The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

Editor Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University

Associate Editors Hindy Najman Department of Religious Studies, Yale University Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven

Advisory Board a.m. berlin – k. berthelot – r. bloch – g. bohak – j.j. collins – j. duhaime – k. hogan – p.w. van der horst – o. irshai – a.k. petersen – s. mason – j.h. newman – m.r. niehoff – m. popović – i. rosen-zvi – j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – m. segal – j. sievers – g. stemberger – l.t. stuckenbruck – j.c. de vos

VOLUME 165

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jsjs The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood

By Vasile Babota

Leiden • boston 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood / by Vasile Babota. pages cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384–2161 ; Volume 165) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-25177-9 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25204-2 (e-book) 1. Maccabees. 2. Jewish high priests—History. 3. Jews—History—168 B.C.–135 A.D. I. Babota, Vasile, 1974

DS121.7.I47 2013 229’.7—dc23 2013034677

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978-90-04-25177-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25204-2 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

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 Koninklijke Brill NV 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.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. In memory of my grandmother Hafia Babota (June 1, 1909–October 29, 2012)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...... xv

Introduction ...... 1 1.. Scholarly Studies on the Jewish High Priesthood ...... 1 2.. The Aim and Importance of the Present Study ...... 4 3.. The Methodology of the Present Study ...... 5 4.. The Structure of the Present Study ...... 6

I.. Sources and Their Characteristics ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 A.. First Maccabees ...... 9 .Introduction ...... 9 . Unity and Structure ...... 9 . Authorship, Purpose and Audience ...... 10 . Date ...... 11 . Sources ...... 12 . Historical Reliability ...... 13 . Conclusion ...... 15 B.. Second Maccabees ...... 15 . Introduction ...... 15 . Unity and Structure ...... 16 . Sources ...... 16 . Authorship, Place(s) of Composition, Date ...... 17 . Purpose(s) ...... 18 . Historical Reliability ...... 19 . Conclusion ...... 20 C.. Flavius Josephus ...... 20 . Introduction ...... 20 1. Jewish War 1 ...... 21 Aim, Audience, Unity, Structure and Date ...... 21 Sources ...... 22 Historical Reliability ...... 23 Conclusion ...... 23 viii contents

2.. Jewish Antiquities 12–13; 20; Life ...... 24 Audience, Aim, Structure, and Unity ...... 24 Sources ...... 25 Josephus’ Method of Writing History ...... 26 The Use of First Maccabees in Ant. 12–13 ...... 27 The Early Hasmonean High Priesthood in Ant. 12–13 and 20 ...... 29 3. Life ...... 31 4.. Against Apion ...... 32 Conclusion ...... 33

II.. The Pre-Hasmonean High Priests of the Seleucid Period ...... 35 Introduction ...... 35 1.. The Institution of the Seleucid Judea ...... 36 2.. Judea, the Jerusalem Temple, and the Hasmoneans of Modein ...... 38 3.. The Edicts of Antiochus III for Jews and the Jerusalem Temple ...... 39 3.1.. The Royal strategos and archiereus Ptolemy, and the Jerusalem High Priest ...... 40 3.2.. King Antiochus III and the Judean Authorities ...... 41 3.3.. Antiochus III, the Jewish ethnos, and the Jerusalem Temple ...... 42 4.. King Seleucus IV and the Royal archiereus Olympiodorus .... 44 5.. The Jewish High Priest Onias III and the Inner Struggles ...... 46 6.. The Jewish High Priest Jason and the Hellenizing Reform .... 48 6.1.. The Institution of the Gymnasium and of the “Antiocheans” ...... 50 6.2.. The Jewish High Priesthood for Sale: A Hellenistic Innovation ...... 52 7.. The New High Priest Menelaus and the Jerusalem gerousia ...... 53 8.. Menelaus, Jason’s Attack on the Temple, and King Antiochus IV ...... 54 9.. The Royal Official Apollonius, the Profanation of the Jerusalem Temple, and the Institution of the Seleucid Akra ...... 57 contents ix

10.. The Royal Edict of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes ...... 59 11.. A Religious Persecution in Samaria? ...... 60 12.. The Royal Edict, the Jerusalem Temple, and Its Priesthood ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 64

III.. The Hasmonean Revolt and the High Priesthood of Menelaus ...... 67 Introduction ...... 67 1.. The Beginnings of the Hasmonean Revolt ...... 67 2.. The Anabasis of Antiochus IV and the Hasmonean Revolt ...... 69 3.. The Hasmonean Priestly Revolt and the High Priest Menelaus ...... 71 3.1.. The Appeal of Menelaus before King Antiochus IV ..... 71 3.2.. The High Priesthood of Menelaus for Sale? ...... 73 3.3.. The Jewish Rebels, the Chief Minister Lysias, and the Romans ...... 74 4.. The Capture, Rededication, and the Fortification of the Temple ...... 75 5.. King Antiochus V Eupator and the New Royal Edict ...... 77 6.. The Hasmonean Attacks around Judea and against the Royal Akra ...... 79 7.. The Attack of Antiochus V–Lysias on the Jewish Rebels, and Its Aftermath ...... 81 8.. The Hasmoneans, the High Priest Menelaus, and His Arrest ...... 84 9.. The Escape of the Oniads into Egypt ...... 86 Conclusion ...... 87

IV.. Judas Maccabeus and the High Priesthood of Alcimus ...... 89 .Introduction ...... 89 1.. When and Why was Alcimus Appointed High Priest? ...... 89 2.. The Hasmoneans and the First Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I ...... 91 2.1.. The Accusation of Alcimus against the Hasmoneans ..... 92 2.2.. The Hasmoneans, the Military Power of Alcimus, and the First Expedition of Bacchides ...... 93 2.3.. The Hasmoneans, the High Priest Alcimus, and the Hasideans ...... 94 x contents

3.. The Hasmoneans and the Second Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I ...... 95 3.1.. The Resumption of the Hasmonean Revolt against Alcimus ...... 95 3.2.. The Hasmoneans and the strategos Nicanor: A Peace Treaty? ...... 96 4.. The Nature of the Appointment of Judas, and the Third Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I ...... 98 4.1.. To Whom Does the Expression αὐτοῦ . . . διάδοχον Refer? ...... 98 4.2.. Did Nicanor Appoint Judas a High Priest? ...... 99 4.3.. The King’s Order to Arrest Judas, and the Day of Nicanor ...... 101 5.. The Fourth Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I and Judas’s Death ...... 104 6.. Was Judas the First Hasmonean High Priest? ...... 105 6.1.. The Question of the Historicity of Judas’s Embassy to Rome ...... 106 6.2.. Why Would Judas Have Appealed to Rome? ...... 108 7.. Judas, Rome, and Josephus’ Chronology of High Priests ...... 109 7.1.. Judas and the Chronology of High Priests in Ant. 12–13 and 20 ...... 110 7.2.. Was Judas a Rival High Priest? ...... 112 8.. The Succession of Jonathan and the End of the High Priesthood of Alcimus ...... 113 Conclusion ...... 116

V.. Jonathan and the High Priestly Office: 159–152 b.c.e...... 119 Introduction ...... 119 1.. Jonathan, the Expedition of Bacchides, and the Peace Treaty ...... 120 2.. Jonathan at Michmash as “the Wicked Priest” ...... 121 3.. Jonathan and the Weakening of the Seleucid Rule in Judea ...... 123 4.. The Institution of Jonathan’s Military Office ...... 124 4.1.. Demetrius I Appoints Jonathan as Military Commander ...... 124 4.2.. Jonathan as Royal Official, and 11QTemple Scroll ...... 127 contents xi

5.. Jonathan’s Capture and Fortification of the Temple Mount and of Western Jerusalem: An Archaeological Assessment . 129 6.. Jonathan and the High Priestly Office: Was There a High Priest in Jerusalem between 159–152 b.c.e.? ...... 131 7.. The Jewish High Priesthood and the Day of Atonement Ritual ...... 134 7.1.. Was There a Regular Cultic Life at the Temple before 152? ...... 135 7.2.. A Priest Appointed to Serve on the Day of Atonement? ...... 136 Conclusion ...... 138

VI.. The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part One (152–150 b.c.e.) ..... 141 Introduction ...... 141 1.. The Institution of Jonathan’s High Priesthood ...... 141 2.. The Letters of Demetrius I and the archiereus of 1 Macc 10:32, 38 ...... 145 2.1.. An Anonymous High Priest at the Time of Jonathan? ..... 145 2.2.. The Letter of Demetrius I and the Question of Its Authenticity ...... 147 2.3.. A Letter of Demetrius I Addressed to the Jewish ethnos? ...... 149 3.. The Appointment of Jonathan as archiereus and Its Implications ...... 151 3.1.. Jonathan as “Brother” and “Friend” of King Alexander I Balas ...... 152 3.2.. The archiereus Jonathan and Other Hellenistic archiereis ...... 154 3.3.. The archiereus Jonathan and His High Priestly Vestments ...... 157 3.4.. The archiereus Jonathan and the Feast of Tabernacles ...... 159 4.. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and the Temple Priesthood ...... 162 4.1.. Jonathan, the Community of 4QMMT, and Other Groups ...... 162 4.2.. Jonathan, His Military Power, and 1QPesher Habakkuk ...... 166 5.. The archiereus Jonathan, His Military Power, and the Kings’ War ...... 168 Conclusion ...... 169 xii contents

VII.. The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part Two (150–145 b.c.e.) .... 171 Introduction ...... 171 1.. The archiereus Jonathan His Socio-Economic Policy ...... 171 2.. The Identity of the Opposition to the High Priesthood of Jonathan ...... 174 3.. More Hellenistic Titles Conferred on the archiereus Jonathan ...... 176 3.1.. The archiereus Jonathan as King’s “First Friend” and strategos ...... 177 3.2. The Limits to the Powers of the archiereus Jonathan ...... 179 4.. Further Consolidation of the High Priesthood of Jonathan ...... 180 4.1.. Jonathan and the Seleucid Struggles for the Royal Throne ...... 181 4.2.. More Civil Powers for the archiereus Jonathan ...... 183 5.. The archiereus and strategos Jonathan on the Battlefield: History and Halakhah ...... 184 5.1.. The Jewish High Priest according to Some Early Dead Sea Scrolls ...... 186 188 ...... כוהן הגדול and כוהן הראש The Titles .5.2 6.. The archiereus Jonathan and the Cult at the Temple ...... 189 7.. The archiereus Jonathan and the Royal Triad ...... 191 Conclusion ...... 193

VIII.. The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part Three (145–143 b.c.e.) .... 195 Introduction ...... 195 1.. Jonathan’s Attack of the Royal Akra and King Demetrius II ...... 195 2.. The Confirmation of Jonathan in the High Priestly Office ...... 197 3.. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and King Demetrius II ...... 198 3.1.. The High Priesthood of Jonathan and King Demetrius II ...... 199 3.2.. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and King Demetrius II ...... 201 4.. King Demetrius II and the Limits to Jonathan’s Powers .... 203 5.. The archiereus Jonathan, King Antiochus VI, and Seleucid Affairs ...... 205 contents xiii

6.. The Confirmation of Jonathan as archiereus by King Antiochus V ...... 206 7.. The archiereus Jonathan and His Expansionist Policy ...... 209 8.. The archiereus Jonathan and His External Diplomatic Relations ...... 212 8.1.. The Embassies of the archiereus Jonathan to Rome and Sparta ...... 212 8.2.. Jewish Supporters of the High Priesthood of Jonathan ...... 215 9.. The Military and Administrative Projects of Jonathan: Literary and Archaeological Evidence ...... 216 10.. The Capture of Jonathan in Light of Some Dead Sea Scrolls ...... 220 Conclusion ...... 221

ΙΧ.. The High Priesthood of Simon (142–140 b.c.e.) ...... 225 Introduction ...... 225 1.. The Decree in Favor of Simon in 1 Maccabees 14 ...... 225 1.1.. The Delimitation of the Text of the Decree ...... 226 1.2.. The Question of the Authenticity of the Decree ...... 227 2.. Simon’s Succession as Military Leader and the Use of ὁ λαός ...... 231 3.. The Death of Jonathan and the Hasmonean Tomb in Modein ...... 234 4.. Simon Becomes High Priest after His Brother Jonathan ...... 236 4.1.. When Did Simon Become High Priest? ...... 237 4.2.. Who Appointed Simon High Priest and Why? ...... 239 5.. The Royal Legitimization of Simon’s High Priesthood ...... 241 5.1.. The Royal Confirmation of Simon as archiereus ...... 241 5.2.. Towards an Independence of the Hasmonean High Priesthood ...... 244 6.. The archiereus Simon Takes Residence in the City of David ...... 245 7.. The archiereus Simon and His Embassies to Rome and Sparta ...... 247 7.1.. The Embassy of Simon to Rome and the Seleucid Affairs ...... 248 7.2.. The High Priesthood of Simon, Sparta, and the Jewish demos ...... 250 xiv contents

8.. The Events Leading to the Gathering of the Great Assembly ...... 251 9.. The Identity of the Groups that Composed the Great Assembly ...... 253 10.. The High Priesthood of Simon, the ex-High Priest Jonathan, and the Coming of a “Prophet” ...... 255 10.1.. The Popular Decree of 140 b.c.e. and the High Priest Jonathan ...... 255 10.2.. The High Priesthood of Simon and the Coming of a “Prophet” ...... 256 11.. The archiereus Simon and the Question of His Powers ...... 258 12.. The archiereus Simon and the Temple Cultic Life ...... 260 13.. The Opposition to the Hellenistic High Priesthood of Simon ...... 261 13.1.. The archiereus Simon and the anti-Hasmonean Groups ...... 262 13.2.. A (Priestly) Decree to “Honor” Simon? ...... 265 Conclusion ...... 266

X.. The Hasmonean High Priests and Their Priestly Descent ...... 269 Introduction ...... 269 1.. The Jehoiarib Priests in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Sources .... 269 2.. The Second Temple High Priests: Zadokites or Aaronides? .... 273 2.1.. Aaron, Alcimus, and the Second Temple High Priests .... 274 2.2.. Aaron, the Hasmoneans, and the High Priestly Descent Issue ...... 277 3.. Phinehas and the High Priesthood of the Hasmoneans ...... 279 3.1.. Phinehas and the Pre-Hasmonean High Priests ...... 280 3.2.. Phinehas and the Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood ...... 282 Conclusion ...... 284

Final Conclusions ...... 285

Bibliography ...... 293 Index of Ancient People ...... 331 Index of Ancient Sources ...... 335 Acknowledgments

It is the most gratifying part of writing this book to recognize the community of support that made it possible. This study is the result of my revised dissertation which was submitted in 2010 at the Pontifical Bibli- cal Institute in Rome. It is with great pride that I thank the moderator of my doctoral dissertation, Prof. Joseph Sievers. His constant encouragement, wise advice, challenging historical questions and critical insights, have greatly contributed to the shaping of this study. My thanks go to the second reader of my thesis, Prof. Jean Louis Ska SJ. His exegetical and methodological questions and suggestions have helped me to make both the structure and the argumentation of this study much clearer. Further thanks are due to Profs. Peter Dubovský SJ and Helmut Engel SJ, respectively the third and fourth members of the examination commission. Spe- cial mention must be made of Mr. Carlo Valentino, the secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and the library Staff for their constant readi- ness in assisting me. I also thank the Staff of the American Academy of Rome for letting me use their library. My thanks go to my colleagues at the Pontifical Gregorian University, at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas and at the Pontifical Beda College in Rome, for their support and constant encouragement. My many thanks go to Prof. Chris Seeman (USA) who generously shared with me his unpublished dissertation and for his constant and generous assistance. Profs. Florentino García Martínez, Benjamin Wright III and Eibert Tigchelaar kindly agreed to read earlier drafts of this study and made important suggestions. I, therefore, thank them all for this. It is a pleasant duty to thank Prof. Wright for having accepted this study for the publication in the SJSJ series. I also thank Profs. Maria Brutti (Italy), Bruna Costacurta (Italy), Patricia McDonald (UK), Paolo Garuti OP, Frederick Brenk SJ, John Breen (UK), Dov Gera (Israel), Iosif Furtuna (Romania) and Larry Duffy (Ireland) for their support and encouragement over the last years. My heartfelt thanks go to my dear friends, Profs. Bill and Fran O’Neal (USA), for having accepted the difficult task of correcting the English of this study at its various stages. Responsibility for any remaining errors or ambiguities is solely mine. I also thank them for their encouragement, for their kind help, and especially for their warm friendship. xvi acknowledgments

