Uriel RAPPAPORT University of Haifa

DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? DATE AND PROBABILITY OF THE STORY OF II MACCABEES, 3

RÉSUMÉ

On trouve sur une stèle récemment découverte à Marissa un décret (prostagma) du roi Séleucus IV au sujet de la réorganisation de l’administration des Temples de Koilê Syria (Syrie) kai (et) Phoinikê (Phénicie). Ce décret nous fournit quelques nouvelles données concernant l’histoire de Héliodore, qui suivant le livre des II Maccabées, ch. 3, cherchait à voler les trésors du Temple de Jérusalem. À la suite de ces données fournies par le décret, nous voudrions proposer une nouvelle inter- prétation, à savoir que Héliodore ne fut pas mêlé à ce vol. Son personnage fut introduit dans l’histoire au lieu d’un autre fonctionnaire Séleucide moins connu et que l’histoire fut conçue et embellie dans les milieux qui soutenaient la famille oniade en Égypte.

SUMMARY

A recently published stele that was discovered in Marissa contains a decree (pros- tagma) of the king Seleucus IV concerning reorganization of the administration of the temples in Koilê Syria (Syria) kai (and) Phoinikê (Phoenicia). It brought up some new data and considerations to the issue of the Story of , who according to the book of Second Maccabees, ch. 3 tried to rob the treasures of the Jerusalem Temple. Relying on new data supplied by the decree it is suggested below that Heliodoros did not participate in this event but was introduced into the story in place of another, less known, Seleucid official and that the story was written and embel- lished among supporters of the Oniad family in Egypt.

A recent publication of a stele that contains three Greek documents aroused anew the interest in the events that took place in Jerusalem at the eve of the ’ religious persecution and the Maccabaean revolt. These events, of major impact on both Jewish and Christian history, were preceded by conflicts that break out in Jerusalem and involved families of the Jewish nobility, such as the , the Oniads and the family of Bal-

Revue des études juives, 170 (1-2), janvier-juin 2011, pp. 3-19. doi: 10.2143/REJ.170.1.2126638

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 3 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 4 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

gea (Bilgah). The backdrop of these events is intertwined with the process of acculturation1 that took place in all the lands included in the empire that was established by and in its surroundings. On a local level it is also connected to the transition of Syria and Phoenicia from Ptole- maic into Seleucid domain. The three documents inscribed on this stele were published excellently by Cotton and Wörrle.2 The first two are short letters that refer to the decree and addressed to two officials and the third is a letter that contains an impor- tant part of a decree (prostagma) of the Seleucid king Seleucus IV (187- 1753). The stele was broken at its lower edge so that the decree contained 16 lines, 13 of them almost complete. Its location was unknown, though it was rightly guessed to be in Maresha or in its surroundings. Fortunately shortly after the publication of Cotton and Wörrle three inscribed fragments were found in a subterranean complex in Maresha that were ascribed to the same stele.4 Two of them joined perfectly to the stele and the third pertain to it but there is a considerable gap between it and the fuller text above. The fact that the fragments were found in an orderly archaeological excavation proves almost definitely that the stele stood in Maresha, most probably in a temple there. The new fragments more than doubled the preserved text of the decree and added information about Olym- piodoros, and enigmatic person till their publication. The decree deals with a change in the administration of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia that was annexed to the some twenty years earlier (In the 5th Syrian war of 202-200). Two of the person- alities mentioned in the stele have also a major role in the story about the attempt to robe the treasures of the Jerusalem temple, as told in 2Maccabees chapter 3: Seleucus IV, the Seleucid king, and his chief minister (ö êpì t¬n

1. Acculturation in the that caused the disruption of the social and cul- tural texture of indigenous peoples can be compared to the effects of modern colonialism. See Éd. WILL, C. ORRIEUX, Joudaïsmos - Hellènismos (Nancy, 1986), 14-35. 2. H. M. COTTON and M. WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros - A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007), 191-205. 3. All dates are BCE except if state differently. ES means Era Seleucidarum. 4. The original location of the stele was not certain when Cotton and Wörrle published their article but was soon firmly established when the three additional fragments that pertain to it were found in a subterranean complex in Maresha. I owe this information with gratitude to my friend and colleague prof. A. Kloner of Bar llan University. On the new fragments and the supportive arguments for their belonging to the same stele see D. GERA, “Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koilê Syria and Phoinikê,” ZPE 167 (2009), 125-155. I thank Dr. Dov Gera, of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for letting me read his article before its publication.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 4 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 5

