Simon, as a member of a priestly
family, was prostates280 of the temple, but could also be agoranomos, a
technical word that indicated, in Greece, the person in charge of
the inspection of the city market; in Rome is was the aedile, and in
Egypt the person in charge of the record of juridical deeds, contracts, wills, etc.
Abel wonders if such a magistrature could be compatible with the
priestly office. In his opinion, the editor of the Greek text, on which
the Latin ones depend, has decided that it could not, because he
has substituted égoranom¤aw in A and other cod. by paranom¤aw, de
iniquitate which is perfect nonsense.281 Nevertheless, as the content of
the term agoranomia is yet hardly defined, the attention has been
focused on the motives for the disagreement. According to Saûlnier,
the different hypotheses considered in order to explain the origins
of the conflict between Simon and the high priest are not exclusive,
although she reckons that the most likely accusation was that of
malversation, that is, that Onias had not given back the surplus of
the royal subsidy for the temple.282
From the text we gather that the disagreement between Simon
and Onias ended up with the involvement of Apollonius, son of
Thraseas, who was strategos of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia at this time
cross-reference to W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Ägypten, Leipzig-Berlin
1905, I, 23 ff.
277
Hellenistic Civilization, 403.
278
II Maccabees, 201, note 4.
279
See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 203.
280
Regarding this term, see chapter 2.3. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas,
191 notices Simon’s role as “an officer who was probably familiar with the financial
resources of the temple”.
281
Les Livres des Maccabées, 317 note 4.
282
Histoire d’Israël, III, 108.
seleucids and high priest
207
(2 Macc 3,5),283 to whom Simon turned in order to make an accusation against the high priest, by saying that the treasure of the temple was full of an untold sum of money284 and that this money had
nothing to do with the expenses of the sacrifices,285 adding that it
was possible for these riches to fall under the control of the king.
Further to this, the king sent Heliodorus, “who was in charge of his
affairs”286 with the command to “effect the removal of the reported
wealth” (3, 7).287
The literary form of the successive episode has been thoroughly
studied. Doran observes that the verses 3, 15–22 are full of rhetorical embellishments, such as unusual words, repetition of the same
root in order to create a word-play, and the heightened clustering
of phrases. The whole description, in his opinion, aims solely at highlighting the great overturning that follows.288 Bickerman was the first
one to identify two traditions in the account of the episode of
Heliodorus’ inspection. The first one was in the form of the epiphany
of a horse and a horseman that, according to him, was not biblical, given that the horse is altogether alien to the Jews and was
283
Yrasa¤ou tÚn kat’ §ke›non tÚn kairÚn Ko¤lhw Sur¤aw ka‹ Foin¤khw strathgÚn.
According to Goldstein, II Maccabees, 204, the word “strathgÒw, in this case is equivalent to governor. See the discussion in chapter 5.1.1. Concerning the title strathgÒw,
see also H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der Hellenistischen Zeit, II, München 1937, 43–86;
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 19–21; II, 15 note 125: “The titles could in part
be exchanged.” According to Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 317–318, the title of
strategos had supplanted that of satrap, as in this case, where in his opinion it would
refer to the inferior officer of the countries West of the Euphrates. However, Abel
does not say in which period this substitution took place.
284
Bickerman, ‘Héliodore au Temple de Jérusalem’, 162–163, dwells on the meaning of the expression of 2 Macc 3,6: per‹ toË xrhmãtvn émuyÆtvn g°mein tÚ §n
ÑIerosolÊmoiw gazofulãkion, Õste tÚ pl∞yow t«n diafÒrvn énar¤ymhton e‰nai, thoroughly examining the meaning of some particular terms: 1) xrÆmata, meaning
“money” (in the Latin versions we find: pecunia); 2) gazofulãkion, in technical terms,
the chamber where the money is kept. Not to be mistaken for the thesauros or stock
room, where goods of all kinds were kept; 3) diafÒra, referring to the differences
in the balance between the credit and the debit, that is the surplus.
285
Simon’s accusation was that the sacerdotal administration had stocked up capital reserves for their own use; see Bickerman, ‘Héliodore au Temple de Jérusalem’,
165.
286
tÚn §p‹ t«n pragmãtvn: translation by VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas,
193. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 194, translates: “the chief minister.”
287
Translation by VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 193. Bickerman, ‘Héliodore
au Temple de Jérusalem’, 166, note 55, translates “de faire rentrer les diaphora.”
This episode is identified in Dan 11, 20 where a reference to Seleucus IV is found.
288
Temple Propaganda, 49.
208
chapter five
rather based on pagan epiphanies. The second one features the presence of two young men, whose description suggested the images of
two guardian angels of the sanctuary; this is based on Jewish narratives in which the pagan kings were compelled to recognise the
omnipotence of the God of Israel.289 Goldstein also highlights the
presence of two types of stories that represent divine intervention in
human affairs. In the first type, which might also include the presence of superhuman manifestations, the attention is focused on God
and his worshippers; the power of God destroys the enemy and
everybody, believers and non-believers alike, praise the mighty deity:
there is no further interest in the enemy. In the second type, the
victim or the beneficiary of God’s miraculous action widely proclaims
the power of God.290 Doran agrees by remarking that Heliodorus’
story possesses all the suitable characteristics to celebrate a divinity
that defends its own temple or city, but he prefers to talk about “a
topos, a term which has looser connotations than form but which is
not so controversial as motif or theme.”291
The historical and political meaning of the narrative has also raised
some queries. Bickerman claimed that it was a legal issue, a conflict
between the temple and the treasury. In his opinion, the question
was to determine if the surplus that had been gathered from the
offering of sacrifices “belonged to the Temple or should be refunded
to the king.”292 Nevertheless, according to Bickerman, Heliodorus’
intervention was a transitory episode and Seleucus IV continued to
respect the letter granted by Antiochus III. Tcherikover observed
that the fact that Hyrcanus’ money was deposited in the temple treasury meant that there was a certain familiarity with those who were
in charge of the temple, and particularly, with the high priest.293
Other scholars have found a distinctly political motif in Heliodorus’
289
‘Héliodore au Temple de Jérusalem’, 172–187. See especially 175–180, where
the first tradition is identified in 2 Macc 3,24.25.27.28.30, and 180–187, where the
second is identified in 2 Macc 3,26.29.31.36. These traditions are discussed in
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 198, 211–212; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 20–21.
290
II Maccabees, 211, notes 24–39, where examples of the first model are found
(A) in: Ezr 1,15–21; 2 Chr 32,1–23; Jos 5,13; 2 Ki 6,17 and, among the examples
of the second (B), Dan 4.
291
Temple Propaganda, 47; see 48–50, where Doran lists and discuss also some parallel examples.
292
The Jews in the Greek Age, 129.
293
Hellenistic Civilization, 139.
seleucids and high priest
209
story. Hengel has claimed that Onias III had implemented a philoPtolemaic policy, accepting a bribe from the Tobiad Hyrcanus.294
Goldstein also stated that the key to understanding the story was
Hyrcanus the Tobiad. Simon, his faction and the Seleucid government could have seen Hyrcanus as a rebel whose property was
confiscated, while Onias and the Jewish masses that supported him
could have considered him not as a rebel, but as an independent
sovereign.295 Saûlnier states that Seleucus IV suspected that Onias
had stolen part of the money gathered for the worship and that the
inquiry had continued afterwards, since the high priest was summoned to Antioch, perhaps because Seleucus IV had again wanted
him to report on his rule. Nevertheless, Saûlnier distinguished the
historical fact, which she dated around 180 bce, from the theological interpretation made by the author of 2 Maccabees.296
The difficulty in understanding more clearly the political jurisdictions of the high priest and the monarch is also due to the fact that
there are no other parallel sources available regarding this episode.
Goldstein in particular poses a number of questions about the different
treatment of Onias III given by Second Maccabees and Flavius
Josephus. He wonders why Second Maccabees 3 includes traces of
two versions of the miracle of Heliodorus while Josephus instead
does not mention it at all.297
In his opinion, the answer must be sought on the basis of two
elements that characterise the methodology used by the Jewish historian in Jewish Antiquities: 1) Flavius Josephus freely altered the
sources he possessed, according to his own political and ideological
bias; 2) Josephus wrote Antiquities when he was no longer young.
Consequently, he would not have checked on its contents himself,
as it can be deduced from the fact that: “Sometimes he overlooked
passages which needed to be revised, as in the numerous cross-references taken over from his sources which now have nothing to refer
to in Josephus’ work”.298
294
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 133.
II Maccabees, 207, notes 10–14, even hypothesizes, in a most imaginative fashion, that the widows and the orphans could be Hyrcanus’ followers.
296
Histoire d’Israël, III, 109–110.
297
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 93–94.
298
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 94. See also notes 27.29.
295
210
chapter five
In reality, Goldstein’s historical discourse is altogether based on
the theory of a probable author that would have been Josephus’
source both for the section of Ant 12 regarding the tale of the
Tobiads and for the account of the origins of Leontopolis’ temple
in Ant 13, 62–63. This author would be Onias IV, son of Onias
III, a pro-Ptolemaic, anti-Seleucid Jewish propagandist.299 The one
cardinal point of his ideology would be the idea that “the sole unbroken earthly link to the cult prescribed by God in the Torah is the
Aaronid-Zadokite-Oniad line of high priests, of which Onias IV was
the heir.”300 Precisely this ideology would be the key to explain the
treatment that Onias IV would give to the two high priests: Simon
II and Onias III. With the aim of removing both figures and
eliminating the possible claims of the supporters of the ZadokiteOniad line,301 he would relocate Simon II in time, placing him circa
300 bce302 and reducing Onias to a mere name in the succession of
the high priests.303
However, Goldstein’s hypothesis is questioned because of the method
that he uses to assign the sources. Moreover, there is another theory that has been put forth in an attempt to explain this lack of
information in Flavius Josephus, concerning the question whether he
knew the epitome of 2 Maccabees or not. It is a complex issue:
Goldstein himself first had openly favoured the claim of Josephus’
knowledge of the epitome, but in a second instance declared his
rejection of the majority of the points formerly made. In his opinion, the only sign that suggests that Josephus knew the unabridged
history of Jason of Cyrene are the documents of the Samaritans and
of Antiochus IV (Ant 12, 258–264), but, he added, “Josephus could
have found the documents elsewhere.”304 VanderKam also emphasizes that Josephus didn’t use 2 Maccabees as a source, and Schwartz
states that Josephus seems not to have known the book.305
299
300
301
302
303
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 107–108.
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 111.
See, regarding this issue, the Excursus in chapter 3.6.
Simon is given a more extended treatment in chapter 3.2.1.
‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, 119. See the discussion of this source in chapter
1.2.3.
304
See II Maccabees, 27, note 80.
See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 197 note 239. See also ‘Once Again
on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? A
Response to Gideon Fuks’, JJS 53 (2002) 149.
305
seleucids and high priest
5.6.1
211
Onias’ Death and the Foundation of the Temple in Leontopolis
In Second Maccabees (4, 30–34), we also find the tradition concerning the violent death of Onias III. However, the veracity of such
a version of the facts has often been discussed and regarded as
unlikely and legendary. Willrich considered the story of Onias’ death
incompatible with historical reality306 and Tcherikover remarked how
the negative attitude of some scholars to 2 Maccabees as a historical source had given birth to the assumption that the author of 2
Maccabees transferred to Onias the story of the tragic death of
Seleucus’ son, who was nephew of Antiochus IV, murdered by the
same high officer Andronicus that killed Onias. However, Tcherikover
himself noted how the account of the prince’s death was too brief
to allow for the establishment of precise parallels with the narrative
of 2 Maccabees, and how, even if the author of 2 Maccabees could
have taken some details from this narrative, this would not prove
that Onias was not killed by Andronicus.307 The matter gets more
complicated by the presence of other extant traditions regarding
Onias: while in 2 Macc 4,34–35 he is murdered at Menelaus’ instigation, in Jewish War (1,31–33; 7,420–436), when Antiochus interrupts the daily offering, he leaves for Egypt where he builds a temple.
But in Ant 13,383–388 the foundation of the temple is credited to
Onias’ son, not to his father, when Alcimus became high priest. Yet
another tradition, finally, is that of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, who,
at the beginning of his comment to Psalm 54 (55), provides a brief
account of Jewish history and, talking about the events related to
Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ reign and to Jason’s foundation of a gymnasium, adds that Onias, seeing these fearful events, fled to Egypt
where he built a temple.308
The information provided by Jewish War in particular, has been
the subject of dispute among scholars. Stern, among others, has
306
Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaïschen Erhebung, Göttingen 1895, 83–90.
Hellenistic Civilization, 469, note 40. The tradition of the murder of Seleucus’
son is reported by Diodorus, XXX, 7,2, see Müller, FHG IV, 558. See also F.R.
Walton ed., Diodorus of Sicily, XI, Cambridge-London 1957, 288.
308
These traditions have been thoroughly examined by, among others, F. Parente
‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste sur le sort d’Onias III et la fondation
du Temple de Leontopolis’, in REJ 154 (1995) 429–436 (430, 2); see also, by the
same author, ‘Onias III’ Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis’,
in F. Parente – J. Sievers eds., Josephus and the History of Graeco-Roman Period. Essays
in Memory of Morton Smith, Leiden 1994, 69–98.
307
212
chapter five
focused his attention on the motives of those who doubt the veracity of the narrative of 2 Maccabees309 and instead support the veracity of Jewish War, refuting their arguments one after another. In his
opinion: a) notwithstanding the fact that the death of the king’s
nephew could have been the official reason for Andronicus’ execution, this does not necessarily deny the possibility that Onias had
been murdered at Andronicus’ instigation. With the aim of enhancing Onias’ prestige, 2 Maccabees explains the death of Andronicus
as a punishment for the murder of the high priest; b) in 2 Maccabees
there is no trace of an ideological difference between Jason of Cyrene
and his epitomist. Onias III is, after Judah Maccabeus, the only hero
in 2 Maccabees. If the epitome had implicitly attempted to diminish the sanctity of Onias’ temple in Egypt, it could hardly have
glorified Onias in such terms. Even admitting that he was not the
one to found the temple, he was the ancestor of the family that had
promoted its building; c) Jewish War 1,33 is a confusing passage.
The expression “t«n érxier°vn” referring to Onias could have here
the wider meaning that it had during the Second Temple period.310
Therefore, it could also refer to Onias IV. The situation changes in
Jewish War 7,423 where Onias is called son of Simon. In any case,
Josephus corrected himself in his later and more circumstantial version
of Antiquities which is, incidentally, not dependent on 2 Maccabees;
d) Theodorus of Mopsuestia is not an independent source, inasmuch
as he drew on Jewish War, as proved by the common mistakes made
by him and Josephus not to be found in any of the other relevant
309
See GLAJJ, I, 405–406, where the motives against the veracity of 2 Maccabees
are listed as follows: a) the version of 2 Maccabees is rather unlikely and of a legendary nature. While it attributes Andronicus’ death to the king’s rage caused by
the murder of Onias, in other Greek sources Andronicus’ death is linked to the
death of the king’s nephew (Diodorus XXX,7,2); b) The author of 2 Maccabees
purposefully made up the story of the murder of Onias III, with the aim of depriving Onias’ temple of the glory of having been founded by the famous high priest.
The epitomist, whose ideology was contrary to that of Jason, credited Onias IV
with the foundation of the temple; c) in Jewish War (1,33; 7,423 ff.) it is implicit
that Onias III was the founder of the temple, and this version should be preferred
over that of Antiquities; d) the version of Jewish War is confirmed by Theodorus
of Mopsuestia in his comment on the Psalms.
310
See Stern, GLAJJ, 40, note 187, where there is a reference to the times in
which érxiereÁw and érxiere›w could indicate different members of the oligarchy
of the high priests and chief dignitaries of the temple of Jerusalem. Further discussion of this issue can be found in chapter 2.1; 2.2.
seleucids and high priest
213
sources. As a conclusion, Stern claimed that the somewhat confused
information of Jewish War could not invalidate the version of 2
Maccabees, supported in Antiquities. Furthermore, he reported the
presence of evidence in papyri that attest the activity of an Onias
in Egypt in 164 bce, albeit identified in several different ways.311
As to these two questions, the foundation of the temple at Leontopolis
and the death of Onias, there is no easy solution. We will now refer
again especially to the first problem, that is, the foundation of the
temple and the existence of the high priest Onias IV. According to
VanderKam, Josephus’s contradictory data in Jewish Antiquities and
Jewish War and the lack of mentions of Onias IV in 1 and
2 Maccabees would indicate that “more was happening in Judea
than 1 and 2 Maccabees report.”312 He claims that Josephus used
1 Maccabees as his source, but he may have preserved additional
historical informations. So the Jewish historian gave his own interpretation of the events adding names of individuals or groups which
are not present in 1 Maccabees.313 VanderKam proposes his own
historical reconstruction. In his opinion, when Onias III lost the high
priesthood, Onias IV, his son, who was the true heir to the high
priesthood, would not have fled to Egypt, but remained in Jerusalem
in an attempt to gain the high priesthood for himself. This attempt,
however, lasted a short time and Antiochus stopped it by driving
out “both Onias IV and the traditional Jewish practices with which
he was associated.”314
Was it then that Onias IV founded the temple? Among the other
studies carried out, Puech315 likewise focuses his attention on the
identification of the Onias that founded a temple in Egypt. In his
opinion, it would be unthinkable that a descendant of the direct line
of the Oniads, and therefore a legitimate heir, had gone to Egypt
to found a temple and a cult of YHWH, thus infringing upon the
311
GLAJJ, I, 406. See also, in support of the historicity of Onias’ violent death,
M. Delcor, ‘Le Temple d’Onias en Egypte’, RB 75 (1968), 188–202.
312
Joshua and Caiaphas, 219, where VanderKam claims that Onias IV’s absence
derives from the tendentious reasons of the two authors: 2 Maccabees is only interested in illegal high priests and in Judas’ cleansing of the temple, 1 Maccabees only
in the aim of justifying the Maccabean high priesthood.
313
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 220–221.
314
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 221.
315
É. Puech, ‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?’,
in B. Kollmann – W. Reinbold – A. Stendel eds., Antikes Judentum and Frühes Christentum,
Fs. H. Stegemann, Berlin-New York 1997, 137–158.
214
chapter five
centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem and the precepts of the Law.316
Taking into consideration the contradictions present in Ant 12,237–239;
387–388 as well, Puech claims that the founder of the Egyptian
temple was Onias son of Simon, the prostates that occupied an important position in the temple (2 Macc 3,4), whose uncle Menelaus had
been high priest.317 The problem remains open to further evaluation, as is the second problem, that of Onias III’s violent death,
which is now to be considered.
Parente318 examines the issue in Theodorus of Mopsuestia’s testimony and, contrary to Stern, considers Jewish War to be more reliable (1, 31–33). He observes that all the traditions, except for 2
Maccabees, mention the foundation of the temple of Leontopolis319
and that only in 2 Macc 4,30–38 is the violent death of Onias mentioned; the narrative, however, includes some very unlikely aspects.
Moreover, he criticizes the reliability of the historical nature of Onias’
story, considering that it depends on the identification of Onias III
with “the anointed one” (j"yviM); of Dan 9,26 that, in his opinion, has
no valid historical foundation.320 Reviewing the history of the interpretation of Dan 9,26, he notices that, from Hardouin at the end
of the 1600s to modern critics, the violent death of Onias has been
linked to the events of 2 Macc 4,30–38. However, he adds, already
by the first half of the 1800s, some scholars had rejected this link,
claiming that the j"yvim' of Dan 9,26 was the son of Seleucus IV
Philopator, Antiochus IV’s brother, killed by Heliodorus circa 176–175
bce, as attested by Appian (Syr 45). Then, in 9,25 the j"yviM; is called
dyGIN,“ a title that is difficult to attribute to a high priest. Also in the
expression “the ruler of the covenant” (TyrIB] dyGIN)“ of Dan 11,22, the
term dyGIN“ seems here likely to allude to Seleucus IV’s legitimate heir
rather than to a high priest. In the same way, the expression in
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III’, 151.
‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III’, 154. See also P.A. Rainbow,
‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, JJS 48 (1997), 44, who shares
the same hypothesis.
318
‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 433–434.
319
Parente, ‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 430, means to refer
to the two contradictory traditions in Josephus: a) Jewish War 1,31–33; 7,420–436;
b) Ant 12,237; 13,383–388; a passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Menahot 109 b)
and a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma, V.3) and to the testimony of
Theodorus of Mopsuestia in the preamble to his Commentary on Psalm 54.
320
Parente, ‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 431.
316
317
seleucids and high priest
215
1 Enoch 90,8,321 according to Parente, could only with difficulty refer
to such a death as that of Onias described in 2 Macc 4,43–50, but
would rather seem to refer to the last episode of Jonathan’s life,
defeated by Trypho at Ptolemais in 143 bce, taken prisoner and
eventually killed (1 Macc 12,48; 13,23). Whatever the case, in the
text of Enoch there is no clear reference to Onias.322
Parente then examines Stern’s position, which claims instead that
the narrative of Onias’ death in 2 Maccabees is absolutely reliable.
After listing and discussing the main points in Stern’s theory, Parente
pays special attention to the testimony of Theodorus of Mopsuestia,323
considering it more plausible than 2 Maccabees, even when he reckons that it depends heavily on this book, mainly regarding Onias’
role. Parente finally declares that he shares only partially the hypothesis of other scholars, such as Seeligmann, who believe that there is
a gap between 2 Macc 4,6 and 4,7 which would indicate that a part
of the text—the narrative of Onias’ flight to Egypt—had been erased
by the Palestinian editor of the book, who would have inserted the
passage referring to Onias’ death.324 This is all because he puts forward the hypothesis that Theodorus would have possessed an unaltered
321
“And I saw in the vision how the ravens flew upon those lambs, and tooke
one of those (13v, a25) lambs, and dashed the sheep in pieces and devoured them”,
translation by M. Knibb, The Etiopic Book of Enoch. A New edition in the Light of the
Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, I, Oxford 1978, 213.
322
‘Onia III’ Death and the Founding’, 93–95.
323
See ‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 432–433, where they are
reported as follows: a) according to Stern, Onias’ murder would have been necessary in order to provide Antiochus with an excuse to eliminate Andronicus, regarded
as responsible for the murder of Seleucus’ son. According to Parente, this is quite
unlikely, inasmuch as Onias, in virtue of his philo-Ptolemaic position, certainly had
reasons to flee to Egypt. Moreover, the author of 2 Maccabees could have constructed the story of Onias’ murder on the basis of the story of the murder of
Seleucus IV’s son recorded by Diodorus, linking the two events by means of a literary device; b) to those that claim that the fact that the son is named after the
father is something suspicious, Stern answers that it is a common custom and he
remarks that in Jewish War 1,31 Josephus calls Onias eÂw t«n érxier°vn, that is,
one of the members of the family of the high priest. The expression “son of Simon”
could be considered an addition made by Josephus, maybe on the basis of a biased
source that wanted to credit the foundation of the temple of Leontopolis to Onias
III rather than to his son. Nevertheless, in Parente’s opinion, the form eÂw t«n érxier°vn is not recorded before the Roman period; c) in Antiquities, Josephus’ source
credits the son—not the father—with the foundation of the temple. According to
Stern, this version is more likely, because the author seems to have acquired information that had not used before, but Parente reckons that all these are conjectures.
324
‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 435.
chapter five
216
manuscript of 2 Maccabees.325 Parente’s hypothesis is certainly suggestive, but its weakness lies precisely in the possibility of proving
the existence of the supposed gap, which is at the heart of the matter.
Certainly the narrative of 2 Maccabees is rather shadowy, but in
its defence we observe that the prevailing opinion regarding the passages of Dan 9,26326 and Enoch 90,8 is that they refer to Onias III.
For example, regarding Enoch 90,8 Nickelsburg too has claimed that
“the identity of the single lamb who is struck down (v.8) cannot be
determined with certainty, although the high priest Onias III is a
good candidate.”327 VanderKam notices that the references to Onias’
violent death in different sources as 2 Maccabees, the book of Daniel
and 1 Enoch imply “that the murder made a deep impression on
a range of observers”. They thus offer “early testimony against
Josephus’s report that Onias simply died and was succeeded by
Jason.”328 Furthermore, Rooke has demonstrated the usage of descriptive terms, as j"yviM; and dyGIN,“ to indicate the figure of the chief priest.329
Therefore, although it is suggestive, Parente’s hypothesis is not altogether convincing.
However the narratives about Onias III show us historical, literary and theological connections that will be reconsidered in the final
synthesis of this work.330
5.7
The “Hellenizers” high priests: Jason and Menelaus
Regarding the appointment of Jason to the high priesthood, we have
two traditions that present remarkable differences.331 In fact, according to Second Maccabees, Jason would have taken the high priesthood away from his brother Onias, purchasing it from king Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (4,7).332 According to Flavius Josephus, Jason would
325
‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste’, 434 and note 13, 435.
Compare with previous discussion in 5.4.4.
327
1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1.30; 81–108, Minneapolis
2001, 400.
328
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 207–208.
329
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 27–28, quotes, regarding j"yvM;, Lv 4,3.5.16; 6,15.32; Nm 35,25; about dyGIN“
1 Chr 9,11; 31,13; 35,8 (see 215).
330
See chapters 6.1; 7.4.
331
See Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 2.
332
ÍpenÒyeusen ÉIãsvn ı édelfÚw On¤ou tØn érxiervsÊnhn.
326
seleucids and high priest
217
have instead obtained the high priesthood from the king after the
death of his brother, because Onias’ son, who was the rightful heir
to the office, was too young (12,237). These traditions cast shadows
on the historical reality of the succession. Tcherikover believed that,
in the absence of the brother, Jason automatically took his place, as
Lysimachus would take his brother Menelaus’s place during his
absence from Jerusalem (4,29).333 This opinion is shared by Hengel,
who claims that Jason would also have substituted Onias in his
functions as soon as the latter had left to join the king in Antioch.334
VanderKam wonders: “Which picture is correct—usurpation (2 Maccabees) or transfer ( Josephus)?”335 We agree with his opinion that
2 Maccabees reports the more reliable account while Josephus’s narrative is strange.
Both the books of the Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities mention
the reforms, but in different ways. In Second Maccabees, Jason
brother of Onias is the one whom, in the period that coincides with
Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ accession to the Seleucid throne, once
appointed high priest, declared his will to pay a sum of money if
he was granted the authority to establish a gymnasion and an ephebeia,
and to énagrãcai the Antiocheans in Jerusalem (4,9).336 After the
king had given his assent to Jason, he immediately brought his fellow Jews “over to the Greek style of life” (4,10: §p‹ tÚn ÑEllhnikÚn
xarakt∞ra).337 Further to this, 2 Maccabees describes Jason’s actions
as an abolition of the institutions of the polite¤a and introduction of
new customs contrary to the Law.338 The consequences of such actions
are indicated as: a lack of zeal by the priests who, despising the temple, neglected the sacrifices and instead took part in the activities of
333
Hellenistic Civilization, 466, note 17.
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 277.
335
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 199. See also below in this chapter.
336
diå t∞w §jous¤aw aÈtoË gumnãsion ka‹ §fhb¤an aÈt«
! sustÆsasyai ka‹ toÁw §n
ÑIerosolÊmoiw ÉAntioxe›w. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 216 translates: “by virtue of his
office the power to establish a gymnasium and ephebic organization and to draw
up the list of the Antiochenes in Jerusalem.” See the discussion below. See also the
explanation of the term §jous¤a, albeit referring to the king’s powers, in Goldstein,
II Maccabees, 206 note a 3,6. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 332, note 9, claims that
the demand of this right can be explained by the fact that it would have allowed
Jason to act freely, with no need to consult other relevant members of the nation.
337
4,10: ka‹ t∞w érx∞w kratÆsaw eÈy°vw §p‹ tÚn ÑEllhnikÚn xarakt∞ra toÁw
ımofÊlouw met°stese. Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 216.
338
ka‹ tåw m¢n nom¤mouw katalÊvn polite¤aw paranÒmouw §yismoÁw §ka¤nizen (4,11).
334
218
chapter five
the gumnãsion (4,14); participation of some Antiocheans from Jerusalem
sent by Jason to the quinquennial games held at Tyre (4,18); monetary contributions for public works,339 to such an extent that Jason’s
demands are stigmatised in Second Maccabees as the cause of the
lengthy troubles that would soon befall the Jews (4,16).
First Maccabees, however, does not mention Jason, but underlines
that Íio‹ parãnomoi (1,11) came out of Israel and tinew épÚ toË laoË
obtained the king’s authorization to put into effect tå dikai≈mata
t«n §yn«n (1,13). With that purpose, the text of 1 Maccabees appears
rather concise and specifies the requests on the one side as an invitation to make a covenant with the gentiles around them (1,11),340
on the other side as an apostasy of the holy covenant (1,15).341
Goldstein observes that the author of 1 Maccabees does not say
anything else, because he believes that the wicked have to be relegated to oblivion. In his opinion, although they are not accused of
idolatry, he still sees them “as guilty of heinous sin.”342 The “heinous
sin” was the pact with the surrounding gentiles, from which Israel
could also derive the worship of foreign gods. The Torah strictly
commanded Israel to keep strictly away from the other nations that
already dwelled in the Promised Land. At the time of the second
temple such nations had ceased to exist, but Ezra and Nehemiah,
by referring to the “inhabitants of the country,”343 intended the pagan
dwellers of their time. Also Hecataeus of Abdera, writing at the end
of the fourth century, had noticed the rigidity of the separation
between Jews and pagans.344 In modern times, Saûlnier gives an
extended treatment to this problem, analysing both the meaning and
the theological implications345 of the terms parãnomoi and dikai≈mata
t«n §yn«n. The former, recorded mainly in the wisdom literature,
has to be considered within the context in which it is found. It seems
339
Regarding the contribution of the silver drachmas, the text of 2 Macc 4,19–20
specifies that this money was intended by the sender for the sacrifice to Heracles,
but by the decision of its carriers it was destined for the construction of triremes.
340
Poreuy«men ka‹ diay≈meya diayÆkhn metå t«n §yn«n t«n kÊklv
! ≤m«n (1,11).
341
ka‹ ép°sthsan épÚ diayÆkhw èg¤aw (1,15).
342
I Maccabees, 199, note a 1:11–15.
343
The Hebrew expression is ≈r,a;h; μ['. See M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 107,
according to whom it would indicate, after the return from Babylon, the syncretistic
population.
344
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 199–200, note a 1,11–15.
345
Histoire d’Israël, III, 110–111.
seleucids and high priest
219
to follow the passage in Dt 13,14, where the “sons of Belial” (l['Yl" bi A] ynEB)]
are those Israelites who worship other gods.346
The expression “make a covenant with the Gentiles around us”
does not yet have a diplomatic meaning, but it is meant to indicate
a real apostasy from the Torah. Therefore, the meaning of dikai≈mata
t«n §yn«n acquires particular relevance. The word dika¤vma indicates, in Greek, a judicial deed, but in the Bible it might connote
practices, in the measure in which they had to conform to God’s
judgements. They would be, therefore, legal obligations, alien to the
Jewish law.347 However, we observe that the high priest Jason is not
mentioned among the parãnomoi, but this has been explained as
damnatio memoriae.348
The narrative of Jewish Antiquities provides us with a different
version which, regarding this issue, seems extremely confusing.349
After discussing the changes of the names of Jesus into Jason and
of Onias into Menelaus,350 as well as the internal turmoil of the
country caused by the clashes between the followers of the two high
priests, the text informs us that Menelaus and the Tobiads were the
ones who addressed the king to let him know of their desire to abandon the laws of their country and follow both the king’s laws and
the Greek way of living. They also asked him permission to build
a gumnãsion in Jerusalem, and “they also concealed the circumcision
in order to be Greek even when unclothed” (12,241).351
Flavius Josephus does not add further information about Menelaus
until the narrative of his death and of Alcimus’ succession (Ant
12,383–387), following the account of the religious persecution of
Antiochus and the death of Antiochus himself. On the contrary, the
narrative tradition of 2 Maccabees concerning Menelaus is quite
long, although it differs from the account of Flavius Josephus from
the very beginning, when his lineage is described. About him it is
346
BHS Dt 13,14
rmøale μr:y[i ybev]yAta, WjyDIY"w" ÚB,r“Qimi l['Y"lib]AynEB] μyvin:a} Wax]y:
μT,[]d"y“Aalø rv,a} μyrIjea} μyhiløa‘ hd:b]['n"w“ hk;l]nE
Regarding the language of the passage, see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 200.
347
Saûlnier – Perrot, Histoire d’Israël, III, 111.
348
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 73 and note 55.
349
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 223 describes it as “the strange narrative” and explains
it with relation to Flavius Josephus’ prejudices.
350
concerning this see chapter 3.2.2.
351
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities XII–XIV, 123 See also
Ant 12,240.
220
chapter five
said that he was “the brother of the previously mentioned Simon”,352
that is, not Onias’ brother as claimed by Flavius Josephus353 but the
brother of Simon, the temple’s prostãthw who belonged to Bilga’s354
priestly class. There is then an account of some of Menelaus’ infamous actions: he gained the high priesthood for himself by offering
the king three hundred silver talents added to Jason’s bid; he forces
Jason to flee to the Ammonites; he holds power over the office without paying any of the promised money to the king and commissions
the murder of Onias III (4,23–35). When charges are brought against
him, he bribes the governor Ptolemy, who induces the king to change
his mind and Menelaus retains his office (4,43–50).
A civil war breaks out between Jason and Menelaus, following the
unfounded news of king Antiochus’ death. Jason gets the worst of
it: he seeks refuge in the country of the Ammonites, and fleeing from
city to city he dies in exile (5,5–10). Again Menelaus leads Antiochus
IV into the temple (5,15). During his looting and later, after the narrative of the religious persecution, the Maccabean revolt, the death
of Antiochus IV and the purification of the temple, in which there
is no mention of Menelaus, the high priest appears instead as an
intermediary between the king and the people in the king’s letter to
the Jews (11,27–33).355 Menelaus is next to the new king Antiochus
V Eupator in the second expedition of Lysias, when he hoped to
be re-established in office and instead met his death (13,3–8).
In the traditions about Menelaus the author’s ideology is clearly
shown; as has been previously noted, he never mentions Menelaus
by the title of high priest,356 while several times he emphasizes his
§jous¤a (4,24.27.50) and interprets his falling into disgrace and his
death as an eminently just punishment for the sins that he had committed (13,8). It has been said that Menelaus became “the scapegoat whose death appeased the wrath of the Jewish community,”
352
353
tÚn toË proshmainom°nou S¤mvnow édelfÚn (2 Macc 4,23).
Ant 12,238, but see also 20,235. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 338, considers
that Josephus’ information is unlikely and reckons that the pontifical chronicle from
which Josephus has drawn it had altered the facts with the aim of providing the
whole succession of the high priests with a legitimate aspect. This forgery has been
admitted by the critics.
354
See discussion about this problem in chapter 5.6.
355
See discussion in chapter 5.4.1.
356
See chapter 3.1.
seleucids and high priest
221
after the outrage caused by the innovation of Jason’s reforms and
Antiochus’ repressive decrees.357
However, in all the traditions here examined, an important datum
is the constant reference to the introduction of reforms. It is therefore necessary to examine these reforms more closely, in what regards
their nature and the high priests’ involvement in them.
5.7.1
The Nature of Jason’s Reforms
The first reform is introduction of the gymnasium, which is mentioned both in the books of the Maccabees and in Jewish Antiquities.358
It was the most characteristic institution of Greek civilization in the
Hellenistic age. It was not only the centre of physical activities and
sports, but also of civil and literary education.359 Originating as an
athletic institution, great importance has always been given to musical training, and at the beginning of the Hellenistic age it developed
into a secondary school. For instance, at the gymnasium in Pergamum,
where there were lecture rooms, porticoes and libraries, three educational levels could be attended: boys, ephebes, and young men. Life
in the gymnasium is described in many inscriptions. Every Greek
city had its own gymnasium, and there was one wherever a Greek
community was established, inasmuch as it was the place where the
Greeks preserved their cultural identity.360
According to Will and Orrieux, the fact that Jason asked the king
for permission to build a gymnasium meant that there were no Greek
residents in Jerusalem: it was therefore a gymnasium for Jews only.
But, they remark, Jason’s petition, even though he was high priest,
ignored a fundamental aspect of the gymnasium: the cultic one. In
fact, the gymnasium was also a place of worship of Heracles, Hermes,
the Muses and even the king himself.361 Moreover, next to the gymnasium Jason intended to set up an §fhb¤a (4,9). This was part of
the gymnasium; it constituted the final class. According to Abel, the
357
S. Safrai – M. Stern eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical, Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, II, Assen/Amsterdam,
1976, 566, note 2.
358
1 Macc 1,14; 2 Macc 4,9; Ant 12,241.
359
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 200. See also Saûlnier – Perrot, Histoire d’Israël, III,
112.
360
F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, revised edition, Cambridge 1993, 182
cites the inscription from Teos.
361
Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, Nancy 1986, 117.
222
chapter five
§fhb¤a was a body of young men from eighteen to twenty years of
age, originally registered as a military training society which had
gymnastics as its main activity, but did not disregard culture either:
philosophy, eloquence, music or literature, everything that created a
bond among different cities called philanthropy.362 The demands of the
gymnasium and the §fhb¤a are strictly linked to a third request, also
attributed to Jason: ka‹ toÁw §n ÑIerosolÊmoiw ÉAntioxe›w énagrãcai
(4,9).
This expression has been widely discussed. Bickerman claimed that
Jason had received permission “to enroll” the Antiocheans from
Jerusalem363 and explained that the gymnasium community became
a legal entity. Thus a “corporation” was constituted within Jerusalem,
like the communities that had been formed in other parts of the
Hellenistic East, which could be called pol¤teuma, citizen’s corporations, or as often happened in Syria and Asia, d∞mow. The admission to that corporation, which had the characteristics of Jason’s
personal foundation recognised by the king, was open only to those
who had completed a Greek education through the gumnãsion and
the §fhb¤a.364 Other scholars have expressed different opinions. Abel,
who interprets the Greek expression as “draw up a list of the
Antiocheans of Jerusalem,”365 observed the reading of the Latin editor (V énagoreËsai) and noticed that the latter had understood that
énagrãcai could neither indicate the change of the citizens of Jerusalem
into Antiocheans nor that of Jerusalem into Antioch. Jason would
have reserved for himself the right to draw up a list of the Antiocheans
of Jerusalem and to found a corporation under the patronage of
Antiochus.366 Furthermore, Abel found support for his hypothesis
362
Les Livres des Maccabées, 332, note 9. See also 7, note 14. For a general approach
to the issue of the Jewish philanthropy and misanthropy, see the study by K. Berthelot,
Philantrôpia Judaica: le débat autour de la “misantropie” des lois juives dans l’Antiquité, Leiden
2003, 17 ff. For a semantic study of the term, see in particular the reference to
the Letter of Aristeas in 188–209, and in 321–383 a deeper study on Flavius
Josephus’ testimony.
363
The God of the Maccabees, 39.
364
Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees, 40–41. See ibid., 40, where Bickerman
quotes the examples of the Jews of Alexandria; the Greek community that lived in
the Egyptian city of Memphis (Ant 14,117); the d∞mow of Gaza; and the Antiocheans
at Akko-Ptolemais.
365
Author’s translation of Abel, Les livres de Maccabées, 333: “de dresser une
liste des Antiochéens de Jerusalem.”