I had the privilege of meeting Fr. William Gore OSFS back in 1992 during my first year of graduate studies in L’viv–Rudno (Ukraine), to whom I am particularly indebted. He has been a constant source of blessing in my life since. Indeed, he has helped me so many times and in different ways throughout these two decades of my life. I take this opportunity to express my deepest thanks also to other Oblates of S. Francis de Sales: in particular, Fr. Aldino Kiesel—the Superior General, who kindly agreed to house me and my family at their Generalate House in Rome, as well as Frs. Markus Siefermann, Shaju Kinjaramparayil, and Fransiskus Swartbooi. They have become for me a rare example of hospitality and simplicity. I am much indebted to the emeritus Bishop Basil H. Losten of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Stamford CT, who recommended me to the Biblicum for doctoral studies. It is a pleasant duty to thank here Mrs. Michelle Rollins (born Metrinko, USA), who made a generous donation to help me start my doctoral studies. I also kindly thank the Rothschild Foundation for offering me a small grant to support the revision of my dissertation. Were I to name the many Italian friends who have helped me during my studies in Rome the list would become very long. Therefore, of necessity I only single out a few of them: Romano and Silvia Fiumi—who also housed me for two years, Franco and Lucia Piani, Tonino and Maria Morellini, Renzo and Celeste Zanier, Loredana Piccari, whose parents Iole and Aldo passed away before the completion of this work. To them and their families I express my deepest words of gratitude. My special thanks go to my dear friend Doctor Alessandro Nisii of the Hospital of S. Filippo Neri in Rome for his huge help over several years, never asking anything in return. His discipline and rigorous work are and will remain an example for me. I also thank Fr. Umberto Rufino for his hospitality in Florence for his unforgettable help and friendship. It is with much awaited joy that I thank my parents Ilie and Liuba Babota in Romania, for their much patience, wisdom and love, as well as my sister Liuba Fetico, my brother Ilie Babota, and my grandmother Maria Lupsac. All of them have prayed, supported, and encouraged me to complete this research project. Two most dear persons have witnessed the daily growth of this work: my wife Lyubov Dubkovetska, herself a biblical scholar, to whom I express my heartfelt thanks for her patience, support and love, and my daughter Miriam, who has been a constant source of inspiration and much joy. acknowledgments xvii

In closing, I remember in particular four persons who passed away while this work was in progress: my parish priest Vasile Udriciuc (Costiui, Romania), my friend and teacher Fr. Emilio Testa OSFS (Rome, Italy), my uncle Petru Lupsac (Glimboca, Romania) and above all, my grandmother Hafia Babota (Rona de Sus, Romania), a wise woman; it is to her that I dedicate this book. All four of them have had a great influence in my life and I thank God for them.

Introduction

The high priesthood is among those biblical/Jewish major institutions, which had survived for many centuries. While historically it remains difficult to trace its beginning, its end had been spelled out roughly with the destruction of the second Jerusalem temple in 70 c.e.1 A significant part of this period was the high priestly office in Jerusalem run by the Hasmonean high priesthood. It is normally assumed by scholars that the Hasmoneans acted as high priests from about 152 to about 37 b.c.e.2 The year 152 would be the year when, according to 1 Macc 10:21, Jona- than wore the “sacred vestments.” In the year 37, the Hasmonean high priest Antigonus was executed at the instigation of King Herod the Great (Jos., Ant. 14.490; 20.248).3

1. Scholarly Studies on the Jewish High Priesthood

Until the end of the last millennium, scholars paid little attention to the issue of the Jewish high priesthood.4 A sudden increase of interest in this institution is noted only in the last decade with the work of Deborah W. Rooke, published in 2000. Most of her research is devoted to the pre- and post-exilic periods to the end of the Persian dominion. However, part four is entitled “High Priesthood from Alexander to Pompey,” a period covered in some eighty pages, out of which about fifty-eight deal with the “Maccabean conquests” and the high priesthood of Jonathan, Simon,

1 Both the Samaritan high priesthood on Mt. Gerizim and the Oniad high priesthood in Leontopolis claimed legitimacy on biblical grounds. They overlap with the early Has monean high priesthood and interest this study occasionally. 2 The dating in this study is normally b.c.e., unless otherwise indicated. 3 However, the last Hasmonean to have occupied the high priestly office was Aristo bulus III in 35, having been killed supposedly at the age of eighteen by his brother-in-law King Herod (Ant. 15.56). Aristobulus III was the grandson of the high priests Hyrcanus II (76–67, 63–40) and Aristobulus II (67–63). Both Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were sons of the high priest and king, Alexander Janneus (103–76), son of the high priest Hyrcanus I (134–104), son of the high priest Simon (142–134), brother of the high priest Jonathan (152–143). 4 See, among others, SVM, History, I, 227–50; Bevan, Jerusalem, esp. 100–11; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 147–82, 377–78; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 372–403; Cody, History, 175–80, 190–96; Grabbe, Judaism, I–II, passim. 2 introduction

John Hyrcanus and successors.5 Rooke’s study is the first attempt to enter seriously into the discussion of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The author affirms that “[t]he nature of the high priesthood to which Jona- than was appointed is an interesting question.”6 Although she noted some Hellenistic “traits” in the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood,7 Rooke argues that Jonathan and Simon acted as “sacral kings” rather than as “ruling priests.” Rooke came to the conclusion that “the nature of the Maccabean leadership was monarchic” and that “the style of leadership exercised by Jonathan and Simon seems to have followed that of the pre-exilic monarchs.”8 Earlier, however, in his study of the governmental models in the second temple Judea, David Goodblatt argued that under the Hasmoneans there was a “priestly monarchy in Jerusalem,” just like before, under the Oniads.9 Because of its purpose, Goodblatt’s study is selective and does not deal properly with the complex history of the early Hasmonean high priesthood. Within the next several years other scholars published their works dedicated to individual Jerusalem high priests. In 2003, Otto Mulder published his revised doctoral dissertation on the high priest Simon in Sirach 50 where he studied both Hebrew and Greek versions. The author adopted both exegetical and historical approaches and argued that the high priest in question is Simon II, father of Onias III who is mentioned in 2 Macc 3–4 and Josephus.10 In 2005, Benjamin E. Scolnic published his book on the high priest Alcimus, the last known pre-Hasmonean high priest.11 This work, however, pays scant attention to the historical development of the events and the powers of Alcimus. But the high priest that has received most scholarly attention is Caiaphas, known especially from the New Tes- tament and Josephus. Three books have been dedicated to his high priesthood so far: that of Helen K. Bond published in 2004, of Rainer Metzner which appeared in 2010, and of Adele Reinhartz published in 2011.12 Of direct importance for this study is the publication of the revised dissertation of Maria Brutti in 2006, which investigates the development of the high priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean period. It covers the

5 Zadok’s Heirs, 266–324. 6 Zadok’s Heirs, 289. 7 Zadok’s Heirs, 300–2. 8 Zadok’s Heirs, 302, 326, 329. 9 Monarchic Principle, 20; for further details, see Goodblatt, 15–56. 10 Simon. 11 Alcimus. Unfortunately, Scolnic did not consult VanderKam’s work (below). 12 For detailed references see the bibliography at the end of this study. introduction 3 period between 301, when Judea became part of the Ptolemaic reign, and 152 b.c.e.13 Brutti directs much of the discussion to the power(s) of the Jewish high priests in relation to both Ptolemaic and Seleucid chancelleries. In addition, the author provides original insights into the role of the high priest within the Judean society and his inter-action with the temple authorities. While this study was in progress, there appeared the voluminous work of James C. VanderKam.14 Its aim was to write a history of the second temple high priests by assessing all of the available information about each one of them, from Joshua in the late 6th c. b.c.e., to Phannias.15 This extensive study will remain for many years a point of departure for any serious investigation in the field. Since it covers the entire Hasmonean period, some preliminary critical observations with regard to the early Hasmonean high priesthood are in order here:

1. Little space was dedicated to the complex question of both literary and religious characteristics of the sources and their attitude toward the Hasmoneans and their high priesthood. 2. It lacks a thorough discussion about the authenticity and historical reliability of the various documents incorporated in the narratives of the primary sources. Consequently, there is no comparative study of sources and/or documents with other similar Hellenistic material. 3. Because of his aim, VanderKam pays limited attention to the historical process of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. 4. Perhaps for the same reason, VanderKam makes little attempt to discuss the early Hasmonean high priesthood in relation to other (pre) existing (high) priestly traditions/ideologies, known from the biblical tradition, from certain Dead Sea Scrolls, or from Josephus. 5. The various Hellenistic titles of the Hasmonean high priests are not properly discussed. More specific observations of VanderKam’s important work will be made in the course of this study.

Of particular importance here is also the forthcoming study of Chris Seeman, which is a revision of his doctoral dissertation.16 The author’s

13 Development. 14 From Joshua. 15 Phannias is the last high priest whom Josephus mentions. He was reportedly chosen by lot by the Judean rebels in 68 c.e. (War 4.147–154; Ant. 20.227). 16 Rome and Judea. 4 introduction main focus is the relations of the Hasmoneans with Rome. From this perspective Seeman traces the evolution of the role of the Hasmonean high priesthood down into the first century b.c.e.17

2. The Aim and Importance of the Present Study

The general aim of this study is the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The proposed task is to analyze the various aspects of this historical process with the result of understanding the probable reasons that contributed to its final success. It will thus concentrate on the reconstruction of the historical process that led to this institution, down to the year 140. However, the present work is not a history of the Seleucid Judea in the 2d c. b.c.e.; not even of the Jerusalem high priesthood in the narrow sense. Nevertheless, when deemed necessary relevant socio-political, cultural, religious, economic and financial, military, chronological and other important elements are either thoroughly discussed or are at least taken into consideration. There are three major reasons which make this study important and necessary. First, the brief excursus above shows the increasing scholarly interest in the Jewish high priesthood. It also demonstrates that no specific work on the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood has been published heretofore. This study fills this significant gap. Second, as the present analysis will now and again make it clear, this study is deemed necessary due to the fact that there have been expressed various and often contradictory views with regard to certain aspects related to the early Hasmonean high priesthood. Third, there are contrasting scholarly opinions with regard to the nature of the early Hasmonean rule. Thus some scholars claim Jonathan and Simon acted as “priestly monarchs,” others as “sacral kings.” Instead, this study proposes to look at the Hasmonean high priesthood in a new way. Indeed, much has been written on the encounter between Judaism and Hellenism, and the so-called Hellenization process which took place in Judea, around Judea, and in the Jewish Diasporas.18 Short studies have also been dedicated to Hellenistic aspects of Hasmonean rulers and their

17 Unfortunately, I have not been able to access the book by Edward Dąbrowa, The Hasmoneans and Their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions. Electrum 16. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2010. 18 For a discussion of influential studies, see Grabbe, History, II, 125–65. introduction 5 society.19 Yet, little has been done to show how this process influenced the Hasmonean high priesthood. Therefore, the central question that this study raises is what kind of institution was the Hasmonean high priesthood. Was it conceived as a biblical/Jewish or as a Hellenistic/Seleucid institution? Did the Seleucid King Alexander I Balas appoint Jonathan in 152 to act as a traditional Jew- ish high priest or as a Hellenistic/Seleucid high priest? Did Jonathan function as a biblical/Jewish high priest or as a Hellenistic/Seleucid high priest? What was the kind of high priesthood that Simon inherited? Finally, what kind of high priesthood did the popular assembly approve to Simon in 140 (see 1 Macc 14)?

3. The Methodology of the Present Study

The importance of this book lies in its varied nature. The work is predominantly an exegetical and historical comparative study. Where such possibility persists, it offers a critical comparative approach to various relevant sources. While proceeding, attention is paid to various characteristics of the literary and non-literary, Jewish and non-Jewish sources. With regard to literary sources particular importance is given to the date, authorship and historical reliability of each source. This study is interdisciplinary in that it often puts into dialogue with each other such sciences as exegesis of the text(s), history, archaeology, geography, socio-demographic, epigraphic, numismatic and other studies. With regard to the exegesis, it combines methods of both synchronic and diachronic approaches depending on the nature of a given text, or on the nature of the proposed goal. Three important rules are deemed necessary here. First, when evaluating historical probabilities one must avoid anachronistic approaches in the interpretation of the sources. Each source whether literary or non- literary must be studied on its own, by determining its nature, and in its own context. Second, it is necessary to evaluate sources by using modern methods where possible. This is especially so when trying to determine a date of a given source, its provenance and sometimes its authenticity.

19 On the Hellenization of the Hasmoneans and the society they lived in, see for exam ple, Rappaport, “Hellenization,” 1–13; Fine, Art, 60–81; Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 48–49, 63–79; Hübner, “Tradition,” 171–87, and especially, Geiger, “Hasmoneans,” 1–17 (mostly on the Has moneans of the 1st c. b.c.e.). 6 introduction

Each source then must be analyzed with an appropriate set of scientific tools. Third, after steps one and two, the sources should be put in dialogue with each other. The research as a whole follows as much as possible a chronological order. This is deemed necessary for a proper understanding of the development of events that led to and/or influenced the process of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

4. The Structure of the Present Study

This work is structured in ten chapters. Chapter I consists of a preliminary introduction into various characteristics of the primary literary sources. It delineates in more general terms the degree of their historical reliability and the attitude of each source towards the Hasmonean high priesthood. When necessary, relevant information about other sources is offered in the process of this study. Chapter II opens the analysis on the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The period under question is roughly between the year 200 and the end of 167. The aim is to introduce the reader to the significance and role of the Jerusalem high priestly office within the Jewish society and in relation to the Seleucid royal chancellery. This chapter seeks to answer such questions as: What powers did the pre-Hasmonean high priests exercise? What experience did the Hasmoneans have both of their high priests and of the Seleucid dominion? Chapter III deals with the events between 166 and early 162, when the high priest Menelaus was arrested and executed. It begins with investigat- ing the origins of the Hasmonean revolt by trying to trace its policy and impact on the history and nature of the Jerusalem high priesthood. Thus, what attitude did the Hasmoneans adopt towards Menelaus? How did the high priest respond to the priestly revolt? Chapter IV covers in full the high priesthood of Alcimus between early 162 and 159. Particular attention is paid to the policy of the Hasmoneans in relation to Alcimus, and in relation to the Seleucid hierarchy in general. In this chapter, the important question of whether Judas was the first Has- monean high priest, as stated three times by Josephus20 and assumed by certain scholars, is discussed in detail.

20 See Ant. 12.414, 419, 434. introduction 7

Chapter V focuses on the so-called intersacerdotium period, namely between 159 and 152. The important issue dealt with here is whether there was a high priest after Alcimus, whom Jonathan might have removed as is asserted by some scholars. Attention is then given to the significance of the military appointment of Jonathan for the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood by King Demetrius I. Chapter VI investigates the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by King Alexander I Balas. The central issue of this study regarding the nature of Jonathan’s appointment is introduced here. From this point onward, the ways the various groups, Jewish and non-Jewish, reacted to this event are regularly discussed by also introducing into the discussion several Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Chapter VII studies the way Jonathan implemented his high priestly rule in Judea between 150 down to 145. In particular, it focuses on the civil titles of Jonathan and their interrelation with his high priesthood. The issues related to the halakhah regarding the Jewish high priest are discussed. Constant attention is kept on the role of the temple priests and of the Seleucid Akra during this particular period. Chapter VIII is concerned with the study of Jonathan’s high priesthood first under King Demetrius II (summer of 145–spring/summer of 144), and later under King Antiochus VI—Tryphon (to the end of 143), when Jona- than was arrested. Importance is given to the high priest’s international activity and policy vis-à-vis the Seleucid throne. Chapter IX analyzes the period between late 143 and September of 140. Its aim is to elucidate the way Simon became high priest, and the kind of high priesthood he had assumed. Detailed analysis is then made with regard to the significance of the popular assembly and the importance of its public decisions for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood described in 1 Macc 14. This chapter closes the proper analysis on the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood as a historical process. Chapter X seeks to address the question of the priestly descent of the Hasmoneans, and understand the reason why they appealed to Phinehas as their “father” (1 Macc 2:54). The final conclusions provide the results reached in this study.

chapter one

sources and their characteristics

Introduction

In this chapter it is necessary to introduce the principal sources that are directly relevant for the study of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The literary sources discussed here are the so-called First and Second Maccabees and Flavius Josephus’ works. When necessary, other sources will be introduced in the course of the study.