pragmátwn) Heliodoros. Since the stele was found in the Idumaean Hel- lenistic town of Maresha, located opposite the south-western corner of Judaea, it is not incidental that its publication opened discussion about two subjects: The nature of the reform in the administration of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia, which is not clear because the decree is only partially preserved; and the probable connection between this reform and the events that took place in Jerusalem as told in 2Macc, 3.5 A third subject, the administration of the Seleucid empire and the hierarchy of its bureau- cracy would not be our concern here and it is dealt exhaustively by the publishers of the stele. The contents of the decree, as far as it can be derived from what is pre- served of it, do not relate to any specific place, though found in Maresha, but only to Koile Syria and Phoenicia in general. Accordingly it can be safely concluded that the decree was sent by Heliodoros to various officials in this satrapy. With this in mind any supposed specific connection between the decree and the Heliodoros affair, as told in 2Macc, 3, depends on finan- cial and political considerations that may, or may not, indicate to some affinity between them. If there is any connection between the royal decree and the story in 2Macc, 3 it may shed some light on the situation in Judaea that preceded the religious persecution under Antiochus IV in the years 167- 164. The first step in such an inquiry is to clarify the chronological sequence of these two documents: the decree and 2Macc, 3. In the letter of Seleucus IV to Heliodoros, which contains the decree, no date is preserved. Yet as to this letter are appended two short letters that refer to the decree and addressed to two Seleucid officials, and both are complete and bear dates, we can be sure that the decree was issued just short time before. One of the appended letters is from Heliodoros to Dorymenes and the other is from Dorymenes to Diophanes6 and both are dated to Gorpiaios 134 ES (= August/September 178). So it may be concluded, according to what we know about the span of time needed for such procedures, that the decree was issued about more or less a month earlier. Having this date at hand we have to ascertain the approximate date of the Heliodoros affair. When did the dispute between Simon son of Bilgah7 and

5. On this chapter see commentaries on 2Macc: D. R. SCHWARTZ, 2Maccabees, Introduc- tion, Translation and Commentary (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2005); J. A. GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees (New York, 1984); F-M Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris, 1949). 6. The identity of Dorymenes and Diophanes is exhaustively discussed by GERA, “Olympi- odoros,” 138-145. 7. For his identity see commentaries on 2Macc 3:4.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 5 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 6 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

Onias III, the high priest, burst out (2Macc, 3:4)? When, why and how, as a result of this dispute, did Heliodoros come to Jerusalem and try to confis- cate money out of the temple’s treasury (2Macc, 3:7-28)?8 In other words we have to ascertain which was earlier - the royal decree or the mission of Heliodoros. Apparently the fact that the officials mentioned in the royal decree, Dory- menes and Diophanes, and in particular Olympiodoros who was appointed to be in charge of the administration of the temples of Koile Syria and Phoenicia, are not mentioned in the story of 2Macc may reinforce an assumption that the Heliodoros affair preceded the royal decree concerning the reform of the administration of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia. Otherwise we would expect at least Olympiodoros to be involved in the financial disputes about the budget of the Jerusalem temple. If he was not involved it may hint at a possibility that the decree was triggered by the events in Jerusalem that brought up the state of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia in general and was issued as a result of it. But one detail in the course of events militates against such a timetable. Shortly after the failure of Heliodoros in Jerusalem Onias III went to Anti- och to explain what supposedly befell Heliodoros in the temple (2Macc, 4:1-6), but he did not arrive on time to appear before Seleucus IV who passed away (September 175) before Onias’ arrival.9 Seleucus was suc- ceeded by his brother Antiochus IV and Onias found himself stuck in Anti- och when the new king transferred the high priesthood to his brother Jason (2Macc, 4:7). Three years later (172) Menelaus bribed Antiochus IV to depose Jason and to appoint him high priest in his place (2Macc, 4:24). Some time later he contrived to murder Onias and finally succeeded to get rid of him (2Macc, 4:34).10 As Jason’s deposition took place three years

8. For references to Heliodoros in the sources, especially in inscriptions, see J. D. GRAINGER, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer (Leiden, 1997), 91-92. E. BICKERMAN, “Heliodorus in the ,” Studies in Jewish and Christian History, New edition in English, I (Leiden, 2007), 432-464 (The French original version, “Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem” was published in Annuaire de I’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 7 [1939- 194], 5-40 and was republished in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II [Leiden, 1980], 159-191), 464, dates this event to 180, but this dating has no support whatsoever. 9. As COTTON and WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros,” 203. 10. See M. STERN, “The Death of Onias III,” (Hebrew) Zion 25 (1960), 1-16 (= M. STERN, Studies in Jewish History. The Period [Jerusalem, 1991], 35-50). STERN, ibid., 2-3, approves the story that Andronicus murdered Onias but not that this was the reason for his execution by Antiochus IV as told in 2Macc, 4:34. Stern prefers Diodorus Siculus’ version (30.7.20) that Antiochus executed Andronicus because he killed his nephew on that of 2Macc and suggests that though the story of 2Macc that, Andronicus murdered Onias (2Macc, 4:34)

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 6 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 7

after Onias’ arrival in Antioch (2Macc, 4:23) and he was murdered there when Menelaus was already in office and as all these events passed con- secutively, the attempt on the temple must have occurred in approximately 176-175, apparently after the reform of the temples’ administration, dated to 178, and relatively short time before the death of Seleucus IV in Septem- ber 175.11

Table 1

THE COURSE OF EVENTS IN 178-172

Events Dates Notes ------The reform according to the Shortly before Gorpiaeos 134 The date is given by the Maresha stele. ES (= Aug/Sep 178). appended letters, ll. 6 & 12. Heliodoros’ supposed arrival 176-175. “Heliodoros affaire” (= in Jerusaem and his attempt to 2Macc, 3). enter the temple’s precincts. Onias III goes to Antioch to 175 (2Macc, 4:5). Before Seleucus death or, at meet Seleucus IV. least, before it was known in Jerusalem. Seleucus IV passed away. Sep. 175. Antiochus IV ascends the 175, Some time after Seleu- Onias stays for about 3 years throne. cus’ death. in Antioch. Jason is appointed by Antio- Some time later in the course As Jason was Onias’s brother chus High priest of the Jerusa- of 175. it may be partly legitimate. lem temple. Menelaus replaced Jason as 172. 2Macc, 4:23 mentions 3 years high priest. (supposedly from his appoint- ment to the high priesthood). Onias III is murdered in Later in 172. 2Macc, 4:34. Antioche through Menelaus’ instigation.

