The Gymnasium at Babylon and Jerusalem

CHAPTER 16 The Gymnasium at Babylon and Jerusalem

Markham J. Geller and D.T. Potts

At a Berlin conference in 2008,1 one of the authors of the present paper dis- cussed the theatre and palaestra at Babylon, built during the Hellenistic and Parthian periods after Alexander the Great conquered the city (Potts 2011), underscoring Koldewey’s important remark that remains of the Esagil-temple from Nebuchadnezzar’s time were recycled in the construction of the Greek theatre.2 Following Koldewey, it was asserted that the ‘theatre at Babylon was built from recycled bricks taken from earlier construction(s) of the Neo- Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, most probably the Etemenanki itself’ (Potts 2011: 240). A palaestra was also constructed, along the lines of later Roman theatres, and although there is no archaeological evidence for an earlier Seleucid palaestra, its existence cannot be a priori ruled out.3 The relevant question to pose is why we have no similar archaeological data from Jerusalem, since according to 2 Maccabees [4: 7–14],

When Seleucus departed his life and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the kingdom, Onias’ brother Jason obtained the high priesthood by corruption. . . . he immediately brought his country- men over to the Greek way of living. . . . He willingly established a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he made the finest of the young men wear the Greek hat. And to such a pitch did the cultivation of Greek fash- ions and the coming-in of foreign customs rise, because of the excessive wickedness of this godless Jason, who was no high priest at all, that the

1 Babylon—Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident’, 26–28 June, 2008, in the Pergamon Museum, to inaugurate the Babylon exhibition. 2 Koldewey 1912: 300, ‘demnach stammt der Schutt von einem babylonischen Gebäude, ist in griechischer Zeit hier aufgeschichtet und enthält ein Dokument von Etemenanki.’ 3 Potts 2011: 244 points out that the surviving remains of the palaestra have parallels with Roman theatres (e.g. Jerash, Rome), although if it were built over an earlier structure, it is possible that nothing would remain of a Seleucid palaestra among the 42 million bricks thought to have been used by Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar II in rebuilding the Etemenanki.

priests were no longer earnest about the services of the altar, but disdaining the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful exercises in the wrestling school . . .

First Maccabees [I 14–15] adds another disturbing note to this scenario: ‘They built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, in the heathen fashion, and made themselves uncircumcised’. So not only did Jews build a gymnasium in Jerusalem, at the foot of the Citadel, which is a major architectural achievement, they also enthusiastically took part in Greek games, and even Temple priests showed lassitude towards their responsibilities and preferred the games. The final cultural capitulation was epispasm, submitting to an operation to restore the foreskin. Before we consider the ramifications of this information, it would be useful to examine the archaeological record from Babylon during this same period, particularly in regard to the construction of the theatre and palaestra. There are two major problems presented by the archaeological and literary data from Babylon and Jerusalem:

1) Why was there no real opposition to the construction of a Greek theatre and palaestra in such close proximity to the great Temple of Marduk of Babylon? The Etemenanki of Babylon, which was the very high and imposing temple Zigurrat in Babylon had probably been in ruins since the time of Xerxes (van der Spek 2006). Nevertheless, bricks from a temple would have remained sacred, even after the temple was in ruins (see below). 2) Why do we find no archaeological evidence of the palaestra in Jerusalem, or the theatre later mentioned by Josephus as built by Herod?

We do find the anticipated opposition to the supposed palaestra in the books of Maccabees, but we find no corresponding buildings. It would be useful to know why the archaeological and literary records fail to match up. Let us first look at the situation in Babylon, where the information is trans- parent. Temple bricks were routinely stamped with the name of the temple and which ruler was responsible for the building works, and Etemenanki bricks bore the name of Nebuchadnezzar II. What is easily forgotten is how strict orthodox rules in Mesopotamia governing temple building were, attested already in the cylinders of Gudea (see Edzard 1997), and we have no reason to believe that these rules were relaxed in later periods. Temples in Babylonia were sacred buildings which had to be built according to exact ritual specifications,