A. First Maccabees

Introduction: The so-called First Book of Maccabees is the principal source for the study of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Most scholars agree that it was originally written in Hebrew.1 This version existed at least until the 4th c. c.e. Thus, Origen (ca. 184/5–253/4), quoted by Eusebius (ca. 260–339/40), Hist. Eccl. 6.25.2, after having enu- merated the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon, states: “and outside these there are the Maccabees (τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά), which are entitled Σαρβηθσαβαναιελ.”2 Jerome (ca. 331–419/420) in his Prologus Scripturarum, known since the 15th c. c.e., as Prologus Galeatus, writes: “I have found the First Book of Maccabees in Hebrew (Hebraicum reperi)” (PL 28, cols. 602–603). Most scholars also agree that the Semitic text was soon translated into Greek.3

Unity and Structure: First Maccabees was written mostly in a historical narrative style. It covers in more or less detail the period of Jewish

1 For Hebrew, see Torrey, “Maccabees,” cols. 2858–59; Joüon, “Hébraïsme,” 204–6. For Aramaic, see Gaster, Studies, I, 168. For a supposed Greek original, see however, Mendels, Memory, 87–88. 2 Abel, Maccabées, v: “Livre de la maison Sabanaiel”; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 16: “Book of the dynasty of God’s resisters.” 3 On extant Mss of First Maccabees, their dating and characteristics see the critical edi tion of Kappler, Maccabaeorum Liber, 7–21. For the Latin textual tradition, see de Bruyne, Anciennes Traductions, i–ix. 10 chapter one

(mostly Hasmonean) history from about 175 to at least 134 (1 Macc 1:10; 16:14; cf. Eus., Chron. p. 61 ll. 7–8 [ed. Karst]).4 The present study defends the unitary character of First Maccabees, to which some scholars in the past have objected.5 The Hasmonean history begins with Mattathias son of John of the descendants of Joarib (2:1), and ends with the grandson of Mattathias—John, who became high priest after his father (16:24). First Maccabees 16:23–24 thus forms the epilogue to the entire narrative, informing the reader that the high priestly rule has been established in the line of Simon. The book can conveniently be structured as follows: 1 Macc 1: Introduction into the history of the Seleucid dynasty, with particular focus on the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 1 Macc 2: Introduction into the origins of the Hasmonean revolt under Mattathias. 1 Macc 3:1–9:22: The story of Judas (166–160). 1 Macc 9:23–12:53: The story of Jonathan (160–143). 1 Macc 13:1–16:24: The story of Simon (142–134); succession by his son, John. Authorship, Purpose and Audience: The positive attitude towards the Hasmonean protagonists as well as the extensive knowledge of the Has- monean deeds in First Maccabees (e.g. 5:62; 9:21; 16:2, passim), have led a majority of scholars to consider it a pro-Hasmonean work.6 The Judean origin of the author has also been stressed. His access to the Hasmonean- controlled documents has been often interpreted in terms of the author’s closeness to and his support of the Hasmonean government.7 First Macca- bees sometimes shares anti-Seleucid attitude, mostly in 1 Macc 1–9.8 Nega- tive expressions are systematically used to refer also to anti-Hasmonean groups both Jewish and not.9

4 On how similar chronological periods were recorded in much more detail by other ancient authors, see Mendels, Memory, 82. 5 For instance, by von Destinon, Quellen, 82, 85–89; Martola, Capture, 268–79; Williams, Structure, 130–36. But see Schunck, Quellen, 10–13, 32–82. 6 So Goldstein, I Maccabees, 62–89; Neuhaus, Studien, 215–26; Harrington, Maccabean Revolt, 57–59; Attridge, “Historiography,” 174. For Haag, “Theokratie,” 24–37, instead, First Maccabees is “nicht die Propaganda für die Hasmonäerdynastie.” This conclusion relies heavily on Haag’s interpretation of 1 Macc 1–2. 7 So also Bickerman, Gott, 29, 31, 145; Niese, Kritik, 52; Efron, Studies, 17–20. The author(s) of First Maccabees must have known Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. On Jewish education at this period, see Carr, Writing, 215–85. 8 On anti-Seleucid tendency, see further Volgger, “1 Makk 1,” 464–80. 9 For instance, 1 Macc 2:44; 3:5–6; 6:21; 7:5, 9; 9:23; 10:61; 11:21, 25. sources and their characteristics 11

Robert Doran stressed how First Maccabees “may be seen as a critique of the developments that had taken place under Hyrcanus [I].”10 Although the composition does reveal certain aspects about this period, never the less, it has much to say about the persons and events it describes. By stressing the achievements of the Hasmoneans and clouding them with apologetic overtones, the author made of First Maccabees an official propagandistic document of the Hasmonean high priestly dynasty.11 More specifically, First Maccabees was aimed at justifying the legitimacy of the institution of the Hasmonean high priestly rule. Its author thus refuted the accusations that had been made by certain groups, especially with regard to this issue. In the opposition circles one can include the (priestly) group(s) behind certain Dead Sea Scrolls.12 The usage of the term archiereus and related terminology shows the author’s elevated interest in the high priesthood.13 According to Seth Schwartz, the audience was “literate [. . .] well versed in the ‘national’ traditions [. . .] for whom observance of the Law must have been practically a motto.”14 Nevertheless, as for the Greek translation, it aimed to also reach Diaspora Jews,15 and perhaps other Greek reading people interested in the Jewish history of the Seleucid period.

Date: On the one hand, 1 Macc 16:23–24 suggests the work was completed after Hyrcanus I had assumed the high priesthood, i.e. after 134. Accord- ing to 1 Macc 16:23, John (Hyrcanus I) rebuilt the Jerusalem walls. Jose- phus narrates this event in detail in his Ant. 13.236–248, and places it after the siege of Antiochus VII against Jerusalem, which began probably in 134/3.16 On the other hand, 1 Macc 8:1–16 praises the Roman rule, which

10 First Maccabees, 22. 11 So also Bickerman, Institutions, 17; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 190; Momigliano, Prime linee, 36. 12 Many scholars believe that by 100 b.c.e. there was an active, also at Qumran, “sectar ian” priestly group. So, for instance, de Vaux, Archaeology, 116; Callaway, History, 200–1; Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64–65; VanderKam, “Identity,” 506, 527–31; Kugler, “Priesthood,” 93–114. 13 See ἀρχιερεύς: 1 Macc 10:20, 32, 38, 69; 12, 3, 6, 7; 13:36, 42[+μεγάλου]; 14:17, 21, 24, 41; 15:17, 21, 24; 16:12, 24; ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας: 12:20; 14:20; 15:2; ἀρχιερωσύνη: 7:9, 21; 11:27, 57; 14:38; 16:24; ἀρχιερατεύω: 14:47. 14 “Israel,” 36. 15 See here Mendels, Memory, 88. 16 The year 132/131 is the time when Antiochus VII began to strike his coins in Jerusalem. See Meshorer, TJC, 30–31. 12 chapter one means the work could hardly have been composed after the invasion of Pompey in 63. For Bezalel Bar-Kochva the acts referred to in 1 Macc 16:23 had been achieved by 126.17 Seth Schwartz also proposes a date around 130 (but not 1 Macc 16:23–24).18 It may be that the “many wars” in 1 Macc 16:23 include the expeditions of Hyrcanus I in Samaria and Idumea narrated in War 1.57–66//Ant. 13.249–281. The new archaeological excavations indicate that Hyrcanus conquered these regions only by the year 108.19 Also, the reference to the Hasmonean tomb erected in Modein by Simon that “remains to this day” (1 Macc 13:30), would assume a period which spanned at least a generation.20 Some scholars claim that 1 Macc 16:23–24 implies the death of Hyrcanus I.21 But Hyrcanus’ high priestly annals referred to in 1 Macc 16:24 may have not been completed yet. Also, one of the clues of the encomium in 1 Macc 8 is its appraisal of the non-royal rule, as a critique to the Seleucid kings (8:14–15). This would require a date before Aristobulus I (104–103) or Alexander Janneus became kings (103–76). Nor does First Maccabees seem to allude to the inner Hasmonean struggles, which intensified after Hyrcanus. Therefore, the work can be dated to the latter years of Hyrcanus I (cf. War 1.68//Ant. 13.299).22

Sources: The possible sources used in First Maccabees were discussed at some length by both Klaus-Dietrich Schunck23 and Jonathan A. Goldstein.24 As for Jewish sources, the pro-Hasmonean author likely made use of written sources (annals), which narrated important deeds of Judas, Jonathan and Simon, as well as some documents. By that time there existed the five volumes of Jason of Cyrene and perhaps also Second Maccabees itself.

17 Judas, 163. See also the discussion on the “addendum” theory. 18 “Israel,” 36. 19 See Barag, “New Evidence,” 12; Finkielsztejn, “More Evidence,” 49. 20 Cf. however, Torrey, “Maccabees,” col. 2860; Schwartz, “Israel,” 37. 21 Abel, Maccabées, xxviii–xxix, around 100; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 62–63, around 90; Doran, First Maccabees, 22, after 104; Fischer, “1 & Second Maccabees,” 441, around 100; De Silva, Apocrypha, 248, between 104 and 63. 22 So, for instance, Dancy, I Maccabees, 8; Sievers, Hasmoneans, 3; von Dobbeler, 1/2 Makkabäer, 46; Rappaport, “First Maccabees,” 711. According to van der Kooij, “Claim,” 42–49, 1 Macc 2:54, 57 would imply the priestly and royal rule of Janneus. The author, therefore, dates the book to about 100 b.c.e. 23 Quellen, 32–82, 126; cf. however, Neuhaus, “Quellen,” 162–75; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 32–34. 24 I Maccabees, 37–48. Goldstein’s source critical analysis is complex and rather fancy. The author reached different results in II Maccabees, 28–50, 50–54. sources and their characteristics 13

Whether the author of First Maccabees properly used any of them will be addressed below. That he should have had at his disposal the Book of Daniel is widely accepted.25 Several scholars believe that much of the battle descriptions and other details came from eyewitnesses.26 Hasmonean family oral tradition would be another (albeit biased) source. The son of Simon, Hyrcanus I, as well as old friends and other militants of both Jonathan and Simon, probably transmitted much of what is read in First Maccabees.27 As for eulogies, laments, prayers, and battle orations, these were composed mainly from the author’s intellectual skills.28 Scholars are probably right to argue that the author of First Maccabees had access to a Seleucid chronicle. This can be seen in comparison with other ancient sources on the Seleucid history. First Maccabees preserved two dating systems namely, the Seleucid Macedonian era beginning with Dios 1 (October 7) in 312, and the Babylonian Seleucid era beginning with Nisan 1 (April 3) in 311.29 Often, however, only external evidence can help in establishing the correct date.

Historical Reliability: The degree of reliability of the stories of First Mac- cabees can be verified in two ways: through an inner critical literary investigation and through a critical comparison with other compositions, especially Second Maccabees, Daniel 7–11, Josephus’ works, non-Jewish sources where extant, and more. Many scholars have noted that especially in the case of topographical and chronological data, First Maccabees is generally a reliable source.30 In so far as the many documents in First Maccabees are concerned, their authenticity has been variously judged.31 Thomas Fischer reinforced the

25 Collins, Daniel, 26, dates Dan 7–12 to the Maccabean period. Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 16, date the “translation” into Hebrew of Dan 8–12 and thus the publication of the entire Book, to 140 b.c.e. 26 Bar-Kochva, Judas, 168, claims a “satisfactory level of accuracy.” 27 On “memories” in First Maccabes, see Mendels, “Memory,” 43–44. 28 On laments, see Ehrmann, Klagephänomene, 39–117. On prayers, see Enermalm- Ogawa, Langage, 11–53. On orations, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 157. 29 See further Bickerman, Gott, 155. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 28, claims that only the fall era had been used. On how the two eras were counted and used, see Parker and Dubberstein, Chronology, 20. 30 So, for instance, Abel, Maccabées, xxix–xxv; Goldstein, First Maccabees, 26; Bar- Kochva, Judas, 152–62. 31 In favour of their authenticity, see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 37; Pucci Ben Zeev, “Doc uments,” 46–59. For a more balanced approach, see Bickerman, Gott, 10, passim; Stern, 14 chapter one hypothesis, according to which “[t]he Greek documents are retroversions, not the verbatim transmitted originals.”32 This means that most of the documents underwent two translation processes, which again allows for their coloring.33 In fact, most of the terminology related to the high priesthood is concentrated in the documentary material. On the one hand, the high priestly terminology is proof enough of the interest of the pro-Hasmonean author in this institution: some 28 times depending on various manuscripts readings. Most of these terms, however, relate to the Hasmonean high priests Jonathan and Simon in 1 Macc 10–16. On the other hand, 1 Macc 1–6 covers the period roughly from 175 through 163 without mentioning a single high priest. The narrative instead focuses almost exclusively on the battles under the leadership of Judas and on the temple, while little is said about the official government in Jerusalem. Concerning these high priests, what is known comes primarily from Second Maccabees and Josephus as well as other sources. The only non-Hasmonean high priest, who did receive attention in First Maccabees, is Alcimus.34 For the seven years following Alcimus’ death in 159, again, no high priest is mentioned. This chronological gap is com- monly labeled as the intersacerdotium period. In 1 Macc 16:23–24 the author is careful to end his work by specifying that John (Hyrcanus I) became high priest after his father, Simon. The investigation of his high priesthood does not concern this study. Never- theless, First Maccabees as a whole and its many characteristics are better understood when looked at in the context of his rule. In evaluating historical reliability it is also necessary to take into account the discussion of sources and the historical method used during the composition of First Maccabees. Many of the stories reveal its author’s pro-Hasmonean and in particular pro-Simon stance. In reading First Maccabees, however, one also comes across literary and ideological art- istry. First Maccabees, therefore, cannot be treated as a purely historical

“Urkunden,” 184–89, 192–99. For Gauger, Beiträge, 155–339 instead, all documents are forgeries. 32 “1 & Second Maccabees,” 440. 33 The narrative style of First Maccabees resembles that of Joshua–Kings. Because of the documents quoted, it resembles Ezra and Nehemiah. See Attridge, “Historiography,” 157; Lichtenberger, “Geschichtsschreibung,” 197–204. 34 There is another non-Hasmonean high priest mentioned, Onias (1 Macc 12:7, 8, 19, 20). Goldstein, I Maccabees, 445–60, claims it is Onias II, while VanderKam, From Joshua, 124–37 (plausibly) argues for Onias I. sources and their characteristics 15 work. Jonathan A. Goldstein plausibly argues that the pro-Hasmonean author “probably intended to add his work to the sacred scriptures of the Jews.”35

Conclusion: First Maccabees is a unitary literary composition, written to serve the propagandistic interests of the Hasmonean high priestly dynasty even beyond the Hasmonean Judea. One is faced with a particular historical narrative, whose author(s) followed the model of pre-existent biblical and non-biblical Jewish works, as well as Hellenistic historiography. Its author(s) had access to Hasmonean oral and written traditions, including some archival documents, eyewitnesses and a Seleucid chronicle. That the author himself witnessed any of the events he narrated is a moot point. The final aim of First Maccabees is the legitimization of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood in the line of Simon. Such a purpose ultimately supported the propaganda of John Hyrcanus I, who very probably ordered the composition of the work in the latter years of his high priestly rule. Finally, the degree of historical reliability of the narratives of First Maccabees and of its documentary material must be mea- sured case by case.

B. Second Maccabees

Introduction: Scholars agree that the original language of Second Book of Maccabees is Greek.36 Second Maccabees 3–15 covers in more or less detail the period from 175 to about 160. Hence, it contains a parallel version of the events narrated in 1 Macc 1:10–7:50//2 Macc 4:7–15:37, which primarily concerns Judas. For Christian Habicht, “[t]heologiegeschichtlich ist das Buch rein jüdisch, literaturhistorisch gesehen vornehmlich griechisch.”37 It may contain the oldest attestations of the terms ᾿Ιουδαϊσμός (2:21; 8:1; 14:38) and Ἑλληνισμός (4:13), which are used as a cultural and socio-religious contrast. Unlike in First Maccabees which never uses the term θεός, Second Maccabees refers to God in almost every chapter.