This course of events raises two questions: Why is Olympiodoros not mentioned in 2Macc’s story and why Simon the Balgean applies his com-

is true what follows is that the king’s nephew was replaced by Onias as the victim of Andron- icus (2Macc, 4:35-38). This is a procedure similar to the replacement of a relatively unknown official (probably Olympiodoros) by Heliodoros. 11. Because Menelaus arrived at Antioch at the end of Jason term as High-priest that was in 172. See table 1.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 7 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 8 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

plaint against Onias to Apollonius son of Thraseas,12 the governor of Koile Syria and Phoenicia and not to Olympiodoros? To proceed we have to explain the background of the decree issued by Seleucus IV. Though the decree as preserved does not contain the details of the reorganization of the temples supervision some points are obvious: The king was not satisfied with the administration of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia as it functioned before 178. The purpose of his decree was to redress this situa- tion; to improve it the king ordered that the administration of the temples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia will be similar to that of the other satrapies of his empire; to implement his decision he appointed Olympiodoros, one of his first friends (l. 32: t¬n prÉtwn ƒílwn), loyal and qualified for this task.13 Was there any specific reason for the king’s initiative in the year 178, assuming that it was prior to the Heliodoros affair? The most simple and probable reason is that the Seleucid government felt that time had come to reorganize and improve the supervision of the administration of the temples in the province of Koile Syria and Phoenicia in accordance with the system customary in the empire at large. Unification is often a sufficient motivation for a bureaucracy, especially a centralized imperial one. The only argument against this explanation is that it came up after twenty years of Seleucid rule that begun with the conquest of the country by Antiochus III in 200. How- ever this postponement can be easily explained. Changes in the bureaucra- cies of the Hellenistic empires (and not only in them) were slow, and in this specific case we have to take account of additional circumstances: It took few years until the Ptolemaic rule in the new Seleucid province was stabilized;14 Schalit finds Ptolemaic finger prints in the Herodian adminis- tration of Judaea more than hundred fifty years later.15 The coins finds show that Antiochus III did not introduce changes in the monetary system in Koile Syria and Phoenicia after its conquest in 200-198 and the

12. GERA, “Olympiodoros,” 138-145, devotes a detailed discussion to the identification of the governors of Koile Syria and Phoenicia, including Dorymenes, who is mentioned in the stele, ll. 1; 7. 13. The postion of Olympiodoros under Seleucus IV is similar to that of Nikanor under Antiochos III as described in his letter to Zeuxis (ll. 18-22), a dossier that Cotton and Wörrle and Gera rightly refer to all along their papers. 14. See the Hefziba inscription that contains letters concerning various problems at the aftermath of the fifth Syrian war that dragged at least five years (until 117 ES = 196-195) and see COTTON and WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros,” 194 with further bibliography in the notes. 15. A. SCHALIT, King Herod, Portrait of a Ruler (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1960), 101-121.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 8 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 9

did not replace Ptolemaic silver coins by its own silver coins for some dec- ades.16 Even the Ptolemaic abbreviation L (signifying a year) continued to be in use centuries after the disappearance of the Ptolemies from the area.17 So twenty years postponement was not exceptional and there is no need for a specific event to trigger such a reform. Another motive for setting in motion the above mentioned reform that can be suggested is the need to increase the income from the new province because of the payment of the indemnities that were imposed by Rome on Antiochus III after his defeat on the battlefield of Magnesia (early 189). These indemnities of 12,000 talents were divided into annual payments of 1000 talents per year and were paid fully, with certain delay, in 174/3. Yet these huge sums, as burdensome as they were, were far from being a finan- cial disaster for the Seleucid Empire.18 So, though money was always in need and temples were an important source of income for the Seleucid gov- ernment, it is not a specific motive that popped up suddenly in the year 178. According to the incomplete text preserved of the royal decree we may conclude that the initiative of Seleucus IV came out firstly to impose on the new satrapy the administrative system that was customary in the other satrapies of the Seleucid empire. That this initiative might have been moti- vated to some degree by a need (chronic indeed) of money, but there is no indication that links it to any specific event neither in Judaea nor elsewhere.19