366
Abel, Les livres de Maccabées, 332 note 9.
seleucids and high priest
223
again in Second Maccabees where it is said that, in occasion of the
quinquennial games held at Tyre, Jason sent Antiocheans of Jerusalem
as theoroi.367 The word theoroi stands for the envoys that the Greek
states used to send to attend the games; they, said Abel, were supposed to represent the city that had sent them, Jerusalem in this
specific case; but given that they had been sent by Jason, he had
chosen them from the list of the Antiocheans of the Jewish metropolis, that is, from the Hellenizer society organised by Jason under
the patronage of the king.368
Tcherikover claims that Antiochus had given Jason permission to
change Jerusalem into a Greek pÒliw by the name of Antioch. This
however did not mean, in Tcherikover’s opinion, that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem had automatically become Antiocheans. Jason
would have previously organised a d∞mow, that is a body of citizens
formed by the city nobles, as proven by the institution of the gymnasium and the §fhb¤a. In his opinion, however, it is not possible
to establish the number of those citizens; Second Maccabees says
that, in the absence of the high priest Menelaus from Jerusalem, his
brother Lysimachus drafted in 3000 armed men to defend the
Hellenistic regime against the rebels.369 Regarding the characteristics
of such a pÒliw, Tcherikover remarked that the transformation of
Jerusalem into Antioch meant, above all, the transference of the
Jewish state from one political category into another: from ethnos into
polis.370 Therefore, he established a distinction between ethnos and
polis. In his opinion, unlike the “peoples” that remained separate
from other nations and isolated both cultural and economically, the
“cities” that supported the central power with their indigenous populations were considered as allies; they enjoyed various privileges,
such as a certain autonomy and the right to mint their own coins,
2 Macc 4,19: yevroÁw …w épÚ ÑIerosolÊmvn ÉAntiox°aw.
Les Livres des Maccabées, 333.
369
Hellenistic Civilization, 161–162.
370
Hellenistic Civilization, 168. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees, 41–42, again
talks about an ¶ynow, commanded by the high priest. In Corrigenda and Addenda,
112, 39, he refutes the often repeated hypothesis that Epiphanes had turned Jerusalem
into a pÒliw by the name of Antioch, and that the inhabitants of the city were
called Antiocheans, inasmuch as it is philologically erroneous and directly refuted
by the documents of 2 Macc 11,27 and 11,34; these are addressed to the gerous¤a
and the d∞mow of the Jews and not to the Antiocheans. Furthermore, the letter of
Antiochus V (2 Macc 11,22–26) talks about the Jews and their temple.
367
368
224
chapter five
and above all were bonded by friendship, common cultural projects,
and trade.371
Tcherikover’s hypothesis is certainly interesting; however, the term
pÒliw never appears in the available sources, while some words belonging to the semantic area of the term pÒliw can be found.372 Regarding
this issue, Troiani observes that in Second Maccabees, politeÊesyai
in God’s laws is soon to become the slogan of Jerusalem’s antireformists—those whom we call orthodox—while in Jewish Antiquities,
the polite¤a is a kind of honour consisting in abiding by the ancestral laws, and the title pol›tai does not seem to entail the acquisition of political rights, but the concession of privileges: for instance,
the citizens’ exemption from certain taxes.373 Goldstein has devoted
great attention to the issue of the meaning of 2 Macc 4,9, wondering, beyond the puzzling fact of the existence of Antiochean citizens
in Jerusalem, which privileges could such citizens have enjoyed. He
saw the answer in the term énagrãcai. This would mean, in his
opinion, “to draw up a list” or “to enter in a list”.374
The question is, what list was that? According to Goldstein, the
expression could be clarified only if we understand that Antiochus
founded “an Antiochene citizenship analogous to the citizenship to
the Romans”375 in the occupied territories, Antiochus being an admirer
and an imitator of their civilian institutions.376 Antiochus would have
conferred Antiochean citizenship only to those inhabitants of Jerusalem
selected by Jason; the gumnãsion and the §fhb¤a would have been
the centre of their education. In Goldstein’s opinion, only some
inhabitants of Jerusalem became Antiochean citizens; until the establishment of the Akra in 167 bce, Judea and Jerusalem retained their
ancestral political institutions, including the high priest and the
gerous¤a.377
371
Hellenistic Civilization, 169.
2 Macc 9,19; 11,25; Ant 12,240.
373
L. Troiani, ‘The POLITEIA of Israel in the Graeco-Roman Age’, in Parente –
Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Graeco Roman Age, 12–14.
374
I Maccabees, 112.
375
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 117.
376
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 104, recalls that Antiochus had been a hostage in Rome
from 188 to 175 or maybe 176; he also claims (105) that the key to the solution
of many of the problems posed by Antiochus’ kingdom lies “in understanding his
effort to ape the Romans.”
377
I Maccabees, 118: “(gerousia; see II 4:44, and cf. II 14:37 and J. AJ. Xii
3.3.138.142).”
372
seleucids and high priest
225
Therefore, we find the problem of the political status of Jerusalem
closely linked to the interpretation of 2 Maccabees. Saûlnier378 has
thoroughly examined two interpretations of the passage in question:
1) that the inhabitants of Jerusalem already constituted a Greek city
named after the sovereign; 2) that part of the population was a
pol¤teuma of which a list was drawn up. Such a hypothesis has been
supported also by Bickerman, as we have already seen.379
Notwithstanding the original question, that is, the meaning of the
expression of 2 Macc 4,9, the thesis remains that, in the period
under the rule of Antiochus IV, reforms were introduced in Jerusalem,
such as the gumnãsion, the §fhb¤a and the enrolment of the Antiocheans
in Jerusalem, which were interpreted as a covenant with the gentiles
around them (1 Macc 1,11), that is, as the abandonment of the ancestral laws and the pursuit of the Greek way of living.380 VanderKam
highlights other elements: the so-called reform came from a Jewish
high priest in Jerusalem and surely constituted an advantage for King
Antiochus, whose program was to “establish the multi-national Seleucid
state.”381 But, in VanderKam’s opinion, it is especially important that
the character of the institutions and Jason’s personal role would have
“entailed a change in the duties of the high priesthood.” In fact,
Jason appears as “the leader of a Hellenistic political and educational community”.382
5.7.2
Menelaus and the Akra
Among the traditions regarding the high priests of the period being
studied, it is necessary to pay special attention to one in particular:
that related to the Akra and its function, the importance of which
has been highlighted with relation to Menelaus,383 starting from the
378
Histoire d’Israël, III, 112–113. See also Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos,
117–118.
379
Concerning Jerusalem’s political status, see chapter 6.3.
380
See, for instance, 2 Macc 4,10–11.
381
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 200–201.
382
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 199. See also chapter 6.1.
383
It is a problem raised by J. Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus’, 205,
in Parente – Sievers eds., Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period, 195–209.
There is a mention of the tradition according to which Menelaus, after the spread
of false rumours about Antichus IV’s death, is attacked by Jason and has to seek
refuge in the Akropolis (2 Macc 5,5). This probably happened in 169–168 bce
(2 Macc 5,1).
226
chapter five
statement that, in order to understand the history of Jerusalem in
the years 200–130, it is necessary to understand the role of the
Akra.384 Sievers considers that the long discussed problem of the location of the Akra has no possible solution,385 and claims that it is necessary instead to focus on the issues of its population and functions.386
From our sources concerning diverse Hellenistic areas, it can be
inferred that it was normal for a Hellenistic city to have a fortified
citadel, called Akra or Akropolis.387 The Seleucid citadels were generally built along the city borders; there were used both for controlling and defending the city, and they hosted foreign troops.388
From the information provided by Flavius Josephus we gather that
the Akra was held by the Egyptian Ptolemies, and it was later seized
by Antiochus III with the help of the local population.389 It can be
supposed that it had been taken over by the Seleucid administration;
in 2 Maccabees there is a mention of a certain Sostratos as the eparcha of the Akropolis.390 Sostratos was responsible for “≤ t«n diafÒrvn
prãjiw” (4,28),391 a syntagm of uncertain and controversial meaning.392
However, we know that the eparcha was summoned by the king along
with Menelaus, because the latter had not paid any of the money
promised to the king in exchange for the high priesthood.393 According
to Abel, the commander of the garrison had therefore to collect the
384
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 208.
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 196. See the hypothesis formulated by Goldstein,
Maccabees I, 214–219.
386
‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 196–198.
387
Regarding this issue, see the discussion of the ambivalence of both terms in
Goldstein, I Maccabees 214.217.
388
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, The Akra’, 197.
389
Ant 12,133.138.
390
Svstrãtou toË t∞w ékropÒlevw §pãrxou (2 Macc 4,28). The year must have
been 172 bce: about this date see 2 Macc 4,23.
391
Goldstein, II Maccabees, translates: “whose duty it was to collect the money.”
392
Bickerman, ‘Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem’, 164, reckons that this would
be the collection of arrears, and that this would be part of the responsibilities of
the Seleucid commander of Jerusalem’s citadel; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 237 note
28, thinks that probably the term diaphora stands for “money”, and that the task of
collecting the money had been assigned to the captain by Menelaus himself, in
order to prevent anybody else from repeating his own actions. However, he does
not dismiss the meaning: “arrears”, underlining that the only body in Jerusalem
that could fulfil the functions of a royal police force was the citadel’s garrison.
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, The Akra’, 197, leaves the possibility open to “cash”, “interest”, or “arrears”.
393
2 Macc 4,27–28; see also 2 Macc 4,24.
385
seleucids and high priest
227
tributes and other taxes due to the local government.394 He was then
in charge of the tax collection. Sievers also points out that the Akra,
apart from its military duties, had economical and fiscal functions.
The commander of the garrison was responsible for the collection
of revenues, especially when they had to be collected by force. Fiscal
and military administrations were thus closely linked.395 Furthermore,
the Akra “must have had control over substantial territories and perhaps commercial activities of its own.”396
Scholars have wondered about the identity of the inhabitants of
the Akra at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. According to Bickerman397 the Akra was, at that time, more than a citadel. It included
a civilian population: it was the place where the Gentiles lived
(1 Macc 3,45), along with the foreign settlers that had occupied territories at Jerusalem (Dan 11,39) and the renegade Jews (1 Macc
1,34; 6,23).
Tcherikover claims that the Akra was occupied both by Jewish
Hellenizers and by what he considers a military settlement: a katoikia
or kleruchia whose wickedness was so abhorrent to the residents of
Jerusalem that they fled the city, which “became a colony of foreigners.”398 Tcherikover emphasizes the importance of the establishment of the katoikia; it meant, among other things, the confiscation
of cultivated lands, the introduction of new settlers and the imposition of new taxes. Such a settlement would be closely connected with
Antiochus’ persecution. According to Tcherikover, from the moment
in which Menelaus was appointed high priest (172–1 bce), the turmoil within the community of Jerusalem progressively increased, and
by 168 the Jewish population was virtually in state of war against
Antiochus. The key to understanding these events is, in his opinion,
a conflict of interests between the aristocracy and what he calls the
plebs urbana. After Menelaus’ seizure of the high priesthood, the plebs
urbana became an organized force that obtained its first victory by
killing Menelaus’ brother Lysimachus (2 Macc 4,41–42), and its
Les Livres des Maccabées, 339, note 27 ff.
‘Jerusalem, The Akra’, 203, where Sievers, for the Ptolemaic age, quotes the
example of the tales of the Tobiads in Ant 12,169 and 175–185.
396
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 205.
397
The God of the Maccabees, 46.
398
1 Macc 1,38: ka‹ §g°neto éllotr¤a to›w genÆmasin. Translation by Goldstein,
! êkr& (1 Macc 3,45) and Dan
I Maccabees, 206. See also: ka‹ uflo‹ éllogen«n §n t∞
11,36. See also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 189.
394
395
228
chapter five
second one by expelling Jason from the city (2 Macc 5,7). A consequence of this was the persecution of Apollonius and the establishment of a military centre in the Akra,399 a fact that caused “The
change of principle in the situation.”400 The troops quartered in the
Akra were actually Syrians who had their own divinities and performed their sacred rites in the temple, which was consequently abandoned by the Jews. According to Tcherikover, only the Hellenizers
continued worshipping in the temple, from which it can be deduced
that Menelaus kept on performing his duties as high priest of the
God of the Jews.401 It was, however, a syncretism or co-existence of
various cults rather than an introduction of new kinds of worship
or a substitution of the older ones. Nevertheless, such a situation
could not be accepted by the majority of the Jews; this is why the
Jewish resistance took on the shape of a religious movement: that
of the “pious” (μydysj).402 This last statement raises a problem that
will be examined: that of Alcimus’ high priesthood.403
But now let us return to the initial problem regarding the residents of the Akra. In order to answer the question about their identity, Sievers makes a synoptic presentation of the texts in 1 Maccabees
and Antiquities.404 1 Maccabees indicates the presence of Jews in the
Akra with somewhat reticent language, although at least one passage seems to provide clear references to their presence. Flavius
Josephus, on the other hand, is explicit regarding this issue; he makes
at least ten references to Jewish residents of the Akra in Antiquities,
where he defines them as fugãdew and ésebe›w.405
2 Maccabees casts light on this problem, indicating that Menelaus
(5,5) was also counted among the residents of the Akra for a certain period, seeming to have enjoyed a privileged position there. The
399
Hellenistic Civilization, 191–192.
Hellenistic Civilization, 193.
401
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 194–195.
402
Hellenistic Civilization, 196.
403
See chapter 5.8.
404
‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 200.
405
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 198–199. Sievers discusses in the first place
(198) the expression ¶ynow émartvlÒn, êndraw paranÒmouw (1 Macc 1,34) and the
poetic lamentation of 1 Macc 3,45, referring later (199) to 1 Macc 4,2 where “men
from the citadel” were chosen to help Gorgias. Regarding the different presentation and location of the Akra in 1 Maccabees and Flavius Josephus, Sievers, 201,
hypothesizes that Josephus was in possession of at least one more source, written
or oral, apart from 1 Maccabees and Nicolaus of Damascus.
400
seleucids and high priest
229
whole episode of 2 Macc 4,27–28 reflects a close relationship between
Sostratos and Menelaus: Sostratos does not intervene against Menelaus;
on the contrary, Menelaus seems to exert a certain influence over
the commander (4,28). There is another episode that can cast light
on the type of relationship that must have existed between Menelaus
and the Seleucid king’s official. In 2 Maccabees we can see that,
after Onias III’s death, charges were brought against Menelaus (4,43)
by three men sent by the council of elders in order to present the
case before the king. Menelaus managed to get himself acquitted of
the charges by bribing Ptolemy son of Dorymenes (4,43–57). This
Ptolemy is probably the same Ptolemy mentioned by 1 Maccabees
among the dignitaries called “friends of the king” (3,38) and cited
also in 2 Maccabees as strategos of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (8,8).
The Jewish high priest Menelaus had close relations, therefore, both
with the commander of the citadel’s garrison and with the military
commander of the whole region.
Regarding the problem of the Akra and the presence of the high
priest Menelaus, we will again refer to Bickerman. In 1937 he put
forward hypotheses406 that linked the problem directly to Menelaus
and to the status of Jerusalem in that period. Two of them seem
particularly noteworthy:
1) The Akra was more than a dwelling place and a refuge; it was
a pÒliw that had control over Jerusalem; Jerusalem and its temple were included in the territory of the Akra.
2) The high priest Menelaus, certainly a citizen of the Akra, still
held the position of chief of the Jewish nation. The temple, however, did not belong to the nation but it was rather the property
of the Akra’s citizens.
There is not enough data, however, to confirm that the Akra had
the constitution of a pÒliw.407 Neither, however, can we disregard
the statement that from the Seleucid conquest of 168/7 to 164, intermittently until 161, and from 162 to 152, the Akra “was in control
of all Jerusalem.”408 Goldstein does not see the meaning of pÒliw as
city-state either, insofar as both 1 and 2 Maccabees use the term in
406
The God of the Maccabees, 42–53.
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 204, claims that this cannot be stated with reference to 1 Macc 15,28, where Antiochus VII demanded the restitution of the
pıleiw of Joppa, Gezer and the Akra in Jerusalem.
408
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 199.
407
chapter five
230
the non-technical sense of “ ‘town’ and ‘colony’ (katoikia)”.409 However,
Antiochus Epiphanes’ liking of the Roman models could, in his opinion, suggest that the Akra was a pÒliw in the sense of a colony of
Antiochean citizens.
In fact, we cannot be sure about the relationship between Menelaus
and the Akra, due to the lack of data in our possession. It is rather
unlikely, in any case, that he was a citizen of the Akra in the sense
of actually living there: the verb §fugãdeusen in 2 Macc 5,5 has the
technical sense of “banish, live in banishment”.410 But if, as it seems
quite probable, the Akra was inhabited by Jews, we have to suppose at least that they were followers or supporters of the high priest.
If the eparcha and his troops dominated Jerusalem, it could be supposed that a certain authority or power was given to Menelaus, summoned by the king along with the commander of his garrison, thus
conferring them the same honour.
The existence of the high priest’s personal sphere of influence was
in accordance with the principle divide et impera of Hellenistic monarchies that provided the existence of various levels of power.411 But
this is only a very provisional hypothesis. As we have already said,
the Akra is also linked to the high priest Alcimus.
5.8
The High Priesthood of Alcimus
According to Flavius Josephus (Ant 20,237),412 the last high priest
before the Hasmoneans is Alcimus, who is also the only high priest
of the period to be mentioned in 1 Maccabees.413 The traditions
that concern him,414 sometimes contradictory, raise complex and
409
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 218.
See Liddell – Scott, entry fugadeÊv.
411
See, for instance P. Lévêque, Formazioni dei regni ellenistici, in A. Barigazzi,
P. Lévèque, D. Musti ed., La società ellenistica. Quadro politico, Storia e civiltà dei Greci,
7, Milano 1977, 91–95. See also Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra’, 207.
412
Regarding the reliability of this information, see the discussion in chapter 3.5.
The name Alcimus (Ant 12,386: ÉIãkeimow) is a Greek version of the Hebrew Eljakim.
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 64 observes that “their Greek names were by no
means extraordinary, but rather corresponded to a general tendency of nomenclature in the Jewish aristocracy, no matter whether persons were pro-Hellenist or proMaccabean.”
413
The name Alcimus appears for the first time in 1 Macc 7,5.
414
For a comparison between the different traditions see Sievers, Synopsis of the
Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 121 ff.
410
seleucids and high priest
231
controversial problems, either of a literary or a historiographical
nature. The first question is related to Alcimus’ appointment as high
priest.
Bunge expresses the difficulty of this research calling for a distinction between what had probably happened in reality and what
our sources tell us about it.415 Before Bunge, also Mölleken had followed this procedure, examining the problem of the date of the
beginning of Alcimus’ high priesthood and considering the origins
and the reliability of the various traditions.416 The diversity of the
sources goes beyond the difference of the information concerning the
high priesthood,417 affecting also the context in which the events are
placed and the contents of the events themselves.
Mölleken, in the first part of his work,418 carries out a detailed comparison between the data of 1 Maccabees419 and those of 2 Maccabees,420 reporting the different possible solutions that had been proposed
with the aim of explaining the changes, but without reaching any
satisfying conclusion. In his opinion, it is necessary to consider a new
hypothesis. No passages had been omitted in 1 Maccabees, but instead
the author had inserted arbitrary additions. He claims, however, that
the narration of 1 Maccabees about the appointment of Alcimus
“unter den dort mitgeteilten historisch-chronologischen Voraussetzungen
415
J.G. Bunge, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden
und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer’, JSJ 6 (1975), 21.
416
W. Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus
Hoherpriester?’, ZAW 65 (1953), 205–28.
417
According to 1 Macc 7,5 Alcimus goes to meet king Demetrius boulÒmenow
flerateÊein; in 2 Macc 14,3–4 Alcimus also goes to meet king Demetrius, but he
was already high priest; according to Ant 12,385, Antiochus V Eupator had already
appointed Alcimus high priest after the death of Menelaus, at the instigation of
Lysias. See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 487, note 45.
418
‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 207–210.
419
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 207, notices that
1 Maccabees reports on the events as follows: a) first trip of Alcimus to meet
Demetrius (7,5); b) Alcimus’ first accusations (7,6–7); c) Bacchides’ mission (7,8 ff.);
d) second visit of Alcimus to Demetrius (7,25); e) Alcimus’ second accusations (7,25);
f ) Nicanor’s mission.
420
Among the differences of 2 Maccabees, it is noteworthy the fact that, although
Alcimus makes two visits to Antioch in this book, the second trip has no correspondence in 1 Maccabees because chronologically it is placed in the middle of
Nicanor’s mission, and Alcimus’ accusations are against the Syrian general. Another
change is that 2 Maccabees lacks the report on Bacchides’ mission present in
1 Macc 7 ff; in its place, Demetrius, as a response to Alcimus’ complaints, immediately sends Nicanor. See Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’,
207–208.
232
chapter five
keinen Glauben verdient.”421 In the second part of his work, Mölleken
studies the traditions present in 2 Maccabees and Flavius Josephus
regarding Alcimus’ high priesthood. In his opinion, both sources refer
to an appointment of Alcimus under Antiochus V Eupator, being
this fact of remarkable importance insofar as the same indications
are found in two sources that are, most likely, utterly independent
of each other. Mölleken hypothesizes that the author of 1 Maccabees
would have trimmed off precisely the part in which reference was
made to the first appointment of Alcimus;422 this is because the predecessors to the Hasmonean in the high priesthood are never mentioned in 1 Maccabees. The omission of Alcimus’ appointment would
therefore be openly biased and due to the pro-Hasmonean bias of
the author of 1 Maccabees. The high priest Alcimus, who for a long
time hindered the Maccabees’ accession to power, was hated by the
historian of 1 Maccabees as much as Jason and Menelaus had been.
However, the figure of Alcimus could not be completely obliterated
regarding other events which occurred under Demetrius,423 hence the
inconsistency of the information in 1 Maccabees. Mölleken’s hypothesis seems to be supported also by some philological observations
related to the text in question that could provide the key to the
solution of the problem. In 1 Macc 7,5 we find the verb flerateÊein
and in 1 Macc 7,9 the verb ¶sthsen, both of them with double
meaning. In fact, flerateÊein may mean “to be high priest” or “to
become high priest.”424 Goldstein, quoting the information given by
Josephus, observes that in any case the Hasmoneans would probably have considered Antiochus IV’s appointment as invalid. In his
opinion, Alcimus should have sought to be confirmed as high priest
by the new king.425 This last hypothesis seems to be sustained by
421
‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 210. Among the arbitrary additions would be duplication of the visit of Alcimus to the royal court prior to Nicanor’s
campaign, made with the aim of motivating the episode of Bacchides, falsely inserted
before Nicanor’s campaign. Alcimus’ appointment is linked to that episode, and the
aim of such additions would be to make Alcimus loose face value.
422
‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 211. Actually, the versions of
2 Macc 13,3–4 and Ant 12,385 are not altogether the same, as 2 Maccabees refers
generically to a previous period.
423
‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 206.
424
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 330, note 5.
425
See also I Maccabees, 325, note 63.
seleucids and high priest
233
the verb ¶sthsen in 1 Macc 7,9, which means “ordain, appoint” and
also “replace, restore.”426
Therefore, regarding the date of the appointment of Alcimus as
high priest, the tradition of Flavius Josephus is more reliable; it
corresponds to a period prior to king Demetrius, that is, to the reign
of Antiochus V Eupator not long after Menelaus’ death, around
163 bce.427 It is interesting, in any case, to notice the fact that under
Demetrius, Alcimus was re-confirmed as high priest.428
5.8.1
The Nature of Alcimus’ High Priesthood
On the basis of the testimonies of Ant 20,235 and 1 Macc 7,14 it
has sometimes been claimed that Alcimus was an Aaronid but not
an Oniad.429 This idea has drawn much criticism from the experts.
Tcherikover quotes the testimony of Flavius Josephus, according to
which Lysias would have intentionally taken the high priesthood
away from the Oniad house and transferred it into another family
(Ant 12,387; 20,235). In his opinion, however, the statement of
2 Macc 14,7, in which Alcimus describes the high priesthood as an
“ancestral glory” (progonikÆ dÒja), would confirm Alcimus’ membership in this family. Alcimus’ appointment was a compromise by
which Lysias achieved a balance in the concessions made to Judah
Maccabeus’ nationalists, namely, the abolition of the Hellenistic
reform, the restitution of the temple and the choice of a high priest
that belonged to the Hellenistic group.430
Bunge criticizes Tcherikover’s opinion, claiming that the data provided by Josephus about the high priests from Onias III to Alcimus
are partially contradictory.431 For example, making a thorough
426
See Liddell – Scott, entry ·sthmi. In 2 Macc 14,12 we find the verb katast∞sai,
see Liddell – Scott, entry kay¤sthmi, also with a double meaning: 1) ordain, appoint;
2) replace, restore. See also Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 61, note 57.
427
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 213 ff. See also Hengel,
Judaism and Hellenism, II, 185–186, note 142; Bunge, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 11.
428
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 481, remarks that a high priest stayed in office for as
long as the king wanted, and a new king had the power to make a new appointment.
429
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 131 note 5; idem, Histoire de la Palestine, Paris
1951, I, 157; J.J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus: an investigation into economic
and social conditions during the New Testament period, London 1962, 187–188.
430
Hellenistic Civilization, 228.
431
‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 11.
234
chapter five
examination of Ant 20,235, he reckons that Josephus had certainly
drawn the information from 1 Maccabees, where it is said that
Alcimus was a priest from the line of Aaron (1 Macc 7,14), but that
the author of 1 Maccabees had no intention of stating that Alcimus
was not an Oniad as is interpreted in Ant 20,235.
In Bunge’s opinion, the addition “from the seed of Aaron” (§k toË
sp°rmatow Aarvn) is “völlig überflussig”,432 utterly superfluous, given
that all the priests are descended from Aaron. The expression, adds
Bunge, can be understood from the starting point of Lv 22,4: “a
man from the seed of Aaron, the priest,”433 of which 1 Macc 7,14
would be just an imprecise translation; the passage would not say
anything else apart from the statement that Alcimus was a priest.
Neither a hidden opposition to Menelaus nor a reference to the
priestly family of the Oniads, of which Alcimus would not have been
a member, are evident from the expression. On the contrary, in
2 Macc 14,7 Alcimus grieves over the fact that he has been deprived
of his “ancestral glory” (progonikÆ dÒja), that is, the high priesthood.
However, according to Bunge, Josephus’ usage of sources would indicate that the interruption of the line of the high priests is made
manifest in Alcimus.434 Kampen does not share this opinion, and
supports the hypothesis that the Hasideans’ acceptance of Alcimus
(1 Macc 7,14) would be an indication of “the breakdown of the
coalition”435 between Hasideans and Maccabeans.
Kampen, observing how some scholars had related the conciliatory attitude of a part of the Hasideans to the right granted by Lysias
and Antiochus V to follow their own laws (1 Macc 6,59: poreÊesyai
to›w nom¤moiw”),436 points out that soon the king broke the oath he
had sworn (1 Macc 6,62: ±y°thse tÚn ırkismÒn), although this statement could be interpreted as “a temporary lapse” in the process of
restoration of the rights.437 Sievers, focusing his attention on the
decrease in the number of Judah’s supporters, which could be gathered
432
Bunge, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 12.
LXX Lv 22,4: ÖAnyrvpow §k toË sp°rmatow Aarvn toË fler°vw.
434
See ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 13: “Mit Alkimos brach die OniadenListe offenbar ab.”
435
J. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees,
Atlanta 1988, 122.
436
Among those who share this view, see Abel – Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées,
140, note 5.
437
Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism, 123, note 145.
433
seleucids and high priest
235
from 1 Macc 7,40 and 9,5, claims that the main reason for this
seems to be the lack of support of those who had accepted Alcimus
as high priest, regardless of the fact that he had been appointed by
a foreign sovereign and that “indeed, he may not have been an
Oniad at all.”438 There is also evidence that seems to suggest that
Alcimus was an Oniad: namely, the fact that neither 1 nor 2 Maccabees
“complain that he was not” and that he was appointed to the office
traditionally bestowed upon this family and that the Hasideans had
accepted this. Thus, according to Sievers, there is the undeniable
fact that 1 Macc 7,14 simply declares him to be a priest of the line
of Aaron and does not make any mention of his family. In Sievers’
opinion, the question has to refer to the time in which the author
was writing; as a matter of fact, the text should be interpreted as a
defence of the Hasmoneans who had taken over the high priesthood
at that time. They could not claim to be Oniads, but they could
claim to be Aaronid priests. The implication was that, in the same
way as Alcimus had been accepted, the Hasmoneans had to be
accepted as well.439
We can conclude that there is not much left to be added. This
is due both to the lapidary conciseness of the text of 1 Macc 7,14,
upon which the whole question is based, and to the lack of further
confirmation, notwithstanding the interest and the legitimacy of the
various arguments that have been proposed. Regarding the discussion about the data related to Alcimus’ appointment, it is necessary
to investigate a further question: In what sense and on what occasion was Alcimus deprived of the high priesthood?
In 2 Maccabees, Alcimus complains to king Demetrius: “I have
been deprived of the ancestral glory—I mean the high priesthood”
(14,7). But earlier in the text, “a certain Alcimus, who had previously been appointed high priest but had voluntarily defiled himself
during the time of amixia”440 (14,3).
The two phrases have been the subject of some discussion. In the
first, the term progonikÆ dÒja has been understood by Goldstein as
438
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 63. See also note 65.
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 63–64, note 66.
440
14,7: éfelÒmenow tØn progonikØn dÒja—l°gv dØ tØn érxiervsÊnhn—; 14,3:
§kous¤vw d¢ memolumm°now §n to›w t∞w émij¤aw xrÒnoiw. Translation by Goldstein, II
Maccabees, 471.
439
236
chapter five
“distinction of my forefathers,”441 a distinction that, in his opinion,
Alcimus could boast about inasmuch as, although he was not a member of the Zadokite-Oniad line, he was in any case descended from
Aaron, maybe also from Phinehas, who had received the high priesthood and had become forefather of all the successive high priests.442
The problem, however, still lies in the reason for the èfelÒmenow.
The explanation is generally looked for in the expression of 2 Macc
14,3. The meaning of this expression, however, remains dubious due
to a double textual tradition and to the uncertainty of the meaning
of the verb molÊnv.
We will briefly consider the first issue: while in the majority of
the Greek manuscripts the form émij¤a is found, manuscripts A and
V read the form §pimij¤a.443 This fact has led to a variety of translations and interpretations. Abel, who interprets “in the time of the
rebellion,”444 claims that the time of the émij¤a included mainly the
reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes; according to the etymology the word
means: split, division or civil war. In any case, according to Abel
the reading émij¤a is far more suitable than §pimij¤a.445 Goldstein
translates “during the time of peace,”446 choosing the word §pimij¤a,
and observes that émij¤a and §pimij¤a are actually antonyms: émij¤a
could mean “the unwillingness to mix with foreigners,” a typical
feature of pious Jews, and §pimij¤a “the willingness to mix with foreigners,” such as was characteristic of the Antiocheans of Jerusalem.447
According to Goldstein, the choice of §pimij¤a is preferable because,
if Alcimus had wilfully defiled himself in the time of persecution, he
certainly would not have been accepted by the pious, and would not
have been appointed high priest by the Seleucid regime, which was
eager for peace in Judea.448 Nevertheless, the fact remains that the
authoritativeness of the manuscripts compels us to choose the reading émij¤a.449
441
II Maccabees, 486, note 7.
Regarding the discussion about the descent see also I Maccabees, 6–8. This
matter is also discussed in the Excursus, chapter 3.6.
443
W. Kappler, Maccabaeorum liber II, Göttingen 1976, 106, critical apparatus 14,3.
444
Author’s translation. Abel, Les Maccabées, 457, translates: “au temps de la
révolte”.
445
Les Livres des Maccabées, 457–458, note 3.
446
II Maccabees, 471.
447
II Maccabees, 483–484, note 3.
448
II Maccabees, 484.
449
See Kappler – Hanhart, Maccabaeorum Liber II, 106.
442
seleucids and high priest
237
Still the most important problem is: to what kind of defilement
does the text refer? According to Abel, under the rule of Antiochus
Epiphanes, Alcimus had practised Hellenism,450 first as priest and
then as high priest, as can be seen in 2 Macc 4,12 ff. Goldstein discusses the meaning of the verb molÊnv; in his opinion, it is not
linked to religious impurity, nor to other accusations such as crimes
or idolatry. He claims that the words of Jason of Cyrene are in this
case the product of a forgery which can be explained in relation to
his religious beliefs or to the freedom of style and language exercised in the historical genre that was typical of Greek writers.451
Hengel claims that the expression in 2 Macc 14,3 indicates a serious offence that barred Alcimus from worshipping at the altar.
Notwithstanding this, the law-abiding Hasideans accepted him as
high priest, maybe because there was no other choice.452 However,
as a consequence of the massacre of the sixty men,453 the Hasideans
joined the Hasmoneans in a common cause against Alcimus and his
supporters. The war, in any case, was fought only in the countryside, as they did not dare to oppose Alcimus in Jerusalem.
Goldstein believes that “Neither de facto nor de jure” they could
deprive him of the high priesthood, but given that the narratives in
almost every work of ancient writers were free compositions of the
author, Jason mistakenly came to the conclusion that Alcimus had
been deposed.454 The text does not add anything further about
Alcimus’ deprivation of the high priesthood, nor about his defilement,
so it is difficult to be more precise on such grounds.455 VanderKam,
too, considers two problems in the passage of 2 Macc 3,4: Alcimus’
450
See Les Livres des Maccabées, 457, note 3. In 2 Macc 4,12 there is a mention
of the introduction of Greek customs by the high priest Jason—such as the gumnãsion and the Greek hat for the noblest of the young men—but there is no reference to Alcimus.
451
II Maccabees, 481–482, notes 3–4.
452
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 290.
453
In 1 Macc 7,16 the massacre seems to be the deed of Alcimus, while Ant
12,396 clearly states that Bacchides was the one to make arrest and execute the
sixty men. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 65, note 71, wonders whether
the difference in the information depends on a diverse source or whether Josephus
intends to exculpate Alcimus, claiming that, apart from the difficulty of reaching
an answer, “Josephus’ deviation from 1 Macc is certainly not based on independent information.”
454
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 486, note 6–7.
455
See further treatment of this issue in chapter 7.5.
238
chapter five
designation as former high priest and his defilement. Regarding the
first, he thinks that 2 Maccabees is implying that Alcimus became
high priest when Menelaus died, but “because of conditions caused
by Maccabean forces, he had not been able to exercise the duties
of his office.”456 Regarding the second question, he too prefers the
reading émij¤a, in the sense of not “mixing” with others, and claims
that the time of separation was during the opposition of the Hasideans,
Judas and his party to Alcimus’ appointment. In VanderKam’s opinion, Alcimus’ defilement was “his breaking the pact and executing
sixty of Hasideans.”457
However, it seems necessary to attempt a deeper investigation of
the relations between Alcimus and the group of Hasideans who, as
it has been already said, recognised him as high priest.
5.8.2
Alcimus and the Hasideans
The statements concerning the Hasideans in 1 Macc 7,13 and 2 Macc
14,6 have often been considered contradictory;458 moreover, in both
sources the change in the attitude of the Hasideans towards Alcimus
seems incomprehensible. Mölleken hypothesizes that Alcimus himself is to blame for the loss of the favour that he initially enjoyed
(1 Macc 7,13), because of the slaughter of the sixty men (1 Macc
7,16).459 Through an attentive analysis of the texts, he tries to clarify both the composition of the Hasidean group and the relation
between it and the high priest Alcimus;460 he observes that the controversial meetings of the Hasideans and the scribes can be better
understood in connection with the appointment of the high priest.
In his opinion, the accusation of 2 Macc 14, 6–10 corresponds to
that of 1 Macc 7,6–7. In both the addressing formulae there is the
same reference to the interests of two different groups that suffer
damages as a consequence of the Maccabean reaction. On one side
is the king himself, supported by his f¤loi; on the other side there
456
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 231.
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 232.
458
In 1 Macc 7,13 it is said that the Hasideans were first among the Israelites
to seek peace and to accept Alcimus as priest of the line of Aaron. In 2 Macc 14,6
Alcimus accuses the Hasideans of keeping up war and stirring up sedition.
459
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 209–210.
460
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 205–228.
457
seleucids and high priest
239
is the welfare of the loyal citizens, faithful to the king, indicated as
the majority of the Jewish people.461
But there is yet another difference to be noticed in the passage
of 1 Maccabees, where the Jews at the times of the high priest
Alcimus and Judah’s insurrection are identified as follows: ı laÒw,
namely, Judah and his companions who are the object of the accusations,462 all the king’s friends,463 and a third group described as “all
who help them.”464 According to Abel,465 the latter would be the
Hasideans; according to Mölleken, the fact seems to be confirmed
in 2 Macc 14,6.466
The identity of the Hasidean group has been subject to lengthy
discussion. Hengel, for example, claims that the sunagvgØ grammat°vn
(1 Macc 7,12) that appeared before Alcimus and Bacchides constituted the aristocracy of the μydysj,467 that is, the same assembly of
the pious (sunagvgØ ÉAsida¤vn) mentioned in 1 Macc 2,42 that appears
“as a clearly defined Jewish party.”468 Actually, the definition of the
group has given birth to a variety of hypotheses: a compact community;469 a totally heterogeneous group of Jews;470 the righteous of
the book of Enoch; the holy people of Jubilees; the ancestors of the
Pharisees.471 While they have been linked to the Pharisees by some,
others link them to the Essenes.472 The expression “ka‹ pr«toi ofl
Asida›oi” (1 Macc 7,13) has also been interpreted in several ways,
461
Mölleken, ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 208–209, reports the
parallel texts of 1 and 2 Maccabees: I 7,6//II 14,8; I 7,7//II 14,9.
462
1 Macc 7,6: ka‹ kathgÒrhsan toË laoË. About the meaning of laÚw, see
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 125.
463
1 Macc 7,6: pãntaw toÁw f¤louw sou ka‹ ≤mçw.
464
1 Macc 7,7: ka‹ pãntaw toÁw §pibohyoËntaw aÈto›w.
465
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 131, note 67.
466
‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch’, 209. In 2 Macc 14,6 the Hasideans
are a group of Jews led by Judas, who keep up war and stir up sedition (polemotrofoËsi ka‹ stasiãzousin).
467
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 80–81. μydysj or Pious, is another name by which
the Hasideans are known. About the usage of the Greek name ÉAsidãioi and the
Hebrew form accepted as its equivalent, μydysj, see Kampen, The Hasideans and the
Origin of Pharisaism, 45–63.
468
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 175.
469
O. Plöger, Das Buch Daniel, Stuttgart 1965, 30: “. . . in 1 Makk 2,42 zwar als
eine feste Gemeinschaft (sunagvgÆ).”
470
R. Meyer, GLNT, XI, 1115, note 26.
471
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 43, note 42.
472
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 6.
240
chapter five
complicating the problem even more.473 According to Sievers,474 the
relationship between the Hasideans and the Essenes, based essentially on their common piety and the similarity of their names, “is
at best uncertain,” and the connection between Hasideans, Scribes
and Pharisees “is unprovable.”475 Furthermore, it is impossible to verify other hypotheses connecting the Hasideans and other Jewish
groups.476 An examination of the texts demonstrates that it is possible to gather that the Hasideans were a group in Judea that had
initially collaborated with the Hasmoneans “volunteering for the
Torah,”477 and that they were mighty warriors.478 They, or at least
some of them, made peace when Demetrius sent Alcimus, whom
they believed to be a legitimate high priest with authority due to his
Aaronid descent, “to restore the Torah.”479 The relations between
473
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 132–133, note 13.
See: “Excursus: Who Were the Asidaioi?”, in The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters,
38–40.