35 I Maccabees, 26. 36 On all extant Mss of First Maccabees, their dating and characteristics see the critical edition of Kappler and Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II, 7–11. 37 2. Makkabäerbuch, 185. 16 chapter one

Unity and Structure: The compositional character is evidenced by its internal note at 2 Macc 2:23, according to which is based on a (lost) five- volume work written by a certain Jason of Cyrene. For this reason, 2 Macc 3:1–15:36 is often referred to as the ἐπιτομή (2:26, 28), or the “abridged history.”38 As a whole, Second Maccabees consists mainly of two parts: the introductory part consisting of two letters in 2 Macc 1:1–2:18, and 3:1–15:36, which is mostly in the narrative style. The first letter (1:1–10a) reportedly sent from Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt, dates itself to the year 188 Sel. (probably 124 b.c.e.).39 The second letter was presumably sent by Judas (Maccabeus) and the Judean gerousia to Aristobulus “of the family of the anointed priests, and the Jews in Egypt” (1:10b–2:18).40 The epitome is introduced by the text of 2 Macc 2:19–32. The latter finds its conclusion in 2 Macc 15:37–39. However, the scholarly views differ with regard to its structure.41 In its final form 2 Macc 3–15 can be structured according to the two historical periods it covers: 1) the events of the pre-Maccabean revolt, when Jews experienced the decline of their autonomy (chs. 3–7); 2) the Maccabean revolt itself, when an attempt was made to gain independence (chs. 8–15). Although Judas is introduced in the narrative already in 2 Macc 5:27, he will become the main protagonist only in 2 Macc 8:1.

Sources: The epitome incorporates several documents (2 Macc 9:19–27; 11:17–21, 22–26, 27–33, 34–38), legendary episodes (6:18–31; 7; 9:1–17; 14:37– 46), and other literary genres. The search for sources in Second Maccabees by Richard Laqueur,42 Klaus-Dietrich Schunck,43 Ben Zion Wacholder44 and Jonathan A. Goldtsein generated rather contradictory results.45 Parts

38 On writing epitomes in the Greco-Roman world, see Derrenbacker, Jr., Compositional Practices, 66–69. On how the epitomes supplanted their sources in antiquity, see Brunt, “Historical Fragments,” 477–94. 39 This letter alludes to a previous letter written in 169 Sel. (=143 b.c.e.). 40 Among others, Holladay, FHJA, III, 72–75, claimed that Aristobulus is the same as the philosopher Aristobulus, who wrote exegetical work(s) on the Torah. According to Whit ters, “Observations,” 282, the two earlier letters “may have been read at liturgical gather ings commemorating Hanukkah.” 41 Momigliano, Sesto contributo, 568; Arenhoevel, Theokratie, 164; Doran, Temple Propa ganda, 75; van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 25, 36. 42 Untersuchungen, 72–87. 43 Quellen, 116–128. 44 Eupolemus, 1–4, 38–39. See also Holladay, FHJA, I, 93. 45 II Maccabees, 28–49, 52–53. sources and their characteristics 17 of their source-critical analysis are based on imaginary sources, especially when it comes to the question of the sources used by Jason of Cyrene. Other scholars have suggested that one can, at most, deal with sources in Second Maccabees as a whole. Thus Christian Habicht has isolated several texts as not being part of Jason’s work. He also argues for a revision of the epitomizer’s work, when the second letter was also added.46 In his recent commentary on Second Maccabees, Daniel R. Schwartz proposes a somewhat similar textual development but adds new elements. According to Schwartz, “the author” shortened the work of Jason by adding the preface (2:19–32), the Heliodorus story (ch. 3), the martyrologies (6:18–7:42), an afterword (15:37–39), plus several reflections (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17). “The author” also added the material behind 2 Macc 10:9–11:38 as well as 2 Macc 13:3–8 about the high priest Menelaus. In 143/2 the Hasmonean authorities inserted 2 Macc 10:1–8 and attached two letters at the book’s outset before they had it sent to Egypt and possibly other places.47 There is some reason for stating that the person responsible for the composition of First Maccabees may have known about Second Macca- bees but probably did not use it directly. There is sometimes a different order of the events in First and Second Maccabees, with significant dis- agreements on a number of issues; there are also many passages which have no parallels. All of these aspects can best be seen with the help of a synopsis.48 That both compositions relied on some sort of chronicle of Judas is plausible. Also, the many agreements between First and Second Maccabees are partly the result of the common knowledge of the narrated events. Since the work of Jason of Cyrene is not extant, it becomes difficult to make a clear distinction between it, its source(s), and the work of the epitomizer.

Authorship, Place(s) of Composition, Date: From 2 Macc 2:23 it is evident that the epitomizer reworked the volumes of Jason of Cyrene, but nothing more is said about them. In line with the remarks on the question of the composite nature of Second Maccabees, it is safer to avoid generalized conclusions. One does note a pro-Judas stance in Second Maccabees as compared to the pro-Simon attitude in First Maccabees.

46 2. Makkabäerbuch, 177–85. See van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 20. 47 2 Maccabees, 36–37. Schwartz’s use of “author” is not always clear. 48 See Sievers, Synopsis; Gądecki, Synopsa. 18 chapter one

Scholars have often judged Second Maccabees as a work produced in the Jewish Diaspora (in Alexandria or Babylonia), though the possibility that it was written in Jerusalem has also been mentioned.49 The question of date is intrinsically connected with the question of sources. However, one is faced with four major difficulties: The first regards the date of the two letters, and their authenticity. The second difficulty regards the impossibility of isolating the work of Jason and dating it. The third difficulty regards the problem of dating the epitome; although, some scholars date it between the rule of Hyrcanus I and 63 b.c.e.50 The fourth difficulty regards the above discussed problem of determining the relationship of the two letters with the epitome. Many scholars after Richard Laqueur have preferred to speak of a final “redaction” of Second Maccabees pointing to the year 63 as the latest date.51 Certain scholars have connected the date for the final “edition” with the date contained in the first letter at 2 Macc 2:10.52 Whether one accepts the Sel. year 148 (=142 b.c.e.) as attested in some manuscripts53 or Sel. 188 as proposed in the critical edition of Kappler and Hanhart, for the present purpose, it is acceptable to date the final edition of Second Maccabees not much later than 124 b.c.e.; hence very probably before the composition of First Maccabees.

Purpose(s): It is a common understanding that the epitomizer, while following the outlines and the details of Jason’s work, aimed to write an “updated” and comprehensive version for his readers. Bertram Herr made the attractive claim that the purpose of Jason’s work was historical, while that of the epitomizer was of pastoral-theological nature.54 Any hypothesis, however, must be tested against the epitomizer’s preface in 2 Macc 2:19–32. In it there is listed both the contents to be treated in the epitome as well as the reason for writing it.

49 For Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 45 it is “a diasporan book.” For van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 50 instead, it is of “Judean origin.” Doran, Second Maccabees, 183, admits both Diaspora and Jerusalem origins. 50 So Abel, Maccabées, xliii, gives 124; Schunck, Quellen, 127, “vor 60 v. Chr.”; Gold stein, II Maccabees, 83, “between 78/7 and 63”; Doran, Second Maccabees, 184: “early Hyrcanus I’s reign.” 51 Untersuchungen, 87; also Rankin, Origins, 18; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 83. 52 So Momigliano, Sesto contributo, II, 571; van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 50–54. 53 So, for instance, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 14–15, 519–29. 54 “Standtpunkt,” 30–31. sources and their characteristics 19

Notwithstanding, there are at least two problems posed by the preface: First, according to 2 Macc 2:19–20 the epitomizer aimed to narrate the story of Judas and his brothers under King Antiochus IV (175–164) and his son. However, Judas’ brothers are mentioned almost in passing and with less favor.55 Second, 2 Macc 12–15 seems to go beyond the announced period, for it deals with events under King Demetrius I (162–150). The epitome, in fact, ends with the festival of Nicanor Day, a story not announced in the epitomizer’s preface. This led Christian Habicht to argue that 2 Macc 12–15 is not based on Jason’s work.56 Furthermore, Judas’ death, which occurred apparently only several weeks later, was instead omitted. Another difficulty concerns the relation between the two letters and the epitome. Indeed, there still remain strong thematic connections between each letter and the epitome. Most notable is the emphasis put on the celebration of Hanukkah. Nevertheless, as Jan W. van Henten affirms, both letters “contribute to the purpose of the whole work,” and are best understood when read with 2 Macc 3–15.57

Historical Reliability: Jason of Cyrene probably wrote not long after Judas’ death.58 However, any judgment concerning the reliability of Second Mac- cabees as a whole must take into consideration its complex compositional process, and the inner structure and logic of individual passages. As for the chronological system in Second Maccabees, it differs sometimes from its parallel versions in 1 Macc 1:10–7:50, Josephus’ War 1.19, 31–46 and Ant. 12.237–412. The prevailing opinion is that Second Maccabees would be less reliable than First Maccabees. But there are studies that try to prove the contrary.59 It is safer to judge the reliability of Second Maccabees starting with individual stories, looking at them both in relation to their contexts, and when possible, in relation to their parallel version(s) and other sources. In the case of Judas’ stories paralleled in First Maccabees, there is sometimes more “historical honesty” found in Second Maccabees. In so far as the high priesthood is concerned, Second Maccabees refers to this institution nineteen times. In 2 Macc 3–13 there is valuable information concerning three pre-Hasmonean high priests who are

55 Joseph[=John] (2 Macc 8:22; 10:19), Jonathan (8:22), Simon (8:22; 10:19–20). 56 2. Makkabäerbuch, 171. 57 Maccabean Martyrs, 43, 46. 58 See more recently Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 38. 59 So Niese, Kritik, 471–72; Eisenmann, Maccabees, 14. 20 chapter one not mentioned in the parallel text of 1 Macc 1–6: the first is Onias III (2 Macc 3:1–4:34), the only high priest to have been positively depicted; the second high priest is Jason, brother of Onias III (4:7–26; 5:5–10; cf. 1:7); the third is Menelaus (4:23–13:8). Especially important is the evidence of the fourth high priest, Alcimus (14:3–15:36), who is mentioned also in 1 Macc 7 and in Josephus’ works. To be sure, it was under the rule of these high priests that the Has- moneans revolted and consequently captured the temple. The historical reliability of the passages dealing with these high priests can be grasped through an inner critical evaluation as well as through a comparison with First Maccabees, Josephus’ works and other sources.

Conclusion: Second Maccabees is important for this study for two main reasons: First, it sheds independent light on the role of Judas (and his brothers) during the revolt period. The role of Judas’ brothers, most notably Jonathan and Simon, appears to have been purposely diminished. Sec- ond, for its constant interest in the pre-Hasmonean high priests, Alcimus included. In certain cases, the stories of Second Maccabees—although often more theological—contain more reliable historical elements than those found in First Maccabees. Second Maccabees was written in Greek. Considering also both its very positive view of Onias III and the addressees emerging from the two prefixed letters, its final edition may point to outside Hasmonean Judea, probably Egypt. A date in the last decades of the 2d c. b.c.e., i.e. before First Maccabees, can be tentatively proposed. In its final form, Second Maccabees can perhaps be evaluated as an implicit critique against the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.60

C. Flavius Josephus

Introduction: The works of the Jerusalem priest Joseph son of Matthias (War 1.3; cf. Life 5), better known as Flavius Josephus, are extremely valuable sources for this study. They are (in their chronological order): Jewish War (=War), Jewish Antiquities (=Ant.), and the two minor ones, Life and Against

60 At this time period, the Oniads ran their own temple in Leontopolis. sources and their characteristics 21

Apion (=Ap.).61 These sources, at times, prove, complete, or question what is known from First and Second Maccabees. Josephus’ interest in the Jewish high priesthood becomes evident from his use of the (high) priestly terminology: the term ἀρχιερεύς and related terms appear in his works 330 times, whereas ἱερεύς appears 270 times. Josephus is the most extensive source about the Jewish high priests for the Hellenistic, Hasmonean and Roman period. Josephus lived from 37 (Life 5) to around 100 c.e. Most of what is known about Josephus comes from his Life (see below). However, War 2–3 provides the reader with more (sometimes contradictory) information on his military career, especially from 66 c.e. onward.62 Perhaps, the most controversial moment in Josephus’ life was his surrender to the Romans after the battle at Jotapata, followed later by his becoming a Roman citizen (Life 423).63 All these events had a profound impact on his literary works.

1. Jewish War 164 Josephus’ Jewish War is important for this study especially because of the pertinent information on the Hasmoneans that it contains. It proposes itself to follow the Hellenistic standards of history writing (War 1.30).65 It was written in Greek, though War 1.3 mentions an earlier (shorter?) version, probably written in Aramaic for the Jews in the East, but is now lost. Some two decades later, Josephus would state that for the Greek edition he was helped by his assistants (Ap. 1.50).66 When Josephus set to write his Greek version, he was about thirty-eight years old.

Aim, Audience, Unity, Structure and Date: Josephus’ primary purpose was to narrate the Jewish War against the Romans (War 1.6; cf. Ant. 18.11; 20.258; Life 412), of which he himself was an eyewitness: first as a partici- pant against the Romans and later as prisoner of the Romans (War 1.3;

61 The present study uses the editio maior of Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera. 62 On this, see Cohen, Josephus, 3–23, 66–83; Mason, BJP 9, 213–22. 63 For a comment, see Goodman, “Josephus,” 329–38. See also Hata, “Imagining Dark Periods,” 309–28. 64 On principal codices, see Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera, VI, v–xviii. For a brief introduc tion in War, see Thackeray, Josephus, II, esp. xxvii–xxx. Mason, “Jews,” 457–512, argues that ᾿Ιουδαῖος should be translated as “Jud(a)ean,” rather than “Jew.” Schwartz, “ ‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’,” 3–27 and others, rejects this rendering. See also Cohen, Jewishness, [69–]104. 65 On possible literary models, see Sterling, “Explaining Defeat,” 135–51. 66 See further Rajak, Josephus, 174–84. 22 chapter one

Ap. 1.47–49).67 Josephus probably hoped that his work would reach the whole Greek speaking world (cf. Ant. 1.5). The unity of the work is supported by the story of the foundation of the Oniad temple. It begins in War 1.31–33 and finds its continuation near the end of the work in War 7.420–436. Book 1 contains a general introduction (1.1–30), the stories of the Hasmoneans (1.36–357) and ends with a narrative on Herod’s life, death and burial (1.358–673). Of significant importance for this study is War 1.36–69, which covers briefly the period from Mattathias to his grand-son, Hyrcanus I. Josephus began to write his first work in 75 c.e. when the emperor was Vespasian (and Titus?).68 Certain scholars—most notably Seth Schwartz— suggest War 7 as being a later addition, at least in its final form.69 The majority of scholars, however, accept the view as formulated by Christo- pher P. Jones, namely, the “terminus ante of 79 for some but not all of the work and of 81 for its completion.”70

Sources: There is no specific mention of source(s) in War 1 for the early Hasmonean period. Several scholars have suggested that Josephus used the Universal History of Nicolaus of Damascus (ca. 64 b.c.e.–beginning 1st c. c.e.), which very probably included an account of the early Has- moneans.71 Scholars also believe Josephus may have read First Maccabees but did not use it in his War.72 Mattathias (1.36–37) is assigned a greater role than in 1 Macc 2. He leaves the leadership to Judas, “the eldest of his children” (War 1.37).73 War 1.38–47—which deals with Judas—never mentions his surname Maccabeus. The unusually detailed description of the Beth- Zechariah battle comes as a surprise in War 1.41–45 (cf. 1 Macc 6:43–46; 2 Macc 13:15; Ant. 12.373–374), and Josephus may have drawn here on

67 Josephus refers to this work as περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου in Ant. 20.258 and Life 412. 68 See Life 412, 422–423; Ant. 18:11; 20.258. 69 “Composition,” 373–86. According to Hata, “Greek Version,” 107–8, War 1.31–2.227, “would not have been included in the first version.” 70 “Chronology,” 114. 71 So, for example, Laqueur, Jüdische Historiker, 137–42. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal,” 42–43; Cohen, Josephus, 44–45; Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicholaus,” 169. Nicolaus was a court historian of Herod the Great. On the works of Nicolaus, see Wacholder, Nicolaus, 14–36. 72 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 61; Bar-Kochva, Judas, 186–87, 190. 73 Cf. 1 Macc 2:4, 65–66; Ant. 12.266, 283–284. sources and their characteristics 23

Nicolaus.74 In War 1.48–49 Josephus gives a brief summary of Jonathan’s activities, but was apparently unaware of Jonathan’s many wars and foreign relations. The story of Simon is slightly longer. Beginning with Hyrcanus I (War 1.54) the accounts on the Hasmoneans are much more detailed.75 All these aspects, however, hardly support any direct dependence of War 1 on First Maccabees.