16. G. LE RIDER, “La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200,” BCH 119 (1995), 393. A. HOUGHTON and C. LORBER, “Antiochus III in Coele- Syria and Phoenicia,” INJ 14 (2000-2002), 54 accept his opinion; O. MØRKHOLM, “The Mon- etary System of the Seleucid Kings until 129 B.C.,” International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963, (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, 1967), 77 has already expressed a similar observa- tion. Also LE RIDER, “Les ressources financières de Séleucos IV (187-175) et le paiement de l’indemnité aux Romains,” Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, M. PRICE, A. BURNETT and R. BLAND (eds.) (London, 1993), 55; G. APERGHIS, The Seleukid Royal Economy (Cambridge, 2004), 233-234. For the common slowness of changing former administrative patterns compare the prolongation of Persian patterns retained by Alexander and Pharaonic ones that continued under the Ptolemies. 17. This sign, found on the stele under discussion, can be found on coins of Herod (Y. MESHORER, A Treasury of Jewish Coins [Jerusalem, 2001], nos 44-46) and of Herod Antipas (ibid, nos 75-90). 18. G. LE RIDER, “Ressources financières,” 62: “… les douze versements, en principe annuel, de 1000 talents aux Romains constituaient certes pour sa trésorerie une charge irri- tante, mais nullement aussi insupportable qu’on l’a souvent pensé” and also ibid. 60-61. 19. This explanation is preferable to the suggestion that the king’s reform was a result of the termination of the tenure of Ptolemy son of thraseas as strategos of Koile Syria and Phoe- nicia as proposed by COTTON and WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros,” 199; 203. Ptolemy son of Thraseas is well known from the Heftzibah inscription and from other sources

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 9 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 10 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

So the introduction of new arrangements into the management of the tem- ples in Koile Syria and Phoenicia was not triggered by the Heliodoros affair, but it may shed some light on the backdrop of it as told in 2Macc.

What is History in the Heliodoros affair?

The story told in 2Macc, 3 is obviously not a historical narrative. It is an Epiphany, a revelation of the power of the almighty god in defense of his temple against an attempt to rob its treasures or, more precisely, to invade its sacred precinct, an act that was prohibited for a gentile according to this temple’s rules.20 What really happened than of what is told in 2Macc, 3 and what belongs to the realm of imagination or serves a certain purpose? It is a common knowledge that in every imaginative story of whatever genre there is a kernel of authentic reality or at least a specific Sitz im Leben. But what is the size of this kernel? Is it like an olive’s kernel or avocado’s? It seems to me that Seleucus’ IV decree minimizes the real historical compo- nent of the story of 2Macc, 3, an important story in the chain of events that led to the religious persecution by Antiochus IV. It is agreed upon that the Almighty did not send a dragoon and two stal- warts to beat Heliodoros as told by 2Macc, 3:25-26, yet it is agreed upon that there was an attempt to breach the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple and that it failed. Attempts to confiscate treasures of rich temples were not rare in the Seleucid Empire both before and after Seleucus IV (See table 2 below). It is also within the bounds of probability that the internal disputes within the Jewish aristocracy turned the attention of the Seleucid authorities to the financial significance of the treasures of the temple, though it is more probable that such information was well known to the Seleucid authorities independently of Simon allegation (or information, depending on the point of view of each side).

(D. GERA, “Ptolemy son of Thraseas,” Ancient Society 18 [1987], 63-73; GRAINGER, Proso- pography, s.v. Ptolemaios [4], 115). Supposing he passed away or terminated his office at this date (circ. 178) because of some unknown circumstances ascribe to him extremely long active career. In 218 he is already a high rank commander and the royal decree is from 178, that is forty years later. Assuming that he served as strategos for twenty-two years under the Seleu- cid regime is far from being acceptable without reliable evidence. 20. E. BICKERMAN, “Heliodorus” (For details see note 7 above), does not refute explicitly the historicity of the event, though he points to its literary genre and other features. N. STOK- HOLM, “Zur Überlierferung von Heliodor, Kuturnahhunte und anderen missglückten Tempel- räubern,” Studia Theologica 22 (1968), 1-28 discusses at large stories of robbery of temples in Babylonian sources, Herodotus, 2Macc, 3Macc and 4Macc.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1010 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 11

Table 2

SELEUCID KINGS WHO ROBBED TEMPLES

King Name or Location of temple Dates Notes ------Antiochus III Temple of Ina/Anaitis in 211/10 POLYBIUS, Histories, 10:27, Media. 11-12; WILL, Histoire, II, 45-4621.

Antiochus III Temple in . 187 WILL, Histoire, II, 200-202. Seleucus IV Jerusalem temple (the Helio- 175 2Macc, 3. doros affair).

Antiochus IV Temple(s) in Egypt and the 168 POLYBIUS, Histories, 30:26, Temple in Jerusalem. 9; 1Macc, 1:21-23; 2Macc, 5:16.

Antiochus IV Temple of Nanaia in Ely- 164 POLYBIUS, Histories, 31:9, mais. 1-2; 2Macc, 1:13-16. Antiochus IV Temple of Hierapolis 164 if indeed A dubious information. See occurred. WILL, Histoire, II, 298.

It should also be noted that despite the outward similarity of the attempt by Heliodoros on the temple and those attempts referred to in table 2 they are quite different. The major injury to the temple of Jerusalem and to Jew- ish religious sensitivity was the attempt to invade the sacred precincts of the temple and not the motive, true or fabricated, of robbing its treasures. This inevitably reminds the attempt by Ptolemy IV to enter the temple, as told in 3Macc, where no pecuniary motive is mentioned. Evidently also in 2Macc the primary motive for entering the temple was to control its budget (2Macc, 3:6) and only when it was reported to the king about the incalculable treas- ures there he sent Heliodoros “with orders to remove these treasures” (2Macc, 3:7).22 Even the argument between Onias and Heliodoros is focused on the disagreement of the status of the money – is it deposits by widows