475
See The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 38 where Sievers adds “because 1 Macc
7:12–13 which speaks first of Scribes and then of Asidaioi should probably be read
as distinguishing between the Scribes assembled by Alcimus and Bacchides to restore
the Law (?), and the Asidaioi who, because of this demonstration of concern for the
Law, thereupon sought peace with Alcimus.” The connection between Hasideans,
scribes and Pharisees is supported, for instance, by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization,
196–198. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism, 115–122, revisiting the
question, supports this hypothesis (see 121 in particular).
476
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 39, note 54. See also the hypothesis by
C. Thoma, ‘Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Bedeutsamkeit der jüdischen
Hohenpriester von 175 bis 37 v. Chr’, BL 45 (1972), 9–10, who sub-divides the
Hasideans or Pious into two main groups: those who are pre-Pharisaic and those
who are apocalyptic or eschatological. Above all, the second group seems to constitute the Hasideans mentioned in 1 and 2 Maccabees. At a certain point, they
split off from the Jews and accepted Alcimus inasmuch as, being a priest, he was
an indirect servant of the idea of the kingdom of God. Alcimus, however, deluded
them, but in the circumstances of his death they saw a proof of God’s judgement
(1 Macc 9,54–57; Ant 12,413).
477
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 40, note 55, so interprets the expres% nÒmv
% (1 Macc 2,42). See also Abel, Les Livres des
sion: pçw ı §kousiazÒmenow t«
Maccabées, 44, note 42, where he refers to the volonteers of the Torah, ready to
offer their own lives as a sacrifice for it. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of
Pharisaism, 107, studies the meaning of the expression starting from the correspondent Hebrew forms and—according to a comparison that does not, however, appear
very clear—sees in this definition a religious meaning that in any case would not
exclude a military component.
478
1 Macc 2,42: fisxuro‹ dunãmei. See Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 43, note 42.
479
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 40. The task of restoring the Torah
has to be linked to the §kzht∞sai d¤kaia (1 Macc 7,13). Sievers, The Hasmoneans
and Their Supporters, 64 claims that the expression refers to legal issues.
474
seleucids and high priest
241
Alcimus and the Hasideans involve also the figure of Judas Maccabeus,
who is seen as the leader of the Hasideans480 in 2 Macc 14,6, although
they seem to act autonomously on the occasion of Alcimus’ appointment. Tcherikover believes that at the core of the Hasidean interests there was the question of the interpretation of the Law, which
was not merely a religious matter, insofar as it concerned every
aspect of Jewish life. In any case, the attempt ended badly, and for
some reason which is not altogether clear, a quarrel broke out between
the Hasideans and Alcimus, and sixty of the former were put to
death. According to Tcherikover, power passed to Alcimus and his
faction in 160 bce.481 But what was the nature of this power? Moreover,
how could someone that had wilfully defiled himself restore the Torah
(2 Macc 14,3)?
5.8.3
Alcimus and the Syrian Government
According to Bickerman,482 with Alcimus, Judea had been brought
back to the status that it had had before the intervention of Antiochus
Epiphanes. Goodblatt483 observes that the narrative of 1 Macc 7,20–22
depicts Alcimus as the highest official in Judea. From the sometimes
contradictory traditions in the books of the Maccabees and Jewish
Antiquities,484 we can however gather that Alcimus had close relations with the Seleucid kings. He goes to see king Demetrius personally once or twice485 as the head of a delegation of Jews.
The narrative of 2 Maccabees features the various stages of the
protocol: the gift of the palm and the crown of gold (2 Macc 14,4),486
480
Ofl legÒmenoi t«n ÉIouda¤vn Asida›oi, œn éfhge›tai ÉIoÊdaw ı Makkaba›ow
(2 Macc 14,6).
481
Hellenistic Civilization, 231.
482
The God of the Maccabees, 58.
483
The Monarchic Principle, 21–22.
484
For a synoptic comparison see Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean
Period, 121–129.
485
1 Macc 7,5.25; 2 Macc 14,3; Ant 12,391.
486
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 458, note 4, highlights that these gifts represented wishes for victory, power and peace in the new kingdom. Goldstein,
I Maccabees, 406, remarks that the golden crowns were originally presented to the
king by his subjects in order to offer him their congratulations and win his favour.
They soon became taxes to be paid to the king in the moment of his accession to
the throne or even when he thought fit to request them, perhaps even anually.
Concerning the taxation system in the Seleucid period and also the crown taxes,
see Bikerman, Institutions, 111–112; see again Goldstein, II Maccabees, 485, note 4.
242
chapter five
the period of waiting for an audience with the king, the summoning
by the king to the sun°drion, where Alcimus is questioned (2 Macc
14,5).487
According to Abel, the sun°drion was a meeting of the king’s
f¤loi, that is, the royal dignitaries, who were consulted about the
most relevant issues of the kingdom.488 According to Bickerman it
was a real government council. Here Demetrius officially asks Alcimus
to report on the state of affairs in Judea.489 Not all scholars hold the
same view about the composition of the royal council, its duration
and its stability. Furthermore, nothing precise can be gathered from
the texts regarding this issue, while there is consistency in highlighting
that all decisions depended solely and exclusively on the king.490
However, it is precisely from the king’s decisions that a further depiction of Alcimus’ powers emerges, even in the variety of the traditions. In 2 Macc 14,12 Demetrius, following Alcimus’ accusations,
appoints Nicanor strategos of Judea and sends him off with orders to
defeat Judah and katast∞sai, that is, re-install Alcimus as high priest.
Later, however, Alcimus himself goes back to Demetrius to accuse
Nicanor as “he had appointed as his deputy Judas”491 (2 Macc 14,26).
First Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities omit this point and the interpretation of the passage of 2 Maccabees has drawn much criticism,
mainly due to the uncertainty of the text.492 Abel observes that
Alcimus goes to Demetrius carrying a copy of the covenant493 that
has been made between Judah and Nicanor.494 In the traditions
487
prosklhye‹w efiw sun°drion ÍpÚ toË Dhmhtr¤ou ka‹ §pervthye¤w, §n t¤ni diay°sei
ka‹ boulª kay°sthkan ofl ÉIouda›oi.
488
Les Livres des Maccabées, 458.
Institutions, 189 ff.
490
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 458, note 4; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 485, note 5.
491
aÈtoË Ioudan diãdoxon én°deijen. Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 472.
492
The uncertainty regards the attribution of aÈtoË, that is, whether to see Judas
as the successor of Nicanor or of Alcimus. See Kappler – Hanarth, ed., Maccabaeorum
liber II, 109, 2 Macc 14,26, critical apparatus, where it is pointed out that A omits
autou and adds eautou at the end of the verse. Other codices (V, Luc. Lat.) refer
it to Judas. About the discussion of the term diãdoxow, see chapter 2.2.
493
This seems to be the meaning of the expression: “tåw genom°naw sunyÆkaw”
(2 Macc 14,26).
494
See Les Livres des Maccabées, 464, note 26. Alcimus would thus get back to
Antioch a second time. Abel himself notices that in 1 Macc 7,25 the return of
Alcimus is caused by the fact that Judas had a military advantage and it is placed
between the expeditions of Bacchides and Nicanor. However, in spite of the diversity of the composition and the points of view of the two books, the substance of
the facts is the same.
489
seleucids and high priest
243
regarding Alcimus, the relationship between the high priest and the
king are particularly noteworthy, as are those that he establishes with
his own officials.
Sievers, considering the last years of Judah, questions the widely
held view that Judah was in control of Jerusalem during most of the
last period of his life. He claims instead that, after Lysias’ campaign,
the destruction of the fortifications that Judah had built (1 Macc 6,
50.62) transferred the military control of the city back to the garrison in the Akra. From 1 Macc 7,8–19 we know that when Bacchides
entered Jerusalem he found no opposition.495 Bacchides’ arrival496
increased Alcimus’ power: after a brief intimidatory action, Bacchides
placed Alcimus in charge of the country and left troops to support
him.497 We cannot know whether this meant that political-administrative authority was granted, but the fact seems to be confirmed by
Ant 12,397, where it is said that Bacchides ordered the inhabitants
of the region to obey Alcimus.498 Moreover, Alcimus managed to
attract numerous followers and supporters.499 When Judah asked for
help from the king and Nicanor was sent, this did not happen because
Alcimus had been thrown out of Jerusalem, but because the countryside was unsafe.500
Alcimus’ authority seems to be firmly established in Jerusalem,
especially after the recognition by the Hasideans. He appears as the
highest civil authority representing the central government,501 but his
495
The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 62–67.
2 Maccabees omits Bacchides’ expedition. For an explanation regarding this
omission see Goldstein, II Maccabees, 480–481.
497
1 Macc 7,20: ka‹ éf∞ke met’ aÈtoË dÊnamin; Ant 12,397: ka‹ metå stratiçw
tinow, see Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 125.
498
1 Macc 7,20 says that Bacchides: kat°sthsen tØn x≈ran t“ ÉAlk¤mƒ; Ant
! x≈ra
! pçsin ÍpakoÊein ÉAlk¤mƒ, while 2 Maccabees
12,397 says: pros°taje to›w §n t∞
omits this information. See Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period,
125. According to Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 136, note 20, the term x≈ra could
have an administrative sense.
499
1 Macc 7,22; see also Ant 12,397–399, where Josephus adds that Alcimus
tried to win over the Jews with all kinds of kind gestures. According to P. Sacchi,
The History of the Second Temple Period, JSOT.S 285, Sheffield 2000, 244, this happened because Alcimus was high priest but not in Jerusalem. His policy aimed at
the recognition of his high priesthood; therefore he would concede to everyone
whatever they wanted. He “confirmed the permission for the traditionalists to live
by the Torah.”
500
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 62.
501
Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 63–64.
496
244
chapter five
power seems to be strictly linked to that of Bacchides, one of the
king’s f¤loi, “governor of the Trans-Euphrates province.”502 This
man, who had been a king’s f¤low already at the time of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes,503 was no ordinary district prefect, eparcha or strategos,
but the governor of the region covering the land that extended from
the river Euphrates up to the border with Egypt, a kind of viceroy.504
The indeterminacy of the region’s name505 makes it difficult to establish with precision the extent of Bacchides’ title;506 however, from
the available testimonies concerning the relationship between Alcimus
and Bacchides, the following data can be gathered:
1) An undoubted connection existed between Alcimus and the royal
dignitary.507
2) Alcimus was in charge of troops508 that were made up partly by
Syrians and partly by Jews.509
3) Since we know that the Syrian army had its own headquarters
in the Akra, there was undoubtedly a connection between Alcimus
and the Akra.
4) According to the books of the Maccabees, not only did Bacchides
enter Jerusalem without opposition, but later also the strategos
Nicanor did so, sent by Demetrius510 at the request of Alcimus
1 Macc 7,8: kurieÊonta §n t%« p°ran toË potamoË. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 330,
note 8, remarks on the ambiguity of the expression, inasmuch as it was used to
indicate the province under the Persian Empire. In his opinion, the use of the
ancient name would indicate that at that time Phoenicia was still attached to CoeleSyria.
503
Ant 12,393. In Jewish War 1,35 Bacchides is mentioned as the officer in
charge of keeping Antiochus’ fortress; in 1,36 it is said that he was killed by Maty¤aw,
son of Asamonaeus, one of the priests of the village of Modein. According to
Thackeray, The Jewish War, 19, note c, the mention of Bacchides in Jewish War is
an anachronism, insofar as “he did not appear on the scene till some years later,
A. xii, 393, 1 Ma vii, 9.” Also G. Vitucci, Flavio Giuseppe. La Guerra Giudaica, I, 600,
note 5, points out how in Jewish War the mention of Bacchides is out of place, as
his actions belong to a later period.
504
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 131, note 8.
505
In Ant 12,393 we find “tØn Mesopotam¤an”.
506
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 331, note 8, claims that neither Bengtson’s denial that
Bacchides was governor of Coele-Syria nor the suggestion by the same scholar that
Bacchides’ province “was the Seleukis” can be proved beyond doubt.
507
1 Macc 7,9.20; Ant 12,393.397.
508
1 Macc 7,20; Ant 12,397.
509
1 Macc 7,22; Ant 12,398–399.
510
1 Macc 7,22; Ant 12,398–399.
502
seleucids and high priest
245
himself.511 After his defeat in Chapharsalama, Nicanor and his
army512 fled into the city of David, that is, into the Akra.513
In 2 Maccabees there is no mention of the defeat of Nicanor, while
the information about Nicanor’s visit to the temple514 is common
to all the sources. The threats to the temple, the weeping and
the prayers of the priests are common traditions in 1 Maccabees,
2 Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities.515 However, there is no mention of Alcimus at all. Goldstein wonders: “Where was the high
priest? What were his reactions to Nicanor’s threatening oath?”516
After this event, the sources are silent about Alcimus until the narration of his death, which has reached us through the narratives of
1 Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities.517 But where was Alcimus during the period in between the threats to the temple and his death?
It is only possible to venture some opinions: certainly not in the temple, as the temple seems to be occupied by the forces faithful to
Judah and by Judah himself. According to 2 Maccabees, after Nicanor’s
death, Judah called the members of his nation and the priests and,
511
2 Macc 14,26–30. The author of 1 Maccabees does not mention these events.
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 489–490, notes 26–30, justifies this omission by the fact
that, since the author of 1 Maccabees had not made previous reference to the
friendship between Judas and Nicanor, he could hardly find a reason for the renewed
complaint of Alcimus before the king.
512
Marcus, Josephus, VII, 210, critical apparatus 4 and 5; 211 note d, accepts,
for the text of Ant 12,405, Dindorf ’s emendations. According to the manuscripts
the reading would be that Nicanor had defeated Judas and had forced him to flee
into the Akra. Marcus justifies the emendations of the text, both on the basis of
1 Macc 7,32 where it is said that Nicanor, having lost five hundred of his men,
fled into Jerusalem, and due to the fact that the Akra was in Syrian hands and it
is more likely that Nicanor was the one to flee into the Akra.
513
In 1 Macc 7,32 we find: efiw tØn pÒlin Dauid; in Ant 12,405: §n to›w ÉIerosolÊmoiw
êkran.
514
1 Macc 7,33; 2 Macc 14,31; Ant 12,406; see Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources
for the Hasmonean Period, 130. In 1 Macc 7,33 we find the expression: én°bh Nikãnvr
efiw tÚ ˆrow Sivn. See Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 139, note 33.
515
In 1 Macc 7,35 Nicanor threatens to burn down the temple (tÚn o‰kon toËton);
in 2 Macc 14,33 to level it to the ground (tÚnde tÚn toË yeoË shkÚn efiw ped¤on), to
tear down the altar and and build there a splendid temple to Dionysus; in Ant
12,406 to tear down the temple (kayairÆsein. . . tÚn naÒn).
516
II Maccabees, 490, notes 31–36.
517
1 Macc 9,54–57; Ant 12,413. In 1 Maccabees the death of Alcimus is placed
after the fight between Bacchides and Jonathan during the second expedition of the
Syrian general Bacchides. In Jewish Antiquities it is placed after the defeat of
Nicanor; 2 Maccabees omits this because the date of Alcimus’ death (159 bce) goes
beyond the chronological end of the book itself.
246
chapter five
standing before the altar—therefore, in the temple—he summoned
the men from the Akra,518 showed them Nicanor’s head and issued
orders for it to be hung outside the Akra.519 The text of 2 Maccabees
thus mentions three groups of people: 1) the members of his nation,
perhaps to be identified with the inhabitants of the countryside, but
in any case Jews faithful to Judah; 2) the priests; and 3) the men
from the Akra. The latter could have been either soldiers of the
Syrian garrison or the so-called “ungodly and renegade” Jews that
supported the Seleucids and in their turn received Seleucid support.
Among those would have been Alcimus, appointed as high priest by
the Syrian king,520 who had received troops from Bacchides in order
to control the region. These troops necessarily went in and out of
the Akra.521 Furthermore, it has been already said that the Akra not
only had military functions, but also political, and that it controlled
a part of the countryside.522 Therefore, there was certainly an interrelationship between the Akra and Alcimus, who controlled the region,
and between Alcimus and Bacchides, who had given Alcimus the
authority and the means to uphold it.
Further data referring to this issue were provided by the military
expedition carried out by Bacchides and Alcimus in 160 bce.523 It
had the aim of reinforcing the power over the territory, but it is
interesting to notice that, once Alcimus was dead, Bacchides left the
region and went back to the king.524 The end of the internal struggle provoked by Alcimus’ high priesthood525 could explain his return,
but the intensive fortification project launched by Bacchides in Judaea
and Jerusalem seems to contradict this.526
According to Rooke, Bacchides’ return “suggests the reciprocity
of the Seleucid relationship with the high priesthood.” Both Alcimus
518
ka‹ sugkal°saw toÁw ımoeyne›w ka‹ toÁw flere›w prÚ toË yusiasthr¤ou stÆsaw
metep°mcato toÁw §k t∞w êkraw (2 Macc 15,31).
519
§j°dhse d¢ tØn toË Nikãnorow protomØn §k t∞w êkraw (2 Macc 15,35).
520
See chapter 5.8.
1 Macc 7,20; Ant 12,397.
522
Sievers, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra and Josephus’, 204.
523
1 Macc 9,1.3.
524
1 Macc 9,57; Ant 13,22.
525
In 1 Macc 9,57 and Ant 13,22 it is said that after the death of Alcimus and
the withdrawal of Bacchides there were two years of peace. This hypothesis is generally agreed upon; see for instance Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 174, note 57;
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 393, note 57.
526
1 Macc 9,50–52.
521
seleucids and high priest
247
and Bacchides needed each other, but while Bacchides’ support was
essential for Alcimus to deal with the rebels, for Bacchides Alcimus
was “a focal person,” a key figure for the Seleucid supporters.527 It
is an interesting hypothesis, but it has a weak point precisely in the
dependence of Bacchides’ power upon Alcimus. After two years, in
fact, Bacchides came back to Judea at the request of the wicked
Jews.528 Moreover, according to 1 Macc 9,25, soon after the death
of Judah, Bacchides had chosen wicked men “and placed them in
power over the land”.529
However, this narrative appears isolated and contradicted by the
testimony of Josephus himself, who places the episode after Alcimus’
death and after the controversial succession of Judah as high priest.530
Therefore, both because the contradictory nature of the sources and
the strongly ideological flavour of the narrations, many obscure points
remain regarding the high priesthood of Alcimus.531 Nevertheless,
these narratives have permitted us to establish the datum that in a
divided Judea532 the figure of the high priest Alcimus is highly relevant, both with relation to the Jews and to Seleucid authority.
The next chapter of this work will deal with this issue again, formulating some final hypotheses related to the problem of the political autonomy and powers of the pre-Hasmoneans high priests.
527
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 280.
528
In 1 Macc 9,58 all the lawless gathered in a council and plotted to bring
Bacchides back; in Ant 13,23 the request is made by Demetrius. Furthermore, it
is noteworthy that already after the first expedition Bacchides had left, leaving
Alcimus behind with some part of the army to help him keep the country in obedience and fight for the high priesthood, and returned to Antiochus (See 1 Macc
7,20).
529
ka‹ kat°sthsen aÈtoÁw kur¤ouw t∞w x«raw. Ant 13,4 is yet more explicit regarding this, since it is said that Bacchides had gathered the Jews and commited the
care of the country to them (§nexe¤rise tØn t∞w x≈raw §pim°leian).
530
Judas’ high priesthood is generally considered “very improbable”, see Schürer –
Vermes-Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 170, note
31. See the discussion in chapter 3.5.
531
One of these is the duration of the high priesthood; see Goldstein, I Maccabees,
393, who compares the different traditions present in Ant 12,413 (4 years) and Ant
20,237 (3 years). Also Bunge, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie’, 13, takes into consideration the different traditions, coming to the conclusion that Alcimus had been
in office for 3 years (27).
532
E. Sanders, Judaism. Practice and Belief (63 BCE–66 CE), London-Philadelphia
1992, 20.
PART THREE
SYNTHESIS: DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF
AN INSTITUTION
CHAPTER SIX
THE AUTONOMY AND POWERS OF THE
HIGH PRIESTS
The question of the autonomy and the powers of the high priests
has been one of the central themes of this study. It does not seem
to be a problem easily solved. Starting from the Ptolemaic period,
we have already observed that two literary compositions, the Letter
of Aristeas and the Tales of the Tobiads, link the names of two high
priests1 to this period, although their characterizations seem to differ
completely and to be heavily conditioned by ideological motivations.
The first depiction, that of Eleazar, highlights the authority, and
above all, the religious-sacral aspect of the high priest. The second,
that of Onias, highlights human aspects, especially the negative ones:
the high priest is greedy, weak, almost a foolish old man. However,
from a more attentive reading it turns out that while Eleazar’s authority in the Letter of Aristeas is indisputable, in the Tales of the Tobias
Onias also had some power, given that he is the one who had refused
to pay the taxes and to whom Joseph has to talk before addressing
the people or going to the king.
Onias, however, gives up his power and this poses another question: is this the beginning of a progressive decrease in the high priest’s
authority, or is it just outright political propaganda?
Büchler,2 referring to the assumption of the prostasia by a non-high
priest, talks about “Die Trennung der beiden Würden”, that is, separation of two functions: religious power and political-administrative
power. But, to suggest that we can derive from the narrative the
fact that a high priest’s power was analogous to that of a governor
of the Persian age seems far fetched. It is precisely the question of
taxes in the Tales of the Tobiads which shows us that the high priest
1
The high priest Ioakim mentioned in the book of Judith (4,6.8.14; 15,8) is not
to be considered because, as was already said, corresponds to the Persian period,
see chapter 2.1.
2
Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im II. Makkabäerbuche und in der verwandten jüdischhellenistischen Litteratur: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Juden von 220–160 und zur jüdischhellenistischen Litteratur, Wien 1899 (repr. Hildesheim 1975), 82.
chapter six
252
and the whole region were heavily dependent on the Ptolemaic sovereign. Faced with Onias’ refusal, Ptolemy threatens to seize the land
and to send soldiers to settle on it (Ant 12,159). Maybe the high
priest enjoyed partial autonomy already in the Ptolemaic age, which
we can deduce from the threats themselves, but above all from the
episode of Joseph son of Tobias, which seems to introduce some
changes in the role of the high priest. The political power of prostasia is vested in a man faithful to the Ptolemaic regime, trusted by
the people and spokesman for the king.3
An important contribution to these problems has been made by
Schunck,4 who approaches the matter paying particular attention to
the function of the pre-Hasmonean high priest in relation to the
Jewish people and to the foreign monarch. In this chapter, the focus
is on the figure of the high priest, regarding his role among the
Jewish people and his relationship with the foreign sovereign, and
also taking into consideration the hypothesis of his territorial dominion.
6.1
The High Priest and the People
The assessment that Schunck makes of the events reported in the
Tales of the Tobiads5 is particularly interesting, especially his interpretation of the behaviour of Onias II. He explains Onias’ refusal
to pay the taxes due to the king as a reaction against the excessive
taxation with which the Ptolemies had burdened the people. By this
attitude the high priest would have been acting on behalf of the
country’s poorest inhabitants, who would have been all on his side,
while the Ptolemies would have counted on the support of the Judean
highest class, consisting of the land owners and the priests. In any
case, as a consequence of all this the high priest lost the prostas¤a,
that is, the political function of representing the people before the
king, which was transferred to Joseph the Tobiad.6 Unlike the version preserved in Jewish Antiquities, which portrays Onias as a weak
3
Goldstein, ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity, Judaism
and Other Greco-Roman Cults, III, Fs. M. Smith, Leiden 1975, 87.
4
K.-D. Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker? Die Stellung der Hohenpriester
von Jaddua bis Jonatan zur Jüdischen Gemeinde und zum Hellenistischen Staat’,
VT 44/4 (1994), 498–512.
5
See the discussion about this tradition in chapter 1.3.2.
6
Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 501–502.
autonomy and powers
253
and greedy man (12,158), Onias would instead have been a defender
of the interests of the poorest sector of the population, which was
also the sector most attached to religious traditions.7 In Schunck’s
opinion, as a consequence of his act of protest, the high priest’s role
was thereafter restricted to the field of religion and worship.8 The
political role of the high priest would have been restored later on,
under Seleucid rule. Schunck claims that the prostasia would have
been given back to the high priest Simon after the victory of Antiochus
III, due to his pro-Seleucid attitude.9
Schunck’s statement that the people would follow the political
choices of the high priest, pro-Seleucid in this case, is significant10
and introduces an interesting perspective, but it also raises a number of queries. Although the meaning of the words prostãthw—
prostas¤a is complex and ambivalent,11 there is still, as stated above,
the justified possibility that a division of powers had taken place
under Onias II. Instead, the portrayal of a high priest as “champion of the poor” lacks historical support. It is certainly a suggestive hypothesis, particularly if we take into consideration the heavy
regime of tax collection of the Ptolemies and the fact that such a
system ultimately favoured the country’s wealthiest class, although
Hengel hypothesizes some kind of welfare policy in favour of the
slaves and the needy.12 However, this seems to contradict, above
all, Flavius Josephus’ data, which indicates that the tax of twenty
talents of silver was paid by the high priests themselves with resources
taken from their own estates, and that the refusal to pay them resulted
in damaging precisely the poorest sector of the population (Ant
12,158–159).
In reality, the data regarding the high priests in the Hellenistic
period “are episodic in the extreme,”13 thus hindering the formulation
7
Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 502, remarks regarding this issue: “Eine
Polarisierung zwischen ‘arm/fromm’ und ‘reich/hellenistisch aufgeschlossen’ bahnte
sich an, wobei der Hohepriester auf der Seite der Armen und Frommen stand.”
8
‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 502.
9
‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 504.
10
Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 503 sees proof of the support of the
people to the high priest when Hyrcanus comes back to Jerusalem and nobody welcomes him. See this event in Ant 12,222.
11
See chapter 2.3.
12
See, for example, Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 22–23.
13
VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 112.
254
chapter six
of hypotheses of a certain consistency about the autonomy, even if
partial, of Judea and the political power of the high priests. The
absence of the pre-Hasmonean high priests in important documents
such as the Zenon papyri, their “presence-absence” in the books of
the Maccabees,14 and the fragmented information in Jewish Antiquities15
make it almost impossible to formulate reliable hypotheses. From the
Letter of Aristeas, a non-historical source, the dating of which is still
subject to much debate, the best image we can formulate is one of
an authoritative high priest, in this case Eleazar, whose historical
existence is uncertain. We can also deduce that Eleazar’s authority
was not an independent power but rather was based on the king’s
power and nothing else; this is especially the case regarding the
autonomy and powers of the high priest under Ptolemaic rule. The
uncertainties of the sources explain, moreover, the variety and the contradictions in the possible solutions to this problem that have been
proposed so far. As Schwartz16 says, the narrative of the Tales of
the Tobiads should be considered reliable from the historical point
of view only insofar as it expresses a set of assumptions about the
background in which the events are placed. The story was devised
to demonstrate that the Ptolemies generally confirmed much of the
Jewish high priest’s traditional authority, appointing him prostãthw
toË ¶ynouw and that the Jewish nation kept its own autonomy, receiving the king’s approval for their ancestral laws. According to Schwartz,
the Tales of the Tobiads do not say anything about the autonomy
of Judea, apart from stating that the high priests were wealthy and
influential people and used to bid on tax contracts—in the case of
Onias II the bid amounted to twenty silver talents—that could be
granted to them according to the will of the Ptolemaic sovereign.
Furthermore, from the accession to the throne of Ptolemy II onwards,
the Ptolemies certainly did not recognise the autonomy of the Jewish
¶ynow but at the same time neither approved nor took away the constitution of their ancestral laws.17 VanderKam highlights the presence
of political functions both for the high priests Simon and Onias III.
14
See chapter 3.1.
See chapter 3.2.
16
S. Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Century
BCE’, JJS 45 (1994), 157–168.
17
Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea’, 164. See discussion also in chapter
6.3, 277 ff.
15
autonomy and powers
255
In his opinion, Simon’s building activities of Sir 50, 3–4 may have
to do with the city and would demonstrate that “Simon was the
guarantor of the eternal security of the city and its inhabitants.”18
Moreover, from the passage in 2 Macc 4,1b–2, he sees Onias III as
“the political leader of the nation as well as its cultic head.”19 We
observe that in the first datum Simon’s historical identity is a controversial question, as well as the historical reliability of the passages
in Sir 50,20 while the second datum is lacking further evidence.21
However we can deduce from the sources that the high priests
generally remained as important figures in Judea. However, other
figure alongside them also acquired power, like the Tobiads, and
ended up becoming a new class of mediators between the subjects
and the state.22 An element which we can note is the presence of a
certain Simon, prostates of the temple, during the dominion of Seleucus
IV Philopator (2 Macc 3,3) who also coveted the agoranomia (2 Macc
3,4).23 Therefore Simon, a Jewish official of a foreign king, has a
disagreement with his high priest but does not oppose him directly,
going instead to Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia,
to make his accusations (2 Macc 3,5). The charges are not altogether
clear, but it is rather evident that Simon, prostates of the temple, was
a powerful and influential figure, even if he was “unable to prevail
over Onias” (2 Macc 3,5).24 The fact that Simon could not prevail
over Onias implies, on the one hand, the power of the high priest,
and on the other hand, the presence of internal conflicts, probably
of an economic and financial nature. Also striking is the presence
of priestly elements in the figures of the two opponents of the high
priests Onias II and Onias III. Flavius Josephus says that Joseph the
Tobiad was the nephew of the high priest Onias II (Ant 12,160),
but it has also been hypothesized that he belonged to the priestly
class.25 It is said that Simon was from the fulÆ of Bilga (2 Macc
18
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 154.
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 195.
20
See the discussion in chapter 3.2.1.
21
For this problem, see chapter 3.2.2.
22
Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea’, 167.
23
See the discussion about the word “agoranomia” in chapter 5.6.
24
ka‹ nik±sai tÚn On¤an mØ dunãmenow.
25
This hypothesis has been formulated by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 126,
although he admits that the sources are silent about this issue. See, in chapter 4.1,
the information provided by the Zenon papyri about a Tobias who was head of a
cleruky.
19
256
chapter six
3,4),26 one of the 24 priestly classes appointed to the service of the
temple (1 Chr 24,14).
Next to the high priest there were then priests, or at least influential
Jews occupying civil offices, who depended on the foreign authorities and, so it seems in the two cases studied, could oppose the high
priest. The sources do not mention the consequences that such
conflicts had on the people, describing a strong union between them
and the high priest, but it is probable that they affected the Jews,
creating divisions and internal quarrels.
Nevertheless, in the sources we find, along with the historical data,
an ideological reading that highlights the attitude of the high priest
in favour of his people. Such is the case in the brief narrative in
Jewish Antiquities concerning the high priest Simon,27 where the
appellation “Righteous” is justified “because of both his piety toward
God and his benevolence to his countrymen” (Ant 12,43).28 From
the description of Simon in Sir 50, VanderKam derives that “Simon
was especially the guarantor of God’s presence among the people.”29
This is also the case for the description of Onias III in Second
Maccabees (4,2), in which the high priest is depicted as a sort of
mediator around whom the people gather.30 We agree with Schunck,
who considers the dialectics of the confrontation in Jerusalem between
the pro-Ptolemaic and the pro-Seleucid parties and identifies a reinforcement of the pro-Ptolemaic faction during Onias III’s office,
pointing out that the high priest behaves as a man “der sich seinem
Volk und dessen Ergehen eng verbunden fühlte.”31 When he decides
to appeal to king Seleucus IV Philopator in order to settle the matter with Simon, he does so “not to bring charges against his fellow
Jews but to look to the collective and individual interests of all the
people” (2 Macc 4,5).32 From this journey, however, Schunck deduces
26
See the discussion in chapter 5.6.
About the uncertain identity of this high priest, see chapter 3.2.1.
28
Translation by Marcus, Josephus, VII, Jewish Antiquities, 25.
29
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 154–155.
30
Saûlnier – Perrot, Histoire d’Israël, II, 109. See the narratives concerning this
high priest in chapter 5.6. See also the theological re-reading of the high priest
Onias III in chapters 7.1; 7.4.
31
‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 504.
32
oÈ ginÒmenow t«n polit«n katÆgorow, tÚ d¢ sÊmforon koinª ka‹ kat’ fid¤an pant‹
t“ plÆyei skop«n. Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 216. See Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 506.
27
autonomy and powers
257
the high priest’s legitimisation as head of the gerous¤a with the functions of a political guide.33
Nevertheless, according to Tcherikover, the words of 2 Macc 4,5
imply some kind of apology and attempt to hide the real meaning
of Onias’ journey, maybe that of reinforcing his personal position
and returning to Jerusalem leading Syrian forces to fight against his
enemies. But precisely at this moment Seleucus IV passed away and
Antiochus IV Epiphanes succeeded to the throne.34
From the sources examined, due to the motives above stated, we
can therefore draw some fragmentary conclusions regarding the role
of the high priest before the Jewish people. While the sacred functions of the érxiereÊw35 are underscored in some high priests such
as Eleazar and Simon, the extent of their political role is not clearly
stated. The sources depict the high priest at the beginning of the
Hellenistic era—that is, before the dominion of Antiochus IV Epiphanes—primarily as an idealized figure, a mediator between God
and his people, a benefactor of the people, guardian of the sanctuary and interpreter of the Torah.36
However, the relationship between the Jews and the High Priest
strikes us as something far more complex than a first reading of the
historiographical sources would seem to indicate. It is useful to recall
that already under Ptolemaic rule, other intermediary figures of
increasing power placed themselves in between the érxiereÁw and
the people, and could certainly have influenced the relationship
between them. From a more attentive examination of the sources
we can, in any case, gather some elements that outline the main
33
‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 506. Regarding the gerous¤a, Goodblatt, The
Monarchic Principle, 85 underlines the fact that there is no mention of its existence
during the Ptolemaic period. Moreover, he points out (98–99) that the presence of
the word in the letter of Antiochus III (Ant 12,138) around 200 (if authentic) and
in 2 Maccabees—referring to Menelaus’ priesthood in 170 (4,4) and in 164 (11,27)—
can be explained in two ways: either as an institution that was already present
before Jason’s reforms, or perhaps simply as a linguistic usage, rather than a political phenomenon. Between the two hypotheses, Goodblatt prefers the second, thus
understanding that there was no formal council during the Seleucid period, but
instead a non-institutionalised oligarchy of elders next to the high priest. They could
act on behalf of the nation when the high priest was unable to do so, or whenever they disapproved of his policy.
34
Hellenistic Civilization, 158.
35
See Sir 50,1–24; 2 Macc 3–4.
36
For a theological re-reading of the pre-Hasmonean high priests see chapter 7.
chapter six
258
features of the high priest: the attention given to economic and
financial aspects, the involvement in political quarrels with other
functionaries, the close relationship with foreign rulers.
6.2
The High Priest and the Foreign Sovereign
We cannot know whether the Ptolemies interfered in the appointment of the high priests, but the Seleucid sovereigns could certainly
interfere in Jerusalem’s affairs, accept or reject the choice of a high
priest and demand the appointment of a new one to substitute him.
As it has been already said, in 175 bce Seleucus IV Philopator was
killed by Heliodorus (2 Macc 4,7) and his brother Antiochus IV
Epiphanes succeeded to the throne. Schunck emphasizes how this
change in the Seleucid government had serious consequences for the
office of high priest, for the high priest’s position and for his relationship with the king, as well as for the Jewish community. In his
opinion, Jason’s appointment as high priest would represent the beginning of the crisis of the high priesthood, as such appointment was
supported by a group of Jews made up by priests and members of
the lay aristocracy of Jerusalem who were keen on Hellenistic-oriented
reforms and lifestyle, and above all, was imposed by the king while
the high priest Onias III was still in office.37 In reality, the irregularity in Jason’s appointment does not seem to break new ground
at all. From the sources we can see that already in the Ptolemaic
age the succession of the high priests was not always hereditary.
While this can be applied to Onias II, Simon and Onias III, the
presence of Eleazar and Manasseh introduces a successor who reaches
the position through indirect kinship.38
The narratives of 2 Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities concerning
Jason39 seem to present analogous problems, as we again find a succession from brother to brother, rather than the substitution of a
high priest while the previous one was still alive.40 The narrative of
2 Maccabees seems to underscore the persistence of the high priest
37
‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 507.
See chapter 3.2; 3.7.
39
See a direct comparison of the two traditions of 2 Macc 4,7 and Ant 12,237–239
in Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period, 2.
40
See chapter 5.7.
38
autonomy and powers
259
in the demand for §jous¤a (4,7.9), a request that, as it has been
already noted, referred to the will to acquire a greater authority
before the people, and especially before the influential members of
the nation, that is, the gerous¤a.41 However, Goldstein’s observation
that precisely the high priest, who according to some sources appears
as the higher authority on Jewish law, “had to get royal permission
to associate with Greeks and establish Greek-style institutions”42 is
interesting.
Jason’s appointment, according to Schunck, would have seemed
to the Law-abiding Jews as an intrusion of the power of the state
in the autonomy of their community. Nonetheless, he was manifestly
accepted in Jerusalem by the increasing number of Hellenizers, as
proved by the demand of reforms made by the high priest himself,43
which created a fracture in the Jewish community.44 Precisely because
of these reforms the fracture grew deeper: the mass of people, more
linked to traditions, seemed to be in a subordinate position, while
the young aristocrats of Jerusalem followed Jason, who fulfilled the
duties of high priest, gymnasiarch and archont at the same time.45
The distance between the people and the high priest grew steadily
wider. Regarding this, Momigliano talks about a betrayal of the high
priesthood to the cause of Judaism.46 In any case, Jason was soon
afterwards deprived of the high priesthood and forced to flee to
Transjordan.
This new removal of a high priest still in office was authorised
by the king, most likely in exchange for a promise of an increase
in the revenues made by Menelaus, the candidate for the office of
the high priesthood (2 Macc 4,23–26). The latter repeats the procedure that has already been followed by Onias III: he was summoned by the king on account of the missing payments of the
promised money, he leaves his brother Lysimachus as deputy in the
high priesthood (2 Macc 4,28–29). Lysimachus’ sacrilegious deeds
41
See the already studied interpretation of Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 33,
note 9.
42
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 228 note 9–15, quotes as sources Hecataeus of Abdera
in Diodorus XL 3,4–6 and Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas.
43
See chapter 5.7.
44
Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 507.
45
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 73.
46
Momigliano, ‘I Tobiadi nella preistoria del moto maccabaico’, in Quinto Contributo
alla Storia degli Studi classici e del mondo antico, I, Roma 1975, 621.
260
chapter six
provoke the ire of the populace and fill them with anger, so they
put the deputy high priest and many of his men to death (2 Macc
4,39–42). These events led to a decrease in high priest Menelaus’
authority before the people, and later on his power as the political
representative of the Jewish population before the king faded away
as well. This happened when Antiochus IV Epiphanes appointed the
Phrygian Philip as epistates, that is, as royal commissar (2 Macc 5,22),
and left him in Jerusalem along with Menelaus. It was the king
himself, finally, who deprived the high priest of his remaining rights
by the suspension of worship.47
The dependency on the sovereign continues with Alcimus. Schunck
emphasizes that, like Menelaus before him, Alcimus also found himself in a situation of extreme dependency on the state authority, to
the extent that he was no longer capable of representing the interests of the Jewish community.48 According to this perspective, therefore,
Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus would not have been the representatives of the whole Jewish community anymore, but rather of a fraction of it. They seem to perform the duties of the high priest as
functionaries appointed by the foreign ruler. Moreover, there is no
mention in the sources of religious duties corresponding to such
office.
The problem is to determine the extent of this power, and whether
it implied a territorial dominion. Although there are very few data
available regarding Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, the sources indicate, both in the cases of Menelaus and Alcimus, powers and duties.