Historical Reliability: Josephus’ peculiar attention toward the high priests in his War can be deduced from the use of the high priestly terminology: 78 times. For Josephus the high priesthood was one of the highest marks of excellence (1.68). This office is also depicted as the most venerated one (4.164). As far as the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood is concerned, with the exception of Onias (III), War 1 mentions no other high priest of those known from Second Maccabees. The first Hasmonean to become high priest was reportedly Simon, apparently after his victory over the Seleu- cid official Cendebeus (War 1.53; cf. 1 Macc 16:3; Ant. 13.226). This attests Josephus’ lack of personal knowledge about the early Hasmonean high priesthood at this particular time. Hence, it also disproves a direct use of First Maccabees at this stage of his career. The reliability of Josephus’ early Hasmonean stories in War 1 depends upon his sources on the one hand, and upon his aim and his historical method on the other. Also, one must consider the socio-religious and political context in which Josephus lived beginning with his experience as priest, military leader and prisoner, and ending with his becoming a Roman citizen and a Flavian historian living in Rome.

Conclusion: If one compares War 1 with First (and Second) Maccabees, it appears that for the early Hasmonean history Josephus had his own source(s), which—perhaps with the exception of the Beth-Zechariah battle—cannot be traced to First Maccabees. Josephus (and/or the source he drew upon), seems to have been poorly informed on the military operations and diplomatic relations of Judas, Jonathan, and Simon. That his source was Nicolaus is plausible. As for the story of Hyrcanus I, Josephus had access to a more detailed source. Most scholars assign this source

74 According to Bar-Kochva, Judas, 190, Josephus “made direct use of the written version of Nicolaus,” who himself had read First Maccabees. 75 See Fuks, “Josephus,” 167–69, 176; Thoma, “John,” 128–31, 140. 24 chapter one to the pen of Nicolaus. However, the rather favorable depiction of both Judas, in War 1.41–45 and of Hyrcanus I in 1.54–69, when compared to the rest of the Hasmonean leaders, is not easily explained as stemming (entirely) from Nicolaus. In his War Josephus expressed a high esteem for the high priests, with whom he himself collaborated for several years (see below). The historian, however, lacked a detailed source and an accurate knowledge of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The same is true for the pre-Hasmonean high priests. Nevertheless, Josephus’ War provides some information not found in First and/or Second Maccabees.

2. Jewish Antiquities 12–13 and 20, and Life Audience, Aim, Structure, and Unity: The Jewish Antiquities was written in Greek and completed around 93/94 c.e.76 The intended audience included all Greek speaking people (Ant. 1.5).77 Josephus relates that his work would include “our” entire antiquities (ἀρχαιολογίαν). In Ant. 16.184–186 the historian criticizes Nicolaus for having written a history (ἱστορίαν) not intended for the others, but to please the king. Josephus claims to relate the deeds in a “sincere and upright manner” (Ant. 16.187). His entire composition is divided as follows: Books: 1–11: From the creation of the world (cf. Gen 1) to the death of Alexander the Great. 12–14: From the death of Alexander to Antiochus IV Epiphanes; Hasmonean history from Mattathias to the death of Antigonus. 15–17: Herod the Great.18–19: Judea as a Roman Province. 20: Events leading to the Great Revolt, narrated in detail in the War. The unitary character of Antiquities was challenged by Richard Laqueur. He speculated a second edition based upon the double conclusion in Ant. 20.259–266 and 20.258, 267–268; the second ending would be connected to Josephus’ Life.78 This theory was rejected by Louis H. Feldman, Steve N. Mason, and others.79 Joseph Sievers, however, readdressed the

76 On codexes, see Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera, I, ix–xxiii. For an introduction to the Antiquities, see Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 80–104; Sterling, Historiography, 245–52. Josephus’ age was about fifty-five (cf. Ant. 20.267). 77 Troiani, “Lettori,” 343–53. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 46–50 and Begg, Jose phus’ Story, 633–35, identify the audience with both Jews and non-Jews. For Mason, “Aim and Audience,” 101, it was “Gentile.” 78 Jüdische Historiker, 1–6. 79 Feldman, BJP 3, xiv–xv; Mason, BJP 9, xiv–xv. sources and their characteristics 25 whole question of a second draft/edition, and identified Ant. 13.171–173 together with Ant. 13.288–298 as additions. These texts narrate the three Jewish schools of thought and interrupt the Hasmonean story, and both texts refer to War 2.119–166.80

Sources: In Ant. 12–13 Josephus paraphrased most of 1 Macc 1–13. Since at least the 19th c., scholarly attention has been directed primarily toward the relationship of Ant. 12–13 and 20 to War 1 and to First Maccabees.81 The two published synopses82 not only show that very often Josephus followed faithfully the order of First Maccabees, but they also show that after 1 Macc 13:42//Ant. 13.214 the historian drew on his own work, the War (1.50//Ant. 13.215).83 There is no evidence that Josephus used Second Maccabees.84 The historian cites Nicolaus a number of times, although never in Ant. 12.237– 13.214//1 Macc 1:10–13:42; only before in Ant. 12.126–127 and after in Ant. 13.250, namely in relation to the siege account of Antiochus VII against Hyrcanus I (cf. however, Ap. 2.83–84).85 Josephus likely had access to several libraries in Rome, including that of Epaphroditus, which contained some 30,000 works (Ant. 1.8–9; Life 430; Ap. 1.1; 2.1; 2.296). It is to a person by this name that Josephus dedicated his last three works.86 The historian, however, did not always acknowledge the authors or the sources he was using. Such a method was a widespread phenomenon in antiquity.87 For the Hasmonean period, Josephus may have also used Eupolemus, Alexander Polyhistor,88 Strabo of Amaseia,89 and his political and literary rival, Justus of Tiberias (d. 101/2).90

80 “Josephus,” 244–51. 81 On source critical studies up to 1984, see Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 123–71. 82 See here n. 48. 83 See Niese, Kritik, 100–5; Sievers, Synopsis, 200–3. 84 See also Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 86–87. 85 See Wacholder, Nicolaus, 58–61; Barclay, BJP 10, 215 nn. 301–306. It is debatable whether Strabo could have used the works of Nicolaus. 86 Barclay, BJP 10, 3–4. On Roman libraries, see Casson, Libraries, 80–108. 87 See, for instance, Sulimani, “Diodorus’ Source-Citations,” 535–67. 88 See further, Jacoby, FGH, IIIa, 268–69; Stern, GLAJJ, I, 157; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 50–51, 53–57. 89 Stern, GLAJJ, I, 262, 265–67. Schwartz, Josephus, 48, 56, believes Josephus knew Posei donius of Apameia through Nicolaus. Mendels, Memory, 15 instead argues for a direct use. Poseidonius’ history covered the years 146—about where Polybius left—down to 80 b.c.e., and was used by the Roman historian Livy. The prevalent opinion is that Poseidonius formed the basis for Diodorus Siculus after his 33d book; see Stern, 141–44. 90 Justus served as secretary of the last Herodian king, Agrippa II. Africanus cited him, who, in turn, was used by Eusebius, Jerome, Malalas and Syncellus. See Mosshammer, 26 chapter one

Of important historical value is also Josephus’ Ant. 20.224–251.91 It purports to give an account of the high priests, their total number, and prerequisites for occupying the high priestly office. Most scholars, in one way or another, agree that Josephus had at his disposal a summary history of high priests, which he used throughout Ant. 12–20 and especially in Ant. 20.244–251—a view supported in this study. For the Seleucid history instead, Josephus had recourse to other sources such as Polybius of Megalopolis (end of the 3d c.–ca. 120), and others. In several cases, Josephus copied from his sources the Olympian chronological system, which started in 776. At times, however, Josephus provides information not known from extant sources.92

Josephus’ Method of Writing History: In order to better understand the way Josephus used his sources, it is necessary to look at his approach to other extant works. The first such major comparative study was done by André Pelletier on the Letter of Aristeas paraphrased in Ant. 12.11–118, not much before First Maccabees.93 As in First Maccabees, Josephus does not describe his source, just as in the case of First Esdras or the Greek Esther, which he paraphrased earlier in Ant. 11. Pelletier highlighted certain peculiarities in Josephus’ vocabulary, accommodation of the text, the use of updating expressions, certain literary and philosophical influences, historical echoes, or use of apologetics in favor of Judaism.94 As Pelletier’s synopsis shows, Josephus very rarely reproduced his source verbatim. However, on both sides there are unparalleled passages as well. But it was Josephus who mostly “omitted” entire portions of the Letter: about two thirds.95 Similar studies have followed that focus on biblical books that were used in Ant. 1–11, and where Josephus promised not to add nor omit anything (1.17). Josephus’ is the first systematic work to paraphrase most of the books of the Hebrew Bible canon.96 Louis H. Feldman has argued that Jose- phus himself had understood the Septuagint books as an interpretation,

Georgii Sincelli Ecloga, 498–507; Rajak, “Josephus and Justus,” 81–94; Schwartz, “Georgius,” 1–8; Milikowsky, “Justus,” 103–26. 91 Hölscher, “Hohenpriesterliste,” 1–33; Gussmann, Priesterverständnis. 92 On the loss of pre-Josephus sources, see Mendels, “Formation,” 3–19. 93 The Letter written originally in Greek is extant today in 23 Mss. It has been dated by a number of scholars between the 3rd and 1st c. b.c.e. 94 Flavius Josèphe, 251–76. 95 For a possible explanation, see Pelletier, “Josephus,” 105–6. 96 Read also Ant. 1.5; 10.218; Ap. 1.1. sources and their characteristics 27 thus continuing in line with this tradition of “liberal clarification,” by “rendering the Bible for Gentiles.” Hence, the verbs μεθερμηνεύω and μεταφράζω not only mean “to translate/to transcribe,” but imply also the notion of interpretation.97 Josephus’ additions and/or expansions, omissions and/or abridgements, modifications and/or adaptations, and his re-arrangements of his biblical sources have been studied in detail by numerous scholars.98 His rewriting technique is akin to such works as Jubilees, Genesis Apocryhon, Pseudo- Philo’s LAB, and others. A similar approach is found in Josephus’ dealing with documents. Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev stressed that “[i]n Josephus’ time, the quotation of documents was not very frequent.”99 Along with Josephus, she lists Polybius, Appian, and for the Jewish sources, Ezra and the authors of 1–2 Maccabees. The author also notes that “some freedom dealing with the documents quoted was in any case legitimate in his [i.e. Josephus’] time.”100 With the exception perhaps of Ant. 14.145–148, Josephus hardly consulted the originals or even copies of the originals reproduced in First Maccabees.101 Therefore, an interpretative rewriting of the documents in his sources may be expected. Josephus’ recourse to Greek and Roman historians’ methodologies has also been widely acknowledged by scholars.102 The latter have noted for example that Josephus is generally precise in his description of geographical places, where he sometimes inserted his own elements, and, sometimes, used cross-references.103

The Use of First Maccabees in Ant. 12–13: First Maccabees 1:10–13:42 finds its close parallel in Ant. 12.237–13.214. Whereas, a majority of scholars has

97 Josephus’s Interpretation, 46. See also van Unnick, Flavius Josephus, 26–40; Inowlocki, “Josephus’ Promise,” 49–65. 98 For Ant. 1–10, see Feldman, BJP 3; Begg, BJP 4; Begg and Spilsbury, BJP 5. For Ant. 1–9, see also Nodet, Flavius Josèphe, I–IV. 99 Jewish Rights, 372. 100 Jewish Rights, 369: “Polybius, one of the few ancient historians who quoted the text of documents, behaved towards them in a way which is even more free than that of Josephus.” 101 See further Jewish Rights, 388–408. 102 See, for example, Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 666–69. For a more cautious interpretation, see Schwartz, Josephus, 55–57. 103 See, for example, Bilde, “Excursuses,” 247–62. 28 chapter one suggested that Josephus used a Greek text of First Maccabees,104 some scholars have opted for the Hebrew,105 while others for both.106 Josephus’ order of the events sometimes diverges from that of First Maccabees. For instance, in Ant. 13.125 the confirmation of Jonathan’s high priesthood precedes the accusation of his opponents (cf. 1 Macc 11:25); so also in Ant. 13.187 the usurpation of the Seleucid royal throne comes after the capture of Demetrius II; also the letter of Areius to Onias is quoted in Ant. 12.225–228 (cf. 1 Macc 12:20–23).107 Josephus at times explains, interprets or expands portions of First Maccabees. A peculiar expansion is noted in Josephus’ versions of the Hasmonean battles, which are depicted in more detail and with a more positive spirit. This could be due to Josephus’ military experience and/ or to some additional sources.108 However, certain passages in Ant. 12–13 have only some hints in First Maccabees, or at times are not paralleled at all.109 A troubling passage, both because of its context and content unparalleled in First Maccabees, is Ant. 13.171–173. It refers to three Jewish “schools” (αἱρέσεις).110 There are also expressions in First Maccabees that have no parallels in Ant. 12–13. The eulogies and other poetry material are systematically suppressed in Josephus. A particular case is presented by the story of Simon in Ant. 13.196b- 228a, which is shorter than the one in 1 Macc 13–16. It narrates how Simon invited the people to level the Akra (Ant. 13.215–217; cf. War 1.50), how Tryphon killed King Antiochus VI, and reports other Seleucid events (Ant. 13.219–224) not found in First Maccabees.111 Scholars noted that after having paraphrased First Maccabees, Ant. 13.215 starts a running parallel to War 1.50 (cf. Ant. 13.225//War 1.51).112

104 So, for instance, Grimm, Erste Maccabäer, xxvii–xxx; Cohen, Josephus, 44–47; Gafni, “Josephus,” 116–31; Bar-Kochva, Judas, 192–93. 105 So, for instance, von Destinon, Quellen, 61–80; Tedesche—Zeitlin, First Maccabees, 57–58; Melamed, “Josephus,” 130; Nodet, Crise, 407–31. 106 So, for instance, Goldstein, I Maccabees, 14. 107 Cf. also Ant. 13.11 and 13.18–22 (includes the attack of Bacchides); Ant. 13.61 and 13.80 (includes the Onias story); Ant. 13.204 and 1 Macc 13:15.17. 108 Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal,” 45, has noted how Josephus elevated his Hasmonean heroes in the way he did with the biblical heroes. 109 E.g. Ant. 13.54, 58, 95, 106–109, 135–136, 166, 184–186; 212, passim. 110 For Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicolaus,” 162, this passage came in a somewhat muti lated form from Nicolaus, while Mason, Pharisees, 211, ascribes it entirely to Josephus. As already noted, Sievers, “Josephus,” 244–51 regards both Ant. 13.171–173 and Ant. 13.288–298 as later insertions, and postulates for a second edition of Antiquities. 111 Antiquities 13.215 is a summary of Ant. 13.180, 202 (//1 Macc 12:33; 13:11). 112 See, for instance, Niese, Kritik, 99; Abel, Maccabées, xiv. sources and their characteristics 29

This induced many authors to conclude that Josephus’ (only?) source must have been Nicolaus, used already in War 1.113 However, as already stated, in addition to his War, and besides First Maccabees, Josephus used additional source(s) in Ant. 12–13. Certain scholars suggested that Josephus’ First Maccabees lacked chs. 13:43–16:24.114 Others claimed that Josephus wanted to diminish Simon’s role by favoring that of Jonathan, from whom he claimed to trace his father’s ancestry (cf. Ant. 16.187; Life 4). But this does not easily explain the historian’s positive attitude towards Hyrcanus I. Still others believed they found the key in 1 Macc 14:41, where Simon (and thus his descendants) are granted the leadership and the high priesthood “forever,” which Josephus wanted to omit in order not to offend the Herodian king, Agrippa II, or perhaps the Romans. First, what is especially important is that Josephus treated First Macca- bees very much in the same way as he had done with other biblical texts. Second, Felix-Marie Abel adduced some elements which suggest Josephus was acquainted with the content of 1 Macc 14–16:115 1) Ant. 13.214 seems to summarize the eulogy in 1 Macc 14:4–15; 2) the reference to the relations with Rome in Ant. 13.227 might derive from 1 Macc 14:24; 15:15; 3) the letter in 1 Macc 15:16–21 reappears in a slightly modified form in Ant. 14.145–148. Josephus’ text also agrees with the chronology of First Maccabees, according to which Simon ruled eight years (cf. Ant. 13.228). Other elements also support the view that Josephus based part of his Simon story in Ant. 13 on First Maccabees, or at least on a source that used First Maccabees.