21. Éd. WILL, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, Nancy, 1967. 22. Obviously a secondary layer in the story. Cf. verse 14: “He fixed a day and went into the temple to make an inventory.” To this layer was glued another one about the intention to robe the treasury. The robbing is the intention attributed to the perpetrators of the sacrilege not the act against which the pious Jews were protesting, which is the invading of the temple by a gentile. Heliodoros is mentioned also in 2Macc, 5:18 but this is not an additional infor- mation but a direct reference to the story of ch. 3. Interestingly he is alleged there of being sent to check the accounts and not to robe the temple (kaqáper ö J¨liódwros ö pemƒqeìv …. êpì t®n êpískecin toÕ gahoƒulakíou), a version similar to the more lenient one of 3:14. For another secondary layer in the story see 2Macc, 3:25-26 about Heliodoros being beaten by a “rider of terrible aspect” (v. 25) and by “two young men…” (v. 26).

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1111 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 12 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

and orphans or the residuals of the royal contributions that should be restored to the royal exchequer.23 In the context of these events the task of Simon the Balgean should also be clarified. Was he an official in the upper echelons of the temple admin- istration or a Seleucid appointee subordinate to higher Seleucid financial officials? His designation prostates does not clarify this question. Aperghis is of the opinion that it is a designation of a government official in charge of supervising the temple finances.24 An appointment of a Jewish nobleman to such a position is not exceptional and the precedent of members of the Tobiad family in the service of the Ptolemaic administration speaks for itself. Like the Tobiads also the Balgean family were part and parcel of the Hellenized aristocracy in Judaea and there were connections between these two families.25 Simon’s obligation as a government official was to report any misman- agement of the budgetary accounts of the temple26 to his overseers. This does not invalidate the possibility that Simon was involved also in the con- flicts within Jewish society and the struggles among certain noble families. It is probable as well that his activity was encouraged by the reform announced in the royal decree (the details of which are unknown). It may even be that his appointment as prostates of the Jerusalem temple was a novelty introduced as part of the reform. These suggestions may explain also further details in the story of 2Macc, 3.27

23. The mission of Heliodoros was to check the accounts yet the expected result was that (at least part of) the treasury will be confiscated. Onias opposed this removal of money claim- ing or pretending that it is not residual money but deposits. It seems that this is exactly what Heliodoros came to check. 24. APERGHIS, Royal Economy, 287; BICKERMAN, “Heliodorus,” 434-435; C. PRÉAUX, Le Monde Hellénistique4, II (Paris, 2002), 575 (Simon was “commissaire royal près le temple”); J. MA, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (New York, 1999), 145 as well as COTTON and WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros,” 203. V. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civi- lization and the Jews (Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1959), 464-465, note 10 opposed this opinion and thought that Simon was a temple official, but it seems that the assumption that Simon was a Seleucid prostates carries more weight. He accused Onias about accounts and balances (2Macc, 3:6 and cf. APERGHIS, ibid., 173) and his attempt to achieve the post of agoranomos suits more a person who look for a career in the bureaucracy of the state than in the temple administration (APERGHIS, ibid., 285). 25. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization, 154. 26. Disputes about the accounts could have been broken out because of differences between the accountancy system and regulations of the former Ptolemaic administration and the new Seleucid one or about the utilization of the generous grants for the temple by Antio- chus III (Antiquities 12: 138-144) and Seleucus IV (2Macc, 3:3) and/or because of lack of supervision on these grants and donations until the royal decree of 178. 27. Since the reform was financial, despite the pious chatter in the decree (APERGHIS, Royal Economy, 107-113; COTTON and WÖRRLE, “Seleucus IV To Heliodoros,” 198), we should

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1212 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 13

What then is acceptable historically and what is unacceptable in the story of 2Macc, 3? It seems to me unreasonable that Heliodoros came to Jerusa- lem to check the sheets of papyri on which the accounts of income and outcome of the temple were written. The new stele makes clear that there was a newly organized administration appointed for this task. It is reason- able that as part of this reorganization Simon the Balgean was appointed (or allocated, if he was holding this position prior to the reform) to inspect the Jerusalem Temple, but that the prime minister was summoned to overcome some difficulties there seems to be an exaggeration. Besides, had Heliodoros been coming to Jerusalem with the intention to put hands on a big sum of money of the temple treasury he would come with a significant military force, probably accompanied by the strategos of the province, and would not retreat in shame because of tricks played on him or popular protests of some kind. Had there been a previous attempt by the financial administra- tion of Koile Syria and Phoenicia to scrutinize the allegations made by Simon that failed it could have been a case for summoning Heliodoros to Jerusalem or of him being sent there by the king. Because such a previous attempt is nowhere recorded and as the story stands now it looks as a result of the reform of the administration of the temples and of the failure of Simon the prostates of the temple, obstructed by the high priest Onias III, to interfere with the budget of the temple. This confrontation about the financial administration of the temple was intermingled with a struggle between the high priest Onias III, the family of Bilgah, the Tobiads that were in war among themselves and probably other Judaean factions. One of the more important officials of the financial branch of the administration of the province (most probably Olympiodoros) interfered in support of Simon but failed. From approximately this point the story developed in an a-histor- ical course. An assumption that Olympiodoros was still in office two or three years after his appointment, can neither be denied nor be proved but is the most probable. There is no reason to suppose that he was dismissed or died shortly after his appointment and consequently it is unreasonable that he was not involved in this affair, despite the fact that his name is not mentioned in 2Macc. The new fragments that describe his former relations with the king

expect Simon to appeal to an overseer in the financial branch of the administration (suppos- edly Olympiodoros) and not to Apollonius son of Thraseas, the strategos. But if Simon major difficulty in the beginning of his activity was to enforce an investigation of the accounts then the strategos was the right official to ask for help. Cooperation between the financial branch and the civil-military branch was usual for implementing administrative decisions (APERGHIS, ibid., 271).