We have already mentioned Jason’s demand for §jous¤a; it is important to return to the role of Menelaus as outlined in 2 Macc 11,27–33,49
in reference to his close relationship with the commander of the garrison and the military commander of the region.50
Alcimus’ powerful situation seems to become more solid after the
concession of troops and a territory (x≈ra); however, after a more
attentive reading of the sources we can observe that this power seems
to be limited on one side by the internal divisions of the people51
47
48
49
50
51
See Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 509.
Schunck, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker?’, 509.
See chapter 5.4.1.
See chapter 5.7.2.
See chapter 5.8.2.
autonomy and powers
261
and on the other side by the support that the Syrian government
offers to Alcimus.52 However, the reference to a territory (x≈ra) again
poses the more general question about the possibility of the existence of a territorial fiefdom granted to the high priest of this period.
On the grounds of the gathered data, we will henceforth take into
consideration the most important hypotheses.
6.3
Territorial Autonomy of the High Priest
It has been said already that Judea, first in the Ptolemaic period
and then in the Seleucid one, was incorporated in a territory called,
throughout the different periods, Syria-Phoenicia53 and Coele-Syria.54
From the epigraphical testimonies in our possession, it has been also
deduced that such territory was subjected to the authority of a
strathgÚw-érxiereÊw, who not only exercised military control of the
region, but also civil and religious control. This figure was, perhaps,
the governor of the region,55 but what was the extent of the territorial autonomy granted to the high priest, and to Jerusalem in particular, as the presence of the temple turned the city into the Jewish
archiereu’s power centre?
A more recent hypothesis formulated by Schwartz56 goes over the
same ground concerning the problem of the autonomy of Judea. He
thinks that the Ptolemaic age is of the utmost relevance, because it
was at that time that changes first appeared in the imperial administration. The Ptolemies subdivided the areas under their control into
small units and entrusted each one of them to a tax collector, generally a wealthy native, who mediated between the subjects and the
government, without operating through the traditional native hierarchy. In his opinion, this development was important not only in
political terms but also from the economic and religious points of
view.57 This hypothesis leads us to consider some specific form of
52
See chapter 5.8.3.
See chapter 4.1.
54
See chapter 5.1.
55
See chapter 5.1.1.
56
S. Schwartz, ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries
bce’, JJS 45 (1994), 157–168.
57
‘On the Autonomy of Judaea’, 158.
53
262
chapter six
territorial autonomy that we can derive from the sources: the prostasia, the Temple-State and the Akra.
Daniel Schwartz, examining the terminology used by Josephus in
Jewish Antiquities to describe the Jewish constitution, attempts to
define the constitutional forms in the various stages of the history of
the nation, finally dwelling on the term prostasia.58 He observes that
in the summary of 20,224–251, while the high priests are never associated with the constitution, it is said that they held the prostasia three
times (20,238.244.251).59 According to Schwartz, “it is clear that high
priests’ prostasia, was, for Josephus, a matter of leadership and rule.”60
However, it is difficult to define the contents of the prostasia. From
other references, namely the Greek version of Ben Sira (45,24), and
a passage of Hecataeus of Abdera in Diodorus Siculus (XL 3,5), we
can deduce that the notion of prostasia probably originated among
the Jews of the Diaspora, who saw the high priest as the prostates of
all the people. Schwartz himself claims, however, that this was not
a political notion that defined a well-delimited scope of power. In
his opinion, it would be a word that Flavius Josephus, dealing with
the task of narrating the history of a people who no longer existed
as a nation after the destruction of Jerusalem, had used to legitimise
the existence of the Jews although their political life had been terminated. He chose to portray the Jewish people “via the non political category,”61 so as to grant them their right to continue to exist.
The hypothesis of the prostasia, therefore, cannot make any contribution to the clarification of the political position of the Jewish
high priest;62 the territorial autonomy of the high priest has to be
investigated in the other forms.
We will now examine the hypothesis of the Temple-State. As has
already been noted,63 from the documents we can gather that, during
58
‘Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community’, SCI 7 (1983/84), 30–38.
‘Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions’, 36 where the word refers to Hyrcanus
and Aristobulus II, of the Hasmonean period.
60
‘Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions’, 43.
61
‘Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions’, 49. See also 48.
62
See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 181 who seems to see in the prostasia, beside the letter from Areius to Onias and the Letter of Aristeas, “another indication of the high-priestly power, again with no member of a civil rule,” but, he
adds, this element also “joins them as a source whose historical reliability we cannot gauge.”
63
See chapter 4.1.
59
autonomy and powers
263
the Ptolemaic age, the first administrative unit was the Íparx¤a.64 It
has been supposed that there was a division of the country into a
number of major districts, each of which had a civil administrator,
a military commander and a revenue officer, all of them in charge
of their own subordinates.65 It has also been stated that this type of
administration was prevalent during the Seleucid age.66 Regarding
the district or province of Judea,67 on the basis of a number of testimonies,68 hypotheses have been formulated about the existence of
a “Temple-State”,69 on the grounds that the temple was the religious, economic and financial centre of the country. According to
Hengel, the territories and inhabitants around the temple constituted
a kind of feud that was under the authority of the high priest. In
his opinion, under the Ptolemies, Judea could have been a TempleState while still included in the territory of an ¶ynow, but this did
not indicate political authority belonging to the high priest, who was
“nominally at the head of the Jewish ‘ethnos’ and the temple.”70
Probably this is because there was a special temple official alongside
the high priest, chosen by the Ptolemaic government from the Jewish
community to be in charge of the finances of the temple and of
Judea.71 However, adds Hengel, the authority of the high priest
“depended on the strength of his personality.”72
64
Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, 14.
Smith, Palestinian Parties, 67–68; 233–234 note 76.
66
See chapter 5.1.
67
See also the statements made by Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 24; II, 18,
notes 157–158.
68
See Stern, GLAJJ, 65, where Diodorus Siculus, Biblioteca Historica XL,3 reports
a passage of Hecataeus, in which it is said that before narrating the war against
the Jews, he wants to make a brief summary tØn te toË ¶ynouw toÊtou §j érx∞w
kt¤sin.
69
Regarding the Temple-State, see the discussion in Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism,
I, 24. See also the recent statements made by L.L. Grabbe, Did Moses Speak Attic?
Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, Sheffield 2001, 154, who talks
about “a small ethnic/religious community around a single city, with a temple at
its centre”.
70
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 24.
71
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 25 sees a proof of this—for the Seleucid
period—in the comparison between the prostãthw toË fleroË Simon and the high
priest Onias III mentioned in 2 Macc 3,4 ff.
72
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 25, where Hengel portrays Onias II as a weak-willed
man, as he is deprived of his tax-collecting rights. This is, however, one of the
weak points in Hengel’s argument—soon after contradicted by himself; see 74.
65
264
chapter six
In order to solve this problem, therefore, it is crucial to deepen
the study of the relations between the temple and the high priest
regarding the hypothesis of a sphere of personal dominion of the
high priest in terms of territory and politics, based on the principle
of divide et impera.73
As we have already seen, the dependency on the foreign sovereign seems to be the constitutive element of the Jewish high priest
under Seleucid rule. Such dependency, however, does not exclude
a form of autonomy of the high priest, whose power had its centre
in the temple. The temple of Jerusalem, as well as the other temples of ancient times, apart from being a religious centre, had economic and financial importance. It received regular revenues: it was
the place where the tithes that the Jews paid for the sacrifices were
collected (Ex 30,11–16) and with the passing of the generations considerable wealth had been accumulated.74 Apart from public money,
there was also the money owned by people who used to make deposits
in the temple, as it was the safest place in Jerusalem because of its
inviolability, and it worked as a kind of bank in a modern sense.75
It is mainly the question of the dispute over the agoranomia, as reported
in Second Maccabees, which takes us back to the centre of the problem of the relations between the temple and the high priest. At the
same time, this question casts light on the relationship of autonomydependency of the high priest. As has already been observed, the
nature of the disagreement between the high priest Onias III and
Simon (2 Macc 3,4) remains unclear due to the difficulty in establishing the meaning of the term agoranomia with precision; but the
presence of Simon as prostãthw toË fleroË, superintendent of the temple, that is, an official appointed by the king, is significant. He seems
to accuse the high priest of having an untold sum of money at his
own disposal.76 The quarrel between Onias III and Simon shows
that the high priest had well-delimited rights as administrator of the
temple treasury, but the king still kept him closely watched by one
of his officials. It is precisely the presence of this official that seems
to confirm the decrease in the high priest’s power that had begun
73
See chapter 5.7.2.
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 155.
75
Tcherikover, Ibidem, quotes as support for this statement, Jewish War 6, 282;
2 Macc 3,10–12.
76
See chapter 5.6.
74
autonomy and powers
265
with Onias II, a power that in any case seems to be limited to the
financial-administrative field of the temple.
The narratives of Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus also pose the problem of the change in the political status of Jerusalem. We have
already mentioned Jason and the hypothesis of the transformation
of Jerusalem into a Greek pÒliw, with him as its archont and high
priest; this hypothesis, however, cannot be proved because of the
difficulty in establishing the meaning of the expression of 2 Macc
4,9 on which it is based, and because of the lack of further evidence. But the connection between the Akra and the high priests
Menelaus and Alcimus attested in the sources still seems to be particularly interesting. For a certain period, Menelaus lived in the Akra
and therein he enjoyed a privileged position;77 as for Alcimus, he
had troops that would go in and out of the Akra in order to keep
control of the region.78 But did this power mean a form of political
and territorial autonomy, or was it strictly dependent on the foreign
sovereign?
At this point it is useful to recall Bickerman’s hypothesis, which
stated that the Akra was a pÒliw; Menelaus was the chief of the
Jewish nation and the temple was the property of the citizens of the
Akra.79 It is certainly an interesting hypothesis, but in some aspects
it is not altogether likely. There is no way to prove that Jerusalem
was a pÒliw, as we have already seen. Besides, according to Grabbe,
“. . . we have no evidence that there was a province of Judah under
either Ptolemaic or Seleucid rule.”80
In the period following Antiochus Epiphanes, therefore, what could
have been a Temple-State seems to have been assimilated by the
military settlement. Hengel observes that during the decades surrounding 167 bc the Akra “was to form the firm support for Seleucid
power in Judea”,81 but when the foreign cleruchs took the place of
rebels “the city lost its purely Jewish character and “became a Jewish
pagan colony.”82 Also, the temple “became the common property of
77
Chapter 5.7.2.
Chapter 5.8.3.
79
See chapter 5.7.2.
80
Grabbe, Did Moses Speak Attic, 154. See, however, chapters 4.1 and 5.1 concerning the administration under the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.
81
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 281.
82
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 281.
78
chapter six
266
the new Jewish-pagan citizenry.”83 In this period, the figure of Alcimus
is central: the concession of troops and land (x≈ra) could indicate
the granting of territorial autonomy to the high priest, but the weakness of his position with relation to the people’s divisions and foreign assistance has already been stated.
6.4
The Hypothesis of the Pol¤teuma and the Pãtrioi NÒmoi
Another hypothesis proves interesting: that of the pol¤teuma. In recent
times Honigman has studied the structure of the pol¤teuma of
Heracleopolis, well known to us thanks to the publication of an
archive of 20 papyri, probably dating from the time of Ptolemy VIII
Euergetes, that is between 144/3 and 133/2 bce.84 Some of Honigman’s observations seem to be of particular interest because they
provide an opportunity to make a comparison to the situation of
Jerusalem in the period following that considered in this research.
She notices how these papyri allow us to reconstruct the internal
and regional structure of the pol¤teuma of Heracleopolis: it was governed by a politãrxhw and several êrxontew, of whom we do not
know the exact number, but whose jurisdictional competence went
beyond the limits of Heracleopolis. In the documents there is also
mention of four village communities, led by local presbÊteroi. Apart
from this, the connection that Honigman points out between the
words pol›tai and pol¤teuma in the papyrus 1,17–18 is extremely
interesting: the pol›tai seem to be members of the pol¤teuma, while
for the non-members, or more precisely non-Jews, the word éllofÊloi
is used. Another element is the evident link present in the papyri
between the pol¤teuma of Heracleopolis in the second half of the
83
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 282–283. According to Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization,
195, it was already a temple where the Syrian troops, regular inhabitants of the
Akra along with the Jewish refugees, had introduced their own rituals, offered
sacrifices to the God of Israel under the form of the Syrian god Baal, and performed other kinds of idolatrous religious practices, hence its abandonment by the
Jewish crowd. See ibid., 476, note 32, where, with reference to the abandonment
of the temple, there is a quotation of 1 Macc 1,39. However, it has to be observed
that not only the temple but also the city was abandoned, see 1 Macc 1,38.
84
S. Honigman, ‘The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis’, SCI 21 (2002), 251–266.
See an edition of the papyri in J.M.S. Cowey – K. Maresch eds., Urkunden des
Politeuma der Juden von Heracleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen
von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien, Wiesbaden 2001.
autonomy and powers
267
second century bce and the existence of a fortress in the neighbouring areas of Heracleopolis’ port.85 The frequent reference to the
pãtrioi nÒmoi, next to expressions such as ˜rkow pãtriow, §pistolØ
˜rkou patr¤ou is also important. The usage of these words, according to Honigman, would compel us to reconsider, in a more thorough way, the complex relations “between Hellenization and fidelity
to ‘ancestral law’ among the Jews of Ptolemaic Egypt.”86
The last issue that we will take into consideration regards the
nature of the pol¤teuma. Honigman criticizes Tcherikover’s position,
which states that the pol¤teuma was a model of autonomy that the
Jews would have pursued with the aim of keeping their own ancestral laws (the pãtrioi nÒmoi) in Egypt; he claims that the setting up
of the pol¤teuma would have evolved from a military settlement
organised as a pol¤teuma.87 Besides, Tcherikover had already warned
about the complexity of the concept of a pol¤teuma and about the
fact that it cannot always be linked to a precise political identity,
because, as he emphasizes,88 it sometimes indicates an ordinary Greek
city and at other times it refers to the totality of the inhabitants of
a place (or city), or a community of foreigners within a Greek city
or a Hellenistic kingdom.
The reference to the pãtrioi nÒmoi again directs our attention to
the relationship with the high priest. The absence of references to
the high priest with relation to the confirmation of the pãtrioi nÒmoi
in the letter of Antiochus III (Ant 12,142) has already been highlighted, but we cannot disregard the fact that according to Jewish
Antiquities, the high priest Menelaus, along with the Tobiads, had
been the one who promoted the abandonment of the pãtrioi nÒmoi.
Furthermore, 2 Maccabees refers to Onias III as zhlvtØw t«n nÒmvn
(4,2), placing the high priest at the centre of the debate as guarantor of a law that, preserving the old traditions, seems to include new
institutions, uses and traditions.
The usage of the terms nÒmow/nÒmoi induces us to consider another
element which is beyond the historical scope of this study. As has
already been said, it is difficult to establish the nature of the institutional government of the high priest, as the data from the sources
85
86
87
88
Honigman, ‘The Jewish Politeuma’, 252–254.
Honigman, ‘The Jewish Politeuma’, 262. See also 259–261.
Honigman, ‘The Jewish Politeuma’, 264–65.
Hellenistic Civilization, 299
268
chapter six
are fragmentary and lacking in historical reliability. But the same
data show us a re-reading of the history of the high priests during
the pre-Hasmonean period according to the ideology and the theological vision of the authors. This re-reading will be considered in
the last chapter of this book.89
89
See, however, the Conclusion for the completion of our analysis of the political authority of the high priest in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods.
CHAPTER SEVEN
IDEOLOGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL RE-READING
In this chapter we want to focus on the traditions which consider
the relations between the high priest, the temple and the Law (the
Torah). Both the traditions where the portrait of the high priest is
positive (Simon and Onias III) as well as those where it is not or it
is subject of criticism ( Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus) are to be considered.
This chapter ends with an open question: was there a development
or a decline in the high priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean age?
7.1
The High Priest and the Temple
The theological re-reading of Simon has its focal point in the long
description of the liturgical service in the temple over which the high
priest Simon officiated (Sir 50,5–24), where he appears in all his
majesty and holiness. There have been attempts to identify the ceremony with a precise moment of the Jewish liturgy; in the past these
have come to the conclusion that it corresponded to the Day of
Atonement or Yom Kippur.1 Nowadays there is a trend towards
believing, mainly by means of a contrast with rabbinic texts, that
the rites described in the text would rather correspond to those of
the Tamid, that is, the Daily Whole-Offering,2 or to those of the
1
Mainly with relation to verse 50,5. See MsB 50,5: tkrph tybm wtaxbw (Beentjes);
§n §jÒdƒ o‡kou katapetãsmatow (Ziegler). See also MsB 50,20 b: rapth yyy μçbw
(Beentjes); ka‹ §n ÙnÒmati aÈtoË kauxÆsasyai (Ziegler) that was understood with ref-
erence to the utterance of God’s name. For this choice see R.P.C. Spicq, L’Ecclesiastique,
Paris 1946, 830 notes 1–12: “Le Siracide se réfère à la liturgie du grand jour de
l’Expiation (cf. Lev. XVI)”; G.H. Box – W.O. Oesterley, Sirach, in R. Charles ed.,
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Oxford 1913, rist. 1963,
I, 508, note 5: “It is the Day of Atonement.”
2
See P.W. Skehan – A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 551, who seem to
share O’ Fearghail’s opinion: ‘Sir 50,5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering?’,
Bib 59 (1978), 301–316, who supports the second hypothesis on the grounds of a
comparison between the passage of Ben Sira and the tractate mTamid VI,3–VII,3.
See again O’Fearghail, ibid., 312, who claims that in v. 50,5 “The expression “the
house of the veil’ therefore, can quite easily be taken to refer to the temple building
which is thus designated by one of its principal characteristics.” See also R. Hayward,
The Jewish Temple. A non Biblical Sourcebook, London-New York 1996, 50.
270
chapter seven
beginning of New Year (hnvh varb) at Rosh Hashanah, the Day of
Remembrance or the Day of the Sound of the Trumpet.3 But the
identification of the ceremony, from the point of view of this research,
is of a lesser importance in comparison with the figure of the high
priest Simon. Ben Sira is not writing a chronicle, but evoking an
image, which becomes especially eloquent “in describing the splendid sight of Simeon emerging from the Temple.”4 The whole section, through images built up with metaphors and comparisons
inspired by biblical texts,5 shows “Ben Sira’s emotionally charged
reaction,”6 an emotion that stresses the admiration that Ben Sira
feels for the great religious institution of Israel. Next to the high
priest there are the priests, “The sons of Aaron” (50,13.16) and the
people (50,17.20.21): they fall to the ground on their faces twice, to
worship the Lord (50,17) and to receive the blessing from the Most
High pronounced by the high priest (50, 20–21).
Mulder points out how in 50,13 (ˆrha ynb lk), the stress is placed
on lk, avoiding all single references to the Levites throughout the
text, and mentioning the Zadokite priests just once (51,12i).7 The
holiness of the representation is also reflected in the divine names.8
Three are to be found in the Hebrew text: the Most High, the Holy
One of Israel, YHWH, God of Israel.
All of them appear in the last part of the liturgy in the following
order: the priests blow the trumpets as a memorial before the Most
3
See O. Mulder, ‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH God
of Israel/God of All in Sirach 50’, 225. For a summary of the issue, see O. Mulder,
168–175: “Excursus II: Yoma, Tamid and Rosh Hashanah.”
4
Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 552. Also noteworthy is the study
by R. Hayward, ‘Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira’s
Attitude to the Temple Service’, in S.W. Sikes, Sacrifice and Redemption, Cambridge
1991, 23–32, in which the scholar makes a comparison between the depiction of
the high priest Simon in Ben Sira and the description of Wisdom in the book of
Wisdom, particularly between Sir 50,8–12 and Wis 24,13–15. He comes to the conclusion that the high priest offering sacrifices in the temple dressed in his liturgical
robes is analogous to Wisdom serving in the sanctuary and—with the aid of rabbinic texts—also to the first man who works in the Garden of Eden.
5
Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 552–554.
6
Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 550.
7
Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 159–160. See also Mulder, ibid., for the English
translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts.
8
This problem has been analysed in particular by M. Fang Che-yong, Quaestiones
Theologicae selectae Libri Sira ex comparatione textus graeci et hebraici ortae, Rome 1963,
12–15; see also, by the same author, ‘Usus nomini divini in Sirach’, in V.D. 42
(1984), 153–168, and A. Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide, 242 e.
theological re-reading
271
High; the people fall to the ground to worship before the face of the
Holy One of Israel; and finally, the high priest blesses YHWH, the
God of Israel.
ˆwyl[ ynpl (50,16d.17c)
larçy çwdq ynpl ˆwyl[ ynpl (50,17d)
larçy yhla yyy ta (50,22)
These divine names undscore, on one hand, God’s power and majesty,
unachievable by mankind9 and, on the other, the fact that the people of Israel belong to God and his sanctity.10 In the blessing, then,
the high priest represents “the religious continuity of the holy people, and he is, at the same time, a guarantee for the future. The
splendour of the cult is the manifestation of a higher glory, the priest
is a mediator of the divine presence.”11 But along with the theological value, the divine names have also a historical and literary
significance: in the Greek version their number is doubled, and all
can be seen together in verse 50,17: kÊriow, pantokrãtvr, yeÒw, Ïcistow. The name Ïcistow is the most frequently used, on its own
(50,16 d.21 b), or along with other divine names (50,17.19), while
! Ye«
!
in the blessing formula: larçy yhla yyy ja, it is replaced by t«
pãntvn (MsB//LXX 50,22), as “illud magis consentaneum est descendentibus familiae sacerdotalis israeliticae, hoc magis universale et textui graeco magis consonum.”12 In his comparative analysis of the
Hebrew and Greek texts, Mulder also considers vv. 50,16–19. He
observes that in Simon’s description during the festival, Ben Sira’s
attention shifts from the priests (50,16) to the people of Israel
9
ˆwyl[ Most High, from the Hebrew verb hl[. See E. Jenni – C. Westerman,
Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, II, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1997, 892, entry
hl[. See also L. Kohler – W. Baumgartner, eds. rev. W. Baumgartner – J.J. Stamm,
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, II, Leiden-New York-Köln 1995,
832–833.
10
larçy vwdq Holy of Israel, see Jenni – Westerman, III, 1109–1113, entry vwdq,
537–541. Kohler-Baumgartner, III, Leiden-New York-Köln 1996, 1066–1067.
11
Author’s translation of L. Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, Los Libros
Sagrados 11, Madrid 1968, 322. See also Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50,
167, who points out how the accumulation of divine names is a characteristic of
the descriptive prayer that aims at expressing God’s divine majesty.
12
M. Fang Che-yong, Questiones, 15. This problem is linked both to the different
attitude of the Greek version towards the high priesthood and to the origins and
development of the formula yeÒw Ïcistow, which in Ant 16,163 refers to the
Hasmonean high priest Hyrcanus II. From the chronological point of view, however, the problem is out of the time boundaries set for this study.
chapter seven
272
(50,17–19b), to which he applies this exceptional term: wrjy rcb lk
(in Greek pçw ı laÚw koinª). In his opinion, Ben Sira is clearly using
a wide and inclusive perspective of God’s universality that includes
the whole of mankind without exception.13 The use of the word lk
is also typical, repeated 5 times in 4 word combinations. All the
people, including Simon, are actively involved in the action of worship
in which the remembrance itself takes place14 and in which the
presence of the Most High, the Holy One of Israel is actual: ˆwyl[
larcy vdq (17d).15
In the Greek text the vision of God assumes a more transcendental and universal character: God becomes the God of all peoples and all things (ye“ pãntvn), the Most High, the Almighty who
is Everything and governs Everything (17d).16
The reference to the prayer of v. 19 is also noteworthy:
50,19ab
mwjr ynbl hlptb ≈rad μ[ lk wnryw
50,19a–b
and they rejoice, all the people of the land, in prayer before
the face of the Merciful One
50,19a
50,19b
ka‹ §deÆyh ı laÚw kur¤ou Íc¤stou
§n proseuxª kat°nanti §leÆmonow
50,19a
50,19b
And the people implored the Lord, the Most High
in a prayer before the face of the Merciful One
According to Mulder, the expression hlptb introduces the passage
from a collective activity to an individual one. Each individual is
personally involved, not only in the remembrance, but also in the
prayer (hlptb) before the face of the μwjr.17 The holiness of the
13
‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH God of Israel/God of
All in Sirach 50’, 225. See also O. Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 176–177.
For a more detailed comparison between the Hebrew and the Greek texts, see
idem, 60–259: “Simon in the Hebrew version of Ben Sira”; 202–314: “Simon in
the Greek version of Ben Sira.”
14
The people’s act of prostration has been seen as parallel to Hecataeus of
Abdera; see Stern, GLAJJ, I, 32. Hecataeus however points out the adoration of
the Jews before the high priest while he exercises his activities as a legislator. See
GLAJJ, I, 27, nr 11, 6: Àste paraxr∞ma p¤ptontaw §p‹ tØn g∞n proskune›n tÚn toÊtoiw
§rmeneÊonta érxier°a. See also Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïmos-Hellènismos, 85–86.
15
‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH God of Israel/God of
All in Sirach 50’, 226.
16
‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH God of Israel/God of
All in Sirach 50’, 227.
17
Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 188. The issue of the prayer will be again
theological re-reading
273
high priest is particularly expressed by the breast piece that he wears,
and by the precious stones with which it is studded,18 through which
he performs the function of “memorial,”19 that is, calls the attention
of God to his people. In this way, he delivers to God his own
people.20 It is in the liturgy where the centrality of the high priest
in the temple becomes evident. Mulder observes that Ben Sira adapts
his vision of different groups of people to his concentric concept of
the temple. In it, Simon occupies the central position; the second
circle is composed of the priests that form a crown around him; the
third circle is the whole assembly of Israel; and the fourth is all the
people.21 But the element that determines the theological vision of
Simon is the glory, as expressed in 50,11:
50,11ab
50,11cd
trapt ydgb wçblthw
çdqm trz[ rdhyw
50,11a
50,11b
When he robes himself in a garment of eminence
and clothes himself in a vestment of glory,
dwbk ydgb wtwf[b
dwh jbzm l[ wtwl[b
studied with reference to the theological re-reading of Onias III; see chapter 7.2,
292–294.
18
About the relevance and the symbolism of the high priest’s clothes, see Ant
3,159–178; 184–187. See Sanders, Judaism. Practice and Belief, 99–102, who examines the diverse traditions concerning the clothes of the high priests. See also Jeremias,
Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, 148–149 notes 3–4. We know that under Roman rule,
the sacerdotal vestments were kept by the Roman authorities, and had to be given
back to them after the celebration of every festival. Further to a problem which
arose under emperor Claudius, he granted the Jews’ request to keep the vestments
(Ant 20,10–14). About this problem see M. Pucci Ben Zeev, ‘La sovranità sopra
i paramenti del sommo sacerdote. Un capitolo nei rapporti ebraico-romani’ in
A. Lewin ed., Gli Ebrei nell’Impero Romano, Firenze 2001, 99–112.
19
This function has been emphasized by J. Marböck, ‘Der Hohepriester Simon
in Sir 50. Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutung von Priestertum und Kult im Sirachbuch’, in
N. Calduch-Benages – J. Vermeylen eds., Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and
the Book of Wisdom, Fs. M. Gilbert, BEThL 143, Leuven 1999, 222–223.
20
The Jewish Temple, 68–69. The high priest fulfils, in this case, the function of
mediator between God and mankind. It is a very important aspect due to the similiarities found in texts dated around the period studied. See for instance Hecataeus
of Abdera, in Stern, GLAJJ, I, 27, nr 11,5: ka‹ nom¤zousin aÈto›w êggelon g¤nestai
t«n toË yeoË prostagmãtvn. See Stern, GLAJJ, 31–32, who notices that in the ceremony of the Day of Atonement the moment when the high priest enters the Holy
of Holies could have in a certain way influenced the characterisation of the high
priest as the rightful interpreter of the divine order. See a particular view of this
problem in C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the
Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case’, SBL.SPS, Atlanta 1997, 161–193. Precisely
because of its breadth, the issue is not pursued in the present study. However, see
the reference to the high priest in Hecataeus of Abdera in chapter 4.3.
21
Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 153.
chapter seven
274
50,11c
50,11d
when he ascends towards the raised altar
and bestows splendour on the walled enclosure of the
sanctuary.
50,11a
50,11b
50,11c
50,11d
§n t!« énabãllein aÈtÚn stolØn dÒjhw
ka‹ §ndidÊskesyai aÈtÚn sunt°leian kauxÆmatow,
§n énabãsei yusiasthr¤ou èg¤ou
§dÒjasen peribolØn ègiãsmatow.
50,11a
50,11b
50,11c
50,11d
By being swathed in his glorious robe
and clothing himself in perfect splendour
in the ascent to the sacred altar of burnt offerings
he bestowed his glory to the walled enclosure of the
sanctuary.
According to Mulder, the verb rdh in 50,11 d “expresses Simon’s
keenness to bestow splendour to the sanctuary.”22
The Greek text is more incisive, translating the Hebrew: rdhyw
çdqm trz[ as §dÒjasen peribolØn ègiãsmatow (50,11d) and insisting
on the term dÒja, which translates both dwbk and traptΔ, and using
the correspondent verb dojãzv, strengthens the whole expression.
Simon’s glory, which in 50,1 was wm[ trapt,23 a hemistich missing
in the Greek text,24 and in 50,11a,b is dwbk and trapt (Greek: dÒja),
in 50,11d is extended from the people to the court limits of the
sanctuary. It does not enter it, but it remains outside the enclosure
(vdqm trz[//peribolØn ègiãsmatow). The mediation between glory
and high priest is still present in an explicit way in the Hebrew text
of 50,20, while in the correspondent Greek version such mediation
seems to be limited:
22
50,20cd
rapth yyy μçbw
50,20c
50,20d
the blessing of YHWH on his lips
and in the name of YHWH he reveals his glory
50,20c
50,20d
doËnai eÈlog¤an kur¤ou §k xeil°vn aÈtoË
ka‹ §n ÙnÒmati aÈtoË kauxÆsasyai:
50,20c
50,20d
to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips
and to glorify his name.
wytpcb yyy tkrbw
Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 147. Concerning the different interpretations of rdh in the sense of “to show preference, to honour” (qal) or in the
sense of “honour, make glorious” (pi'el) and concerning the interpretation of the
expression vdqm trw[, see ibid., 150–151.
23
Regarding the meaning of trapt, see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 44–47.
24
See chapter 5.3.1.
theological re-reading
275
Mulder observes how in the Hebrew text of 50,20d the blessing and
the name of the Lord (yyy) are themselves linked by the presence of
the glory (trapt), through a form of the verb rap (imperfect hithpa'el), of which Simon is the active subject.25 The meaning of such
mediation is, according to Mulder, to be understood in the sense
that Simon “mirrors God’s glory in a worthy manner in his service
and his radiance as High Priest.”26
Ben Sira sees this glory materialized in the fulfilment of the ministry by Simon as high priest of the temple and as builder of the
city of Jerusalem. The Greek text, however, by translating rapty as
kauxÆsasyai, seems to reduce the role of Simon to that of an intermediary who transmits the blessing of the Lord.27 These texts, highly
suggestive and significant, highlight the sacrality of the role of the
high priest Simon as the mediator between the people and the sanctuary, the place of the presence of YHWH, the place where the
Glory dwells; he is a mediator of the Name.
7.2
The Temple and the High Priest
Commenting on the episode of Heliodorus (2 Macc 3), Collins observes
that the portrait of Onias “is determined by the theology of 2
Maccabees rather than by the facts of history.”28 This theology, which
places the temple in the centre,29 is properly expressed by the words
of Onias himself; in his reply to Heliodorus about Simon’s accusations regarding the funds deposited in the temple, he remembers the
Jews’ trust “in the sanctity of the place and in the dignity and inviolability of the temple venerated throughout the whole world”30 (3,12).
The inviolability of the temple, as the author of 2 Maccabees puts
in Onias’ mouth, is closely linked to its sanctity;31 therefore, because
25
Simon the High Priest in
Simon the High Priest in
27
Simon the High Priest in
28
Daniel, First Maccabees,
Wilmington 1981, 283.
29
See chapter 1.2.1.
26
Sirach
Sirach
Sirach
Second
50, 198.
50, 199.
50, 199–200, 299.
Maccabees with an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre,
30
tª toË tÒpou ãgivsÊn˙ ka‹ tª toË tetimhm°nou katå toË sÊmpanta kÒsmon fleroË
semnÒthti ka‹ asul¤&. Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 195.
31
See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 209. Regarding the concept of the temple’s holiness, see Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 131–139; Sanders, Judaism. Practice
and Belief, 70–72.
276
chapter seven
of the violation of the temple’s sanctity, “great was the agony throughout the city” (3,14).32
The entire city—the priests, the men, the women—participate in
this agony and suffering, but especially the high priest Onias’ appearance, his face and the change in his colour displayed “his mental
agony” (3,16: tØn katå cuxØn égvn¤an). Beyond the sympathetic style
typical of the author’s language, the text underscores the unity between
the people and the high priest in recognising the holiness and the
inviolability of the temple. Further to this, the rite of supplication
grows in intensity until it reaches its climax in verse 22: So they
praised to the pantokrator Lord.33
Referring to Ben Sira’s testimony, Bickerman observes the absence
of the prayer in all parts of the ritual: neither the priest next to
the altar nor the faithful prayed. This was due to the holiness of
the sacrificial offering, which was sufficient in itself: “So long as the
Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel.”34 Reif, in his study on
the Jewish liturgical history, notices from the reading of the various
forms of liturgical expressions that are recorded in the Hebrew Bible
that the most remarkable fact was that few or none of these activities seemed to be associated with the practices of the temple.35
Further on, with reference to the problem posed by the presence of
the psalms, he states that it was possible that the psalm form “was
widely used as eulogy at alternative acts of worship” in ancient Israel,
but he insists on the fact that it was only “in the post-exilic period
that it became associated with the central Temple.”36 In his opinion, it is clear that no text in the Bible “reports the recitation of a
personal prayer or psalm as integral part of the internal operation
of prescribed Temple rituals.”37 Finally, Reif also pointed out the
importance of the books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for
the study of Jewish liturgical history.38
oÈ mikrå kayÉ ˜lhn tØn pÒlin égvn¤a.
ofl m¢n oÔn §pekaloËnto tÚn pagkrat∞ kÊrion. See in v. 18: ofl d¢ pãndhmon
flkete¤an, in v. 20: pçsai tØn litane¤an.
32
33
34
The Jews in the Greek Age, 136.
Judaism and Hebrew Prayer. New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History, Cambridge
1993, 28–31.
36
Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 36.
37
Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 36.
38
Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 43.
35
theological re-reading
277
Regarding this broad issue, we will limit our observations to a few
remarks related to the text of 2 Maccabees that we have already
examined, where the priests and the Jews united in supplication,
praying tÚn pagkrat∞ kÊrion, the Lord pantokrator (3,22), thus highlighting his power. This episode finds a parallel in Ant 11,326, where
Flavius Josephus says that ı d¢ érxiereÁw' IaddoËw, when he came to
hear the news that Alexander the Great was hastily approaching the
city of Jerusalem, ∑n §n égvn¤a and, because of this, he ordered the
people to make supplication and to offer sacrifice to God.39 Here
we find the correspondence of the synonymous terms flkete¤a (2 Macc
3,18) and flkes¤a (Ant 11,326), indicating the supplication prayer.
Therefore, both in the temple of Jaddua and in the temple of Onias
the supplication prayer resounded, while in the temple of Simon just
a prayer of praise (Sir 50,19: hlpt) was risen.
This situation is very different from the one described in the Letter
of Aristeas, in which no mention of prayer is made in the description of the priests’ services; rather, it says that “the most complete
silence reigned”40 and that, notwithstanding the crowd of around 700
men in the service of the temple, everything is carried out “with
reverence and in way worthy of the great divine majesty” (Ar 95:
fÒbƒ ka‹ kataj¤vw megãlhw yeiÒthtow). The prayer of 2 Maccabees is,
moreover, a choral and collective supplication, involving the entire
people: (3,18: pãndhmon flkete¤an). We cannot know exactly “when
and how the civic prayer came to be included in the Temple liturgy,”41
although the Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities confirm
its presence closely linked to the temple’s liturgy and to the presence of the high priest.
But it is in the action of intercession where the figure of the high
priest Onias emerges in his full holiness. This intercession had been
requested by some of Heliodorus’ friends. They “made haste to ask
Onias to pray to the Highest” (3,31).42 In response to the pagans’
See Ant 11,326: flkes¤an t“ la“ ka‹ yus¤an metÉ aÈtoË t“ ye“ prosf°rvn.
Ar 95: ÜH te pçsa sigØ kay°sthken. Translation by R.H. Charles, APOT, II,
Pseudepigrapha, Oxford 1963, 104.
41
Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 137.
42
2 Macc 3,31: tinew t«n toË ÑHliod≈rou sunÆyvn ≤j¤oun tÚn On¤an §pikal°sasyai
tÚn Ïciston. The divine name Ïcistow appears just this time in 2 Maccabees; see
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 214, note 31, who suggests that, although the term is also
used by the Jews, it seems to have been the official name used by non-Jews to refer
to the God of Israel.
39
40
278
chapter seven
request, Onias “offered up a sacrifice for the man’s recovery” (3,32).43
VanderKam observes that in the history of the Second Temple period
this is one of the few occasions in which the high priest engages in
such a cultic function. We can’t know over what kind of sacrifice
the high priest is officiating, “if this was a sin or a guilt offering,”44
but we note that Onias’ intercession was on behalf of an enemy of
Israel, while in Judas’ final vision Onias will appear as intercessor
for the whole body of the Jews through his prayer (15,12).45 This is
what Le Déaut defines as the full meaning of the term intercession,
in the sense of an intervention before God in favour of someone
mentioned in the prayer.46
In 2 Maccabees, this theme appears closely linked to the recognition, albeit not overtly declared, of the bond between the holiness
of the high priest Onias and the sanctity of the temple. After the
appeal for him, in his unique capacity to pray to the Most High
(3,31), we find a stronger claim regarding this relationship when the
young men that often appear in the course of the narrative47 point
out that it is thanks to the high priest that the Lord has granted
Heliodorus his life48 (3,33) and invite Heliodorus to announce the
majestic power of God to all (3,34).49 But Heliodorus’ testimony also
includes the sanctity of the temple in the statement that “a divine
power truly surrounds the place”50 (3,38). Nevertheless, only diå går
aÈtÒn, that is, thanks to Onias, God intervenes and restores life. The
high priest Onias is here a divine mediator of life.51
43
2 Macc 3,32: prosÆgage yus¤an Íp¢r t∞w toË éndrÚw svter¤aw. Bickerman,
‘Héliodore au Temple de Jérusalem’, 183; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 214, notes 32–35.
44
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 195.
45
toËton tåw xe›raw prote¤nanta kateÊxesyai t“ pant‹ t«nÉ Iouda¤vn sustÆmati.
46
‘Aspects de l’intercession dans le Judaisme ancien’, JSJ 1 (1970), 35. For a
status quaestionis regarding the studies of the problem of intercession, see F. Rossier,
L’intercession entre les Hommes dans la Bible hébraïque. L’intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu, Freibourg 1996, 1–4. See also 6–7 for the problems linked to the vocabulary of intercession.
47
Regarding the meaning of these characters, see Bickerman, ‘Héliodore au
Temple de Jérusalem’, 180–182. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 210–213.