The Early Hasmonean High Priesthood in Ant. 12–13 and 20: In his Antiqui ties, Josephus often supplies his historical description with biblical knowledge.116 The institution of the high priesthood goes back to Aaron (Ant. 20.225). God chose Aaron, who also had the gift of prophecy (3.192). None who is not “of Aaron’s blood,” be he even a “king,” should attain the high priesthood (20.226). When according to Ant. 8.229–230 King Jeroboam

113 On the use of Nicolaus in Ant. 12–13, see SVM, History, I, 28–32. This view was sup ported, in various ways, by Büchler, “The Sources,” 348–49; Thackeray, Josephus, 61–64; Bickerman, Gott, 163; Wacholder, Nicolaus, 60; Stern, GLAJJ, I, 229–30. Bar-Kochva, Judas, 191 n 126 argues that Nicolaus used First Maccabees. 114 Thackeray, Josephus, 62, attributed it to “the loss of the last few pages” of the manu script. See also Dancy, I Maccabees, 31; Schwartz, Josephus, 51. 115 Maccabées, xiv–xv. 116 On the so-called “priestly revision,” see Schwartz, Josephus, 88–92. 30 chapter one declares himself a high priest (unparalleled in 1 Kgs 12:26–33//2 Chr 12), Josephus interprets it as being the “beginning of the evils to the Jews.” Josephus states that at first the high priests kept the office for life but with the building of the temple they succeeded each other during their predecessor’s lifetime (Ant. 20.229; cf. Ant. 5.115). According to Ap. 1.36 there are the names of the high priests that prove their succession from father to son for the last two thousand years, inscribed in public records (ἐν ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς). However, the actual period allegedly covered in the list of high priests in Ant. 20.224–251 is about eighteen centuries. Antiqui ties 20.224–251 is, in fact, the largest list of high priests that exists, listing some eighty-three high priests from Aaron down to Phannias.117 Josephus also dedicates a separate space to each Hasmonean high priest down to Aristobulus III. A common characteristic of Josephus’ paraphrasing of First Macca- bees in Ant. 12–13 is his tendency to use the high priestly terminology in places where it does not appear in his source. For 1 Macc 1:10–13:42// Ant. 12.237–13.214, the usage of the high priestly terms amounts to some 38 times, compared to 26 times in First Maccabees, or 19 times in Second Maccabees. One of the most debated issues in relation to the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood regards the note on Judas’ high priesthood stated three times by Josephus (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434). This information is missing in Ant. 20.224–251, which does not even mention Judas. In addition, Ant. 12.318 has Judas sanctifying the temple. Several scholars have taken these passages to mean additionally that Judas had really functioned as a high priest.118 The Intersacerdotium period between the death of Alcimus and the rise to the high priestly office of Jonathan is brought down to four years in Ant. 13.46, as compared to the seven implied in First Maccabees, and explicitly stated in Ant. 20.237. Josephus also has contradictory chronological data for Jonathan. Antiquities 13.212 has four years of high priesthood assigned to him, whereas Ant. 20.239, seven years. In Ant. 20.238 Jonathan is listed as the first Hasmonean high priest, a reaffirmation made in Life 4. This contradicts the historian’s earlier assertion in War 1.53, where Simon appears as

117 The actual number is, however, eighty-four high priests. See also Ap. 2.36. On this list and its function, see Gussman, Priesterverständnis, 269–87. 118 On this issue, see discussion in Ch. IV. sources and their characteristics 31 the first high priest. As for the duration of Simon’ high priestly rule, both Ant. 13.213 and 20.240 agree with First Maccabees. In order to assess the literary characteristics of Antiquities better, it is still necessary to turn attention to Josephus’ two other works.

3. Life The Life is assumed to have been written soon after Antiquities, perhaps as an appendix to it.119 Already in Ant. 20.266–267 Josephus announces that he will write about his life (βίος), while at the very end of Life 430 the historian refers back to his ἀρχαιολογία (cf. Ant. 1.5), i.e. Antiquities. Nearly all the manuscripts have Life following immediately after the Antiquities; hence both works should share the same Greek reading audience. The earliest date for Life is surely 93/94 c.e. (cf. Ant. 20.267). As for the latest date, the majority of scholars assign it to the reign of Domitian, who was assassinated in 96 c.e.120 Many scholars noted Josephus’ pro-Hasmonean attitude from Mat- tathias at least down to Alexander Janneus in Ant. 12–13, when compared to War 1.121 Already in War 5.419 Josephus boasted to have descended from a “not obscure family” (cf. Life 1) and from an “illustrious house.”122 But it is only in Ant. 16.187 that Josephus speaks of his Hasmonean identity, though he offers no genealogical details.123 However, in Ant. 20.266 the historian promises to write about his γένος, a note often judged to be the introduction to his next work.124 That Josephus was a priest is already stated in War 1.3. In his Life 1–2 Josephus claims to descend “from the first of the twenty-four priestly courses.”125 Then he adds that he is also of royal descent according to his mother, who herself belonged to the Hasmoneans, and who exercised both high priestly and royal rule (ἠρχιεράτευσαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν; Life 3).126

119 For an introduction, see Mason, BJP 9, xii–liii. 120 For a discussion, see Mason, BJP 9, xv–xix. Cf. however, Krieger, “Überlegung,” 189– 90, 203–5, who dates it under either Nerva or Trajan. 121 For possible reasons behind such change in the attitude, see Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal,” 41–68; Fuks, “Josephus,” 167–71. 122 Cf. b. Qidd. 70b. 123 For other pro-Hasmonean passages, see Ant. 14.490; 16.184–186; 17.163. 124 So Barish, “Autobiography,” 61–75; Mason, BJP 9, xix–xxi, 3. 125 Josephus uses the term ἐφημερίς. See also 1 Chr 24:4, 7 (the LXX has ἐφημερία); cf. 1 Macc 2:1; 14:29. 126 See further Mason, BJP 9, 6–7; Krieger, “Flavius Josephus,” 58–65. 32 chapter one

Hence, Josephus may have inherited some family oral traditions with respect to certain Hasmoneans. It is worth adding that Josephus personally knew the Jerusalem high priests probably from Ananias son of Nedebaeus (48–59 c.e.) onward.127 Josephus’ personal contact with most of them, either as a priest or later as a military commander, is a valuable testimony with regard not only to the history of the 1st c. c.e. high priests, but also with regard to the historian’s possible acquaintance with certain oral and/or written traditions on certain Hasmonean high priests.

4. Against Apion It is necessary to briefly pause here in order to clarify two aspects. First, earlier on, Josephus did touch upon the question of various models of the Jewish constitution, though in a rather confusing way.128 More clarity comes from Ap. 2.145–189, the last of his known works.129 Here, Josephus exposes his philosophical understanding of certain political and theological questions connected with the Jewish constitution and/or way of life.130 According to Josephus, it is based on Mosaic legislation.131 Moses ordained the government (τὸ πολίτευμα) to be—in a terminology apparently coined by Josephus—a θεοκρατία (Ap. 2.165).132 In Ap. 2.185 the author explains that God is at the head of all; God assigned the administration of the highest affairs to the priests, while the leadership of the priests to the high priest.133 Second, in both War and Antiquities Josephus seems to approve at times the right of the civil rule to appoint the high priestly office. But

127 For details and the names of other high priests, see Mason, BJP 9, 13–15, 97–104, 107–8. See also VanderKam, From Joshua, 476–82, 483–86. 128 Ant. 3.84, 213, 322; 6.83–85; 11.111; 20.229, 234, 251. On the Jewish constitution in the Graeco-Roman age, see Troiani, “πολιτεια,” 11–22. On various (inconsistent) legislation terms, see Schwartz, “Constitutions,” 30–52. 129 For an introduction, see Barclay, BJP 10, xviii–xxviii. Against Apion 2.52–113 has been preserved in a 6th c. only Latin translation done by Cassiodorus. The terminus post quem for dating the whole composition is 93/94 c.e. Against Apion 1.37–43 is the first fairly com plete list of what might be called, a “draft” of a biblical canon of twenty-two books. First Maccabees is not on this list. 130 See Gerber, Bild, 133–82; Barclay, BJP 10, 247–75. 131 In Ant. 4.194–198 Josephus offers only a summary of this legislation. On this text and Ap. 2.145–189, see Castelli, “Antiquities,” 151–69. 132 See further Amir, “Θεοκρατία,” 83–105. 133 Gerber, Bild, 168, noted that the term ἡγεμών is used for God while ἡγεμονία for the high priest. sources and their characteristics 33 in Ap. 2.145–189 he apparently reserves no place for a native or foreign king in his theocracy. This contradiction has been variously explained by scholars.134 Given Josephus’ positive attitude towards the early Has- monean high priests, the government form which Josephus probably had in mind was the Hasmonean model, and in particular that of Hyrcanus I. This view is strengthened by the way Josephus depicts himself in his works: as a military and political commander defending his people, a high priestly descendant, and a prophet.135 This aspect remains very important when dealing with Josephus’ works.

Conclusion: The source-critical analysis of Josephus’ Antiquities must be accompanied by an accurate acquaintance with his method of writing history. Josephus felt free to omit entire portions of the text he was using or switch to another source as he often did with the biblical texts in Ant. 1–11. Where his sources have survived, one can see that Josephus had a similar approach to the sources in Ant. 12–20. This is true with regard to both narrative and documentary material. Josephus’ sources were reworked in a way to serve the proposed purpose of his work and consequently fit in his assumed audience. The discrepancy between First Maccabees and Ant. 12–13, does, in no way, suggest that Josephus used a Hebrew version. This becomes increasingly clear with the help of the synopsis. While paraphrasing First Maccabees, Josephus referred occasionally to other sources, especially for the Seleucid history. In both cases the historian included his own comments. Occasional deviations can be explained partly in terms of Josephus’ pursuing of his historical method, partly in terms of additional source(s). A case by case study confirms this view. At 1 Macc 13:41–42//Ant. 13.213–214 Josephus switched to another source based on the chronicle of Hyrcanus I, on a non-Jewish source for the Seleucid affairs, and perhaps on some other source(s) too. Here again, the historian did not treat First Maccabees very differently from other (non-) biblical sources, even though Josephus did not consider it part of his biblical “canon” (cf. Ap. 1.37–43). Josephus was himself a priest and a close collaborator of several pre- War high priests. This enabled him to become acquainted with oral and/or written traditions preserved in the (high) priestly circles and/or archives,

134 For a tentative explanation, see Barclay, BJP 10, 273–75. 135 Gray, Prophetic Figures, 35–79; Gussmann, Priesterverständnisse, 240–49. 34 chapter one such as the list of the high priests contained in Ant. 20.224–251. On the one hand, this list must be evaluated in relation to other earlier lists, which the historian may have used as his source(s). On the other hand, it must be tested against the narrative material both in Ant. 12–13, 1–2 Maccabees, and other sources. Josephus was writing in Rome and tended to portray the early Has- moneans in the best possible way. With regard to this tendency, Josephus’ claim of being a Hasmonean descendant (Life 1–6) must be taken into account when dealing with passages in Antiquities about the early Has- monean high priests. One should equally keep in mind that Josephus’s “theocracy” was for an ideal government, whose leadership God had entrusted to the high priests of the line of Aaron. Josephus may have written many of his stories with this concept in mind. chapter two

The Pre-Hasmonean High Priests of the Seleucid Period

Introduction

After the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians which brought the royal Davidic rule to an end, the inhabitants of the newly instituted Yehud province remained under the control of foreign kings.1 This situation changed only with the formation of the relatively independent Judea under the Hasmonean high priest Simon in 141 b.c.e.2 In pre-exilic Jerusalem the chief priest was usually confined to the cultic sphere under the control of the Israelite/Judean sacral king, who would normally appoint him (e.g. 1 Kgs 2:35). It was the task of the king to supervise the organization of the cult, provide for its sacrifices, ensure that the laws of God are observed and maintain peace.3 After the exile, however, part of these tasks was assumed by the Persian king. The foreign king exercised religious authority over the Jerusalem temple and exerted military control of the Yehud province.4 /פחה) The king’s power was usually implemented through a governor The situation under the Ptolemies is less documented, but does .(פחוא not seem to have changed much.5 It is often assumed by scholars that in the absence of a Davidic dynasty the Jerusalem high priests began to play an increasingly prominent role. Scholars, however, have debated whether or not the post-exilic high priests of the Persian and Ptolemaic period exercised a political power as

1 On the importance of the Jerusalem temple as God’s abiding place, see Johnson, Sacral Kingship, 31–53. 2 Judea had been under the Babylonians (597–539), then under the Persians (539–332), and finally under the Hellenistic kings (332–141). This last period, which was marked by the victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians, is summarized in 1 Macc 1:1–9. 3 See further Johnson, Sacral Kingship, 4–30; Lowery, Reforming Kings, 210–16; Botha, “Royal Etiquette,” 36–49; Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 77–79. 4 E.g. Is 44:28; 45:13; 2 Cr 36:23. On the Persian period Judea, see the conclusions of Fried, Priest, 233; VanderKam, From Joshua, 99–111. 5 On the Hellenistic pre-Hasmonean period, see Brutti, Development, 251–68, 306–12. On international politics in Levant, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 15–30. 36 chapter two well, and if so, to what extent.6 What seems to be clear is that during this period the high priests did not have official military power, which was the prerogative of the king and his officials. This was in line also with the Priestly prescriptions of the Torah regarding the high priest of the line of Aaron.7 But what specific powers did the Jewish high priests have after the institution of the Seleucid Judea? It is thus necessary to study the political, military, cultural, religious, economic, social and other aspects of society that characterized the Seleu- cid rule both in and around Judea. Sometimes the Jewish affairs influenced the decisions of the royal chancellery. This chapter is therefore an introduction to the following chapters. Two main questions will guide this analysis: First, what were the role and powers of the pre-Hasmonean Jewish high priests? Second, what experience and perception could the Hasmonean priests have both of their high priests and of the Seleucid royal rule? This treatise is important for at least two reasons: First, it will provide the reader with an understanding of the significance and role of the Jeru- salem high priestly office in relation to the Seleucid king and his hierarchy. In particular, attention will be paid to the development that characterized the nature of the Jewish high priesthood. Second, it will help readers understand the step-by-step development of the events that led to the Hasmonean revolt, which initiated the long process of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

1. The Institution of the Seleucid Judea

A major political change for Judea came after the victory of Antiochus III Theos (223–187) over the Ptolemaic commander Scopas in 198.8 This event ended the so-called Fifth Syrian War (202–198). The newly conquered region was renamed from “Syria and Phoenicia” to “Koile-Syria and Phoenicia.”9 The Seleucid kingdom with its capital in Antioch-on-

6 On the Persian period Judea, see the conclusions by Fried, Priest, 154–233; VanderKam, From Joshua, 99–111. On the Ptolemaic period, see Vanderkam, 112–181; Brutti, Development, 121–155. 7 On the cultic prerogatives of the high priest, see Haran, Temples, 208–15. 8 On the end of the Ptolemaic dominion in this region, see Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 613–16; Huß, Ägypten, 489–92; Ma, Antiochos III, passim. 9 See further Gera, Judaea, 3 n 1, 25 n 75; Figueras, From Gaza, 100–1. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 37 the-Orontes was divided into satrapies, each being ruled by a στρατηγός.10 The region of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia was divided into provinces like Samaria, Judea, Idumea or Nabatea. These were, in turn, subdivided into districts (νομοί), and further into τοπαρχίαι, each one composed of several villages.11 According to Ant. 12.133–138, the Jerusalemites—guided by fear or by hope—welcomed Antiochus III and assisted him with getting control of the Ptolemaic akropolis.12 In 197, Antiochus initiated a military campaign westward which caused concerns in Rome. After negotiations failed, the Romans invaded Greek lands in 192, and within a few years defeated Anti- ochus at Magnesia. An immediate peace treaty followed in 189. Roman– Seleucid commitments were ratified in Apamea in 188.13 Antiochus promised to pay all of the war expenses in addition to making a yearly tribute to Rome. He also gave up his claims to several Thracian and Asia Minor territories. The most significant requirement was the surrender of a hostage, the king’s son Antiochus, the future King Antiochus IV. Any- one aspiring to occupy the Seleucid royal throne had to appear before the Roman senatus.14 Judea thus found itself being subject to the Seleucid king who, in turn, not only had to pay a tribute to Rome, but also “adjust” his policy to the will of Rome. The circulation in Jerusalem and other places of coins with royal images of Antiochus III, and later of Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, is the evident proof that Judea was subject to the Seleucid monarch.15 A great percentage of these coins, especially those of Antiochus IV, came from the mint of Akko-Ptolemais. Therefore, it will be important to look at the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood by considering further Seleucid–Roman diplomatic affairs.