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1313 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 14 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

indicate that he was an important member among the king’s first friends (protoi philoi), loyal and devoted to him and not one who can be ignored.28 My suggestion that his persona on the stage of this dramatic show was replaced by Heliodoros will be demonstrated below29. The story of the Heliodoros affair in 2Macc clearly developed in Egypt among adherents of Onias III and with pro-Ptolemaic orientation (cf. 3:11 that refers to money of the pro-Ptolemaic Tobiad - Hyrcanus).30 In the development of the story within a circle of pro-Oniad tendency the story was flavored by depicting the heroes in white and black, embellished by hyperboles and turned into an epiphany. It adopted stereotypes common to the genre of miraculous stories such as the stories in Daniel, 1-6. In these stories the major gentile figure is a king (Nebuchadnezzar; Darius). The king, willingly or unwillingly, enacts some measures or does certain things that put the Jewish heroes in danger. God saves his faithful believers and the king repents the acts that were perpetrated against them. The plot is nourished with pathetic scenarios, common in Hellenistic pathetic litera- ture, that abound in 2Macc, 3: “Women in sackcloth, their breasts bare, filled the streets; un-married girls who were kept in seclusion ran to the gates… while others leaned out from the windows; all with outstretched hands made solemn entreaty to heaven. It was pitiful…” (3: 19-20) and a lot more. Our gentile hero in the Heliodoros’ affair fits well with most of the ste- reotypes imbedded in the stories of Daniel, 3-6, as can be seen in table 3 below:

28. The decree, including its new fragments, does not contain the official title of Olympiodoros. The suggestion by GERA, “Olympiodoros,” 149, that he was the high priest [archiereus] of Koile Syria and Phoenicia is most reasonable taking account of the praises heaped on him in the new fragments and their resemblance to Nikanor of the Zeuxis inscrip- tion. 29. This is in agreement with Gera’s conclusion, joined by others. See GERA, “Olympio- doros,” 149 with note 121. 30. Needless to mention that there is a consensus that 2Macc is a Jewish Egyptian work. Though a major branch of the Tobiads belonged to the pro-Seleucid party in Judaea Hyrcanus remained loyal to the Ptolemies and his descendants and supporters cooperated with those Oniads who settled in Egypt. See J. Goldstein’s seminal article on the sources of 2Macc and the “Tobiad novel” in Josephus’ Antiquities XII, 158-236 (J. A. GOLDSTEIN, “Tales of the Tobiads,” Semites, Iranians, Greeks and Romans, Studies in their Interac- tions [Atlanta, 1990], 115-151; also J. A. GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees [New York, 1984]). At any rate the followers of Onias IV, Onias’ III son, who came to Egypt shortly after Antiochus persecution, were pro-Ptolemaic and might have participated in the develop- ment of the story about the pious Onias III and his unjust deposition from the high priest- hood.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1414 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 15

Table 3

COMPARISON OF THE STORY OF HELIODOROS AND THE STORIES IN DANIEL, 3-6

2 Macc, 3 Daniel, 3 and 6 ------Heliodoros is not the initiator of the attempt Nebuchadnezzar is not the initiator of the allega- on the temple (2Macc, 3:7b). tion but The Chaldeans are the accusers of the Jews (3:8-12).31 The hero acts by virtue of the king’s orders Nebuchadnezzar is forced to throw the culprits (2Macc, 3:13). into the fire furnace (3;15) And Darius is forced to throw Daniel into the lion’s (6:15-16). The hero begins to perform the evil act and The culprits are thrown into the fire furnace to enter the temple’s precincts (3:23). (3:19-20) and Daniel into the lion’s den (6:17). God thwarts the evil act (3:24-28). God saves the culprits (3:25) and Daniel (6:23). The performer of the evil act is punished The executioners are burned (3:22) and the (3:25-29). accusers of Daniel are devoured by the lions (6:25). Forgiveness (3:32-34). In the two stories referred to above no forgi- veness is required because the king is not the initiator of the evil act. Repentance (3:35-36). (3:26-28).32 Proclamation of the miracle and of the omni- (3:29-33; 6:26-28). potence of God (336-39).