48
2 Macc 3,33: diå går aÈtÒn soi kexãristai tÚ z∞n ı kÊriow.
49
2 Macc 3,34: diãggelle pçsi tÚ megale›on toË yeoË krãtow.
50
2 Macc 3,38: diå tÚ per‹ tÚn tÒpon éley«w e‰na¤ tina toË yeoË dÊnamin: Translation
by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 196.
51
For a deeper study of this problem see Fletcher-Louis, ‘The High Priest as
Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as Test Case’, 161–193. See in
particular the reference to the high priest Simon as an angelomorphic figure in
ibid., 185.
theological re-reading
7.3
279
Simon and the Covenant of the Eternal Priesthood
When commenting on the text of Sir 50, Hayward pays particular
attention to the analogies of verses 6 and 7, where Simon is compared to the morning star, the moon and the sun, and he makes
comparisons with other biblical texts where the analogies with the
moon and the sun refer to King David.52 Mack also holds this view,
stating that these verses reflect a sense of Simon’s authority and
almost royal presence.53 This conviction is reinforced in v. 24, where
Ben Sira prays asking for the covenant with Phinehas to be granted
to Simon “like the days of heaven” (μymv ymyk).
This expression, which in the Bible is used for the permanence
of David’s royal throne validated by the divine covenant (Ps 89,30.35),
is used by Ben Sira also to indicate the duration of the covenant
with the high priest Aaron (Sir 45,15). Aaron, as Simon will be later
on (50,5–11), is depicted in the book of Ben Sira wearing his high
priestly vestments while officiating and it is stressed that he possesses
all the qualities that a high priest needs: dwh and dwbk (45,7//50,11).54
While Simon, at the beginning of the encomium, is the glory of his
people (50,1), Aaron has been clothed with perfect glory (45,8).55
Also according to Beentjes, with the section of Aaron and Phinehas
Ben Sira is trying to demonstrate that the succession of the Davidic
dynasty has been transferred onto the dynastic high priesthood of
Aaron and his descendants. For this reason, Ben Sira pays attention
52
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 5 quotes Ps 89,38; 2 Sam 23,4. In his opinion,
the star that comes out of Jacob in Nm 24,17 also has to refer to a royal figure.
53
B. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, Chicago-London 1985, 35–36, sees in
the Simon of the hymn of Sir 50, both the figure of the high priest and that of
the king. He observes that in the introductory section (50,1–4), despite the care he
taks not to claim for Simon the dignity of a sovereign king, Ben Sira clearly wanted
his readers to understand that he fulfilled the elemental functions of a king: building and defending the city and temple.
54
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 67. Marböck, ‘Der Hohepriester Simon’, 220, sees
in the attributes dwh and dwbk the cosmic splendour of Simon.
55
The word “glory” stands for the Hebrew trapt, see Köhler—Baumgartner,
IV, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, 1772–1773. Hayward, The Jewish Temple, translates
it as “beauty” and sees in this word a link with Adam, whose “beauty” is mentioned in 49,16; he also includes a list of rabbinic texts that depict Adam’s clothes
as sacerdotal vestments. Regarding the word, it should be observed that the Greek
version has altered—at least partially—the meaning of the Hebrew word, translating it in 50,1 as stÆrigma; in 45,8 as kauxÆmatow and omitting the word in 49,16.
About the translation “glory,” see chapter 7.1.
280
chapter seven
not only to Aaron (45,6–22), but also to Simon, interrelating both
texts about these high priests.56 Regarding the section about Aaron,
“a pan-Aaronid perspective”57 of the book of Ben Sira has also been
discussed, and, precisely because the praise of Simon resumes that
of Aaron, it has also been said that the former would be “the epitome of the high priest who fulfils the covenant made with Aaron
and Phinehas,”58 thus ignoring Simon’s Zadokite line of succession.59
In the text, noteworthy above all is the reference to the covenant
with Phinehas, a well-known character in the Bible. He appears for
the first time in the genealogy of the heads of the ancestral houses
that fled from Egypt, as Aaron’s grandson, descendent of the house
of Levi (Ex 6,25).60 The book of Numbers remembers the zeal that
he manifested when Israel betrayed its God by adhering to the cult
of Baal-Peor. As the apostate Zimri had made an alliance with the
Madianite pagans, Phinehas killed him and thus turned back YHWH’s
wrath from the Israelites (Nm 25,1–8). Precisely due to this zeal,
YHWH established with Phinehas “a covenant of peace. It shall be
for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual
priesthood” (25,12–13).61
The book of Ben Sira goes back to this text in the section known
as the Praise of the Fathers in chapter 45 when, after mentions of
Moses and Aaron, there is a reference to Phinehas, son of Eleazar
(45,23) and the covenant that YHWH had established with him:
45,24 ab
45,24 cd
çdqm lklkl μwlç tyrb
μlw[ d[ hlwdg hnwhk
45,24 a
45,24 b
Therefore on him again God conferred the right,
in a covenant of friendship, to provide for the sanctuary.
56
qj μyqh wl μg ˆkl
w[rzlw wl hyht rça
P.C. Beentjes, ‘The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira. A Semantical
and exegetical Investigation’, in N. – Calduch Benages – J. Vermeylen eds., Treasures
of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Fs. M. Gilbert, BEThL 143,
Leuven 1999, 86.
57
S.M. Olyan, ‘Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood’, HTR 80 (1987), 275.
58
B.G. Wright III, ‘“Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest”, Ben Sira as Defender
of the Jerusalem Priesthood’, in P.C. Beentjes ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern
Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW
255, Berlin 1997, 194.
59
See the discussion of the issue of Zadokite origins of the pre-Hasmonean high
priesthood in the Excursus in chapter 3.6.
60
BHS Ex 6,25 sj…n“ypiAta, /l dl,Tew" hv…ail] /l laeyfiWP t/nB]mi /lAjq'l… ˆrøh}a'AwB‘ rz:[;l]a,w“
61
BHS Nm 25,12–13 μl;/[ tn"h¨K] tyriB] wyr;j}a' /[rz"l]W /L ht…y“h;w“ 13 μ/lç; ytiyriB]Aja,
12.
theological re-reading
281
45,24 c So that he and his descendants
45,24 d should possess the high priesthood forever.62
The text quotes the expression μwlç tyrb from Nm 25,12, but introduces some significant variations: in 45,24a, the expression qj μyqh
underlines the juridical and prescriptive nature of the divine action,63
while the tyrb 64 is an indication of the reciprocity of the commitment. The Hebrew text of the book of Sirach stresses that Phinehas’
priesthood has been decreed by YHWH as a service to the sanctuary (Sir 45,24);65 it is explicitly said that it is a “great priesthood”
(hlwdg hnwhk) that, throughout Phinehas’ line of descent, will be everlasting. The Greek version translates the entire verse with some
significant variations:66 in the first part of the Hebrew verse of 45,24
it omits the term qj and translates literally μwlç into diayÆkh efirÆnhw.
There is an important addition in 45,24b, modifying the Hebrew
expression vdqm lklkl, “to provide for the sanctuary,” which turns
into the form prostate›n èg¤vn ka‹ laoË aÈtoË, “to be leader of the
sanctuary and of his people.”67 According to Le Moyne, the mention of the high priesthood, present only in the Cairo manuscript,68
would demonstrate that Ben Sira, by evoking the covenant with
Phinehas, is only concerned about the persistence of the Zadokites
in the high priesthood throughout the centuries. This addition has
been seen as an explanation due to the different historical situation
at the times of the translator, because “When the grandson of Ben
Sira wrote, the political power of the High priest had been strongly
asserted. The High Priest had become ethnarch. One consequence
was that the office became the sport of constant political intrigues.”69
62
Translation by Skehan-Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 508.
See Jenni – Westermann, II, 468–472, entry qqj; see also Kohler – Baumgartner,
I, 1994, 346–347, entries qúj; qqj.
64
Jenni – Westermann, I , 256–266, entry tyrIb;] see also Köhler – Baumgartner,
I, 1994, 158, entry qyriiB.]
65
vrqm lklkl. See Kohler – Baumgartner, II, 1995, 463–464, entry lwK.
66
Sir 45,24 a diå toËto §stãyh aÈt“ diayÆkh efirÆnhw
b prostate›n èg¤vn ka‹ laoË aÈtoË
c ‡na aÈt“ √ ka‹ t“ sp°rmati aÈtoË
d flervsÊnhw megale›on efiw toÁw afi«naw
67
The use of the expression: prostate›n èg¤vn ka‹ laoË aÈtoË is noteworthy; see
Josephus, Ant 12,161.167. “èg¤vn” is, most probably, neuter plural.
68
Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 70, note 3 khwnh gdwlh.
69
Charles, APOT, 489 note 24.
63
282
chapter seven
In an excursus about the term diaÆkh, Minissale interpreted the
Hebrew of Sir 45,24 as follows: “therefore, also for him (God) established a decree, a pact that was his due in order to enter the sanctuary,”70 claiming that the term q/j that Ben Sira places in front of
the expression μ/lç; tyrb (Nm 25,12), is actually the interpretation.
Besides, he says, the Greek disregards the overlapping of the synonymous terms and translates both as diayÆkh. This would mean
that, although Phinehas’ zeal provides the circumstance, the right to
exercise the priesthood is God’s unilateral and final decision in favour
of his descendants.71 The following verses (45,24cd) specify the purpose of the diayÆkh: that he and his descendants should bear “the
greatness of the priesthood forever.”72 The reference to Phinehas’
high priesthood, made explicit in Sir 45,24, both in the Greek and
the Hebrew versions, is an important theme because of its theological implications. In fact, Phinehas is also mentioned among the list
of Fathers in the last words of Mattathias as “our father,” who for
the sake of his zeal received “the covenant of perpetual priesthood”
(¶laben diayÆkhn flervsÊnhw afivn¤aw).73 According to Goldstein, the
author of 1 Maccabees himself states “that the story of Mattathias
follows the model of the history of Phinehas (Nm 25,1–15).”74
Therefore, Phinehas is a theological figure that indicates a presence
in the high priesthood of this period,75 a figure that unites Aaron
70
Author’s translation; see La versione del Siracide, 114, note 145: “perciò anche
per lui (Dio) ha stabilito un decreto, un patto che gli spettava per accedere al santuario”.
71
Minissale, La versione del Siracide, 114 note 145. Skehan – Di Lella, 508 translates v. 45,24 c: “So that he and his descendents should possess the high priesthood forever.” For a deeper study of this issue see D. Arenhoevel, Die Teokratie nach
dem I und 2 Makkabäerbucher, Mainz 1967, 22–33, 51,57; A. Penna, ÑDiayÆkh e sunyÆkh
nei libri dei Maccabei’, Bib 46 (1965), 148–160.
72
“Greatness of the priesthood,” see Greek: flervsÊnhw megale›on. The Greek
version does not use érxiervsÊnh, which is the regular choice in 1 and 2 Maccabees
and Flavius Josephus; instead the text uses the neuter substantivized adjective
(megale›on) + the form flervsÊnh, (recorded, however, also in 1 Macc 7,9, for
example).
73
In 1 Macc 2,54: Fineew ı patØr ≤m«n §n t“ zhl«sai z∞lon ¶labe diayÆkhn
flervsÊnhw afivn¤aw. There is an obvious reference to the texts of Nm 25,11: §n t“
zhl“sa¤ mou tÚn z∞lon and 25,13: diayÆkh flerate¤aw afivn¤a.
74
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 6; see 1 Macc 2,26: ka‹ §zÆlvse t“ nÒmƒ, kayΔw §po¤hsen
Fineew t“ Zambri Íi“ Salvm.
75
See also Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 62–63. See in Cody, A History of Old
Testament Priesthood, 194 ff., a comparison between Aaron “(the figure of priests in
general)” and Phinehas “(the figure of high priest).”
theological re-reading
283
and Simon in a continual line. According to Hengel, the admiration that Ben Sira demonstrates towards the high priest Simon and
Phinehas’ priestly lineage (Sir 45,26 ff.) expresses his bias in favour
of the Oniads, and his defence of the privileges of the descendants
of Aaron and Phinehas “shows that these were already being disputed.”76 In Mulder’s opinion, rather than Moses or Aaron, the key
figure in the prayer of the Fathers would be Phinehas, who serves
as an example for Simon.77 Mulder has proposed his thesis in his
more recent book: “Phinehas alone serves as an example for Simon
in the voluntary character of his ‘zealousness’ for his God.”78 This
‘zealousness’ (anq) is the main characteristic of the reciprocal relations among the Jewish groups during and after the Hasmonean
period.
Mulder states that, in Ben Sira, there is no trace of the idealisation of the first high priest Zadok,79 so typical of the Chronicler, and
Melkisedek is absent as well. Phinehas’ personality is the key figure,
his zeal functioning as a normative factor in the priestly covenant.
For Simon, Phinehas is the example par excellence, in a period in
which the priestly tradition and the formation of factions were already
evolving.80
However, besides assessing the presence of the character Phinehas,
what emerges from this re-reading of Simon in the book of Ben Sira
is mainly the affirmation of the permanence of the high priesthood.
While the duration of the pact with Aaron is “like the days in
heaven” (45,15: μymv ymyk), as it is in the pact with David, the book
of Ben Sira insists on saying that YHWH has established with Phinehas
the covenant of a “great priesthood forever” (45,24: d[ hlwdg hnwhk
μlw[) and that this covenant has to be granted for Simon “like the
days in heaven” (50,24: μymv ymyk). The covenant is now a continuum starting from David and reaching to Simon: the covenant with
YHWH, from a promise of everlasting royalty turns into a promise
of a “great priesthood” forever. The text of Simon, states Mack, in
76
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 134, says this with relation to the situation
originated with Onias III.
77
‘Two Approaches’, 231.
78
Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 217.
79
See, however, the reference to the sons of Zadok in the Hebrew text of the
book of Ben Sira (51,12 i). See the comment in Excursus, chapter 3.6.1.
80
Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 218.
chapter seven
284
its attribution of the king’s functions to Simon, “strongly suggests
that the high priesthood is understood as the contemporary and
sufficient locus of all of Israel’s religious offices.”81
7.4
Theology and Ideology in Onias III’s “Virtues”
The theological re-reading of Onias has already cast light on several important aspects of the doctrine of the high priesthood.
Nevertheless, in Second Maccabees there is yet another re-reading,
where the theological interpretation seems to be closely related to
the political ideology of the author of the book. Such re-reading is
noticeable mainly in the references to some qualities or “virtues” of
the high priest. These virtues, already mentioned at the beginning
of the third chapter (3,1), constitute an inclusio along with the reference to the figure of Onias at the end of the book (15,12–14). They
contain significant elements that seem worthy of a deeper study.
7.4.1
eÈs°beia
In the narrative of Heliodorus (3,1–4,6), Onias is strongly united
with his people; his main characteristic is the eÈs°beia: the fear of
God, that is pietas, religious devotion. As we have already seen, this
is clearly expressed in the égvn¤a (3,16) of a man almost on the
verge of death at the vision of the violation of the sacred treasury.
It is also visible in the sacrifice of atonement, which demonstrates
the care of the high priest for his people (3,32–33).
The concept of eÈs°beia allows for a connection with Flavius
Josephus’ political ideology. The issues of the law and the constitution are extremely important in the ideology of the Jewish historian:
in Jewish Antiquities, Josephus sets about discussing the polite¤a,
referring to that of Moses (4, 196–302), although in its description
he introduces some important differences.
The main point of the argument is the injunction to build one
holy city, with only one temple. This injunction was expressly motivated by the pronouncement “for God is one” (4,201).82 Particularly
81
Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 36.
Mason, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 396–397, note 596, says: “we may suggest that
for Josephus the most central issue of his Antiquities is the constitution and phi82
theological re-reading
285
relevant for the present investigation is the reference to the way in
which this polite¤a had to be governed.
Referring to the text of Deuteronomy, regarding the law for the
king (Dt 7,14–20), Josephus introduces some additions (4,223–224).
Like the biblical text, he also sees the people impoverished by the
presence of a king, but he adds his personal opinion where he considers that aristocracy is the best form of government (4,223)83 and
where he confirms: “let him do nothing without the high priest and
the counsel of his senators” (4,224).84
This concept matches Ant 20,226, where we find a double statement: “that none should hold God’s high priesthood save him who
is of Aaron’s blood, and that no one of another lineage, even if he
happened to be a king, should attain to the high priesthood.”85 The
losophy of the ideal state, that is of the Jews; and being so proud of his priestly
status Josephus naturally began by emphasizing the importance of Jerusalem and
the Temple (Ant 4,200).”
83
Mason, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 414, calls for great caution regarding Josephus’
usage of the terms monarchy and aristocracy: sometimes he seems to mean the etymological sense, the former as the rule of one, the latter as the rule of the best.
He notices, however, the contradiction between the definition of the Jewish government during the period between the return from captivity in Babylonia and the
fall of the Hasmoneans, as an oligarchy (Ant 11,11), and the later definition of this
period as a democracy (Ant 20,234). In his opinion, the solution to this apparent
contradiction is that Josephus “regarded the rule of the High Priests—clearly the
rule of the few and hence an oligarchy—during his period as having had the
approval of the people at large.”
84
Ant 4,224: prass°tv d¢ mhd¢n d¤xa toË érxier°vw ka‹ t∞w t«n gerousiast«n
gn≈mhw. Translation by Thackeray, Josephus, IV, Jewish Antiquities, 583. Mason, Judean
Antiquities 1–4, 415 note 705, sees in this claim “a pro-priestly revision.” While Dt
17,18–20 only states that the king has to consult, copy and read the book of the
Law all the days of his life, Josephus states—along with the Mishnah (Sanhedrin
2:4) and the Gemara (Sanhedrin 2a, 20b)—that a king should advise the Council
of the 71. In this case, he would be subjected to the jurisdiction as a private citizen; see E. Nodet, Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités Juives, II, Livres IV–V, Paris 1995,
64, note 7, who refers however to B Sanh, 9, where it is said that following an
incident with Alexander Janneus in which the Sanhedrin feared to pass judgement,
it was established that the king (Hasmonean) was to be beyond jurisdiction, an
episode that Josephus (Ant 13,289) erroneously attributes to John Hyrcanus.
85
See Ant 20,226–227: mhd°na toË yeoË tØn érxiervsÊnhn lambãnein ≥ tÚn §j
Ö n tÊx˙ teÊjetai t∞w
a·matow toË ÉAar«now, •t°rou d¢ g°nouw oÈdÉ ên basileÁw v
érxiervsÊnhw. Translation by Feldman, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XX, 121. See
S. Castelli, ‘Flavio Giuseppe interprete della Bibbia. Tendenze esegetiche nel terzo
libro delle Antichità Giudaiche’, Materia Giudaica 7/2 (2002), 307–308. Yet again
the problem had to be attributed to the sources, in particular, to the existence of
a sacerdotal source, maybe Eupolemus; see ibid., 308 note 42. See also the discussion of Josephus’ sources in chapter 1.3.2.
286
chapter seven
polite¤a thus described in Jewish Antiquities is explained in Against
Apion as a yeokrat¤a86 that places all power and strength in God
(2,165).87 Against Apion also contains a reaffirmation: “We have one
temple for the one God,” but at the same time stress is made on
the fact that the temple is “common to all, as God is common to
all” (2,193).88 According to Amir, with this concept “we are at the
heart of the sociological message of monotheism” which Josephus
sees institutionalised in “the one body of priests, with the High Priest
at its head.”89 Moreover, again in Against Apion, Josephus underscores a characteristic that, in his opinion, makes Moses’ law superior to the others: it is eÈs°beia, of which he specifies that Moses
“did not make eÈs°beia a part of virtue, but he saw and he ordained
other virtues to be parts of eÈs°beia” (Ap 2,170),90 indicating the
other virtues as: justice (dikaiosÊnh), temperance (svfrosÊnh), fortitude (karter¤a), and a mutual harmony (sumfvn¤a) between the members of the community. The primacy91 of eÈs°beia among the virtues
finds a parallel in Second Maccabees, precisely in the depiction of
the high priest Onias that we have already studied; there it is remarked
that the holy city lived in unbroken peace and the law was strictly
observed because of the high priest’s eÈs°beia, along with his
filanyrvp¤a (3,1). The fact that the virtue of eÈs°beia, along with
justice, is invoked by the high priest Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas
as one of the principles upon which Moses’ legislation is founded
(Ar 121)92 is particularly interesting.
86
Regarding this identification and the concept of theocracy, see Y. Amir,
ÑYeokrat¤a as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation of Moses’
Politeia’, SCI 8/9 1985/88), 87–88, 90; idem, ‘Josephus on the mosaic ‘Constitution’’,
in H. Graf Reventlow – Y. Hoffman – B. Uffeneheimer eds., Politics and Theopolitics
in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, Sheffield 1994, 13–27.
87
Yeokrat¤an ép°deije tÚ pol¤teuma, ye“ tØn érxØn ka‹ tÚ krãtow énaye¤w.
88
EÂw naÚw yeoË . . . koinÚw èpãntvn koinoË yeoË èpãntvn. Translation by Thackeray,
Josephus, I, Against Apion, 371.
89
ÑYeokrat¤a Y. Amir, ÑYeokrat¤a as a Concept of Political Philosophy’, 26
and note 35, where Amir quotes Ap 2,185, adding that the administration of the
community’s main affairs corresponds to the high priest. In fact, the Greek text
says: t“ d¢ pãntvn érxiere› pãlin aÔ pepisteuku¤aw tØn t«n êllvn fler°vn ≤gemon¤an,
referring to the power of the high priest to command the other priests.
90
Author’s translation of Troiani, Commento storico, 276: “non fece la religione una
parte della virtù, ma le altre virtù parte della religione”.
91
Amir, ÑYeokrat¤a in Josephus’, 98–99, remarks that such primacy was common among the Jewish Hellenistic writers. Nevertheless, Josephus is the only one
that turns the eÈs°beia into the cornerstone of a political constitution.
92
See Amir, ÑYeokrat¤a in Josephus’, 99, note 50.
theological re-reading
287
Mason points out the importance of the word eÈs°beia in Josephus’
vocabulary. For him, says Mason, “eÈs°beia is a one-word summary
of the whole Jewish system of religion, instigated by God, articulated by Moses, administered by priests, and shared by the whole
nation.”93 Moreover, he highlights the fact that, while in its primitive Greek usage the term eÈs°beia described a kind of respect or
reverence towards something or somebody, in the Hellenistic age it
was used to mean “reverence toward and worship of the Divine.”94
In the Hellenistic age, eÈs°beia was a virtue. Therefore, it is a Greek
concept that does not have a direct equivalent in the Hebrew vocabulary.95 Greek-speaking Judaism then incorporated the concept of
eÈs°beia as a constitutive feature “of its self-understanding.”96
7.4.2
eÈerg°thw, khdemΔn, zhlvtØw t«n nÒmvn
Other descriptions of Onias cast light on his character. In 2 Macc
4,2 he is defined as “the benefactor of the city and protector of his
countrymen, and a zealot defender of the laws.”97
We consider these expressions to be particularly significant and
worthy of deeper analysis. In the phrase “the benefactor of the city,
the protector of his countrymen” (4,2: tÚn eÈerg°thn t∞w pÒlevw ka‹
tÚn khdemÒna t«n ımoeyn«n), the depiction of Onias seems to reflect
the characteristics of the Hellenistic sovereign. The words eÈerg°thw
and khdemΔn are in fact strictly related to the worship of the monarch
developed mainly under the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Diadochs and
the tradition of attributing characteristics of both human and divine
nature to them.98 The word eÈerg°thw, for instance, brings us back
93
Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. A Composition Critical Study, Leiden-New YorkKöln 1991, 86. See also 85–89.
94
S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees., 87, note 13.
95
Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 88 points out that the term eÈs°beia
is often used in the LXX to translate hwhy tary and that the adjective eÈs°b∞w
occasionally stands for bydn, dysj and qydx.
96
Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 88, note 17.
97
tÚn eÈerg°thn t∞w pÒlevw ka‹ tÚn khdemÒna t«n ımoeyn«n ka‹ zhlvtØn tvÇn nÒmvn;
text translated by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 216.
98
Z. Stewart, Il culto del sovrano, in A.A. VV., La società ellenistica, Storia e civiltà dei
Greci, VIII, 1977, 565. Regarding the worship of the sovereigns, see Bickerman,
Institutions, 247–257; L. Cerfaux – J. Tondriau, Le culte des souverains dans la Civilisation
Gréco-romaine, Lovanio 1957, 189–246; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, II, 191 note
192.
288
chapter seven
to the title of king Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 bce), to whom
the high priest Onias II refused to pay taxes.99
Goldstein observes how in the well-organised Hellenistic world, a
benefactor (eÈerg°thw) and a protector (khdemΔn) were entitled to a
public monument bearing these two laudatory epithets.100 As the
benefactor and protector of his compatriots, Onias appeals to king
Seleucus IV Philopator, seeking the welfare, both public and private,
of all the people, knowing that without the king it would have been
impossible to reach a peace settlement (4,5–6). In Onias III’s thoughts,
Goldstein sees an echo of the Hellenistic philosophy that regarded
the kings “as near-divine guarantors of laws and order.”101
This “Hellenistic” reading of Onias seems to be contradicted, at
the first sight, by the third epithet of 2 Macc 4,2: zhlvtØn t«n nÒmvn.
The association of the verb zhlÒv and the noun nÒmow highlights a
widespread issue in the Jewish world of the Hellenistic age: the zeal
of the law, or for the law. Hengel, analysing the issue of zeal for
the law and the traditions about Phinehas, points out how the Law,
alive in Judaism, had particular relevance during the religious crisis
of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.102 As he had indicated before,
the argument that sparked off the crisis in Jerusalem in 175 that
reached its peak between 167 and 164 was a battle for the Law.
From the clash between the renegade Jews and the Law-abiding
Jews, and from the zealousness against the Law shown by these renegades, the zeal for the Law would have been born.103 Abel, commenting on 2 Macc 4,2, insists on the plural t«n nÒmvn, claiming
that it must have had a wider meaning, beyond the Law of Moses,
and that the author’s intention was to highlight Onias’ faithfulness
to the laws of the kingdom.104 These views have been the subject of
debate. Renaud, in his study of the vocabulary of the law in the
books of the Maccabees, looks at the Semitic expression zhl«sai t“
nÒmƒ where zeal is identified with the religious enthusiasm that pushes
99
See the discussion about this in chapter 4.5.
II Maccabees, 221, note 2.
101
II Maccabees, 222, note 6. See E. Goodenough, ‘The Political Philosophy of
Hellenistic Kingship’, Yale Classical Studies (1928), I, 55–102.
102
M. Hengel, The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period
from Herod until 70 AD, Edinburgh 1989, 149–155.
103
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 305–306.
104
Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 329, note 2.
100
theological re-reading
289
the real faithful into taking God’s cause to heart and defending His
threatened interests.105 In this sense, the Law or Torah constitutes
the supreme value of the Jewish religion, and the conflict between
Judaism and Hellenism revolves around it, between those that abide
by the Law and the “lawless” (ênomoi) or the “anti-Law” (parãnomoi).106
Later on, taking into consideration the phraseology zhlvtØn t«n
nÒmvn, Renaud claims that it assumes, in the text of 2 Maccabees,
a meaning that is more Greek than Hebrew and simply expresses
the concern to abide by the commandments as much as possible.107
Then he wonders whether this meaning merely reveals a literary
influence or if it manifests a conscious adoption of categories typical of Greek thought.
Throughout a detailed study of the terminology of the law in
2 Maccabees, Renaud observes that the intention of the epitomist
here is to place the Jewish constitution on the same level as the
Greek laws.108 In particular, the analysis of the vocabulary related
to the link nÒmoi-pÒliw leads him to identify a clear distinction between
the singular nÒmow, which always means the Torah, and the plural
nÒmoi, which indicates the city laws, comprising, in a wide sense,
constitutions, uses and traditions that shape the concrete features of
a social group.”109
However, in his opinion, this distinction does not mean separation, inasmuch as the two forms, singular and plural, are in any case
used to refer to the legal dispositions of the Jewish community. They
are closely linked, as in the Torah where the laws find their centre
and sense: “The nÒmoi form the body of which the Torah would be
the soul.”110
However, these are not widely held views, as many scholars do
not agree with this interpretation of nÒmow-nÒmoi. Mason, for instance,
points out that according to Josephus the nÒmoi are certainly at the
very centre of Jewish life, although the 507 occurrences show a
105
B. Renaud, ‘La Loi et les Lois dans les livres des Maccabées’, RB 68 (1961),
43.
106
Renaud, ‘La Loi et les Lois’, 45.
‘La Loi et les Lois’, 58.
108
‘La Loi et les Lois’, 59.
109
Renaud, ‘La Loi et les Lois’, 64. Compares this definition of nÒmoi, with the
value implied in the expression katå toÁw patr¤ouw nÒmouw (Ant 12,142), with
“Antiochus III and the juridical status of the Jews”, chapter 5.3.
110
Renaud, ‘La Loi et les Lois’, 65.
107
290
chapter seven
considerable fluidity in the usage of the term. Therefore, in his opinion, nÒmow is not a technical word that would indicate a peculiarity
of Judaism: the Jewish nÒmoi are comparable with the nations’ nÒmoi,
even when Josephus is obviously trying to demonstrate that among
all the systems of the world’s nÒmoi, the Jewish one is the most perfect. Moreover, the nÒmoi of the gentiles are not only legal decrees,
but can also be customs or conventions.111 However, Mason remarks
that the fact that the Jewish nÒmoi are principally the laws received
and passed on by Moses in Mount Sinai is beyond doubt. Josephus
often uses nÒmow/nÒmoi to refer to the first books or the main books
of the Scriptures, but seems not to distinguish between the original
Mosaic nÒmow and its later elaborations in Judaism. This happens
because the Jewish historian, even though he identifies the Jewish
nÒmoi with the Mosaic Law, obviously sees the Law through the filter
of post-biblical tradition and of the common practices familiar to
him, which he finds implicit in the Law. The lack of distinction
between the original statutes and their everyday usage in his experience is corroborated by the variety of words that Josephus uses in
an interchangeable manner, more or less as synonyms: nÒmow/nÒmoi,
tå ¶yh, ofl §yismo¤, tå nÒmima, tå påtria.112 According to Mason, this
would be valid also for pãtriow nÒmow, ofl pãtrioi nÒmoi.113
This interchangeability of the words is shared also by Schröder,
who seeks to determine in particular the meaning of pãtrioi nÒmoi,
starting from the word nÒmow , a term that, on one hand is profoundly rooted in the Greco-Hellenistic world, but on the other hand
was adopted by the Judeo-Christian tradition as the Septuagint’s
translation of the Hebrew hrwt.114 This translation, however, has
given birth, according to Schröder, to a misunderstanding of the
term. Already in profane Greek, nÒmow constituted a complex notion,
and as a translation for Torah it could have the meaning of God’s
revelation and covenant, doctrine, instruction or teaching.115 Moreover,
111
Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 97. See also 96.
Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 100.
113
Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 101. See also 102, where other words such as
≤ (pãtriow) eÈs°beia/ yrÆskeia/sunÆyeia/ and polite¤a are indicated as other possible ways of saying ofl nÒmoi. See, regarding the occurrences of the quoted terms,
also notes 73–76.
114
Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und
Römer, Tübingen 1996, 21.
115
Schröder, Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: 23.
112
theological re-reading
291
Schröder does not notice a difference between the singular form
nÒmow and the plural nÒmoi,116 which is mainly used by 2 Maccabees,
often accompanied by the pãtrioi specification. In his opinion, the
context shows the synonymous usage of both forms as translations
for Torah, although the plural would highlight its political undertones. However, the attribute “pãtriow” indicates particular accents:
it underscores the historical dimension of the Law, as a legacy from
the past and a tradition from which a lifestyle is derived, which is
primarily of a religious nature, but also has political implications.117
Although some differences might still persist, we can conclude that
Mason and Schröder agree in part on this particular matter.
But the aspect that seems more adequate at this final stage of the
research is the common consideration about the need to refer to the
original context, that is, to the Greek-Hellenistic world; as a matter
of fact, the use of the term in the Judeo-Christian world does not
exclude the variety of meanings that were present in the original
semantics of nÒmow. The observation made by Mason is important.
The use of pãtrioi nÒmoi, according to the modalities that he indicates, as the whole of the Mosaic Law and the successive tradition,
finds significant parallels in the politics of ancient Greece.118 Based
on this last observation, some aspects can be assessed: in the use of
categories typical of Greek thought, Renaud sees an attempt made
by the author of 2 Maccabees to put his Greek culture at the service of the Jewish faith; it is the effort of a humanist that, without
giving up the deepest and most original values of his religious tradition, tries to open a dialogue with a line of thinking and a mentality alien to Judaism.119 It is important to notice that, in order to
open this dialogue, the author of 2 Maccabees resorted to the figure
of Onias III, who would not be, however, a zealot of the Law in
the sense given to the expression mainly after the religious crisis of
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and in particular during the
Maccabean age,120 but an interpreter and a guarantor of the laws.
This hypothesis does not clash with the idea often found in
2 Maccabees of a conservative Onias III, a defender of the Jewish
116
117
118
119
120
Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: 80.
Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: 207–208.
Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 103.
Renaud, ‘La Loi et les Lois’, 65.
Hengel, The Zealots, 149–154.
292
chapter seven
traditions, a view that is also held by a number of scholars.121 Hengel
observes that the fact that Onias III had been granted asylum in
the sanctuary of Daphne (2 Macc 4,33) leads us to think that he
was not a zealot of the laws “as Jason of Cyrene made out.”122
Besides, remarks Hengel, Onias’ depiction is clearly hagiographic.
Onias, as the Oniads themselves, was not an orthodox in the strict
sense of the word.123
Another text in 2 Maccabees confirms the accepted interpretation
of zhlvtØn t«n nÒmvn. At the beginning of chapter 3, the city is
introduced as the holy city, inhabited in unbroken peace and where
the laws were strictly observed. Goldstein observes that this means
that Onias severely punished all violators of the Torah,124 but as we
have already seen, the expression t«n nÒmvn suggests a wider meaning which, however, makes the contents of the nÒmoi difficult to establish beyond a general observance of the laws.
7.4.3 kalÚw ka‹ égayÒw
The usage of Greek linguistic forms appears still more vividly in the
final vision of the book (15,12–14), in Judas’ dream, where the sanctity of the figure of the high priest emerges while he prays with outstretched hands for the whole community of the Jews. Nevertheless,
together with typically Jewish features, he shows characteristics highly
regarded in Greco-Hellenistic thought: “a good man and true, of
modest bearing and mild manner, whose utterances were always
fitting, who from childhood had practiced every aspect of virtue,”125
characteristics which would underscore his moral superiority. The
reference to Onias as êndra kalÚn ka‹ égayÒn (15,12) is particularly
relevant. Goldstein remarks that in the Letter of Aristeas, the expression kalÚw ka‹ égayÚw is also used with reference to the high priest
121
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 272; see also Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesu Christ, I, 148 who, recalling the title of
“zealot for the laws”, confronts Onias III with his brother Jason because of his
Hellenizing ideas; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 7 refers to Onias as “the pious Onias.”
122
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 277.
123
Judaism and Hellenism, II, 183 note 132.
124
II Maccabees, 199.
125
2 Macc 15,12: êndra kalÚn ka‹ égayÒn, afidÆmona m¢n tØn épãnthsin, pra@n
d¢ tÚn trÒpon ka‹ lal¤an proÛ°menon prepÒntvw ka‹ §k paidÚw §kmemelethkÒta pãnta
tå t∞w éret∞w ofike›a. Translation by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 475.
theological re-reading
293
Eleazar (Ar 3) and to the seventy two translators (Ar 46).126 Tcherikover
observes that at the centre of the author’s interest in the Letter are
Jerusalem, the temple, the high priest and his religious service.
Moreover, he describes the letter as “a eulogy to Judaism.”127
Nevertheless, Tcherikover also recognises the influence of Hellenism
over the author in the language in which the Letter has been written, in its literary form and also in the philosophical ideas contained
in the book, particularly evident in the section of the symposium (Ar
187–300), coming to the conclusion that “Aristeas was a learned Jew
who had a Greek education and was influenced by the Greek philosophical literature of that period.”128 Referring to Greek education,
Aristeas uses two terms: paide¤a and kalokégay¤a. The former means
education in the broadest sense of the word, while the latter indicates the ideal of culture to which the elite of the Greek society
aspired.129 Kalokégay¤a is therefore an important concept that occurs
several times in the Letter of Aristeas. At the beginning of the Letter
(Ar 3), the author, speaking about Eleazar, points out the high regard
in which the high priest is held by his fellow citizens “kalokégay¤&
ka‹ dÒj˙;” but further on in the Letter, the kalokégay¤a is a virtue
and a gift from God, it is the virtue that allows mankind to enjoy
even the smallest things and be honoured by God (Ar 272). Thus
Aristeas himself and those who had carried the king’s gifts and
message to Eleazar are kalo‹ ka‹ égayo¤ (Ar 43),130 as well as the
seventy two elders chosen by the all the tribes to translate the Law
(Ar 46) and the men to whom the teachings of the wisdom are
directed (Ar 207). Law, kalokégay¤a and wisdom are therefore closely
intertwined.
Tcherikover points out how the characterisation of these elders is
remarkable:131 in Letter of Aristeas 121 it is said that Eleazar selected
126
II Maccabees, 499, note 12.
V. Tcherikover, ‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, HThR 51 (1958), 79.
See also 78.
128
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, 66. See also 63–65.
129
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, 67 and note 26.
130
To be exact, in Ar 43 these men are kalo‹ ka‹ égayo‹ ka‹ paide¤& diaf°rontew.
131
In Ar 122, the seventy-two Elders, regarding the matters of the Law, seek for
the middle way, removing harshness and barbarity from their minds. Tcherikover,
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, 68, reckons that this might mean the acquisition of a Greek culture that would allow the 72 to be received amongst the kalo‹
kègayo¤.
127
294
chapter seven
the best men, distinguished by their knowledge, who had a thorough
knowledge not only in Jewish literature, “but had bestowed no slight
study on that of the Greeks also.”132 Moreover, they had a natural
aptitude for conversation and for matters related to the Law (Ar
123).133 Both the kalokégay¤a and seeking for the middle way show
a clear influence of Greek philosophy. The former constitutes an
ideal of ancient education,134 while the latter, to be found again in
Ar 223 and 256 as an ideal held dear by the elder translators, is a
feature of Aristotelian philosophy.135 According to Hengel, the Letter
of Aristeas, which he dates around 140 bce,136 demonstrates that the
ideal of the kalokégay¤a had been accepted and recognised by the
elite Alexandrians.137 The similarity with Onias III’s portrayal in
2 Maccabees, where he is described both as zhlvtØn t«n nÒmvn (4,2)
and êndra kalÚn ka‹ égayÒn (15,12)138 is striking. From it arises an
interesting problem regarding Second Maccabees: whereas the author
depicts the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism as an ideological and political clash, he sees in the figure of Onias the teacher
of the kalokégay¤a and the interpreter of the laws. But this poses
another problem: certainly Onias’ kalokégay¤a cannot be a propagandistic idea of the author, as Tcherikover proposes in the case
of the Letter of Aristeas,139 because the ideology of the author of
2 Maccabees seems too far removed from such thought. In fact, on
the contrary, the Letter of Aristeas and Second Maccabees seem to
be on two literally opposed levels. In Aristeas, an attitude of approval is generally sensed towards the Hellenistic culture,140 while
2 Maccabees141 is a book that portrays Hellenism as paganism, and
132
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, 67.
. . . tÚ m°son §zhlvkÒtew, see A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée, à Philocrate, Paris 1962,
164. Greek text translated by M. Hadas, Aristea sto Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), New
York 1951, 151.