10 On the jurisdiction and powers of various strategoi, see Bengtson, Strategie, I–II; Mooren, Hiérarchie, passim. 11 On variations and details, see Bickerman, Institutions, 197–207; Cohen, Seleucid Colo nies, 78–83; Bagnall, Administration, 18–21. For the theory that both Galilee and Judea were part of the Samarian/Samaritis province in the early 2d c. b.c.e., see Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions, 70–71. 12 For a comment, see Will, Histoire, I, 101–28. 13 For sources and a comment, see Gruen, Hellenistic World, 611–43; Green, Alexander, 286–311, 414–24. See also 1 Macc 8:6–8. 14 For a renewed discussion of the Roman policy towards Antiochus III, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 30–35. 15 For Jerusalem, see Ariel, “Survey,” 278–80; Gitler, “Coins,” 458. For Beth-Zur, see Sellers, “Objects,” 80–81. For Qumran, see de Vaux, Archaeology, 35–36. For Masada, see Meshorer, “Coins,” 85–86; Pl. 61. For places around Judea, see Shachar, “Significance,” 12–26. 38 chapter two

2. Judea, the Jerusalem Temple, and the Hasmoneans of Modein

Recently, Israel Finkelstein argued that based on various sources the Hel- lenistic Judea stretched “from the area of Beth-Zur, or just north of it, to Mizpah, and from the Judean desert to the eastern Shephelah.”16 The existence of such borders may be supported also by the distribution of the so-called Types 16 and 17 of the Yehud and the yrslm seal impressions dating from the 2d c. b.c.e.17 Finkelstein estimates the population of the pre-Hasmonean Judea at ca. 42,000 people, which is less than earlier esti- mations.18 The population of Jerusalem itself was mostly concentrated on the south-eastern slope and numbered probably several thousands.19 The hometown of the Hasmoneans was Modein. It is thought to have been some 25 km northwest of Jerusalem, near the modern Modiin. There lived Mattathias with his five sons (1 Macc 2:1–5), and brothers (2:17, 20). From the administrative point of view, however, Modein belonged to the district of Lydda/Lod, which was part of the province of Samaria (cf. 1 Macc 9:50–52; 11:34; Jos., Ap. 2.43).20 What then was the relationship of the Hasmoneans to the Jerusalem temple? According to 1 Macc 2:1, they were members of the priestly family of the Jehoiarib course (cf. 14:29; 1 Chr 24:7). The task of the priests was to sacrifice five or six times a year: two or three times when the turn of their priestly course would come up, and on the three major festivals: Passover, Pentecost (Shavuot) and Tabernacles (Sukkot).21 However, the sources do not state whether Mattathias and/or his sons performed any priestly duties at the temple before 164.

16 “Territorial Extent,” 49. 17 “Territorial Extent,” 52–53; Vanderhooft and Lipschits, “Typology,” 29–31. 18 “Territorial Extent,” 50. 19 See here pp. 130–31. 20 See Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 216–21; Lipschits, “Origins,” esp. p. 31; Schäfer, History, 55; Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 49; Barclay, BJP 10, 193. But cf. Kallai, Biblical Historiography, 85–88. 21 See Danby, Mishnah, 180 n 13. The change of a priestly course (mishmar) took place on Sabbath (1 Chr 24:4, 8; Jos., Ant. 7.365; m. Sukkah 5:8; Tamid 5:1) around mid-day (Jos., Ap. 2.108; b. Sukkah 56b). The members of the priestly families who reached ado lescence could probably begin serving at the altar. See further Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1823–24. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 39

3. The Edicts of Antiochus III for Jews and the Jerusalem Temple

The Pythagorean Diotogenes affirmed in his work On the Kingship that a king has three basic tasks to fulfill: military rule, judging, and care of gods (apud Stobaeus, Antholog. 4.7.61).22 These powers were exercised in Judea by Antiochus III. This concept of sacral kingship was in line with the Ptolemaic, Persian and Israelite/Judean kings. This conceptual conti- nuity is evident also in Second Maccabees: Solomon (2:8–12), the Persian (1:33–35) and the Hellenistic (3:1–3) kings. Further interaction between the newly conquered Judea and the Seleu- cid king appears to have been regulated for some time by the prostagma of Antiochus III quoted in Ant. 12.138–144. Second Maccabees 4:11 seems to refer to these concessions of Antiochus mediated through John, father of (the historian?) Eupolemus (cf. 1 Macc 8:17). Elias J. Bickerman thoroughly studied the royal edict and concluded that it is mainly authentic.23 The scholar, however, was less concerned with Josephus’ method of writing history and his use of documents. Still, there is reason to believe that Josephus’ text contains a historical substra- tum with many original elements.24 The same can be said with regard to the second edict of Antiochus III reproduced in Ant. 12.145–146. It contains a kind of religious taboo for Jeru- salem and its temple. In fact, similar restrictions are found in 11QTemple Scroll lxvii–lxviii [=11QT] and in 1 Macc 10:31, 43. One recalls also the two Greek inscriptions of the Herodian temple found in Jerusalem, which under the death penalty forbade foreigners to enter the temple’s inner courts (see CIJ 2.1140; SEG 8.169; CII/P No. 2; cf. War 5.193–194; 6.125–126; Ant. 15.417).25 Similar religious warnings were common in the Hellenistic world.26

22 On the philosophy of the Hellenistic kingship, see Goodenough, “Political Philoso phy,” 55–102; Murray, “Philosophy,” 13–28. 23 “Charte séleucide,” 44–85. 24 Gauger, “Antiochos III,” 196–225, challenges the authenticity of the document. However, he considers the study of Bickerman only in passing on p. 207. Nor is there a thorough comparative study made of epigraphic or other Seleucid material. See the more balanced view in Grabbe, History, II, 324–26. On similar charters of Antiochus III, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 51–52; Ma, “Seleukids,” 86–88; Martinez- Sève, “Fiscalité,” 86. 25 See further Bickerman, “Warning Inscriptions,” 210–24; Llewelyn and van Beek, “Temple Warning,” 1–22. Baumgarten, Jewish Sects, 82, remarks that “none of these provi sions is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.” 26 See further Lupu, Greek Sacred Law, 18–21. 40 chapter two

It is necessary to have a brief look at the first royal edict. This will help to clarify some aspects regarding the existing relations between the Seleu- cid kings on the one hand and the Jewish high priests and other Judean authorities on the other. Consequently, it will reveal the strategic, multiple importance of the Jerusalem temple.

3.1. The Royal strategos and archiereus Ptolemy and the Jerusalem High Priest The version of Josephus is reportedly based on (a copy of) the royal letter to Ptolemy (Ant. 12.138).27 This Ptolemy emerges as an important political intermediary between the king and the province(s) under his jurisdiction. He is often identified by scholars as “son of Thraseas,” who defected from the Ptolemies (cf. Polyb. 5.65).28 Ptolemy appears on two groups of inscriptions (OGIS 230; SEG 41.1574) as στρατηγὸς/ στραταγὸς καὶ ἀρχιερεύς Συρίας Κοίλας καὶ Φοινίκας.29 Ptolemy thus held both civil and religious powers, which was in accord with the Hellenistic standards of high priesthood. As strategos Ptolemy had both political and military power, although he may not have been empowered to quarter military forces.30 His title of archiereus instead was connected primarily with the monarchic religion (e.g. of Zeus Olympios, Apollo).31 However, Ptolemy had authority in his satrapy over the non- dynastic temples. The high priests of the temples in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim were no exception to the jurisdiction of this royal archiereus, even though they seem to have enjoyed certain autonomy. Normally, the name of Ptolemy had to be included in all official documents issued in his satrapy.32 What matters even more for this study is the Hellenistic type of the high priesthood of Ptolemy. Neither the Jewish high priest nor the Samaritan

27 The royal edict was likely engraved on a stone and set up in the Jerusalem temple area. Josephus’ text instead seems to be based on a literary source. 28 See, however, Grabbe, “Hyparchs,” 84–84. 29 See SEG 29.1613. The first dossier is dated to 197–187 b.c.e. It comes from Soli in Cili cia. See Grandjean and Rougemont, “Collection,” 100–15. The second was found near Hefzi bah 7 km northwest of Scythopolis (Beth Shean). It has nine documents dated between 201 and 195. See Landau, “Greek Inscription,” 54–70; Piejko, “Antiochus III,” 243–59. Herbert and Berlin, “Administrative Center,” 53, suggest Ptolemy and his successors lived in Kedesh (Galilee), where a huge Hellenistic building has been unearthed. 30 On the various powers of Ptolemy, see Bertrand, “L’inscription,” 167–74. 31 See also Zahle, “Religious Motifs on Seleucid Coins,” 125–39. 32 On this aspect, see Dignas, Economy, 46–52. On the administrative apparatus under Antiochus (mostly in Asia Minor), see Ma, Antiochos III, 122–50. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 41 high priest appears to have had such powers. In particular, the military power was not in line with the biblical halakhah regarding the Aaronide high priesthood.33

3.2. King Antiochus III and the Judean Authorities In Ant. 12.138, Antiochus III remembers the Jews/Judeans (τῶν Ι ουδαίων) with their gerousia as those who assisted him in conquering Jerusalem. According to Martin Hengel, the gerousia was composed of “principal priests, the rich lay nobility, the great landowners and heads of clans,” and was headed by a high priest.34 David Goodblatt instead thinks that before the Hasmonean times, gerousia meant “a non-institutionalized oli- garchy of “elders” alongside the high priest.”35 Goodblatt did not explain who these “elders” were, although he seems to have excluded priests, seeing in the gerousia a body of leading aristocrats being able to challenge even the high priest. The lack of reference to a high priest in the royal edict, however, caused many interpretations: 1) Politically Judea was represented by the gerou sia until the Hasmonean rule had been instituted;36 2) The high priest was “a central personality” in the gerousia, who at this time was Simon II mentioned in the encomium in Sirach 50.37 Simon belonged to the so- called Oniad high priestly house after Onias I, allegedly of the genealogical line of the first known postexilic high priest Joshua/Jeshua (Ant. 11.347; cf. Neh 12:10–11); 3) The king treats the Jerusalem community “comme d’un État ‘laïque’,” while the viewpoint of Ben Sira is “ouvertement hiérocratique”;38 4) The Oniads, and thus the high priest Simon II, supported the Ptolemies.39 Because of the lack of an original document, no absolute judgment can be given. It is also possible that for some reason Josephus or his source eliminated the title and the name of the high priest. Also, Simon II did not have military power and may have not had enough political authority

33 On how both high priestly traditions referred to Aaron, see Chapter X. 34 Judaism, I, 26. 35 Monarchic Principle, [83-]99. 36 So Bickerman, Institutions, 165. 37 So Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 81. 38 So Will and Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos, 101. 39 So Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 86; Nodet, Crise, 216. 42 chapter two to catch the attention of the royal officials.40 The high priest may have appealed to the Seleucids more as a religious, moral, and administrative figure. What is important is that Antiochus III implicitly approved the traditional Jewish institutions, which were in a certain way incorporated into the Seleucid administration.41

3.3. Antiochus III, the Jewish ethnos, and the Jerusalem Temple The new king was evidently willing, first of all, to restore the function of the Jerusalem temple (Ant. 12.140–141).42 The royal orders very probably reflected in part the earlier requests expressed by the temple envoys.43 When dealing with his subjects and before composing an edict, the king would normally consult local representative(s) in addition to the royal chancellery experts.44 As a place for religious devotion the temple attracted all sorts of offerings of food, first-born of cattle, first-fruits, wine and other goods. In addition to the so-called free offerings, there were various obligatory tithes, monetary and otherwise, classified as the temple taxes intended for the maintenance of the temple and its personnel.45 Certain Diaspora Jews would also contribute to the temple income either by way of pilgrimage or by donations through various organizations.46 Ya‘akov Meshorer stresses how the Jerusalem temple “was not only the religious center of the Jewish people” but also its “central bank.”47 It was a source for loans and a debt collector, and had a depository of collective and/or individual goods and donations. According to Marty E. Stevens it “functioned as an economic institution . . . in ways similar to other ANE temples.”48 The Jerusalem temple was, therefore, not only the heart of the

40 On the political power of Simon II, see Schunck, “Hoherpriester,” 504; VanderKam, From Joshua, 154; Brutti, Development, 255. In Ant. 11.329–339 the ἀρχιερεύς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, Jaddua, meets Alexander the Great. 41 On this aspect for the Ptolemaic period, see Grabbe, “Hyparchs,” 89. 42 Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 176, states that the temple on Mt. Gerizim was rebuilt by Antiochus III about the same time. If so, the king adopted a common policy towards the newly conquered temples. Cf. Ezra 6:1–12; 7:12–26. 43 See Wacholder, Eupolemus, 11; Hengel, “Political History,” 73. 44 See further Welles, RC, xxxvii–l. 45 Japhet, “Distribution,” 3–20; Schiffman, “Priestly Gifts,” 480–96. 46 See Safrai, Wallfahrt, 65–93; Kerkeslager, “Pilgrimage,” 104–223. 47 TJC, 73–74. 48 Temples, 171. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 43 religious and economic life of the Jews, but also a potential instrument of political control for both temple and royal officials.49 Furthermore, Antiochus III offered exemption from the crown tax, poll- tax, and the salt-tax to the gerousia, the priests, the scribes of the temple, and the temple singers (Ant. 12.142).50 The résumé of the function of the temple interested first of all the Judean authorities. But the person who had most control over all of the income was the high priest. It is significant that in Sir 50:1–4 Simon II is instead praised for having repaired and fortified the temple, and for having fortified the city against the siege. Most of the encomium, however, is about the cultic role of the high priest (50:5–21). This indicates the way the pre-Hasmonean high priest was perceived by the author. The Seleucid king defined the juridical status of the Jews as ἔθνος. The monarch also approved that all its members should live “according to the ancestral laws” (κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους).51 The king thus sanctioned the practice of the Torah and of various halakhic rules related to it. This seems to include the hereditary nature of the Jerusalem high priesthood. In fact, the new king did not remove the high priest. According to Benja- min G. Wright III, Simon II might have even supported Antiochus III, “at least initially.”52 The royal sanction for the observance of the patrioi nomoi probably also applied to Jewish communities around Seleucid Judea;53 that is, there were Jews who felt attached to the Jerusalem temple by making pilgrim- ages and fulfilling other religious duties, including the temple taxes. It seems to be appropriate to speak here about the temple-community. This means that the Jewish ethnos did not include only the Judean Jews. This broader meaning of the term ethnos has been recently advocated by Nadav Sharon.54 The pre-Hasmonean high priests must have enjoyed religious authority over certain communities beyond Judea. This also

49 For the Persian period, see Schaper, “Jerusalem Temple,” 538–39. For the Roman period, see Broshi, “Role,” 31–37. 50 On land and other taxes, see Mitwoch, “Tribute,” 352–61. 51 Plutarch, Reg. imp. apophth. F 183 reports that Antiochus III wrote to the poleis with the instruction to ignore his orders in case these were in contradiction with the local nomoi. 52 Praise Israel, 143. 53 As the 20 papyri found in Herakleopolis (P.Polit.Iud. Nos. 1–20; 144/3–133/2) demon strate, even certain Jewish groups in Egypt were internally regulated by their patrioi nomoi. See further Honigman, “Jewish Politeuma,” 251–66. 54 “Title,” 472–93. 44 chapter two better explains the relationship of the Hasmonean priests to the Jerusa- lem temple and its high priests. It is expedient to note from the outset that the use of “Judea” itself seems to vary at times in First Maccabees. It seems not always to correspond to the geo-political situation to which its literary context refers, but is used sometimes rather anachronistically.55 As for the administrative and possible political powers, the Jerusalem high priest could exercise them only within the borders of the Seleucid Judea. These aspects suggest that Judea functioned very probably as a temple-state, similarly to other known temple-states in the Hellenistic world. According to Étienne Nodet “[a]ucune autre religion n’ètait tolérée en Judée.”56 This was true perhaps inasmuch as this regarded public Jew- ish cult at the temple and the Jewish feasts.