The epiphany in 2Macc is even more similar to the epiphany in another Jewish-Egyptian writing – 3Macc, 1:8-2: 24.33 For sure there are differences between the two epiphanies but basically their structure is similar: The king, Ptolemy IV Philopator, tries to enter the sacred precincts of the Jerusalem temple prohibited to gentiles; a terrible uproar burst in Jerusalem (priests prey, virgins weep, the high priest entreats God to save his temple from the perpetrated sacrilege); God beats the king to the ground and he is carried away unconscious by his bodyguards.34

31. In the same way Darius unwillingly endangered the life of Daniel and his friends (6:5- 10). In Daniel, 5:3 the golden vessels that were taken from the first temple by Nebuchadnez- zar are brought to the banquet of Belshazzar but he did not ordered to bring them. 32. Nebuchadnezzar repents also in another story in Daniel, 4:34. 33. On 3Macc see the recent commentary by J. MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, Troisième livre des Maccabées (Paris, 2008). 34. See table 4.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1515 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 16 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

Table 4

TWO EPIPHANIES

2 Macc 3 Macc ------Heliodoros is sent to the temple (3:7). Before arriving in Jerusalem Heliodoros is Ptolemy IV visits the “neighboring cities” making a tour in the cities of Koile Syria and (that is those in Koile Syria and Phoenicia Phoenicia (3:8). [1:6]) and then comes to Jerusalem. Heliodoros intends to enter the temple (because Ptolemy IV intends to enter the temple. of the king’s orders [3:13, and cf. above 3:7]). Outcry of the people in Jerusalem (3:14-21). Outcry of the people in Jerusalem (1:16-29). Onias the High priest participates in the outcry Simon the High priest prays to God to save the (3:21). temple (2:1-20). Heliodoros is beaten by God’s emissaries Ptolemy IV is beaten by God (2:22). (3:24-27). Heliodoros is taken away by his men (3:27) = Ptolemy IV is taken away by his men and his bodyguard (3:24). bodyguards (2:23). Heliodoros is saved by the High priest (3:31- 34). Heliodoros repents (3:35-36). Ptolemy IV repents (6:22-29).35

But it is not only the similarity of the epiphany section in 2Macc and in 3Macc that draw them together. In fact both belong to the Jewish Hellenis- tic, mainly Alexandrian, literature that flourished in Ptolemaic Egypt. The story of Heliodoros, from an early stage of its composition, developed in Ptolemaic Egypt, as was that of 3Macc, but in each one of them different actors took place. Being a story concocted in Ptolemaic Egypt among Jews that were close associates of the and court,36 its negative attitude towards

35. Differently than in the story of 2Macc, 3 the repentance of Ptolemy comes only at the end of the seemingly second epiphany in 3Macc, (6:22-29) but nevertheless it resembles that of 2Macc, (“God… opened the gates of heaven, from which two glorified angels of terrible aspect descended…”, [3Macc,, 6:18]). Obviously the pattern of the plot of 3Macc, that is going on partly in Jerusalem and partly in Egypt, dictated a change in the continuity of the epiphany that ends twice, in the temple (2:22) and, after a long chain of events, in the hip- podrome of Alexandria (6:22-29). 36. The most probable circle that nourished and embellished the “Heliodoros affair” would be the Oniad family and its supporters that immigrated to Egypt under the leadership of Onias IV. See TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization, 278-284. G. BOHAK, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta, 2006), 46-47; 62; 83; 101, suggests that the author

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1616 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 17

the Seleucid regime is also understandable.37 In more general terms it may be stated that we should examine this literary corpus from both Jewish and Ptolemaic perspectives.38 Additional proximity between these two epiphanies is the common appel- lation of the two major figures - Philopator.39 It may be either accidental or a pointer to a closer relationship between the two stories. In addition to the similarities between these to epiphanies account should be taken of the pos- sibility of oral stories used by authors for their own purposes, such as the story of the persecution under Ptolemy IV in 3Macc that is repeated in Josephus’ Against Apion 2:51-55, ascribing the persecution to Ptolemy VIII40. Attention should also be paid to the fact that those temples’ robberies recorded in our sources (see table 2) took place in circumstances of war or rebellion and were led by a king whereas those of 2Macc and 3Macc took place the first as a bureaucratic step by an emissary of the king and the other as a capricious whim by a king and both at peace time. The mission of Heliodoros, the prime minister and right hand of the king, is far beyond what is expected for a minor accountancy dispute. The analogy between the Hel- iodoros affair and the robbing of temples in the Seleucid Empire is quite limited then and it is more literary than historical. In short, the decree of Seleucus IV might have spurred an examination of the accounts of the Jerusalem temple, in general or specifically of those concerning the royal contributions to the temple. In the framework of the reform initiated by the king Simon the Balgean, the prostates tou hierou, either was instructed or initiated an examination of the temple’s accounts. He confronted the opposition of the high priest Onias III.41 Each contender

of this story was “a Heliopolitan Jew, intimately connected with Onias’ temple” (ibid., 101). For other writings that sprung from Oniad circles, ibid., 102. Cf. also to note 30 above. 37. The Seleucid king tried to robe the Jerusalem temple, a known vice of this dynasty, and his prime minister is ridiculed. If the proposal of an earlier date of 3Macc is right then Heliodoros story may serve as a kind of response to Ptolemy’s IV attempt to desecrate the Jerusalem temple. After all Ptolemy Philopator did not intend to rob the temple and he finally repented whereas Seleucus IV Philopator was motivated by avarice and only his unwilling emissary repented, not the king who sent him. 38. A. WASSERSTEIN, D. J. WASSERSTEIN, The Legend of the Septuagint (Cambridge, 2006), 25 holds this perspective in regard to the Letter of Aristeas. 39. SCHWARTZ, 2Maccabees, 23, note 16. He also stresses the “floating” character of the two stories and points to the “diasporic” character of 2Macc in general. 40. See T. RAJAK, Translation and Survival (Oxford, 2009), 49 and note 69. 41. Gera points to the possibility of confrontation about authority over the Jerusalem tem- ple because, according to him (“Olympiodoros,” 149) Olympiodoros was appointed to be the high priest of Koile Syria and Phoinicia, an appointment that threatened Onias III sovereignty over the temple.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1717 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 18 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE?