134
H.I. Marrou, Histoire de l’Éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris 1948, 77–80.
135
Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée, 164, note 2; Charles, APOT, 106.
136
See discussion of the dating of the letter in chapter 1.5.2.
137
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 68; see also Tcherikover, ‘The Ideology of the Letter
of Aristeas’, HThR 51 (1958), 66, note 81.
138
We notice that such a depiction is to be found only in 2 Maccabees.
139
‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, 83: “The idea of turning the seventytwo Elders, and even the High Priest himself into a symbol of Greek education,
was an especially powerful propagandistic idea.”
140
As, for example, in Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 98.
141
See chapter 5.4.2.
133
theological re-reading
295
therefore as a danger to the ancestral institutions. Nevertheless, even
taking into consideration the diversity of the historical periods in
which the texts were written and the ideological intentions of the
authors,142 both books include common elements of interest towards
the fundamental Jewish institutions: the temple, the high priest and
his service, and also elements that make one think of a changing
cultural world. The re-reading of the events of the pre-Hasmonean
period made by the author of 2 Maccabees, precisely through the
characterisation of the high priest Onias, highlights the presence of
Greek linguistic forms in the style of an author who, in the portrayal of the next two high priests ( Jason and Menelaus), shows a
strong opposition to the penetration of Hellenism. It is necessary to
study this issue more deeply, because of its theological implications.
7.5
The High Priests and Hellenism
Bickerman143 first expressed the idea that the instigator of the persecution would not have been Antiochus IV, but the reformers of
Jerusalem. They would have done so because they sought to abolish Jewish particularism, which the Greeks regarded as barbarian,144
so Menelaus suggested that the king follow a policy of repression.
In fact, as we have seen, according to Flavius Josephus it had been
Menelaus who, along with the Tobiads, asked for the abolition of
the pãtrioi nÒmoi and the introduction of the Greek polite¤a (Ant
12,240). However, there has been much controversy among scholars precisely regarding Menelaus’ demand and the reforms proposed
by Jason (2 Macc 4,9). Tcherikover, for instance, claimed that Jason’s
reforms had to be understood “as the complete abolition of the existing constitution and its replacement by a new one,”145 as can be
gathered from the testimonies in the books of the Maccabees. An
142
See chapter 1.5.2.; 1.2.2.
The God of the Maccabees, 30, 61, 83–86.
144
See also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 300; II, 202 note 278, who points
out how the idea of particularism was already present in Hecataeus of Abdera.
Again Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 300, recalls Bickerman’s thesis, that states
that the Hellenists would have believed in a primordial age in which the Jews were
not separated from the other nations.
145
Hellenistic Civilization, 164 quotes, in order to support this thesis, 2 Macc 4,11;
1 Macc 1,13.
143
296
chapter seven
outcome of this reform would be the foundation, by Jason, of the
new Greek city of Antioch in Jerusalem, of which Antiochus, after
whom the city was named, was the divine guardian, the kt¤sthw.
Antiochus’ visit to Jerusalem, where he was welcomed with a blaze
of torches and shouts (2 Macc 4,22: megalomer«w), would indicate
that the preparatory period was over, the new city was organised
according to the new laws and, in that circumstance, had received
official proclamation.146 According to Hengel, the attempt of the
reformers of Jerusalem had three main goals: to open the way for
the diffusion of Hellenistic culture;147 to deprive the reactionary circle of political power and to abrogate Antiochus III’s letter; and to
take the juridical foundations of its power away from the Jewish
theocracy. Such aims could be reached only by the transformation
of Jerusalem into a Greek pÒliw, with the gymnasium at its centre
and Jason as its high priest and archont at the same time. This
would have caused the power of the aristocratic priesthood to diminish, in the sense that political organisation would no longer be derived
from the Torah but from the constitutional organs of the new pÒliw.148
However, Hengel pointed to the necessity of taking into consideration the possibility that the constitution of a pÒliw was not achieved
until the foundation of the Akra: moreover, he remarked that there
are no testimonies available regarding the existence of new magistrates or regarding the d∞mow.149 Besides, Hengel considered that
Tcherikover had underestimated the importance of Jason’s reforms,
claiming that they neither implied an abolition of the Jewish religion nor introduced any change in the cult,150 as at that time “there
was no division between religion and politics as we understand
them.”151
More recently, Bickerman’s theory has been reconsidered by Collins,
who has described the reference to a theological ideology as pure
speculation, insofar as we have no direct proof of this. Nevertheless,
he considers it possible to concede a more pragmatic role to Menelaus
146
Hellenistic Civilization, 165.
Again Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 73, states that the aim of Jason and
his followers was to achieve a complete integration with Hellenistic civilization, so
that the members of the Jewish upper classes would be regarded as Greek.
148
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 278.
149
Judaism and Hellenism, II, 184–185 note 136.
150
See also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 166.
151
Judaism and Hellenism, II, 52, note 144.
147
theological re-reading
297
by supposing that he was interested mainly in keeping his power,
that he recognized the Law as the foundations of the traditionalist
opposition and wished to eradicate it.152 But Hengel had already
stated that the development of the reforms, which sounded positive,153
was interrupted by Menelaus’ ascension to the high priesthood.154
This statement compels us to consider the role of the two high
priests with greater detail. The role of Jason as a reformer, as shown
in the sources and as it is held by scholars in general, is convincing. His reform is essentially a demand to introduce new Greek institutions: the gymnasium, the body of youth and, in spite of the
difficulty in interpretation, the inscription of the Antiocheans. Such
reform has been widely discussed by experts regarding also its religious consequences. The argument included some extreme positions:
while for Bickerman, the creation of the gymnasium in Jerusalem,
in which the athletic context was inseparable from the cult of Heracles,
Hermes and the dynastic sovereigns, would imply that Jerusalem
“was not the only ‘sacred’ city.”155 For Tcherikover “Jason’s reform
did not affect traditional religious life,”156 therefore the reform would
not have violated any religious custom. Saûlnier claimes that, as a
consequence of the reforms, the Hellenistic way of life demanded by
part of the Jews meant not to consider the Torah as the only Law
and that setting up the gymnasium was scandalous, as it implied
nudity and an abandonment of circumcision and therefore the denial
of the covenant. Besides, the introduction of Greek practices also
implied the abandonment of the cult.157 But Will and Orrieux158 do
not share this view: they observe that when Jason sent a delegation
of Jerusalem’s Antiocheans to the quinquennial games at Tyre, taking with them three hundred silver drachmas for the sacrifice to
Heracles, they preferred to spend the money otherwise (2 Macc
152
Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 64.
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 279.
154
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 279.
155
The God of the Maccabees, 40. See also 41.
156
Hellenistic Civilization, 166–167.
157
Histoire d’Israël, III, 113. Saûlnier, 111, goes still further when he compares
the passage of 1 Macc 1,11 with Dt 13,14 and claims that the expression “ ‘faire
alliance avec les nations’ n’est pas à prendre au sens strictement diplomatique mais
comme une véritable apostasie conduisant à renier la Torah pour suivre les coutumes des païens.”
158
Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 119.
153
298
chapter seven
4,18–19). This event would thus demonstrate that the Hellenizers of
Jerusalem, although eager to indulge in the pleasures of the gymnasium, wanted to remain faithful to YHWH.159
Both Tcherikover and Will and Orrieux maintain that the reforms
carried out by Jason and his friends were not really of a religious
nature.160 According to Will and Orrieux, they responded to a practical necessity and to a cultural aspiration; they aimed at the goal
of improving the external image of the Jews, accused of cultural separatism and misanthropy. The author of First Maccabees omits the
names of Jason and Menelaus; Will and Orrieux judge that this disapproving silence is valid in the case of Menelaus, but unfair in the
case of Jason, as from the juridical point of view he does not deserve
it. However, he undoubtedly opened the way to the subsequent policy of Menelaus and his supporters, even when his own policy was
essentially different from that of his successor.161 His policy, in Will
and Orrieux’s opinion, had not been opposed due to religious motives,
but due to a bios ioudaïkos, which is to live a certain way of life in
accordance with Jewish nomima, a Jewish paideia and a social-political
system.162
At this point we shall focus our attention on Menelaus. Thoma,
examining the theological and historical importance of the high priesthood from 175 to 37 bce, considered “die schwere Krise des
Hohenpriestertums”163 at the time of Jason and Menelaus. However,
in his opinion, that crisis had in fact originated before 175, with the
quarrel between the high priest Onias III and Simon, the superintendent of taxes of Seleucus IV. That event gave Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, successor of Seleucus IV, the opportunity of finding in
Jason a high priest that would allow him to resuscitate his wardrained economy. Jason took Onias’s place, deceitfully obtaining the
high priesthood, and set about revolutionizing Jerusalem, both spiritually and politically, remaining in office from 175 to 172.164 Although
159
Will – Orrieux, 119. See also 120 ff, where Will – Orrieux introduce the
concept of acculturation in order to explain that the adoption of Greek uses did
not necessitate renouncing their own religious identity.
160
Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 125: ne furent pas de caractère proprement “religieux.”
161
Iudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 126. See also 127.
162
Iudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 128.
163
‘Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Bedeutsamkeit der jüdischen Hohenpriester von 175 bis 37 v. Chr.’, BL 45 (1972), 6.
164
In order to support such statements, Thoma, ‘Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Bedeutsamkeit’, 7, quotes 2 Macc 4,7–11; Ant 12,239; 2 Macc 4,13 ff.
theological re-reading
299
Jason was legitimately and undoubtedly entitled to the succession of
the high priesthood,165 he had taken office in an illegitimate way (by
means of a payment); but, adds Thoma, it was with Menelaus that
“erreichte das jüdische Hohepriestertum seinen eigentlichen Tiefpunkt.”
In his opinion, the high priest, along with the brothers Simon and
Lysimachus, was to blame for the crisis of the high priesthood, for
Antiochus IV’s bitter persecution of the Jewish faith and traditions
and for the Maccabean revolt. The war and religious violence that
followed, claims Thoma, existed not only outside the Jewish religion,
but also within it. In any case, he adds, the people were determined
not to accept Menelaus as high priest, as he was sacrilegious and
lacking in legitimacy; so his appointment led to internal strife, and
finally to his execution under the rule of Antiochus V (13,3–8).166
Thoma’s position seems to disregard the sources, as it is based
solely on 2 Maccabees, ignores the complexity of the problem in all
its many facets and offers an entirely negative judgement of Menelaus.
Hengel also seems to hold this view, as his examination of the problem of the administration of Judea and the role of the Jewish high
priest particularly highlights the function of the gerous¤a. In his opinion, this function would have developed during the Ptolemaic period,
severely limiting the authority of the high priest;167 therefore Jason’s
programme of reforms and the foundation of the new pÒliw had
been sanctioned by the gerous¤a, which constituted the highest authority of the city. Moreover, Hengel points out that the signs of protest
of the members of the gerous¤a were only seen after Jason substituted Menelaus.168 But although the role and the function of the gerous¤a are a matter of controversy,169 it remains a fact that the
165
About the issue of the Zadokite descent line, see chapter 3.6: Excursus.
See ‘Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Bedeutsamkeit’, 8. Thoma finds
support for this hypothesis in two passages in 2 Maccabees: where it says that
Menelaus possessed no qualification for the high priesthood but had the hot temper of a cruel tyrant and the rage of a savage wild beast (4,25), and where his
betrayal is stigmatised by saying that he served the pagan Antiochus IV as a guide
in the pillaging of the temple (5,15).
167
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 25–26, sees the first mention of the gerous¤a
as a regular authority in Antiochus III’s decree (12,138–144) where, along with the
priests, the scribes and the singers of the temple a tax exemption is granted as a
reward for the help provided to the king in the conquest of Jerusalem. Hengel considers it an aristocratic body—not democratically elected—representative of the
priestly class, the rich nobility of the landlords, and the chieftains.
168
Judaism and Hellenism, I, 26.
169
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 26; II, 21 note 178. D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic
Principle, 83–99, discusses its existence in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid ages.
166
300
chapter seven
negative opinion of Menelaus is generally shared by scholars: the
high priest has been seen as the one for whom the revolution is all
but cultural, and as Will and Orrieux state, “it’s just a matter of
money.”170 However, Collins observes that scholars have not always
agreed on holding Menelaus responsible for everything and that the
anomaly “of suppressing a religion as punishment for rebellion”171
remains. Then, rather than responsibility, it might be necessary to
talk about “active collaboration” as Sievers does, although he introduces another element by emphasizing the participation of another
high priest, Alcimus, referring to his actions in terms of “voluntary
compliance.”172 The mention of Alcimus is particularly interesting
due to the way in which the sources portray him,173 mainly First
Maccabees, and also because of the scholarly interpretation that portrays him as a Hellenizer or philo-Greek.174
The references of 2 Maccabees to the deprivation of the high
priesthood (14,7) and to a previous defilement (14,3) are also noteworthy. Although the expressions related to these two verses are
hardly precise,175 Troiani’s observation is interesting: in the Italian
introduction to Bickerman’s book The Jews in the Greek Age, he claims
that the passage has to be understood within the highly fragmentary nature of the available information about Judaism from the
Persian age to 176 bce. Only incidentally have we come to know
that, before the reform of the year 167, the Jewish high priest Alcimus
170
Author’s translation by Will – Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos, 128: “n’est plus
question que d’argent.”
171
Daniel. A Commentary, 65. See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 195–198, who
reckons that the persecution was a punishment for rebellion and thinks that the
cult introduced in the temple was simply the Syrian garrison’s worship.
172
See The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 21. Sievers justifies his “active collaboration” answer quoting as sources: 1 Macc 1,52–53; Ant 12,253; Dan 11,30. The
“voluntary compliance” answer is supported by 2 Macc 14,3, where it is said that
Alcimus had wilfully defiled himself at the time of the revolt; caution is advised
since we do not know if this accusation refers to actions that took place before,
during or after the persecution.
173
See 1 Macc 7,5.9.22; 2 Macc 14,3; Ant 12,391.
174
G. Ricciotti, Storia d’Israele, Torino 1997, 655. Schürer – Vermes – Millar,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, 168, indicates that he is
the leader of the philo-Greek party. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 228, is
extremely explicit in regards to this point, saying about the Hellenizers that “the
High Priest himself was to be one of them.” Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and
Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, 279, recalls the expression of 1 Macc
7,22 which, in his opinion, probably means Hellenizer or pro-Seleucid.
175
See discussion about this in chapter 7.5.1.
theological re-reading
301
had already been defiled by Greek costumes.176 But it is the narrative of Alcimus’ death that poses the problem from a particular point
of view; the two narratives of 1 Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities177
link his death to an act considered sacrilegious: in the year 159
Alcimus would have issued an order “to tear down the wall of the
inner court of the sanctuary.”178
But what was the sanctuary’s inner court and why did Alcimus
want to destroy its wall? As Goldstein remarks, the words of 1 Macc
9,54 were clear for the author and his readers, but they puzzle us.179
This is due to the difficulty of determining the exact meaning of the
terms and their implications.180
A hypothesis, proposed by a number of scholars, is that “Alcimus’s
offence consisted in removing the boundary between the ‘holy’ area
of the forecourt and the ‘unholy’ outer area, thus making it possible for Gentiles to gain access to forbidden places.”181 This hypothesis, however, is not widely supported; other scholars, among them
Goldstein, reject it, claiming that “there could be no issue of introducing gentiles or Greek practices to the inner court.”182 In his opinion, the wall that Alcimus wanted to remove would have belonged
to the inner court, divided, according to the Mishnah, into the priests’
court and the court of the Israelites. The whole affair, then, should
be understood within the context of the controversies among Jewish
sects.183 This opinion has been shared, with slight variation, by other
scholars. According to Maier, for instance, “die Entfernung einer
176
Bickerman, Gli Ebrei in età greca, Bologna 1991, 11
1 Macc 9,54–57; Ant 12,413.
178
1 Macc 9,54: kayaire›n tÚ te›xow t∞w aÈl∞w t«n èg¤vn t∞w §svt°raw. See translation by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 379. See also Sisti, I Maccabei, I, Rome 1968, 200
and Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 175. In Ant 12,413 it says: boulhy°nti kayele›n
tÚ te›xow toË èg¤ou.
179
I Maccabees, 390.
180
Regarding the various terminological interpretations, see Goldstein, I Maccabees,
391, note 54.
181
Schürer – Vermes – Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesu
Christ, I, 176, note 6. See also Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées, 174, note 54.
182
I Maccabees, 392. As a matter of fact, the opinion that Alcimus wanted to tear
down the wall in order to eliminate the distinction between Jews and Greeks had
already been criticized by Ricciotti, Storia d’Israele, 1997, 662, who had proposed
the hypothesis, albeit hardly likely, that the destruction of the wall was a respose
to the high priest’s intention of re-building it according to a Hellenistic style.
183
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 392.
177
chapter seven
302
Trennmauer innerhalb der inneren Hofanlagen”184 would reflect the
existence of diverse orientations among the various Jewish groups
and, with reference to this, the author observes how this opening of
the sacred area completely opposed a conservative, Zadokite tradition that appears also in the Temple Scroll found at Qumran. Sacchi
seems to share this hypothesis; he claims that, behind Alcimus’ gesture there would be internal clashes that worsened after the death
of the high priest, to such an extent that it was impossible even to
appoint a new high priest.185 Garbini likewise shares the opinion that
this would be the separation wall between priests and Jewish men;
its destruction would thus have caused a transformation of the liturgy186
and also the abandonment of the temple by the priests, “Sons of
Zadok”187 who left for Qumran. All these events would have been
behind the “the crisis of the Jerusalemite priesthood, which provoked
a seven-year vacancy”188 in the office of the high priesthood.
Therefore, Alcimus’ high priesthood confirms the complexity of
the relations between the high priests and Hellenism, but also its
centrality in the history and in the theological development of the
high priesthood. Yet again this issue has to remain an open question,
due to the difficulty of separating historical from ideological data.
7.6
Development or Decline?
However, behind this open question we can perceive the development and the crisis of an institution. As Rooke suggests, during the
pre-exilic period, the closest equivalent to the high priest was the
chief priest, who was responsible for the temple and its “fabric,”
while the sovereign was the one responsible for the “cult and worship.”189 Also during the Persian period, the high priest continued
184
J. Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten. Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten
Tempels, Würzburg 1990, 154.
185
See P. Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period, JSOT.S. 285, Sheffield
2000, 245, for whom Alcimus’ gesture represented “a rupture with some elements
of tradition.” Concerning the problem of the period of Intersacerdotium, see chapter
3.5.
186
G. Garbini, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, Brescia 2001, 188.
187
Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 167. Regarding this issue, see chapter 3.5.
188
Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 169.
189
Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel,
120–122.
theological re-reading
303
to be limited in his importance and influence both by the presence
of the Persian governor and by the lack “of any concept that the
high priesthood could be an appropriate successor to the Davidic
line as the focus of identity, leadership, and hope for the people of
Judah.”190
Nevertheless, in the Hellenistic age, the high priesthood begins to
assume a different character: while in the Ptolemaic period the literary sources portray a high priest closely linked to worship and the
religious sphere, in the following period the high priesthood seems
to become a political office, not because of the authority inherent
in the high priesthood itself, but due to the support of the Seleucids.191
Such development, however, seems to entail also a halt in the theological reflection regarding the high priesthood, a “crisis” in theology. This crisis was already present in the traditions regarding the
high priests Simon and Onias III. The theological examination of
these traditions has revealed a re-reading of the Jewish high priest
in its twofold dimension: vertical (God) and horizontal (the people).
It has highlighted the holiness in the liturgical service, the role of
mediator between God and mankind and the function of interpreter
of the Law as the main attributes of the pre-Hasmonean high priest
(see 2 Macc 3–4; 4,2; Ar 128 ff.). The evocation of Simon’s liturgical service reflects a nostalgic feeling for an already vanished institution, while the apologetic portrayal of Onias III reveals the reality
of an institution that was not limited to the religious and sacred
sphere, but was widely involved in matters of an economic and
administrative nature. But above all, the data related to the narratives of Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus lead us to a hypothesis about
a crisis in the “theological” reflection of the high priesthood.
The lack of references to the relations between the high priests
Jason and Menelaus and the temple in the narratives is an element
that poses numerous problems. It has been supposed that during
Jason’s reform, the liturgical services in the temple had continued
as usual,192 but the sources are silent about this. There are some traditions regarding Menelaus: it is said that he stole part of the temple’s
190
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 239.
191
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel, 325.
192
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 278.
304
chapter seven
treasures (2 Macc 4,32) to pay the king the required sum for his
appointment to the high priesthood (2 Macc 4,24) and he allowed
Antiochus IV to enter the temple (2 Macc 5,15).193 Further on, the
high priest is no longer mentioned in the narratives regarding the
temple.
The “absence” of Alcimus during the occasion in which the general Nicanor went up to the temple194 has already been described.
The letter of Antiochus V, for instance, in the passage concerning
the restitution of the temple, does not mention the high priest,
although Menelaus must still have been the high priest in 164 bce.195
It has also been remarked that Alcimus’ intervention in the tearing
down of the wall of the inner court of the temple (1 Macc 9,54)
had probably been a cause for internal division and controversy
among the diversely-oriented Jewish groups. However, neither in this
reference we can find a trace of the presence of a liturgical service
in the temple. In this sense it is possible to share Momigliano’s view
that there was a betrayal of the high priesthood to the cause of
Judaism.196
During the period prior to the establishment of the Hasmonean
dynasty, therefore, we can observe a rapid development of the figure
of the high priest. From the role of mediator, or rather religious
leader, of the people, he turns into mediator, or rather official, of
the foreign sovereign. From the moment in which the high priest
acquires civil and military duties, he seems to forget the temple,
which is the centre of his religious identity and embodies his role as
focus of the cult. In fact, rather than a development, the high priesthood in the pre-Hasmonean period seems to experience a decline,
behind which the shadow of the Hasmonean dynasty can be perceived. The concept of political chief will find its application in the
constitution of the Hasmonean dynasty. The authors who had written about the high priests were well acquainted with this concept
193
However, see the tradition of 1 Macc 1,21, where Menelaus is not mentioned
at all.
194
See chapter 5.8.3. See 1 Macc 7,33; 2 Macc 14,32.
195
Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period, 238, claims that “The Hasidaeans
were able to accept the celebration of the Temple’s reconsecration under Menelaus.”
In 2 Macc 13,1 Menelaus’ death is linked to the second expedition of Lysias
(Seleucid-Babylonian year 149). Concerning the issue of dating see Goldstein, II
Maccabees, 458, note 1.
196
See chapter 6.2.
theological re-reading
305
and it strongly influenced the portrayals of the high priests of the
pre-Hasmonean period.
The investigation therefore closes with this question: Is it the case,
then, that because of the ideological bias of the sources and the lack
of historical sources for the period examined, we cannot in any way
reconstruct the history of the Hellenistic high priesthood prior to the
Hasmonean period? Some hypothetical answers will be proposed in
the conclusion.
CONCLUSION
We would like to distinguish three sections in the conclusion, indicating the problems that have emerged, the results and the questions that remain unresolved.
1.1
First Part: Preliminary questions
a) The investigation of the sources has led us to observe some general characteristics: the variety of the genres, the fragmentary nature
of the contents and the presence of a strong ideology.
b) In the Hellenistic age, a number of different terms were used
to indicate the office of high priest. One of these terms was flereÁw
m°gaw. From a comparative study of Greek inscriptions from both
Ptolemaic and Seleucid contexts, it has been possible to establish
that the usage of the word érxiereÊw in this period indicates a superintendent of the places of worship appointed by the king.1 This term
is the one usually chosen by Flavius Josephus and the books of the
Maccabees to refer to the high priest of the Jews.
c) In the study of the sources, we have had to deal with notable
uncertainties regarding the historical identity of the high priests, and
to overcome considerable difficulty in tracking down the line of succession. Josephus’ list2 of names Onias-Simon-Onias-Simon-Onias3
would seem to indicate both the rule of father-son succession and
that of the grandson named after the grandfather, so-called papponymy. In any case, it shows the predominance of one family: the
“Oniads.” However, the insertion of Eleazar and Manasseh among
the names introduces new elements in the line of succession, through
indirect kinship. It could therefore be supposed that some members
of the house, other than the eldest son of the previous high priest,
made claims to the high priesthood and that there were, as in the
Persian period, family struggles for it.
1
About the problem of the semantics related to the high priest, see chapter 2.1
See the doubts regarding its historical reliability and the various lines of succession put forth by scholars in chapter 3.2.3.
3
Ant 11,347; 12,43; 12,157; 12,224; 12,225.
2
conclusion
307
The research into the problem of the Zadokite origins of the preHasmonean high priests has also led to the conclusion that the matter of the high priests’ biological descent from Zadok lacks historical
support and has to be understood in the context of an ideology
which originated in the post-exilic period. Therefore, the continuity
of the Zadokite line in the Oniads does not appear to be based on
sound historical grounds; in the sources analysed in this research no
explicit reference to a Zadokite descent of the high priests of the
Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods was ever found.
1.2
Second Part: Reconstruction
From the comparison between the sources, the following elements
have been identified:
a) Regarding the period of Seleucid rule, it has been possible to
establish, on the grounds of comparison with some Greek inscriptions—the Hefzibah dossier and the inscription of Arsinoe in particular—the existence of a figure called “strathgÚw-érxiereÊw”, who
supposedly had governing rights over Coele-Syria (a territory that
probably included Judea). The latter, as depicted in the portrayal of
Ptolemy of Thraseas, belonged to a family of strathgo¤ and had
defected from the Ptolemies in favour of the Seleucids.4 Therefore,
if there was a governor in the territory that included Judea, he was
not identified with the high priest.
b) The high priest is, however, a central figure in the Hellenistic
age. Already in the period following Alexander the Great, the sources
point to civil duties such as administrator of the temple and tax collector along with the sacred duties of serving the temple. From the
reference found in the book of Ben Sira to the works in the temple and the fortifications (50,2–4) we can suppose, although we do
not have a clear testimony from the historiographical sources for this
period, that Simon had authority and responsibility for the building
of public works in Jerusalem.
c) The study of the traditions of Onias III in Second Maccabees,
Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities highlighted some problems, such
as, in particular, those of the violent death of the high priest and
4
See chapter 5.6.1
308
conclusion
of the foundation of the temple in Leontopolis. From the analysis
of the sources and their comparison with the most important modern studies on these issues, the version of 2 Maccabees appears most
reliable, even though some textual uncertainties do not make this
hypothesis altogether satisfying. As a consequence, the temple of
Leontopolis was not founded by Onias III as some scholars claim,
but by some other figure, maybe not a high priest but someone who
belonged to a collateral branch of the family of the high priests.5
d) The narratives about the high priests Jason, Menelaus and
Alcimus during and after the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes have
constituted another focal point of this research; they have raised the
problem, already found in the research on Antiochus IV Epiphanes’
persecution, of the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism and,
in particular, the involvement of the high priests in the so-called
“Hellenization” of Judea.
e) To begin with, it is necessary to make a linguistic qualification:
the usage, by several modern scholars, of the term “Hellenization”
is improper and indicates, more than a historical reality, an ideology derived from the negative attitude shown by our historiographical sources. In the same fashion, the high priests Jason, Menelaus
and Alcimus are improperly called “Hellenizers.” Their involvement
in the diffusion of Hellenism has to be understood in the context of
the broader phenomenon of cultural awareness of the priestly class
and the aristocratic elite, and in their knowledge of the necessity to
end their isolation. Martin Hengel, in the preface to the third edition of his book Judentum und Hellenismus, while emphasizing the importance of the Hellenistic reform undertaken by Jason along with
Jerusalem’s aristocracy, identifies the key in the ideology of assimilation, which finds its expression in First Maccabees (1,11–13).6 Morton
Smith confirms this hypothesis. In the distinction between the opposing forces that had clashed in Judea in Nehemia’s times, he points
to the separatists on one side and to the assimilationists7 on the
5
See the hypothesis reported in chapter 5.3.2.
Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh.s v.Chr., 3., durchgesehene auflage, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), Tübingen 1988, XII–XIII.
7
Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, 155. Among the
separatists he includes: a few priests, almost all the Levites, the majority of the common people of Jerusalem, the allies of the Yahwist party only in Mesopotamia and
6
conclusion
309
other, thus showing the complexity of the social situation in Judea.
Smith himself, moreover, warns against the erroneous simplification
that tends to depict the conflict between Greek and Eastern cultures,
forgetting “the existence of hellenistic culture as a thing in itself,
different from either of its sources.”8
Nevertheless, we observe that in the sources examined, the contact between Hellenism and Judaism transforms into a conflict that
seems to finish with the closure of Judaism to outside influences and
the end of so-called “assimilationism.” In fact, elements present in
the sources have shown how deeply the linguistic forms, the philosophy and the Greek historiographical concept were rooted in the
work of the authors of the following period, even when they spoke
about the most important and significant figures of the Jewish world:
the high priests.
f ) One question seems particularly interesting: Was the participation of the high priests in the reforms due to cultural exigency or
just to a desire for personal dominion? In an attempt to answer this
question, we have identified the different roles that Jason, Menelaus
and Alcimus had in the sources during this historical period, which
seems to be especially affected by violent clashes between the different
factions. The high priest certainly did play an important part in
these clashes, although the existence of a “Hellenizer” party does
not seem likely to be proved.
1.3
Third part: Synthesis
The third part of the research can be subdivided into two: 1) the
historical-political aspect, with reference to the problem of the authority and the autonomy of the high priest; 2) the aspect of theological reflection.
From the analysis of the sources, we have been able to identify
the following elements:
Persia. The assimilationists were: the majority of the priests, almost all the gentry
of Jerusalem and Judea, allied with the Yahwist gentry of the territories around
Judea.
8
Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, 80.
310
conclusion
A) Regarding the period of the Ptolemaic dominion:
1) The inconsistency of the historical information and the impossibility of formulating hypotheses of a certain weight about the possible autonomy of Judea and about the political power of the high
priest.
2) The attention of the high priest towards economic and financial
considerations. The high priest, in the figure of Onias II, seems to
lose, temporarily, both the political function of the people’s representative ( prostasia) and the administrative function of the tax collector. According to some scholars, under Onias II the separation
of religious power from administrative power would have taken place,
but such a claim has its weak point precisely in the ideological portrait of Onias II offered by the sources.
3) The presence of a class of landowners (the Tobiads) that acquired
a growing influence over the country, for or against the high priest.
4) Last but not least, the presence of an ideology that tends to
portray the high priest as a guarantor of the people and the Torah.
B) Regarding the period of Seleucid dominion:
1) The presence of internal struggles between the high priest and
other Jewish officials who also belonged to the priestly classes.
2) The close relationship with foreign sovereigns and the insistence
on the high priests’ demand for §jous¤a.
3) The presence within the Jewish people of tensions which also
involved the high priest.
4) The difficulty in distinguishing between history-ideology-theology in the sources.
5) The impossibility of determining the role of government and a
territorial dominion for the high priest.
In general, the elements identified in the analysis of the sources allow
us to notice an element of crisis in the development of the high
priesthood during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid ages. Such a crisis is
to be seen mainly in relation to the temple and the people. While
under Ptolemaic dominion it can be supposed that the high priests
still had the right to collect the temple taxes, and were therefore
wealthy and influential people, under Seleucid dominion the temple
seems to have been taken away from their jurisdiction. In Antiochus
III’s edicts, not only there is no mention whatsoever of the high
priest regarding the status of Jerusalem and the reconfirmation of
the pãtrioi nÒmoi (Ant 12,138–144), but also, in the orders about the
conclusion
311
temple (Ant 12,145–146), norms are introduced that, given their
incompatibility with Jewish traditions, seem to have been drafted by
an official appointed by Antiochus III.9
The presence of a prostãthw toË fleroË at the time of Seleucus IV
Philopator seems to confirm this hypothesis. During the period of
Seleucid dominion, the high priests still appear as people who were
mainly interested in creating an area of power for themselves with
the support of the Seleucid kings, thus becoming their officials. But
this power, albeit limited, created factions and profound divisions
within the Jewish people.
According to the sources, such a development seems also to involve
the sacred role of the high priest. In the traditions about the high
priests Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, as a matter of fact, there are
no references to the liturgical service, which in the testimonies regarding Simon and Onias III seemed to constitute the foundations of
the high priest’s religious identity. This problem entails yet another:
the analysis of the “virtues” of Onias III has placed this high priest
in the centre of the debate that has been at the core of this research:
that of the relationship between history-ideology-theology found in
the sources. In 2 Maccabees and in the Letter of Aristeas, as well
as in the Hellenistic literature, eÈs°beia, nÒmoi and dikaiosÊnh are
closely linked values. In 2 Maccabees in particular, the virtue of
eÈs°beia seems to find its expression in the figure of Onias III, who
appears as the one who grants, with his pietas, peace and harmony
to the citizens (3,1 ff ).10 This seems to agree also with the ideal of
theocracy as expressed by Josephus in Against Apion.
In the virtue of eÈs°beia, therefore, different sources such as Second
Maccabees, Against Apion and Letter of Aristeas seem to find common ground. However, as it has already been pointed out, it is
remarkable that Josephus, in the part of Jewish Antiquities where he
talks about the history of the high priests, seems to ignore Onias III;
Josephus provides scarce information about him, omitting any reference to eÈs°beia and dikaiosÊnh which elsewhere he regards as
indispensable virtues. Most probably, Josephus was unaware of the
9
See chapter 5.3.
See Arenhoevel, Die Theokratie, 165, which describes the fulfilment of the ideal
of theocracy with these words, referring to 2 Macc 3,1–3: “An der Spitze der jüdischen Gemeinde steht ein heiliger Hoherpriester”. Die Gesetze werden genau eingenhalten; die heilige Stadt liegt im tiefsten Frieden; der Tempel wird geehrt . . .”
10
312
conclusion
traditions regarding Onias in 2 Maccabees,11 although Onias III can
be considered a paradigmatic figure in the context of this study, of
which the most difficult point has been precisely the comparison of
sources; it has therefore been necessary constantly to take into consideration the presence of history, theology and ideology simultaneously.
In conclusion, the question of the political authority of the high
priest that had been the starting point of this investigation still remains
an open question, and along with it the issue of the political status
of the Jews, particularly under Seleucid rule.
We still consider Bickerman’s position to be very valuable and upto-date: already in 1938, he had claimed that the high priesthood
became an omnipotent office only when the Maccabees obtained it.
As quoted in the preface, fifty years later he insisted: “The High
Priest of Jerusalem was neither the head of the state, as were the
spirituals dynasts in Syria and Asia Minor, nor even the master of
the Sanctuary.”12
At the end of this research, we hope, in any case, to have provided
some answers, albeit partial, and we echo the words of Grabbe: “Writing history is an exercise in weighing probabilities . . . Someone else
may make a different judgement from the same data, but any reconstruction is only as good as the arguments given in support of it.”13
11
This is the prevailing opinion nowadays; see for instance B. Bar-Kochva, Judas
Maccabaeus. The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge 1989, 189; D. Schwartz,
‘Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous?
A Response to Gideon Fuks’, 149.
12
See The Jews in the Greek Age, 126. See Preface, note 2.
13
Did Moses Speak Attic?, 2001, 130.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Sources
The Books of the Maccabees
Kappler, W. ed., Maccabaeorum liber I, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate
Academia Literarum Gottingensis editum, 9/1; 2ª ed., Göttingen 1967.
Kappler, W. – Hanhart, R. ed. Maccabaeorum liber II, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Academia Literarum Gottingensis editum 9/2; 2ª ed., Göttingen
1976.
Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versione ad codicum fidem iussu Ioannis Pauli P.P. II cura
et studio Monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti
edita, Libri I–II Macchabaeorum, Romae 1995.
Josephus
Niese, B., ed., Flavii Josephi Opera, vols. I–VII, Berolini 1887–1895.
Reinach, Th., Josephus Flavius. Oeuvres complètes de Flavius Josèphus, I–VII. Publications
de la Societé des Études Juives, Paris 1930–1932.
Thackeray, J. – Marcus, R. – Feldman, L.H. eds., Josephus, vols. I–X. LCL, London
1926–1965.
Vitucci, G. ed., Flavio Giuseppe, La Guerra Giudaica, I–II. Scrittori greci e latini, Roma
1974, 1982.
II. Other Sources
Allegro, J.M., ed., Qumran Cave 4, I (4Q 158–4Q186), DJD 005, Oxford 1968.
Barthélemy, D. – Milik J.T., eds., Qumran Cave I, DJD 001, Oxford 1955.
Beentjes, P.C., ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew
Manuscripts and Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VT.S 068, Leiden
1997.
Bingen, G., ed., Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, I, Göttingen 1952.
Charlesworth, J.H., The Dead Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with English
Translations. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, Tübingen
1995.
Cowley, A.,ed. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923.
Cowey, J.M.S. – Maresch, K. ed., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Heracleopolis
(144/3–133/2 v. Chr.): Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und
Wien. Papyrologica Colonensia 029, Wiesbaden 2001.
Dittenberger, W. ed., Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae/Supplementum Syllogres Inscriptionum
Graecarum, Lipsiae 1903–1905.
Edgar, C.C., ed., Zenon Papyri, 5 voll., Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée
du Caire 79, Le Caire 1925–1940.
García Martínez, F. – Tigchelaar, J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I (1Q1–4Q273),
Leiden-New York-Köln 1997.
———, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, II (4Q 274–11Q31), Leiden-New YorkKöln 1998.
Goold, G.P., ed., Plato, V, The Republic, Cambridge-London 1957.
314
bibliography
Grenfell, B.P. – Hunt, A.S. – Smyly, J.G. et alii, The Tebtunis Papyri. University of
California. Greco-Roman Archeology 001–004, London 1902–1976.
Hanhart, R., ed., Iudith, in Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis 8/4, Göttingen 1979.
Hyeronimus, Commentarii in Danielem, PL 25, 491–584.
Jones, C.P. – Habicht, Ch., ‘A Hellenistic inscription from Arsinoe’, Phoenix 43
(1989), 317–346.
Kirsten, E. – Opelt, I., ‘Eine Urkunde der Gründung von Arsinoe in Kilikien’, ZPE
77 (1989), 55–66.
Landau, Y.H., ‘A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah’, IEJ 16 (1966), 54–70.
Liebesny, H., ‘Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration
von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phönikien (PER Inv. Nr. 24552 gr.)’,
Aegyptus 16 (1936), 257–288.
Paton, R.W. ed., Polybius, The Histories, III, LCL 138, Cambridge-London 1972.
Pelletier, A. ed., Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes.
Sources Chrétiennes 089, Paris 1962.
Porten, B. – Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I–IV,
Jerusalem 1986–1999.
Peters, N. ed., Liber Iesu filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus hebraice: secundum codices nuper repertos vocalibus adornatos addita versione latina cum glossario hebraico, Friburgi 1905.
Tcherikover, V. – Fuks, A. eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Cambridge 1957–1964.
Vattioni, F. ed., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versione greca, latina e
siriaca. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Testi 001, Napoli 1968.
Walton, F.R., Diodorus of Sicily, LCL XI, Cambridge-London 1957.
Welles, C.B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: a Study in Greek Epigraphy,
London 1934, Chicago 19742.
Yadin, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965.
———, The Temple Scroll, I–III (IV), Jerusalem 1977–1983.
———, ed. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada with Notes on the Reading by E. Qimron and
Bibliography by F. García Martínez, in Masada VI, the Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–65
Final Reports, Jerusalem 1999.
Ziegler, J. ed., Sapientia Jesu Filii Sirach, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate
Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis, 12/2, Göttingen 1965, 19802.
———, Susanna. Daniel. Bel et Draco, in Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate
Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 16/2, Göttingen 1999.