had his supporters and Simon complained to the strategos42 and probably expected military assistance to enforce the examination. Probably official(s) of the financial branch of the Seleucid administration (most probably Olym- piodoros) were involved though they are not mentioned in the story. When this incident was turned among Jews in Egypt into an epiphany it was embellished with new ingredients: The examination of accounts turned into an attempt to robe the temple; at the head of this assignment was placed the highest official of the Seleucid Empire at the time and God was recruited to save his temple; the contenders were colored positively or negatively according to the stance of the circle in which the story developed, probably an Oniad faction in Egypt.43 Heliodoros was a must for the story. He was chosen to play the role of the illustrious figure as in other stories, in which we encounter Nebuchadnezzar, Darius or Ptolemy Philopator. The kernel of the event itself was well known44 and Heliodoros must have been a promi- nent and known person in Egypt too, not only because of his important posi- tion in the court at Antioch,45 but also because his king was the brother of the Egyptian queen and later regent, I, and was friendly to her.46

42. Probably at a certain stage in the development of the story of 2Macc (or version of it) Heliodoros who replaced Olympiodoros, was replaced by Apollonius (son of Thraseas) in 4Macc (4: 5-14), where Apollonius is the official who brake into the temple. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization, 390-391 denies, as many other scholars, the historical value of the report of 4Macc, but even if he is right it shows something about the floating nature of the story. In fact, despite the sloppy nature of 4Macc’s report that is based on 2Macc, its author cited correctly the names of Onias and Simon and omitted only Heliodoros whom he replaced by Apollonius. 43. A collaboration between Oniads and Tobiads of the Hyrcanus branch is probable and the stance of such a circle is quite transparent. See notes 30 and 36 above. 44. See Daniel, 11:20, where both the king and his emissary are nameless, as all the fig- ures in this chapter of Daniel, but it refers to the events recorded in 2Macc, 3 according to most of the commentaries on Daniel, ad loc. since Jerome who cites Porphyry. 45. See GRAINGER, Prosopography, s.v., 91-92; D. GERA, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B. C. E. (Leiden, 1998), 105-111. Heliodoros high position is demonstrated by his escort of Laodike, Seleucus IVs daughter, to her wedding to Perseus, king of Macedon. On this occasion he replaced Seleucus who did not accompany his daughter, as one would expect (As done by Ptolemy VI who accompanied his daughter to Acco-Ptolemais, where the ceremony of her wedding to Alexander Balas took place [1Macc, 10:57]). For the two inscrip- tions that confirm that Heliodoros escorted Laodike on the route to Macedon for her wedding see L. BOFFO, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della bibbia (Brescia, 1994), 91-97. This event shows that Heliodoros was functioning not in a specific zone but performed various assignments as deputy, or even substitute for the king, when the king was unable or unwilling to perform them. Likewise he was allegedly replacing the king, according to the story of 2Macc, as temple robber, performing the same action as Seleucus’ father Antiochus III and his brother Antiochus IV performed themselves. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the uncertain information that Heliodoros murdered Seleucus IV (APPIAN, Syriaca, 45), but it shows him to be a relatively well known personality. 46. See GERA, Judaea, 105.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1818 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27 DID HELIODOROS TRY TO ROB THE TREASURES OF THE TEMPLE? 19

That Heliodoros was inserted into the story of 2Macc gains credibility also because of the other fictitious stories and names in 2Macc. The stories of the mother (Chana in later versions) and her seven sons (2Macc, 7)47 or the martyrdom of the old brave Eleazar (ibid., 6:18-31) have no historical validity whatsoever and they can be understood only by their Sitz im Leben in a time when the trauma of the Antiochus persecution was still alive48. The kernel of the Heliodoros affair may well be a dispute on money accounts between the temple authorities and the Seleucid bureaucracy of Koile Syria and Phoenicia that after a while and with changing circumstances was turned into a magnificent epiphany. It could have been triggered either because of the reform of Seleucus IV or because of the internal tension within Jewish society or, most probably, because of both. The Heliodoros inscription helps to see the Heliodoros affair in real dimensions by presenting a backdrop and raising additional fresh consid- erations about what happened in Jerusalem at that time. It does not injure the importance of this story neither in the Jewish collective memory nor in its place in western culture.49

Uriel RAPPAPORT [email protected]

47. That the story may have been taking place in Antioch in the presence of Antiochus IV is clearly unreliable. 48. GERA, “Olympiodoros,” 149 draws comparison also between Heliodoros and Haman, the great vizier in the Persian court as a motive for the author of the story to replace Olympi- odoros by the chief minister of Seleucus, Heliodoros. As is well known the story of Esther was popular among Jews in Egypt and it may be related to the post Epiphanian period. See U. RAPPAPORT, “The Sitz im Leben of the Massoretic Version of Esther Scroll,” (Hebrew) Beit Mikra 53 (2008), 123-137. 49. BICKERMAN, “Heliodorus,” 445.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_02_Rappaport.indd 1919 331/08/111/08/11 13:2713:27