Dictionary, Lexica and Composite Works
Hatch, E. – Redpath, M.A., eds., A Concordance to the Septuagint to other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books), Oxford 1897, I–II (repr. 1954,
1975,1998).
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923.
Jenni, E., – Westermann, C., eds, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament,
I–II, München 1971–76. TE: Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, I–III,
Peabody, Massachusetts 1997.
Kittel, G. – Friedrich, G., eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, III,
Stuttgart 1938. TE: Kittel, G. – Friedrich, G., Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1981–1982.
Köhler, L. – Baumgartner, W. eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
ed. rev., W. Baumgartner – J.J. Stamm, I–V, Leiden-New York-Köln 1995,
1996, 1999.
Liddell, H.G. – Scott, R. eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, I–II, ed. rev. Oxford 1985.
Pirot, L. – Robert, A. – Briend, J. – Cothénet, É. eds., Dictionnaire de la Bible,
Supplément 12, Paris 1996.
bibliography
315
Rengstorf, K.H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, I–IV, Leiden 1973–1983.
Schiffman, L.H. – VanderKam, J.C. eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, Oxford
2000.
Sievers, J, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and
Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14, SubBi 20, Roma 2001.
Stern, M. ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism; I–III. Publications of the
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem 1974–1984.
Studies
Abel, F.M., ‘La Syrie et la Palestine au temps de Ptolomée I Soter’, RB 44 (1935),
559–581.
———, Les Livres des Maccabées, Paris, EtB, 1949.
———, Histoire de la Palestine, I: de la conquête d’Alexandre jusqu’à la guerre juive. EtB,
Paris 1952.
Abel, F.M., Starcky, J., ed., Les Livres des Maccabées. La Sainte Bible traduite en français,
Paris 1961.
Aitken, J.K., ‘The Semantics of ‘Glory’ in Ben Sira—Traces of a Development in
Post-Biblical Hebrew?’, in T. Muraoka – J.F. Ewolde eds., Sirach, Scrolls, and
Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University 15–17
December 1997. STDJ 33, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, 1–21.
Albright, W.F., ‘The Seal Impression from Jericho and the Treasures of the Second
Temple’, BASOR 148 (1957), 28–30.
Alon, G., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in The Times
of the Second Temple and Talmud. Translated by L. Abrahams, Jerusalem 1977.
Alonso Schökel, L., Proverbios y Eclesiástico. Los Libros Sagrados 11, Madrid 1968.
Amir, Y., ‘Yeokrat¤a as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation
of Moses’ Politeia’, SCI 8/9 (1985/88), 83–105.
———, ‘Josephus on the Mosaic ‘Constitution’’, in H. Graf Reventlow – Y. Hoffman –
B. Uffenheimer eds., Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature.
JSOT.S 271, Sheffield 1994, 13–27.
Andrew, A., The Rosetta Stone, London 1987.
Arenhoevel, D., Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch. Walberberger Studien
Theologische Reihe 3, Mainz 1967.
Avigad, N., ‘A New Class of Yehud Stamps’, IEJ 7 (1957), 146–153.
Bagnall, R., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. CSCT 4, Leiden 1976.
Bailey, J.W., ‘The Usage in the Post Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of
the Priest and High Priest’, JBL 70 (1951), 217–225.
Bammel, E., ‘Sadduzäer und Sadokiden’, EThL 55 (1979), 107–115.
Barag, P., ‘Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest’, BA 48 (1985),
166–168.
Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army. Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. CCS,
Cambridge-New York 1976.
———, Judas Maccabeus: the Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge 1989.
———, Pseudo-Hecateus, “On the Jews”: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, HCS 21, Berkeley
1996
Bartlett, J.R., ‘Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem’, JThS 19 (1968), 1–18.
———, ‘The Use of the Word varø as a Title in the Old Testament’, VT 19 (1969),
1–10.
———, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. CNEB, Cambridge 1973.
———, 1 Maccabees. Guides to Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha, Sheffield 1998.
Beentjes, P.C. ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First
International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW 255, Berlin 1997.
316
bibliography
———, ‘The Concept of ‘Brother’ in the Book of Ben Sira. A Semantical and
Exegetical Investigation’, in N. Calduch Benages – J. Vermeylen eds., Treasures
of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Fs. M. Gilbert, BEThL 143,
Leuven 1999, 75–89.
Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der Hellenistischen Zeit: ein Betrag zum antiken Staatrecht,
I–III. Münchener Beiträge zur papyrusforschung und die antiken Rechsgeschichte 26,
München 1937–52.
Berthelot, K., Philantrôpia Judaica: le débat autour de la “misantropie” des lois juives dans
l’Antiquité. JSJ.S 76, Leiden 2003.
Bertrand, J.M., ‘Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah’, ZPE 46 (1982), 167–174.
Bevan, E., Jerusalem under the High-Priests. Five Lectures on the Period between Nehemiah
and the New Testament, London 1904 (repr. 1948).
Bi(c)kerman(n), E., ‘Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas’, ZNW 29 (1930), 280–298;
Reprinted in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, I, Leiden 1976, 108–136.
———, ‘Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.’, ZNW 32 (1933), 233–254.
Reprinted in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, I, Leiden 1976.
———, Der Gott der Makkabäer. Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der makkabäischen
Erhebung, Berlin 1937; TE: The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the Meaning and
Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, SJLA, Leiden 1979.
———, Institutions des Séleucides. Service des Antiquité. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique
26, Paris 1938.
———, ‘La Coéle-Syrie. Notes de Géographie Historique’, RB 54 (1947), 236–268.
———, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, New York 1949, 19682.
———, ‘Notes sur la chancellerie des Lagides’, Revue International des Droits de l’Antiquité,
II, (1953), 251–267.
———, Four Strange Books of the Bible, New York 1967.
———, ‘Une question d’authenticité: Les privilèges juives’, Annuaire de l’Institut de
Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves, Mélanges I. Lévy, 13 (1955), 12–34;
Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, 24–43.
———, ‘La Charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, REJ 100 (1935), 4–35. Reprinted in
idem: Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, 44–85.
———, ‘Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusalem’, Syria 25
(1946–48), 67–85. Reprinted in idem., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II,
Leiden 1980, 86–103.
———, ‘Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Epiphane’, RHR 115
(1937), 188–223. Reprinted in idem: Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II,
Leiden 1980, 105–135.
———, ‘Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem’, Studies in Jewish and Christian History,
II, Leiden 1980, 159–191.
———, The Jews in the Greek Age, Cambridge-London 1988.
Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem & Rome. His Life, His Work and Their
Importance. JSPE.S2, Sheffield 1988.
Bloch, H., Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archälogie, Leipzig 1879 (Repr.
1968).
Boccaccini, G., Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: the Parting of the Ways between Qumran and
Enochic Judaism, Michigan/Cambridge 1998.
———, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: an Intellectual History, from Ezechiel to Daniel, Grand
Rapids, 2002.
Boffo, L., I re ellenistici e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di
Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 037, Firenze 1985.
———, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia. Biblioteca di storia e storiografia
dei tempi biblici 009, Brescia 1994.
Bouché, C., – Leclercq, A. Histoire des Lagides I–IV (323–181 AC), Paris 1903–1907.
———, Histoire des Séleucides, I–II (323–64 a.C.), Paris 1913.
bibliography
317
Bringmann, K., Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa. Eine Untersuchung zur
jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175–163 v. Chr.). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaft in Göttingen, Philologische-historische klasse, Dritte Folge 132, Göttingen 1983.
De Bruyne, D., ‘Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées’, RB 31
(1922), 31–54.
Büchler, A., ‘La relation de Josèphe concernant Alexandre le Grand’, REJ 36 (1898),
1–26.
———, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden in II. Makkabäerbuche und in der verwandten jüdischhellenistischen Litteratur: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Juden von 220–160 und zur
jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur, Wien 1899 (Repr. Hildesheim 1975).
Bunge, G.J., ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und
des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer’, JSJ 6 (1975), 1–46.
Burgmann, H, ‘Das umstrittene intersacerdotium in Jerusalem 159–152 v. Chr.’,
JSJ 11/2 (1980), 135–176.
Calduch-Benages, N. – Vermeylen, J., eds., Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira
and the Book of Wisdom, Fs M. Gilbert, BEThL 143, Leuven 1999.
Casey, P.M., ‘Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel’, JThS 27 (1976),
15–33.
Castelli, S., ‘Flavio Giuseppe interprete della Bibbia. Tendenze esegetiche nel terzo
libro delle Antichità Giudaiche’, Materia Giudaica VII/2, 299–312.
Celada, B., ‘El velo del templo’, Cultura Biblica 15 (1958), 109–112.
Cerfaux, L. – Tondriau, J., Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine: un
concurrent di Christianisme. Bibliothèque de Theologie 003, Tournai 1957.
Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35, Rome 1969.
Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian.
CSCT 8, Leiden 1979.
———, ‘Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus’,
AJSR 7/8 (1982–83), 41–68.
Collins, J.J., Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees with an Excursus on the Apocalyptic
Genre. Old Testament Message 15, Wilmington 1981.
———, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. BRS, New
York 1983, 20002.
———, ‘Daniel and His Social World’, Interpretation 39 (1985), 131–143.
———, Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia, Minneapolis 1993.
Crenshaw, J.L., ‘The Book of Sirach’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. A Commentary in
twelve volumes, V, Nashville 1997, 603–867.
Cross, F.M., ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 4–18.
Cuq, E., ‘La condition juridique de la Coelé-Syrie au temps de Ptolomée V Épiphane’,
Syria 8 (1927), 143–162.
Dancy, J.C., A Commentary on I Maccabees. BTT, Oxford 1954.
———, The shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Tobit, Judith, Rest of Ester, Baruch, Letter of
Jeremiah, additions to Daniel and prayer of Manasseh. CNEB, Cambridge 1972.
Davies, P.R., Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. BJSt 94,
Atlanta 1987.
———, Zadok, Sons of, in L.H. Schiffman – J.C. VanderKam eds., Encyclopedia of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, I, Oxford 2000, coll. 1005–1007.
Davies, W.H. – Finkelstein, L. ed., The Hellenistic Age, CHJ, II, Cambridge 1989.
Le Déaut, R. ‘Aspects de l’intercession dans le Judaisme ancien’, JSJ 1 (1970), 35–57.
Delcor, M., ‘Le Temple d’Onias en Egypte: Réexamen d’un vieux problème’, RB
75 (1968), 188–202.
Derenbourg, J., Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et
les autres sources rabbiniques, Paris 1867 (Repr. 1975).
von Destinon, J., Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I: Die Quellen der Archäologie Buch
XII–XIV, Kiel 1882.
318
bibliography
Doran, R., Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS,
Washington 1981.
——— ed., The First Book of Maccabees, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. A Commentary in
twelve Volumes, IV, Nashville 1996, 3–178.
———, The Second Book of Maccabees, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. A Commentary
in twelve Volumes, IV, Nashville 1996, 181–299.
Enslin, S. – Zeitlin, S., The Book of Judith. Greek Text with an English Translation,
Commentary and Critical Notes with a General Introduction and Appendices. Jewish Apocryphal
Literature, Leiden 1972.
Ettelson, H.W., ‘The Integrity of 1 Maccabees’, TCAAS 27 (1925), 249–384.
Fang Che-yong, M., Quaestiones Theologicae Selectae Libri Sira ex comparatione textus Graeci
et Hebraici ortae, Roma 1963.
———, ‘Usus nomini divini in Sirach’, VD 42 (1964), 153–168.
Feldman, L.H., ‘Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect’, JBL 96/3 (1977),
371–382.
———, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1984), Berlin 1984.
———, Josephus: a Supplementary Bibliography. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities
645, New York 1986.
———, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 027, BerkeleyLos Angeles-London 1998.
———, Josephus’s Portrayal of the Hasmoneans compared with 1 Maccabees, in F. Parente –
J. Sievers eds., Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory
of M. Smith, StPB 41, Leiden-New York-Köln 1994.
Fischer, Th., Seleukiden und Makkabäer. Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschicte und zu politischen
Ereignissen in Judäa während der I. Hälfte des 2. Jahrunderts v. Chr., Bochum 1980.
Fischer, Th., ‘Zur Seleukidenschrift von Hefzibah’, ZPE 33 (1979), 131–138.
Fletcher-Louis, C.H.T., ‘The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible:
Dan 7:13 as a Test Case’, SBL.SPS, Atlanta 1997, 161–193.
Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, I–III, Oxford 1972.
Fuks, G., ‘Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note’, JJS 52 (2001), 354–356.
Garbini, G., Storia e Ideologia nell’Israele antico, Brescia 1986. TE: History and Ideology
in Ancient Israel, London 1988.
———, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, Studi Biblici 129, Brescia 2001.
García Martínez, F., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I–II, Leiden 1997–1998.
Gera, D., Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE. BSJS 8, Leiden-New YorkKöln 1998.
Geiger, A., Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, Frankfurt am Main 1857; 19282.
Gilbert, M., ‘L’Ecclésiastique: Quel Texte? Quelle Autorité?’, RB 94/2 (1987),
233–250.
———, Siracide, DBS 12, 1996, coll. 1390–1396.
Godley, A.D., Herodotus with an English Translation, Books I–II, LCL, CambridgeLondon 1981.
Goldingay, J.E., Daniel. WBC 30, Dallas 1989.
Goldstein, J., ‘The Tales of the Tobiads’, in J. Neusner ed., Christianity, Judaism and
Other Greco-Roman Cults, III, Fs. M. Smith, Leiden 1975, 85–123.
———, I Maccabees. AB 41, New York 1976.
———, II Maccabees. AB 41A, New York 1984.
Goodblatt, D., The Monarchic Principle. Studies in Jewish Self-Governement in Antiquity.
TSAJ 38, Tübingen 1994.
Goodenough, E.R., ‘The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship’, Yale Classical
Studies 1 (1928), 55–102.
Goshen-Gottstein, A., ‘Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading’,
in R. Egger-Wenzel ed., Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira
Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001, BZAW 321, Berlin-New York 2002.
bibliography
319
Grabbe, L.L., Judaism fron Cyrus to Hadrian, I: The Persian and Greek Periods, Minneapolis
1992.
———, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, Valley Forge 1995.
———, Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period,
JSOT.S 317, Sheffield 2001.
———, ‘The Hellenistic City of Jerusalem’, in J.R. Bartlett ed., Jews in the Hellenistic
and Roman Cities, New York 2002, 6–21.
Grimm. C.L.W. ed., Das erste Buch der Makkabäer, Leipzig 1853.
Habicht, Ch., 2. Makkabäerbuch, JSHRZ 13, Gütersloh 1976.
———, ‘Royal Documents in Maccabees II’, HSCP 80 (1976), 1–18.
Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), New York 1951.
Hartman, L.F. – Di Lella A.A., The Book of Daniel, AB 23, New York 1978.
Hayes, J.H. – Mandell, S.R., The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity, Louisville 1998.
Hayward, C.T.R., ‘Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira’s
Attitude to the Temple Service’, in S.W. Sike ed., Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham
Essays in Theology, Cambridge 1991, 22–34.
———, The Jewish Temple. A Non-Biblical Sourcebook, London, New York 1996.
——— ‘Behind the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Sons of Zadoq, the Priests and Their
Priestly Ideology’, Toronto Journal of Theology 13/1 (1997), 7–21.
Hauer, Ch.E., ‘Who was Zadok?’, JBL 82 (1963), 89–94.
Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
Palästina bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., Tübingen 1969; TE: Judaism and Hellenism:
Studies in their Encounter during the Early Hellenistic Period, I–II, Philadelphia 1974.
———, Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes
I bis 70 n. Chr., Leiden 1976; TE: The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom
Movement in the Period from Herod until 70 A.D., Edinburgh 1989.
———, ‘The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine in the
Pre-Maccabean Period’, in W.D. Davies – L. Finkelstein eds., CHJ, II, Cambridge
1989, 212–228.
van Henten, J.W., The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, A Study of
2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJ.S 57, Leiden 1997.
———, ‘The Honorary Decree for Simon the Maccabee (1 Macc 14:25–49) in its
Hellenistic Context’, in J.J. Collins – G.E. Sterling eds., Hellenism in the Land
of Israel. CJAn 013, Notre Dame 2001, 116–145.
van Henten, J.W. – De Jonge, H.J. – van Rooden, P.T. – Wesselius, J.W. eds.,
Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. StPB 036,
Leiden 1986.
Hyldahl, N., ‘The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of ‘Hellenization’’, in
Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. – J. Zahle, eds., Religion and
Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 001, Aarhus
1990, 188–203.
Hölscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege,
Leipzig 1904.
———, Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie, SHAW 30,3,
Heidelberg 1940.
Honigman, S., ‘The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis’, SCI 21 (2002), 251–266.
Huss, W., Der makedonische König und die Ägyptischen Priester. Studien zur Geschichte des
Ptolemaiischen Ägypten, Stuttgart 1994.
Jaeger, W., ‘Greeks and Jews. The First Greek Records of Jewish Religion and
Civilization’, JR 18 (1938), 127–143.
Jeremias, J., Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: Kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur neutestamentliche
Zeitgeschichte, I–II, Leipzig 1923–29. TE: Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. An Investigation
into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, London 1969.
Jones, A.H.M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford 1966.
320
bibliography
———, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 1937, 1971.
Jones, C.P., ‘Toward a Chronology of Josephus’, SCI 21 (2002), 113–121.
Jossa, G., ‘La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica. Il secondo libro dei Maccabei e la
Guerra Giudaica di Flavio Giuseppe’, in La storiografia nella Bibbia, Atti della
XXVIII Settimana Biblica, 1986, 93–102.
———, Flavio Giuseppe, Autobiografia, Napoli 1992.
Kampen, J., The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees,
Atlanta 1988 .
Kenneth, R.H., ‘The Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood’, JThS 6 (1905), 161–186.
Kieweler, H.V., Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit
Th. Middendorp. BEAT 030, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Wien
1992.
Knibb, M., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead
Sea Fragments, I–II, Oxford 1978.
van der Kooij, A., ‘A Case of Reinterpretation in the Old Grek of Daniel 11’, in
J.W. van Henten – H.J. De Jonge – P.T. van Rooden – J.W. Wesselius eds.,
Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, Leiden 1986,
72–80.
Lacocque, A., The Book of Daniel, Atlanta 1979.
Lapp, P.W., ‘Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from Judah’, BASOR 172 (1963), 22–35.
Latronne, J.A., Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, I, Paris 1974.
Laqueur, R., Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer
quellenkritischer Grundlage, Giessen 1920.
Lee, R.T., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50, SBL.DS 075, Atlanta 1986.
Lévi, I., ‘La date de la rédaction du IIe livre des Maccabés’, REJ 43 (1901), 222–230.
———, ‘Les deux livres des Maccabées e le livre hébraïque des Hasmonéens’,
Semitica 5 (1955), 15–36.
Liver, J., ‘The “Sons of Zadoq the Priest” in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, RdQ 6 (1967),
18–28.
Mack, B.L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, Chicago
1985.
Maier, J., Zwischen den Testamenten Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels.
NEchter Egb-AT 003, München 1990.
Mclaren, J.S., Turbulent Times?: Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century
C.E. JSPE.S, Sheffield 1998.
Marböck, J., ‘Der Hohepriester Simon in Sir 50. Ein Betrag zur Beduetung von
Priestertum und Kult im Sirachbuch’, in N. Calduch-Benages – J. Vermeylen
eds., Treasures of Wisdom, Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Fs. M. Gilbert,
BEThL 143, Leuven 1999, 215–229.
Marrou, H.I., Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris 1948, 1981.
Martola, N., Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Maccabees.
AcÅbo 063.1, Åbo 1984.
Martone, C., ‘Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada’, in P.C. Beentjes,
The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira
Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW 255, Berlin-New York 1997, 81–94.
Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. A Composition Critical Study. StPB 039,
Leiden-New York-Köln 1991.
——— ed., Judean Antiquities 1–4, in L.H. Feldman ed., Flavius Josephus, III, Leiden
2001.
Mazar, B., ‘The Tobiads’, IEJ 7 (1957), 137–145; 229–238.
Meek, T.J., ‘Aaronites and Zadokites’, AJSLL 45 (1929), 149–166.
Mendels, D., ‘Hecateus of Abdera and a Jewish »patrios politeia« of the Persian
Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3)’, ZAW 95 (1983), 96–110.
Meshorer, Y., Ancient Jewish Coinage I: Persian Period through Hasmonaeans, New York
1982.
bibliography
321
———, A Treasure of Jewish Coins: from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba, JerusalemNyack 2001.
Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, I–III, Stuttgart 1921–23.
———, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der ersten Ptolomäer auf Grund der Papyri. Archiv für
Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 002, Leipzig-Berlin 1925.
Middendorp, Th., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden
1973.
Migliario, E., ‘Per l’interpretazione dell’autobiografia di Giuseppe’, Athaeneum 59
(1981), 92–137.
Migliario, E. ed. Flavio Giuseppe, Autobiografia, Milano 1994.
Millar, F., ‘The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin
Hengel’s “Judaism and Hellenism” ’, JJS 29 (1978), 1–21.
Minissale, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico, AnBib 133, Roma 1995.
Mölleken, W., ‘Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus
Hoherpriester?)’, ZAW 65 (1953), 205–228.
Momigliano, A., Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica, Roma 1930.
———, ‘Per la data e la caratteristica della lettera di Aristea’, Quarto Contributo alla
Storia degli Studi classici e del Mondo Antico, Roma 1969, 212–223.
———, ‘I Tobiadi nella preistoria del moto maccabaico’, Quinto Contributo alla Storia
degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico, I, Roma 1975, 597–628.
———, ‘Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem’, Athaeneum 57 (1979),
442–448.
———, ‘The Date of the First Book of Maccabees’, Sesto Contributo alla Storia degli
Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico, II, Roma 1980, 561–566.
———, ‘The Second Book of Maccabees’, Sesto Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici
e del Mondo Antico, II, Roma 1980, 567–578.
Moore, C.A., Judith. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York 1985.
Moore, F.G., ‘Simeon the Righteous’, Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New
York 1927, 348–364.
Morgenstern, J., ‘A Chapter in the History of the High-Priesthood’, AJSLL 55 (1938),
1–24; 183–197; 360–377.
Mørkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria. Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes 008, København
1966.
Le Moyne, J., Les Sadducéens. EtB Paris 1972.
Motzo, R.B., ‘Una fonte antisamaritana di Giuseppe’, in F. Parente ed., Ricerche
sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica, Roma 1977, 179–206.
Mulder, O., ‘Two Approaches: Simon the High Priest and YHWH God of Israel/God
of All in Sirach 50’, in R. Egger-Wenzel ed., Ben Sira’s God, Proceedings of the
International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001, BZAW 321, BerlinNew York 2002.
———, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon
the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History
of Israel, JSJ.S 78, Leiden-Boston 2003.
Murphy-O’ Connor, J., ‘The Essenes and their History’, RB 81 (1974), 215–244.
———, ‘Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness (1 Macc x, 25–45)’, RB
83 (1976), 400–420.
Murray, O., ‘Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship’, JThS 18 (1967), 337–371.
———, ‘Hecateus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians’, JEA 59
(1973), 159–168.
Niese, B., Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher: nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen
Erhebubg, Berlin 1900.
Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Chapters 1–36;
81–108. Hermeneia, Minneapolis 2001.
322
bibliography
Nodet, É, La Bible de Josèphe I, Le Pentateuque. Josèphe et son temps 001, Paris 1996.
Nodet, E. ed., Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités Juives, I–III (Livres I–VII), Paris 1990,
1995, 2001.
O’Fearghail, F., ‘Sir 50,5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering?’, Bib 59
(1978), 301–316.
Olyan, S.M., ‘Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood’, HTR 80/3 (1987), 261–286.
Otto, W., Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Ägypten, Leipzig-Berlin 1905.
Otzen, B., Tobit and Judith, in M.A. Knibb ed., in Guides to the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha 011, London-New York 2002.
Parente, F., Il pensiero politico ebraico e cristiano, in Storia delle idee politiche, economiche e
sociali, II, Torino 1985.
———, ‘La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la Storia del Giudaismo Alessandrino
durante la prima metà del I sec. a.C.’, in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di
Pisa II, 1–2, (1972), 177–237; 517–567.
———, ‘Onias III’ Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis’, in
F. Parente – J. Sievers, eds., Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period.
Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, Leiden 1994, 69–98.
———, ‘Le Témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste sur le sort d’Onias III et la
Fondation du Temple de Léontopolis’, REJ 154/3–4 (1995), 429–436.
Passoni dell’Acqua, A., ‘Le Testimonianze papiracee relative alla “Siria e Fenicia”
in età tolemaica (I Papiri di Zenone e le ordinanze reali’, RivBib 34 (1986),
233–283.
Pelletier, A., Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée: une rèaction atticisante
contre la koinè, Études et Commentaires 045, Paris 1962.
Penna, A., ‘DiayÆkh e sunyÆkh nei libri dei Maccabei’, Bib 46 (1985), 148–160.
Petraglio, R., Il libro che contamina le mani. Ben Sirac rilegge il libro e la storia d’Israele,
Theologia 004, Palermo 1993.
Piejko, F., ‘Antiochus III and Ptolemy son of Thraseas: the inscription of Hefzibah
reconsidered’, L’Antiquité Classique LX (1991), 245–259.
Plöger, O., Das Buch Daniel. KAT 018, Gütersloh 1965.
Poorthuis., M. – Safrai, Ch. eds., The Centrality of Jerusalem, Historical Perspectives,
Kampen 1996.
Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine: the Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, BerkeleyLos Angeles 1968.
Potgieter, J.A., The High Priests in 1 Maccabees and in the Writings of Josephus, in C.E.
Cox ed., VII Congress for the International Organization for Septuaginte and
Cognate Studies Leuven 1989, Atlanta 1991, 393–429.
Prato, G.L., Ebrei ed ebraismo nell’ottica storiografica greca: l’esempio delle istituzioni, in
Associazione Laica di Cultura Biblica ed., Due grandi sapienze: Bibbia ed Ellenismo,
Atti del Seminario invernale 25–28 gennaio 2001, Settimello 2002, 47–70.
———, ‘La persecuzione religiosa nell’ermeneutica maccabaica: l’ellenismo come
paganesimo’, Ricstorbib 1 (1989), 99–122.
Préaux, C., L’économie royale des Lagides, Paris 1939.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M., ‘La sovranità sopra i paramenti del sommo sacerdote. Un
capitolo nei rapporti ebraico romani’, in A. Lewin ed., Gli Ebrei nell’Impero
Romano, Firenze 2001, 99–112.
Puech, É. ‘Jonathan le prêtre impie et les debuts de la communauté de Qumrân’,
RdQ 17 (1997), 241–270.
———, ‘Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?’, in
B. Kollmann – W. Reinbold – A. Stendel eds., Antikes Judentum and Frühes
Christentum, Fs. H. Stegeman. BZNW 097, Nerlin-New York 1997, 137–158.
Rainbow, P.A., ‘The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness’, JJS 48/1
(1997), 30–49.
Rappaport, U., ‘The First Judean Coinage’, JJS 32/1 (1981), 1–17.
bibliography
323
Reif, S.C., Judaism and Hebrew Prayer. New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History,
Cambridge 1993.
———, ‘The Discovery of the Cambridge Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira: Scholars
and Texts’, in P.C. Beentjes, ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings
of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW 255, BerlinNew York 1997, 1–22.
Reiterer, F.V. – Calduch-Benages, N. eds., Bibliographie zu Ben Sira, BZAW 266,
Berlin 1998.
Reiterer, F.V., ‘Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980–1996)’,
in P.C. Beentjes ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the
First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, BZAW 255, BerlinNew York 1997, 23–60.
Renaud, B., ‘La Loi et Les Lois dans les Livres des Maccabées’, RB 68 (1961),
39–67.
Rey Coquais, J.P., ‘Apport d’inscriptions inédites de Syrie et de Phénicie aux listes
de divinités où à la prosopographie de l’Égypte héllenistique ou romaine’, in
L. Criscuolo – G. Geraci eds., Egitto e Storia Antica dall’Ellenismo all’Età Araba.
Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Bologna, 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987, Bologna 1989, 614–617.
G. Ricciotti, G. Storia d’Israele, Torino 1997.
———, Flavio Giuseppe. Lo storico giudeo-romano. Studi Superiori, Torino 1949.
Robert, L., Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure Gréco-Romaine, Paris 1963.
Rooke, D., Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel,
OTM, Oxford 2000.
Rossier, F., L’intercession entre les hommes dans la Bible hébraïque. L’intercession entre les
hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 152,
Freibourg 1996.
Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, London
19532.
Rowley, H.H., ‘Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation’, Studia Orientalia Ioanni
Pedersen Septuagenario, 7 (1953), 303–315.
Rüger, H.P., Text und Texform in hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und
Texkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112, Berlin
1970.
Sacchi, P., Storia del mondo giudaico. Manuali Universitari 1, Torino 1976.
———, Storia del Secondo Tempio. Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C., Torino 1994.
TE: The History of the Second Temple Period, JSOT.S 285, Sheffield 2000.
Sachs, J. – Wiseman, D., ‘A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period’, Iraq
16 (1954), 202–212.
Safrai, S. – Stern, M. eds, The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical, Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. CRINT, II, Assen/
Amsterdam 1976.
Sanders, E.P., Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE, London-Philadelphia, 1992.
Sartre, M., ‘La Syrie Creuse n’existe pas’, in P.L. Gatier ed., Géographie Historique
au Proche-Orient, Notes et monographies tecniques 23, Paris 1988, 15–40.
Saûlnier, C., – Perrot, C., Histoire d’Israël de la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du
temple (331 AC–135 AD), III, Paris 1985.
Schaller, B., ‘Hekataios von Abdera über die Juden. Zur Frage der Echteit und der
Datierung’, ZNW 54 (1963), 15–31.
Schaumberger, J., ‘Die neue Seleukiden-Liste BM 35603 und die Makkabaïsche
Chronologie’, Bib 36 (1955), 423–435.
Schechter, S., Fragment of a Zadokite Work. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, edited from
Hebrew Mss in the Cairo Genezah Collection, I, Cambridge 1910, rist. New York
1970, 1–120.
324
bibliography
Schlatter, A., ‘Eupolemus als Chronolog und seine Beziehungen zu Josephus und
Manetho’, ThStKr 4 (1891), 633–703.
———, ‘Die Bene parisßim bei Daniel: 11,14’, ZAW 14 (1894), 145–151.
Schröder, B., Die „väterlichen Gesetze“: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an
Griechen und Römer. TSAJ 053, Tübingen 1996.
Schunck, K.D., Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, Halle 1954.
———, ‘Hoherpriester und Politiker? Die Stellung der Hohenpriester von Jaddua
bis Jonatan zur Jüdischen Gemeinde und zum Hellenistischen Staat’, VT 44,4
(1994), 498–512.
Schürer, E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christ, I–IV, 1901–1911; ET:
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesu Christ (175 bc–135 ad), ed. riv.
G. Vermes – F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973–1987.
Schwartz, D., ‘Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community’, SCI 7 (1983/84),
30–52.
———, ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, in M. Goodman ed.,
Jews in a Graeco Roman World, Oxford 1998, 47–61.
———, ‘The Others in I and 2 Maccabees’, in G.H. Stanton – G.G. Stroumsa
eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge 1998,
30–37.
———, ‘Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly
be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks’, JJS 53 (2002), 146–151.
Schwartz, S., ‘On the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries
B.C.E.’, JJS 45 (1994), 157–168.
———, ‘The Composition and Publication of Josephus’s Bellum Iudaicum Book 7*’,
HTR 79 (1986), 373–386.
———, Josephus and Judaean Politics. CSCT 18, Leiden-New York-Köln 1990.
———, ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean
Expansion’, JJS 42 (1991), 17–38.
Sellers, O.R. – Funk, R.W. – McKenzie, J.L. – Lapp, P. and N. eds., ‘The 1957
Excavation at Beth-Zur’, ASOR 38 (1968), 1–17.
Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters from Mattathias to John Hyrcanus I, SFSHJ
06, Atlanta 1990.
———, ‘Jerusalem, the Akra and Josephus’, in F. Parente – J. Sievers, ed., Josephus
and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period, Leiden 1994.
———, ‘Josephus, First Maccabees, Sparta, The Three Haireseis- and Cicero’, JSJ,
32, 3 (2001), 241–251.
Simonetti, M. ed., Flavio Giuseppe. Storia dei Giudei. Da Alessandro Magno a Nerone.
(«ANTICHITA’ GIUDAICHE», LIBRI XII–XX). I Meridiani. Classici dello Spirito,
Milano 2002.
Sisti, A., ‘Riflessi dell’epoca premaccabaica nell’Ecclesiastico’, RivBib 12 (1964),
215–256.
Ska, J.L., ‘L’Éloge des Pères dans le Siracide (Si 44–50) et le Canon de l’Ancien
Testament’, in N. Calduch Benages – J. Vermeylen eds., Treasures of Wisdom:
Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Fs. M. Gilbert, BEThL 143, Leuven
1999, 181–193.
Skeat, T.C., ‘The Reigns of the Ptolomies with Tables for Converting Egyptian
Dates to the Julian System’, Mizraim 6 (1937), 7–40.
Skehan, P.W. – Di Lella, A.A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes,
Introduction, Commentary, AB 39, New York 1987.
Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906.
Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, New York, 1971.
Snaith, J.G., Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, CBC, Cambridge 1974.
Stegemann, H., Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, Bonn 1971.
bibliography
325
Sterling, G.F., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography.
NT Suppl 064, Leiden-New York-Köln 1992.
Stewart, Z. Il culto del sovrano, in A.A. VV., La società ellenistica, Storia e civiltà dei Greci
8, 1977, 562–577.
Sukenik, E.L., ‘Paralipomena Palæstinensia. The Oldest Coins of Judæa’, JPOS 14
(1934), 178–184.
Täubler, E., ‘Jerusalem 201 to 199 bce on the History of a Messianic Movement’, JQR 37/1 (1946), 1–30; JQR 37/2 (1946), 125–137; JQR 37/3 (1947),
249–263.
Talshir, Z., 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, Atlanta 2001.
Tedesche, S.S., A Critical Edition of 1 Esdras. SBL.SCSt 050, Leipzig 1929.
T(s)cherikover, V., ‘Palestine under the Ptolomies. A Contribution to the Study of
the Zenon Papyri’, Mizraim 4–5 (1937), 9–90.
———, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, 19662, 19993.
———, ‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas’, HThR 51 (1958), 59–85.
———, ‘Was Jerusalem a “Polis”?’, IEJ 14 (1964), 61–78.
Thackeray, J., Josephus the Man and Historian, New York 1929.
Thoma, C., ‘The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus’, in L.H. Feldman –
H. Gohei eds., Josephus, the Bible and History, Detroit 1969, 196–215.
———, ‘Religiongeschichtliche und theologische Bedeutsamkeit der jüdischen
Hohenpriester von 175 bis 37 v. Chr.’, BL 45 (1972), 4–22.
Thompson, D.J., ‘The High Priests of Memphis under Ptolemaic Rule’, in Beard, M. –
North., J., Pagan Priests, Religion and Power in the Ancient World, Ithaca-New York
1990, 97–116.
Tramontano, R., La Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate: introduzione, testo, versione e commento,
Napoli 1931.
Troiani, L., Commento storico al «Contro Apione» di Giuseppe. Introduzione, commento storico,
traduzione e indici. Biblioteca degli studi classici e orientali 009, Pisa 1977.
———, ‘I Lettori delle Antichità Giudaiche di Giuseppe: Prospettive e Problemi’,
Athaeneum 64 (1986), 343–353.
———, ‘Un nuovo studio su Giuseppe’, Athaeneum 63 (1985), 184–195.
———, ‘Il Libro di Aristea ed il Giudaismo Ellenistico’, Studi Ellenistici II (1987),
31–61.
———, ‘The POLITEIA of Israel in the Graeco-Roman Age’, in F. Parente –
J. Sievers eds., Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period, Leiden 1994,
11–22.
———, Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, in P. Sacchi ed., Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento
V, Brescia 1997.
Ullmann, L. – Price, J.J., ‘Drama and History in Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum’, SCI
21 (2002), 97–111.
VanderKam, J., ‘Simon the Just. Simon I or Simon II?’, in D.P. Wright – D.N.,
Freedman – A. Hurvitz, eds., Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical,
Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature, Fs. J. Milgrom, Winona Lake
1995, 303–318.
———, An Introduction to Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, 2001.
———, From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis 2004.
De Vaux, R., Les Institutions de l’Ancient Testament, I–II, Paris 1958. TE: Ancient Israel,
I–II, New York 1965.
Vermes, G., ‘The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok—Priests—
Congregation’, in H. Cancik – H. Lichtenberger – P. Schäfer eds., Geschichte—
Tradition—Reflexion, Fs. M. Hengel, I ( Judentum), Tübingen 1996, 379–384.
Vincent, A., La Religion des Judéo-Araméens d’Élephantine, Paris 1937.
Vivian, A., Rotolo del Tempio. Testi del Vicino Oriente Antico 06, Brescia 1990.
326
bibliography
Wacholder, B.Z., Nicolaus of Damascus. University of California Publications in History 075,
Berkeley-Los Angeles 1962.
———, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Monographs of the Hebrew Union
College 003, Cincinnati 1970.
Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius I–III, Oxford 1957–1979.
———, The Hellenistic World. Rev. Ed., Cambridge 1993.
Walton, F.R., ‘The Messenger of God in Hecateus of Abdera’, HTR 148 (1955),
255–257.
Weinberg, J., The Citizen-Temple Community. JSOT.S 151, Sheffield 1992.
Wendland, P., Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum und
Christentum. HNT 001.2, Tübingen 1912, 1972.
Will, E. – Orrieux, C., Ioudaïsmos-Hellènismos: essai sur le judaisme judèen à l’époque héllenistique, Nancy 1986.
Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique. Annales de l’Est. Mèmoire 030.032, Nancy
1966–67.
Williams, D.S., ‘The Date of Ecclesiasticus’, VT 44 (1994), 563–565.
———, The Structure of 1 Maccabees, Washington 1999.
Willrich, M., Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung, Göttingen 1895.
Wise, M.O., ‘The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: two Approaches’, RdQ 56 (1990), 587–613.
Wright III, B.G., ‘“Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest” Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem
Priesthood’, in P.C. Beentjes ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings
of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996, BZAW 255, BerlinNew York 1997, 189–222.
Zambelli, M., ‘La composizione del secondo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova cronologia di Antioco IV Epifane’, Miscellanea greca e romana 16 (1965), 195–299.
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abel 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16,
17, 18, 21, 22, 73, 74, 82, 101,
102, 122, 156, 166, 177, 178, 179,
180, 186, 187, 205, 206, 207, 217,
220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 233, 236,
237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,
245, 246, 259, 288, 301
Abel – Starcky 234
Albright 95, 96
Amir 286
Arenhoevel 282, 311
Avigad 95, 96, 137
Bagnall 122, 123, 124, 125, 126,
161, 263
Bailey 61, 63, 68
Bar – Kochva 98, 312
Bartlett 5, 9, 14, 59, 60, 107, 108,
109, 110, 111, 114
Beentjes 50, 279, 280
Bengtson 125, 157, 207
Berthelot 222
Bertrand 161, 162
Bi(c)kerman ix, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23,
32, 46, 47, 65, 66, 74, 82, 83, 89,
91, 92, 94, 115, 118, 125, 130, 141,
157, 158, 159, 161, 166, 168, 169,
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177,
184, 185, 186, 193, 195, 205, 207,
208, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 229,
241, 242, 265, 275, 276, 277, 278,
287, 295, 296, 297, 300, 301, 312
Boccaccini 114
Boffo 65, 66, 69, 75, 157, 161, 163,
166
Bouché – Leclercq 66, 121, 122, 131,
156
Box – Oesterley 269
Bringmann 15
Büchler 35, 152, 251
Bunge 101, 102, 104, 231, 233, 234,
247
Burgmann 103
Casey 53
Castelli 285
Cerfaux – Tondriau 287
Charles 277, 281
Cody ix, 58, 108, 109, 282
Cohen 23, 24, 33, 36, 39
Collins 24, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54,
132, 134, 135, 192, 197, 198, 199,
275, 296, 300
Crenshaw 51
Cross 115
Dancy 9, 11, 12, 62, 137
Davies 110, 112, 114
Davies – Finkelstein 204
(Le) Déaut 278
De Bruyne 205
(von) Destinon 5, 79, 86
Doran 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 24, 187, 208
Ettelson 5, 6, 8, 9, 63
Fang Che – yong 201, 270, 271
Feldman 8, 9, 32, 34, 42, 285
Fletcher – Louis 273, 278
Fraser 47
Fuks 149, 151
Garbini 146, 148, 302
Geiger 13
Gera 3, 37, 38, 131, 154, 156, 157,
163, 164, 165
Gilbert 49, 51, 52
Goldingay 133, 198
Goldstein 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17,
18, 20, 23, 24, 37, 54, 75, 77, 78,
84, 85, 86, 88, 92, 93, 99, 106,
149, 153, 154, 164, 177, 178, 179,
180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187,
188, 190, 192, 195, 198, 203, 204,
205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 217,
218, 219, 221, 224, 226, 227, 229,
230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 239,
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247,
252, 256, 259, 275, 277, 278, 282,
287, 288, 292, 301, 304
Goodblatt 38, 46, 144, 145, 183,
184, 241, 257, 299
Goodenough 288
Grabbe 85, 263, 265, 312
Grimm 20
328
index of authors
Habicht 21, 164, 166, 176, 177, 179,
180, 181, 182, 183
Hadas 46, 294
Hartman – Di Lella 52, 53, 134
Hauer 109
Hayward 113, 201, 269, 270, 274,
279, 282
Hengel 22, 23, 38, 122, 124, 125,
127, 136, 140, 149, 154, 155, 157,
184, 198, 205, 207, 209, 217, 230,
233, 237, 239, 253, 259, 263, 265,
283, 287, 288, 291, 292, 294, 295,
296, 297, 299, 303, 308
Hölscher 41, 79, 88, 89, 90
Honigman 266, 267
Jaeger 140
Jeremias 71, 72, 82, 85, 89, 99, 118,
233, 273
Jones 27, 28, 159
Jones – Habicht 137, 138, 162, 163
Jossa 42
Joüon 8
Kampen 53, 234, 239, 240
Knibb 215
(van der) Kooj 135, 136
Lacocque 133
Lapp 94, 95
Laqueur 28
Latronne 72
Lee 82, 84, 200, 203
Lévêque 230
Lévi 20
Liver 108, 110, 111, 112
Mack 200, 279, 283
Maier 301, 302
Marböck 273
Marcus 32, 34, 46, 80, 82, 83, 91,
92, 99, 116, 129, 130, 131, 142,
148, 149, 154, 167, 168, 169, 170,
171, 174, 185, 189, 190, 219, 245,
256
Marti 53
Martola 6, 7, 9
Martone 49
Marrou 294
Mason 29, 30, 31, 147, 284, 285,
287, 289, 290, 291
Meek 108
Mendels 140
Meshorer 58, 98, 128, 129
Meyer 22, 122, 132, 177, 239
Middendorp 203
Migliario 31
Millar 97, 194, 195
Minissale 50, 113, 201, 203, 270,
282
Mölleken 231, 232, 233, 238, 239
Momigliano 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 35,
37, 47, 92, 149, 152, 153, 259,
304
Moore 62, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88
Moraldi 72
Morgenstern 58, 61
Motzo 38, 39, 115
(Le) Moyne 13, 82, 89, 113, 156,
281
Mulder 114, 199, 200, 201, 270,
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 283
Nelson 50
Nickelsburg 216
Niese 20
Nodet 32, 285
O’Connor 102, 103, 104
Oesterley 92
O’ Fearghail 269
Olmstead 96
Olyan 280
Otto 74, 206
Otzen 61, 62
Parente 32, 47, 67, 68, 96, 97, 137,
138, 142, 144, 145, 152, 211, 214,
215, 216
Passoni Dell’Acqua 76, 122, 124,
125, 126
Pelletier 33, 142, 143, 144, 145, 294
Penna 282
Petraglio 200, 201
Piejko 162
Plöger 239
Porten 61
Potgieter 99, 100
Prato 127, 140, 196, 205
Préaux 121, 124
Pucci Ben Zeev 273
Puech 105, 106, 213, 214
Rahamani 95
Rainbow 105, 214
Rajak 29
Rappaport 127, 128
Reif 49, 276
index of authors
Reiterer 50, 200
Renaud 288, 289, 291
Rengstorf 70
Rey – Coquais 163
Ricciotti 89, 300, 301
Rooke ix, 45, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64,
68, 76, 95, 98, 108, 109, 123, 127,
139, 140, 141, 216, 246, 247, 300,
302, 303
Rossier 278
Rostovtzeff 121, 123, 124, 125, 131,
158
Rowley 109, 186, 205
Rüger 50
Sacchi 99, 114, 196, 243, 302, 304
Sanders 247, 273, 275
Saûlnier – Perrot 3, 11, 90, 118,
191, 206, 209, 219, 221, 225, 256,
297
Schaller 44
Schaumberger 15
Schlatter 86, 132, 133
Schökel 271
Schröder 290, 291
Schunck 13, 23, 78, 89, 252, 253,
256, 258, 259, 260
Schürer – Vermes – Millar ix, 3, 4,
8, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25,
26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41,
43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 71, 79,
86, 99, 178, 203, 247, 292, 300,
301
D.R. Schwartz 149, 150, 151, 152,
210, 262, 312
S. Schwartz 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 28,
187, 188, 254, 255, 261
Scolnic ix
Sievers 4, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29,
39, 92, 106, 107, 135, 176, 179,
180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 196, 197,
211, 216, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229,
230, 233, 234, 235, 237, 239, 240,
241, 243, 245, 246, 258, 300
Simonetti 92, 99, 129, 145
Sisti 52, 92
Skeat 51, 122
Skehan – Di Lella 49, 50, 51, 200,
269, 270, 281, 282
Smend 199, 201
Smith 3, 4, 42, 122, 136, 157, 165,
204, 218, 263, 308, 309
Spicq 269
Stegemann 70, 101, 103, 104, 106
329
Sterling 28, 29, 30, 34, 41, 139, 140
Stern 34, 41, 43, 44, 45, 68, 72, 96,
116, 127, 139, 157, 211, 212, 213,
215, 272, 273
Stewart 287
Sukenik 95, 127
Talshir 57
Tarn 156
Täubler 132
T(s)cherikover 14, 18, 22, 23, 34, 35,
36, 37, 46, 52, 54, 76, 82, 96, 113,
122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130,
132, 133, 134, 137, 139, 145, 149,
153, 154, 157, 165, 169, 170, 173,
174, 175, 179, 191, 192, 195, 198,
203, 205, 206, 208, 211, 217, 223,
224, 227, 228, 231, 233, 240, 241,
255, 257, 264, 266, 267, 293, 294,
295, 296, 297, 298, 300
Tedesche 57
Thackeray 25, 26, 28, 40, 42, 68, 89,
97, 146, 147, 167, 244, 285, 286
Thoma 42, 240, 298, 299
Tramontano 146
Troiani 13, 29, 32, 40, 46, 224, 286,
300
VanderKam ix, 46, 48, 72, 81, 83,
84, 89, 90, 93, 94, 98, 101, 116,
118, 129, 141, 146, 147, 206, 207,
210, 213, 216, 217, 225, 237, 238,
253, 254, 256, 262, 278,
(De) Vaux 57, 58, 59, 63, 69, 103
Vermes 111, 112
Vincent 61
Vitucci 167, 244
Vivian 73
Wacholder 34, 86
Walbank 34, 76, 122, 131, 158, 221
Walton 141, 211
Wellhausen 37
Will 156
Will – Orrieux 130, 172, 173, 191,
193, 221, 225, 272, 297, 298, 300
Williams 8, 9, 10, 51
Willrich 18, 86, 87, 89, 98, 116, 118,
211
Wise 103, 104
Wright III 280
Yadin
49, 50
Zambelli 15, 178
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Hebrew Bible
Exodus
1,15–21
6,25
28–29
30,11–16
Leviticus
4,3
4,5
4,16
5,14
6,15
6,32
21,10
22,4
Numbers
3,1–4
5,5 ff
24,17
25,1–8
25,1–15
25,10 ff
25,11
25,12
25,12–13
25,13
35,25
35,28
35,32
208 n.290
280, 280 n.60
143
264
63 n.43, 57 n.8, 216
n.329
216 n.329
216 n.329
174
216 n.329
216 n.329
60, 63 n.39
234
59
174
279 n.52
280
282
113
282 n.73
108, 281, 282
280, 280 n.61
282 n.73
63 n.39, 216 n.329
63 n.39
63 n.39
Deuteronomy
7,14–20 285
13,14
219, 219 n.346, 297
n.157
17,18–20 285 n.84
Joshua
5,13
22,13
24,33
1 Samuel
2,35
208 n.290
57 n.8
57 n.8
115
2 Samuel
8,17
23,4
109 n.186
279 n.52
1 Kings
1,25
4,2
57 n.8
57
2 Kings
6,17
11,9 ff
12,8
16,10 ff
22,12
22,14
25,18
208 n.290
57
57
57
58
58
58, 108
Isaiah
8,2
57
Jeremiah
52,4
108
Ezekiel
40,45–46 110
40,46
110
44,15
113
Haggai
1,1
1,12
1,14
2,24
63
63
63
63
Zechariah
3,1
3,8
6,11
63 n.39
63 n.39
63 n.39
Malachi
2,7
141 n.125
Psalms
89,30
89,35
89,38
279
279
279 n.52
n.39
n.39
n.39
n.39
index of ancient sources
Daniel
7–12
9,25
9,26
22, 22 n.100, 53, 54
214
54, 197,198 n.230, 199,
204 n.267, 214, 216
9,27
198, 199
10,1
135
11,1–12,3 135
11,14
132, 133, 135, 136, 164,
171 n.86
11,20
207 n.287
11,22
54, 198 n.229, 204
n.267, 214
11,29–30 193 n.203
11,30
194 n.209, 197, 198,
199, 300 n.172
11,31
195 n.211
11,32
197
11,33–35 53
11,36
227 n.398
11,39
195 n.211, 227
Ezra
7,1 ff
7,1–5
108
107
Nehemiah
3,1
63 n.39
3,20
63 n.39
11,10–11 107
12,26
12,7
13,28
1 Chronicles
5,27–34 ff
5,27–41
5,40
6,35
9,11
15,14
18,17
24,3
24,6
24,14
26,11
29,22
31,13
35,8
2 Chronicles
19,11
24,6
24,11
26,20
28,7
31,10
32,1–23
34,9
62
72 n.104
63 n.39
108
108
108
108
216 n.329
57 n.8
74 n.118
109 n.186
109
256
74 n.118
109
216 n.329
216 n.329
58, 59 n.24
58, 59 n.24
58, 59 n.24
58, 59 n.24
74 n.118
58 n.11, 59 n.24, 82,
111 n.195
208 n.290
63 n.39
Septuaginta
Judith
4,14
4,6
4,8
15,8
61,
61,
61,
61,
Sirach
45,24
45,24a
45,24b
45,24c
45,24cd
45,24d
45,26 ff
45,8
50,1
50,1b-4
50,1–21
50,1–24
50,2–4
50,3–4
75, 262, 282
281 n.66
281 n.66
281 n.66
282
281 n.66
283
279 n.55
63 n.39, 201, 279 n.55
81, 82, 133, 156 n.1
83, 201
52, 80, 257 n.35
307
255
251
251
251
251
n.1
n.1
n.1
n.1
50,8–12
50,11a
50,11b
50,11c
50,11d
50,12
50,12c
50,16–17
50,16–19
50,16d
50,17
50,17d
50,19a
50,19b
50,20c
50,20d
50,20–22
50,21b
50,22
50,23
50,23 a
270 n.7
274
274
274
274
201 n.251
201 n.251
141 n.125
271
271
271
272
272
272
274
274
141 n.125
271
202, 271
202
203 n.256
331
index of ancient sources
332
50,23 b
50,24
1 Maccabees
1–2
1,1–6,17
1,1–10
1,1–64
1,10
1,11
1,11–13
1,11–64
1,13
1,14
1,15
1,20
1,20–24
1,21
1,21–24
1,24
1,29
1,29–40
1,29–64
1,31–33
1,33
1,34
1,38
1,39
1,41
1,41–43
1,43
1,44–53
1,51
1,52–53
1,54–63
1,54
1,55–61
2,1–9,57
2,19
2,26
2,42
2,54
3,1–9,22
3–7
3,16
3,38
3,45
4,2
4,36–59
4,36–61
203 n.256
202
6, 197
10 n.32
4
7
186
77, 186, 218, 218
n.340, 225
308
5
5 n.10, 186, 189, 218,
295 n.145
221 n.358
186, 218, 218 n.340
189 n.185, 190
192 n.201
186, 190, 304 n.193
186
190 n.188
190
192 n.201
194 n.209
186
190
227, 228 n.405
227 n.398, 266 n.83
266 n.83
186, 186 n.167
192
195 n.211
192 n.201
186
300 n.172
192 n.201
186 n.168, 195 n.211
187
5
158 n.14
282 n.74
239, 240 n.477, 240
n.478
282 n.73
6, 7
9 n.31
7
229
227, 227 n.398, 228
n.405
228 n.405
7 n.17
12 n.43
4,42
5,62
6,1–6
6,8
6,18–14,15
6,23
6,50
6,59
6,62
7 ff
7,5
7,6
7,6–7
7,7
7,8
7,8 ff
7,8–19
7,9
7,12
7,12–13
7,13
7,14
7,16
7,20
7,20–22
7,21
7,22
7,25
7,32
7,33
7,35
7,40
8
8,1–32
8,2–16
8,9–10
8,10
9,1
9,3
107
13
16 n.68
177 n.116
10 n.32
227
243
234
234, 243
231 n.420
77 n.3, 230 n.413,
231 n.417, 231 n.419,
232, 241 n.485, 300
n.173
239 n.461, 239 n.462,
239 n.463
231 n.419, 238
239 n.461, 239 n.464
159 n.16, 244 n.502
231 n.419
243
77 ,77 n.3, 99 n.129,
100, 232, 233, 244
n.507, 282 n.72, 300
n.173
239
240 n.475
112 n.201, 238, 238
n.458, 239, 240 n.479
77 n.7, 100, 233, 234,
235
237 n.453, 238
243 n.497, 243 n.498,
244 n.507, 244 n.508,
246 n.521, 247 n.528
241
70 n.95, 77 n.3, 99
n.129
243 n.499, 244 n.509,
244 n.510, 300 n.173,
300 n.174, 300 n.175
231 n.419, 241 n.485,
242 n.494
245 n.512, 245 n.513
245 n.514, 304 n.194
245 n.515
235
10
10 n.36
14
12 n.48
12 n.47
246 n.523
99, 246 n.523
index of ancient sources
9,5
9–11
9,22
9,23–12,53
9,23–16,24
9,25
9,50–52
9,54
235
9 n.31
7
6
7
247
246 n.526
100, 99 n.124, 301,
301 n.178, 304
9,54–57
240 n.476, 245 n.517,
301 n.177
9,57
106, 246 n.524, 246
n.525
9,58
247 n.528
10
102
10,3–5
102
10,15–21
203
10,18–20
102
10,20
xii, 63 n.44, 77, 77
n.4, 159
10,21
3 n.1,107, 144 n.151
10,21–45
142 n.133
10,25–45
101, 102, 47 n.256
10,32
63 n.44, 101,102
10,34–35
104
10,38
63 n.44, 101,102
10,66
171 n.83
10,69
77 n.4, 63 n.44
11,27
70 n.95, 159 n.16
11,30
171 n.83, 172 n.90
11,57
70 n.95
12,3
63 n.44, 77 n.4
12,6
77 n.4, 92 n.84, 63
n.44
12,19–29
63 n.40
12,20
62, 63, 69, 92, 94, 93
n.89
12,20 ff
92 n.84
12,20–22
93 n.87
12,20–23
93
12,24–14,15 9 n.31
12,32
77 n.4
12,38
77 n.4
12,48
215
13–15
9 n.30
13–16
6
13,23
215
13,30
12 n.47
13,36
63 n.44, 77 n.5
13,42
63 n.44, 77 n.5
13,49–52
7 n.17
14–16
5, 5 n.10, 9 n.30
14,4–15
7, 9 n.30
14,6–16,24 7
333
14,15
9, 9 n.30
14,16–16,24 5, 10 n.32
14,17
63 n.44, 77 n.5
14,20
63, 70 n.90, 77 n.5,
92 n.84
14,23
63 n.44
14,24
9 n.30
14,27
63 n.44, 77 n.5
14,27–49
12 n.43
14,30
63 n.44, 77 n.4
14,35
63 n.44, 77 n.5
14,38
70 n.95
14,41
63 n.44, 77 n.5
14,41–54
13
14,47
70 n.96, 75
15,1
70 n.90
15,2
63
15,15
9 n.30
15,17
63 n.44, 77 n.5
15,21
63 n.44
15,24
63 n.44, 77 n.5
15,28
229 n.407
16,12
63 n.44, 77 n.5
16,23–24
7, 11, 12, 12 n.47
16,24
63 n.44, 70 n.95, 77
n.5
2 Maccabees
1,1–9
1,1–10a
1,9
1,10–2,18
1,10b–2,18
1,13–16
1,18
1,18–36
2,1–8
2,9–12
2,13–15
2,14
2,16–18
2,20
2,23
2,28–31
3
3–4
3–5
3,1–39
3,1
3,1 ff
3,1–3
3,1–4,6
3,3
91 n.80, 47 n.258
15 n.61, 16
15 n.62
91 n.80
15 n.61
16 n.68, 17 n.71
15 n.62
17 n.74
17 n.74
17 n.74
17 n.74
4
17 n.74
17 n.71
15
15
22 n.101, 275
23, 204 n.267, 257
n.35, 303
24
17
77, 78 n.11, 284, 286
311
311
284
255
334
3,4
3,4 ff
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,9
3,10
3,10–12
3,12
3,14
3,15–22
3,16
3,18
3,21
3,22
3,24
3,25
3,26
3,27
3,28
3,29
3,30
3,31
3,32
3,32–33
3,33
3,34
3,36
3,38
3,40–10,8
4,1b–2
4,2
4,4
4,5
4,5–6
4,6
4,7
4,7–11
4,9
4,10
4,10–11
4,11
index of ancient sources
74, 78 n.11, 204, 204
n.269, 205 n.270, 205
n.275, 214, 237, 255,
256, 264
263 n.71
164, 207, 255
207 n.284
207
78 n.11
78 n.11
264 n.75
275
276
207
78 n.11, 276, 284
277
78 n.11
276
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289
208 n.289, 277, 277
n.42, 278
78 n.11, 278, 278
n.43
284
78 n.11, 278, 278
n.48
278, 278 n.49
208 n.289
278, 278 n.50
17
255
256, 267, 287, 288,
294, 303
257 n.33
256, 257
288
215
70 n.95, 77, 78 n.9,
215, 216, 258, 258
n.39, 259
298 n.164
178 n.122, 187, 189,
217, 221, 221 n.358,
222, 225, 259, 265,
295
187, 196 n.217, 217
225 n.380
217 n.338, 295 n.145
4,12
4,12 ff
4,13
4,13 ff
4,14
4,15
4,16
4,18
4,18–19
4,19
4,19–20
4,21–22
4,22
4,23
4,23–26
4,23–35
4,23–50
4,24
4,25
4,27
4,27–28
4,28
4,28–29
4,29
4,30–34
4,30–38
4,31–34
4,32
4,33
4,34–35
4,39–42
4,41–42
4,43–50
4,43–57
4,43
4,44
4,50
5,1
5,5
5,5–10
5,7
5,9
5,11
5,11–12
5,11–14
5,11–16
5,11–23
5,15
5,22
5,23
237 n.450
237
78, 196 n.217
298 n.164
218
196 n.217
218
218
298
223 n.367
218 n.339
189
187, 296
77, 88 n.63, 205, 220
n.352, 226 n.390
259
220
187
70 n.95, 78 n.10, 220,
226 n.393, 304
70 n.95, 78, 299
n.166
220
226 n.393, 229
226, 229
259
70 n.95, 73, 74, 217
211
214
198
304
292
211
260
227
215, 220
229
229
184
188, 220
225 n.383
188 n.175, 225 n.383,
230
220
228
133 n.85
188
188
196 n.216
189
192 n.201
220, 299 n.166, 304
194 n.209, 260
188, 188 n.176
index of ancient sources
5,24
5,24–26
6
6,1
6,1–6
6–7
6,8–9
6,9
6,18–31
7
8,8
8,9
9,1–17
9,1–18
9,1–29
9,19
9,19–27
9,20b–21a
9,25
9,26
9,26–28
9,27
10,5
10,9–15,37
11,3
11,16
11,16–20
11,16–21
11,17
11,17–21
11,22–26
11,24
11,24–26
11,25
11,27
11,27–33
11,29
11,31
11,32
11,34
11,34–38
11,35–37
191
192 n.201, 194 n.209
195 n.211
188
16 n.68
192 n.201
194 n.209
188, 196
16 n.64
16 n.64
229
159 n.16
16 n.64
176
176
176, 177, 224 n.372
15 n.63, 16 n.70, 91
n.81, 176
177 n.116
176
176, 178 n.123, 184
n.158
178
176
192 n.201
17
70 n.95
179
184 n.159
178, 179, 181, 182
179 n.128
15 n.63, 91 n.81
15 n.63, 16 n.70, 91
n.81, 178, 180, 182,
196 n.217, 223 n.370
184
184 n.160
180, 184, 224 n.372
180, 223 n.370, 257
n.33
15 n.63, 91 n.81, 178,
180, 182, 182 n.147,
220, 260
183 n.152, 184 n.160
181, 184 n.160
183 n.153
181 n.138, 223 n.370
15 n.63, 91 n.81, 178,
181, 182
184 n.159
11,38
13,1
13,3–4
13,3–8
13,8
14,3
14,3–4
14,4
14,5
14,6
14,6–10
14,7
14,8
14,9
14,12
14,13
14,26
14,26–30
14,31
14,32
14,33
14,37–46
15,12
15,12–14
15,31
15,35
335
180
304 n.195
232 n.422
220, 299
220
77, 78 n.11, 235,
235 n.440, 236, 237,
241, 241 n.485, 300,
300 n.172, 300 n.173
231 n.417
241
242
238, 238 n.458, 239,
239 n.466, 241, 241
n.480
238
70 n.95, 78 n.11, 233,
234, 235, 235 n.440,
300
239 n.461
239 n.461
233 n.426, 242
78 n.11
73, 73 n.116, 242,
242 n.492, 242 n.493
245 n.511
245 n.514
304 n.194
245 n.515
16 n.64
278, 294, 292, 292
n.125
284, 292
246 n.518
246 n.519
1 Esdras
5,5
5,40
8,1–2
9,39
9,40
9,49
62 n.36
57, 57 n.7, 57 n.9
107
57, 57 n.7, 57 n.9
57, 57 n.7, 57 n.9
57 n.7, 57 n.9
2 Esdras
1,1–3
7,1–5
107
107
Wisdom
24,13–15
270 n.4
index of ancient sources
336
Other biblical texts
Sirach MsB (Beentjes)
44,1–50,24
200
45,15
279, 283
45,23
280
45,24
281, 282, 283
45,24a
280, 281
45,24ab
280
45,24b
280, 281
45,24c
281
45,24cd
280
45,24d
281
45,6–22
280
45,7
279
45,8
279
49,16
279 n.55
50,1
62, 103, 200, 200
n.244, 274, 279
50,1a
201 n.249
50,1b
201 n.250
50,1–4
279 n.53
50,1–24
48, 52, 199, 257
n.35
50,2–4
200, 307
50,3–4
255
50,5
200, 200 n.246,
269 n.1
50,5–11
279
50,5–24
269
50,6–10
200
50,11
274, 279
50,11–15
201
50,11–24
200
50,11a
273
50,11b
273
50,11ab
273, 274
50,11c
50,11cd
50,11d
50,12
50,12b
50,13
50,16
50,16–19
50,16d
50,17
50,17c
50,17–19b
50,17d
50,19
50,19a
50,19ab
50,19b
50,20
50,20b
50,20c
50,20cd
50,20d
50,20–21
50,20–22
50,21
50,22
50,23
50,24
50,24a
50,24b
51,12i
Vulg. 4 Ezra
1,1–3
274
273
274
201 n.251
203, 201 n.251
270
270, 271
271
271
270, 271
271
272
271, 272
271, 277
272
272
272
270, 274
269 n.1
274
274
274, 275
270
141 n.125
270
202, 271
202, 201 n.253
201, 202, 283
201 n.254
201 n.248, 203
n.255
112, 270, 283 n.79
107
Pseudepigrapha
1 Enoch
90,8
90,8
215
216
Jubilees
31,13–17
141 n.125
Letter of Aristeas
3
17–27
22
22–25
34–40
293
130 n.58
122 n.4
32 n.161, 142, 142
n.133
32 n.161, 142
35
35–40
37
41
41–46
43
46
82–171
95
96
96–98
96–99
142 n.138
48, 142 n.136
47 n.256
142 n.139, 146
32 n.161, 48, 142,
142 n.136
293, 293 n.130
293
33 n.166
277, 277 n.40
143 n.145, 144
n.146
143
144
index of ancient sources
99
121
122
123
128–171
128 ff
148
144 n.146
286, 293
293 n.131
294
144
303
48 n.261
187–292
187–300
207
223
256
272
337
33 n.166
293
293
294
294
293
Dead Sea Scrolls
1QM 2,1
1QM 15,4
1QM 16,13
1QM 18,5
1QM 19,11
1QpHab 2,8
1QS 5
1QS 5,1–3
1QS 7,10
1QSa 1,1–5
1QSb 3,22–25
4Q 274–11Q31
71, 71 n.100
72 n.101
72 n.101
72 n.101
72 n.101
101 n.136
111
110
110
110
110
73 n.109, 73 n.110
4Q 376
4Q 376, 1,1
4Q 448
4Q 523
4QpPs 37,2,19
4QpPs 37,3,15
4QSb(4Q256)
4QSd(4Q258)
11Q 19, 31,4
11QT 31,4
11QT 43
11QT 52
74
73, 73 n.110
105, 105 n.165
105, 105 n.165
101 n.136
101 n.136
111
111
73 n.109
73, 74
104
104
New Testament
Acts
4,6
71 n.98, 71 n.99
Josephus
Against Apion
1,1
1,7
1,20
1,22
1,27
1,29
1,36
1,49
1,50
1,60–68
1,69–218
1,179
1,183
1,183–184
1,183–204
1,186
1,187
1,188
1,189
1,191
31 n.151
86
40
87
40
40
89
25, 25 n.122
26
40
40
127
43, 43 n.227
46
44 n.231
96, 129
41, 44, 45 n.238,
68, 94, 96, 129
n.57
45 n.238
96, 97
45 n.238
1,193
1,209–212
1,219–2,278
2,1
2,39
2,43
2,84
2,165
2,170
2,185
2,193
2,196
Jewish Antiquities
1,2
1,5
1,8
1,9
1,10–11
1,11
2,311
2,318
3,151–178
45 n.238
129 n.56
40
31 n.151
167
45 n.238
34
286
286
286 n.89
286
31 n.151
147
29, 31, 69
31 n.151, 31 n.154
31 n.154
146, 146 n.164
31 n.154
181
181
144 n.147
338
3,159–178
3,184–187
3,248
4,152
4,196–302
4,200
4,201
4,223
4,223–224
4,224
5,318
6,122
6,242
10,150–152
10,151–153
11,11
11,108
11,247
11,297–12,236
11,304–12,434
11,304–305
11,313–347
11,326
11,338
11,347
11,347–12,434
12,3
12,4
12,5
12,6
12,6–7
12,7
12,8
12,9
12,16
12,38–144
12,39
12,40
12,42
12,43
12,43–44
12,44
12,45
12,45–50
12,45
12,51
12,51–56
index of ancient sources
273 n.18
273 n.18
181
147 n.168
284
285 n.82
284
285
285
285, 285 n.84
147 n.168
147 n.168
147 n.168
147 n.168
147 n.168
285 n.83
128
79 n.18
3
32
34
34
277, 277 n.39
36
70 n.92, 70 n.93,
84, 96, 115 n.220,
306 n.3
70, 79, 79 n.18
129
129
129
129
128
130 n.59
130
96
70 n.92, 142 n.134
131
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 79 n.18,
80 n.21, 142 n.134,
115 n.220, 256,
306 n.3
142 n.134, 147
70 n.93, 79 n.18
70 n.92, 142 n.134,
142 n.138
142 n.136
142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134,
142 n.139
142 n.136
12,57
12,85
12,86
12,89
12,100
12,117
12,119
12,120
12,125
12,128–144
12,133
12,135–137
12,136
12,138
12,138–139
12,138–144
12,138–153
12,139
12,139–142
12,140–144
12,141
12,142
12,144
12,145
12,145–146
12,147–153
12,148
12,148–153
12,150
12,154
12,154–236
12,157
12,157–158
12,158
12,158–159
12,159
12,160
12,160–236
12,161
12,162
12,163
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
142 n.134
70 n.92, 142 n.134
167, 167 n.59, 168,
168 n.65
168
168
169 n.72
226 n.389
34
24 n.117, 137
n.104
162, 226 n.389,
257 n.33
91
82, 91, 102, 131,
134, 160 n.21, 169,
310
166 n.57
83 n.36
170
89
80, 82, 83, 83 n.37
91 n.78, 171, 175,
267, 289 n.109
175
173
169 n.72, 173, 311
169 n.72, 170 n.44,
174
136
65 n.53
174, 174 n.103
148, 179 n.28
23, 34, 37, 148
n.172
70 n.92, 70 n.93,
79 n.18, 84, 115
n.220, 147 n.170,
147 n.171, 306 n.3
80 n.23
34, 147, 148, 253
253
151 n.187, 252
70 n.92, 126 n.34,
151, 255
85
70, 75, 97, 148,
281 n.67
153
70 n.93, 154
index of ancient sources
12,164
12,165
12,167
12,169
12,172
12,175–185
12,179
12,180
12,180–184
12,181
12,183
12,186
12,196
12,220
12,222
12,224
12,224a
12,224b
12,224–225
12,225
12,226–227
12,229
12,234
12,236
12,237
12,237–239
12,237–241
12,238
12,239
12,240
12,240–241
12,241
12,242
12,244
12,246
12,247
12,248–251
12,251–264
12,253
12,257–264
152, 154
152
38,152, 152 n.192,
281 n.67
227 n.395
154 n.201
227 n.395
153
151 n.187
154 n.202
151 n.187
151 n.187
150
151 n.187
151 n.187
253 n.10
70 n.93, 85, 79
n.18, 115 n.220,
150, 151, 306 n.3
151
151
151
79 n.18, 85, 115
n.220, 204 n.267,
306 n.3
93, 93 n.90
70 n.92
79 n.18, 189
150
70 n.93, 70 n.92,
85, 105, 106, 204
n.267, 214 n.319,
217
189 n.181, 214,
258 n.39
85
70 n.93, 75, 79
n.18, 220 n.353
70 n.92, 86, 189,
298 n.164
189 n.182, 189
n.183, 219 n.351,
224 n.372, 295
189
219, 221 n.358
189 n.184
75
189 n.185, 190
190
190
194 n.209
195 n.211, 300
n.172
196 n.217
12,258
12,258–264
12,258–267
12,259
12,264
12,274
12,285
12,383
12,383–387
12,384
12,384–385
12,385
12,386
12,387
12,387–388
12,391
12,393
12,396
12,397
12,397–399
12,398–399
12,405
12,406
12,413
12,414
12,419
12,434
13,4
13,12
13,22
13,23
13,46
13,48
13,62–63
13,63
339
34
210
184
185
185
129 n.56
79 n.18
70 n.92
219
79 n.19, 88 n.63
194
70 n.92, 70 n.94,
100, 231 n.417,
232 n.422
230 n.412
70 n.92, 70 n.93,
77 n.7, 85, 100,
105, 106, 112
n.201, 233
214
70 n.92, 100, 241
n.485, 300 n.173
70 n.92, 244 n.503,
244 n.505, 244
n.507
237 n.453
243, 243 n.497,
243 n.498, 244
n.507, 244 n.508,
246 n.521
243 n.499
244 n.509, 244
n.510
245 n.512, 245
n.513
245 n.514, 245
n.515
70 n.92, 70 n.94,
79 n.19, 100, 240
n.476, 245 n.517,
247 n.531, 301
n.177, 301 n.178
98
70 n.92, 98
79 n.19, 98
247 n.529
129 n.56
246 n.524, 246
n.525
247 n.528
99
101
210
79 n.19
340
13,64
13,68
13,73
13,75
13,167
13,212
13,214
13,215
13,223–225
13,225
13,227
13,289
13,319
13,383–388
14,117
14,225
14,402
16,27–30
16,163
16,174–178
18,11
18,319
18,354
20,10–14
20,144
20,224–251
20,226
20,226–227
20,234
20,235
20,236
20,237
20,238
20,244
20,251
20,258
20,259
20,267
20,267–68
Jewish War
1–6
1,3
index of ancient sources
112 n.201
112 n.201
79 n.19
112 n.201
93 n.90
79 n.19
9 n.30, 189
n.184
9 n.30
9 n.30
159 n.16
9 n.30
285 n.84
11 n.40
211, 214 n.319
222 n.364
93
35
168
271 n.12
29
25 n.118
129 n.56
129 n.56
273 n.18
88 n.65
79, 88, 89, 147
n.168, 262
285
285 n.85
285 n.83
79 n.19, 112
n.201, 220
n.353, 233, 234
79 n.19
79 n.19, 98, 99,
230, 247 n.531
262
262
262
25 n.118
28
26, 28
28
27 n.130
26, 26 n.125
1,29
1,31
1,31–32
1,31–33
1,31–2,116
1,33
1,34
1,35
1,36
1,50
2,243
2,301–428
2,429
4,148
4,644
5,228–237
6,282
7
7,43
7,110
7,158–162
7,219–251
7,409–436
7,420–436
7,421–425
7,423
7,423 ff
7,423–432
7,431
7,432
7,437–453
The Life
1
4
361
361–367
363–367
412
430
26
71 n.97, 85, 190
n.190, 215 n.323
190
27, 80 n.25,
211, 214, 214
n.319
88
28, 71 n.97, 85
n.49, 212, 212
n.309
195 n.211
244 n.503
244 n.503
9 n.30
71 n.97
71 n.97
96 n.110, 98
n.115
71 n.98, 71 n.99
27 n.132
144 n.146
264 n.75
26
167
167 n.59
27 n.132
28 n.136
28 n.136
80 n.25, 211,
214 n.319, 28
27
212
212 n.309
85 n.49
112 n.201
112 n.201
28 n.136
42 n.225
99
27 n.132
30 n.151
27 n.132
25 n.118
28, 31 n.151
Rabbinic Literature
Mishnah
Sanhedrin
2:4
Tamid
VI,3–VII,3
285 n.84
269 n.2
index of ancient sources
Gemara
Sanhedrin 2a,20b 285 n.84
Babylonian Talmud
Menahot 109 b
Talmud Yerushalmi
Yoma, V.3
341
214 n.319
214 n.319
Greek and Latin Authors
Appianus
Syr
45
214
Cicero
Pro Flacco
28
66
Diodorus Siculus
Library of History
XVIII,43,1
XXXIV/V,1
XXX,7,2
XXX,7,2
XL
XL, 3
XL,
XL,
XL,
XL,
XL,
XL,
XL,
3,1–3
3,1–8
3,2
3,3–8
3,4–6
3,4–8
3,5
XL, 3,11,31–35
Eusebius
Hist. Ecc.
6,25,2
Praep.Ev
13,12,2
Herodotus
Histories
2,37
2,142
2,143
2,151
Hyeronimus
(Migne PL)
22,VIII,393,615
25, 562
25,IX,24,545
28, 602–603
157 n.4
195 n.211
211 n.307
212 n.309
44
140 n.120, 157
n.9, 263 n.68
139 n.114
139 n.114
127
140
259 n.42
139 n.114
75, 138, 141
n.128, 262
67 n.74
7 n.22
47 n.254
56
56
56, 57
56
82 n.33
134 n.87
82 n.33
7
Nicholas of Damascus
13,249
34 n.173
13,347
34 n.173
14,9
34 n.173
14,68
34 n.173
14,104
34 n.173
Polybius
Histories
5,65,3
5,70,10
5,86,8
5,86,9
5,86,10
5,87,6
16,22
16,36
30,25,13
33,6,12
Strabo
12,285
12,319
12,347
14,35
14,68
14,104
14,111
14,138
15,9
160 n.24
123 n.12, 175
n.11
130
131
131
122 n.3
131 n.66
171 n.86
192
177 n.116
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
n.173
Inscriptions and Papyri
Arsinoe
(Kirsten, ZPE 77)
1–18
137
19–56
24–25
55–66
137
138
137 n.107
index of ancient sources
342
FGrH,
( Jacoby)
264
43 n.228
Hefzibah
(Landau, IEJ 16)
III,9
III, 10
IIIa, 15–16
IVa, 20
IVa, 20–26
IVa, 24
IVa, 24–26
V,28
Va, 22–23
160
160 n.23
161 n.26
160, 160 n.23
161 n.27
162 n.35, 161 n.29
161 n.30
160
161 n.28
Heracleopolis papyri
(Cowey-Maresch, 2001)
1,17–18
266
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
(Dittenberger)
93,3
66 n.61
105,5
66 n.61
140,5–6
66 n.61
143,1–2
66 n.61
145,1–2
66 n.61
148,2–3
66 n.61
151,2–3
66 n.61
152,1
66 n.61
153,1–2
66 n.61
155,5–6
66 n.61
157,1–2
66 n.61
159,2
66 n.61
160,2–3
66 n.61
161,2–3
66 n.61
162,2
66 n.61
230
65 n.69, 66 n.60,
66 n.65, 69 n.87,
157 n.5
531,2
74 n.120
Pap. Cair. Zen.
(Edgar)
5, 59036, 7
5, 59093, 12
5, 59802, 2
5, 59804, 3
124
124
126
123
n.17
n.14
n.31
n.13
PCowley
(Cowley, Aramaic Papyri )
AP 21: I–2, 11 60 n.28
AP 30: I,2, 22 61 n.29
AP 30: I
61 n.30
AP 30: I,18
61 n.31
AP 31: ?I,3? 21 61 n.29
AP 33: I
61 n.29
AP 37: I,17
60 n.28
AP 38, I,12
60 n.28
Rainer Papyrus
(Liebesny, Aegyptus 16)
left col.1–37
123 n.9
left col.33–34
122 n.3
right col.1–26 123 n.9
right col.14,19 122 n.3
Rosetta Stone
6
36
72
72
Tebtunis Papyri
(Hunt-Smyly)
781,2
74 n.122
Welles
(Royal Correspondence)
36
66 n.67
44,21–24
66 n.68
157,36,10–13
65 n.58
181,44,18–29
65 n.56
181,44,28–29
65 n.57