4. King Seleucus IV and the Royal archiereus Olympiodorus

It is necessary to turn attention to the inscription on the stele found in Maresha, some 40 km southwest of Jerusalem.57 Two stone fragments (A & B) were recovered from an antiquities dealer and published in 2007.58 Three other fragments (C, D, E) have been excavated during the 2005/6 seasons in a subterranean complex about 100 m southeast of Maresha and published in 2009.59 Frgs. A and B were also subjected to scientific labora- tory examinations.60 This seemingly genuine inscription contains three letters. The lower- most was sent by King Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175), son of Antiochus III, to Heliodorus, the same as mentioned in 2 Macc 3. The royal prostagma concerns an appointment of Olympiodorus in Koile-Syria and Phoeni- cia. Olympiodorus appears also in the second letter sent by Heliodorus to Dorymenes (SEG 57.1838 ll. 7–12), who, in his turn, sent a letter to his subject Diophanes (ll. 1–6). The lower part of the royal letter is missing.

55 First Maccabees was written towards the end of the 2d c. b.c.e. Then, the borders of the Hasmonean Judea incorporated also Idumea, Samaria, much of Shephelah, part of the territory beyond the Jordan and part of Galilee. 56 Crise, 227. 57 The high priest Hyrcanus I conqured Maresha around 112/1 (War 1.62–63; Ant. 13.254– 257). For details, see Kloner, Maresha Excavations, I, 1–6. 58 Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV,” 191–205 (with photographs). 59 Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 125–55 (with photographs). See also Jones, “Inscription,” 101–3, who proposes some new readings of frgs. C, D and E. 60 See Goren, “Scientific Examination,” 206–16 (with photographs). the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 45

But the other two letters date themselves to the month Gorpiaios of the Sel. 134, i.e. roughly the summer of 178. A look at these letters is important here because they shed light on the organization of the Seleucid hierarchy in this satrapy. This helps one contextualize even better the position of the Jerusalem high priest. These letters also provide a historical background for the stories in 2 Macc 3(–4), which have been judged by certain scholars as fictitious. Seleucus IV begins his letter with expressing his concern that his subjects live in security and peace (SEG 57.1838 ll. 13–18). The king claims that it was a priority for him to ensure that the established sanctuaries in the other satrapies receive the ancestral honors with the proper care (ll. 18–22). Since the affairs in Koile-Syria and Phoenicia lacked someone to take care of these (i.e. sanctuaries), the king proclaims that he/they decided to appoint Olympiodorus (ll. 23–27). Olympiodorus grew up in the royal court (l. 29), had been first appointed chamberlain (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος), and subsequently First Friend (τῶν πρώτων φίλων), which was an honorific court title (ll. 31–33). Hannah M. Cotton and Michael Wörrle assumed that Olympiodorus was appointed over the sanctuaries and that he executed his powers “at a relatively low level” probably within the jurisdiction of Dorymenes, who may have been the strategos of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia then. This is why Heliodorus reported the royal order to Dorymenes.61 However, both Cotton and Wörrle suggested that an actual appointment of Olympiodo- rus as high priest “cannot be ruled out.”62 Due to new material recently made available, Dov Gera has suggested a new reconstruction. Having compared the Maresha dossier with other Seleucid inscriptions, the scholar came to the conclusion that Olympi- odorus was appointed as archiereus over Koile-Syria and Phoenicia.63 An additional argument Gera claims to have found is in the lines he reconstructed from frg. E.64 The royal edict contains the order that the name of Olympiodorus should be recorded “in contracts” (SEG 57.1838 ll. 11–12). This indicates the high position to which Olympiodorus was assigned. Instruction seems to also have been given that a copy of the royal letter be inscribed on a stele and set up very probably in the most conspicuous of the sanctuaries of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia (SEG 57.1838 ll. 12–15).

61 “Seleukos IV,” 197–201. 62 “Seleukos IV,” 197. 63 “Olympiodoros,” 136–37, 149. 64 “Olympiodoros,” 137–38. 46 chapter two

It is possible that this prostagma became publicized in Jerusalem. The high standing position of Olympiodorus is also suggested by the fact that the whole dossier involves only three officials after the king. The appointment of Olympiodorus as archiereus was subsequently argued by Christo- pher P. Jones65 and Alice Bencivenni.66 From the Maresha dossier it sounds as if the high priestly office of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia had been vacant for some time. This is suggested by the comparison made with the other satrapies (SEG 57.1838 ll. 20–23), as well as the fact that there was no mention of anyone holding the high priesthood before Olympiodorus. Also 2 Macc 3:5 and 2 Macc 4:4 mentions no title of high priest but only that of strategos for Apollo- nius. Olympiodorus was probably expected to reorganize the satrapy and “raise money.” Seleucid appointments over local sanctuaries with the aim to have more efficient control of them are known from other sources.67 Such royal policy must have caused frustrations among the local (high) priests administering the treasuries of the individual temples, like that in Jerusalem.68

5. The Jewish High Priest69 Onias III and the Inner Struggles

The appointment of Olympiodorus likely had repercussions on the auton- who ,([?]חוני/omy enjoyed by the Jerusalem high priest, Onias III (Ονίας inherited the office from his father Simon II (Sir 50:1; Ant. 12.225).70 In 2 Macc 3:1–3 (cf. 4:5; 15:12) Onias III is soon credited with certain attributes that once characterized some of the past sacral Israelite/Judean kings: piety, ensuring of the observance of the laws, hatred of wickedness, main- taining of peace. This exemplary behavior reportedly caught the attention of the Seleucid kings, who honored the Jerusalem temple with gifts, and even provided the necessary expenses for the sacrificial liturgy. Toward the end of his high priesthood, however, Onias III, who was supported by a wealthy man named Tobiad Hyrcanus, came into conflict

65 “Inscription,” 104. 66 “ ‘Massima considerazione’,” 147 with n 47. 67 See further Capdetrey, Pouvoir séleucide, 322–28. On the Seleucus IV’s relations with Rome, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 35–37. 68 So also Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 148. On the various aspects of the Seleucid financial system, see Mittag, Antiochos IV, 70–85. 69 On Jewish high priestly titles, see Brutti, Development, 57–71. 70 VanderKam, From Joshua, 188–97; Brutti, Development, 204–10. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 47 with a certain Simon who was prostates of the temple.71 Second Maccabees 3:11 relates that Hyrcanus kept his money in the temple’s treasury. Simon reported to Apollonius, son of Thraseas the strategos of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia, that the Jerusalem temple had excessive funds (3:4). The latter relayed the news to the king, who ordered Heliodorus ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων (2 Macc 3:7; cf. SEG 57.1838 l. 2) to confiscate the surplus (2 Macc 3:5–7; cf. Dan 11:20). Heliodorus arrives in Jerusalem (with forces?) to interrogate the high priest.72 Onias III (see ἀρχιερεύς τῆς πόλεως; 2 Macc 3:9) acts not only as the head of the temple but apparently also as political representative of Jerusalem.73 At the end, a compromise was probably reached. Jason of Cyrene (and also the epitomizer) saw in this conflict the beginning of a long inner struggle. It involved even more the Seleucid royal chancellery and must have had negative economic consequences for the temple priesthood. Traces of this ongoing conflict can be found in the so- called Tobiad romance (Ant. 12.160–236), namely in 12.228–229.74 Josephus states that Simon sided with the Tobiads, the older brothers of Hyrcanus, “on account of their relation,” who, in another war episode, sided with Menelaus his brother (12.229). The conflict between Onias III and Simon was soon resumed. Second Maccabees 4:3 even records murders in Jeru- salem at the hands of Simon’s agents. The exact relation of the stories of 2 Macc 3–4 to the appointment of Olympiodorus requires further investigation. The editors of the inscription see in this appointment the origin for factional strife in Jerusalem.75 It is also possible that the latter was one of the causes for such significant nomination.76 What matters here is that the ongoing conflict prompted Onias III to appeal directly to the king. Such decision must have been

71 Brutti, Development, 264, among others, argues that Simon was a royal appointee. Rappaport, “Heliodoros,” 12–13, hypothesizes that Simon may have been appointed as part of the reform introduced by Seleucus IV. On the function of a prostates, see Dignas, Economy, 21–23, 30–31. 72 In 4 Macc 4:5 Simon joins the army (cf. 1 Macc 7:10, 14). Heliodorus may be one of the διοικηταί of the Hefzibah dossier (SEG 41.1574); so Piejko, “Antiochus III,” 249. On dioiketes, see Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 269–76. Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 149 with n. 121 and Rappaport, “Heliodoros,” 14–19, argue that it was probably Olympiodorus who came to the Jerusalem temple. 73 On the political power of Onias III, see Schunck, “Hoherpriester,” 506; VanderKam, From Joshua, 195; Brutti, Development, 256–57. 74 Hyrcanus built a settlement with a fortress beyond the Jordan (Ant. 12.228–234). It has been identified with today’s ‘Arâq el-Emîr, some 17 km west of Amman. See further Will and Larché, ‘Iraq al Amir; Hübner, Ammoniter, 223–25. 75 Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV,” 202–3; Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 148–49. 76 Against this view, see however, Rappaport, “Heliodoros,” 6–10, 19. 48 chapter two dictated by the gravity of the situation in Jerusalem. As a rule, direct appeal to the king on the part of the Jewish high priest was connected with the latter’s difficulty to act in the office. In the meantime, however, Seleucus IV had died, assassinated apparently by Heliodorus (App., Syr. 45).77 Antiochus IV surnamed Epiphanes (175–164) returned from Rome to the Seleucid soil and became the new king, an event dated to September of 175 (2 Macc 4:7).78

6. The Jewish High Priest Jason and the Hellenizing Reform

It is necessary first to clarify briefly what is meant here by such terms as “Hellenization,” “Hellenistic,” “Hellenized,” or “Hellenizing.” “Helleniza- tion” was the interaction on various levels (political, cultural, economic, religious and other) between Greco-Macedonians and other people.79 This interaction often went both ways. Thus “Hellenistic” was not (necessarily) equal to Greek. Likewise, becoming “Hellenized” did not necessarily result in loosing (completely) one’s ethnic identity or religion.80 As Doron Mendels notes, it does not mean that Jews who embraced Hellenism were “despisers of the Torah.”81 There was also an interaction on various levels between Jews and the Hellenized non-Greek population.82 Then, there were those who actively promoted the process of Hellenization, i.e. Hel- lenizing groups. who was the brother of Onias III, became high priest (יסון/Jason (᾿Ιάσων in Jerusalem after Antiochus IV had assumed the royal throne (2 Macc 4:7; Ant. 12.237–239).83 He obtained that office from the king for which he promised 360 silver talents and an additional 80 talents from another source. Following 2 Macc 4:7–9, Jason also agreed to pay another 150 if permission was granted to establish by his authority a gymnasium, an

77 Antiochus IV was replaced in Rome by the future King Demetrius I. Until 170, there was as co-regent Seleucus’ son, Antiochus; see Sachs and Wiseman, “Babylonian List,” 207–8. 78 On the sojourn of Antiochus IV in Rome, see Mittag, Antiochos IV, 37–40. On the epithet “Epiphanes” and its various implications, see Mittag, 128–39. On how Antiochus IV became king, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 37–40. 79 On how First and Second Maccabees present the process of Hellenization, see, for instance, Troiani, “Note,” 347–370; Mendels, “Memory,” 41–54. 80 Some scholars prefer to speak of double/multi-ethnic identity. So van der Spek, “Ethnic Segregation,” passim (with further bibliographical references). 81 “Memory,” 47. 82 See further Smith, Palestinian Parties, 57–81. 83 On Jason, see VanderKam, From Joshua, 197–203. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 49 ephebeia, and “enroll those in Jerusalem [as] Antiocheans.” The new high priest proceeded with the implementation of his plan (2 Macc 4:10–12). Priests are mentioned as those who took delight in these Greek institutions (4:14). According to Ant. 12.237–241, however, it was Menelaus who was the promoter of this Hellenistic reform. A parallel version of the story is found in 1 Macc 1:11–15, but it contains no name. Antiquities 12.237–238 reports that since Onias’ son—Onias (IV) was still young, “Jesus” assumed the high priesthood at the death of his brother Onias. But Antiochus IV, being angry at Jason, deprived him of his office and gave it to his brother, who also was called Onias. In fact, according to Josephus, the high priest Simon (II) had three sons, each of whom became high priest: Onias Jesus “who changed his name to Jason,” and another Onias called Menelaus (12.239). This note underlines the hereditary character of the Jerusalem high priesthood. Some scholars argue that Josephus relied on 1 Macc 1:11–15, and that he added the names.84 Yet the discrepancies which occur in comparison with 2 Macc 4:7–17 on the one hand, and 1 Macc 1:11–15 on the other, are better understood if Ant. 12.237–241 is seen as stemming partly from an independent source, just as Ant. 12.156–159, 224–225. This same source will re-emerge in Josephus’ work, and can be conveniently labeled as the “Oniad High Priestly Chronicle.”85 Thus, Ant. 12.237–241, in particular, can be regarded as a conflation of two sources: 1 Macc 1:11–15 and an excerpt from this chronicle. Therefore, it was, probably, Josephus who was not acquainted with Second Maccabees and who connected Menelaus with the Hellenistic reform. Royal approval of Jason’s proposal was dictated for at least three reasons: 1) Jason implicitly recognized the newly installed king; 2) It promised Antiochus IV a loyal subject near the Seleucid southern border with the Ptolemies; 3) Jason’s proposed money was very much needed in view also of the king’s delay in paying the final part of the tribute to Rome, which he completed only in 173 (Livy 42.6.6–12).86

84 So Büchler, Tobiaden, 111; VanderKam, From Joshua, 221. 85 There appears to be a thematic and chronological connection between Ant. 12.383b– 385, 387–388 and 12.156–159, 224–225, 237–241, and perhaps 13.62–73. 86 For a comment, see Gera, Judaea, 117–19. 50 chapter two

6.1. The Institution of the Gymnasium and of the “Antiocheans” The language of 2 Macc 4:9–17 finds some parallels in non-Jewish sources.87 Second Maccabees 4:11 affirms that Jason abrogated the royal concessions obtained through the mediation of John, the father of Eupo- lemus (cf. 1 Macc 8:17//Ant. 12.415). These concessions are understood to be those listed in Ant. 12.138–144.88 Josephus adopted the same expression in both Ant. 12.142 and Ant. 12.240: τοὺς πατρίους νόμους.89 First Maccabees 1:14//Ant. 12.241 records the foundation of the gymnasium and seems to allude to the institution of the “Antiocheans.” But what were the nature, the purpose, and the effect of these institutions? These aspects will shed significant light on the context in which the Hasmonean revolt itself was conceived. Throughout the Hellenistic world the Greek settlers would have established their own gymnasiums.90 Every Hellenistic city of any importance had at least one such gymnasium.91 In this case it was the Jewish high priest Jason who asked for its institution. Its head, the gymnasiarchos, was helped by other magistrates and these were often of Greco-Macedonian origins. Normally, it would include up to three (or four) stages of education: for παῖδες at the age of seven, for ἔφηβοι at the age of sixteen, and for νέοι at the age of twenty.92 The activities of the gymnasium focused on both intellectual and physical training.93 For Henri-Irénée Marrou, “pour Hellénistiques, la législa- tion scolaire est devenu . . . un des attributs nécessaires de l’État civilisé.”94 It included the learning of the Greek language, Greek civic laws (politikoi nomoi), Greek literature, music and architecture.95 Among those who embraced the Greek paideia were powerful families who sought “to keep themselves in their position of influence.”96

87 For other texts, see Doran, “Jason’s Gymnasium,” 109, 103–7. 88 Zollschan, “Jewish Embassy,” 37–44, suggests “no certainty” that an embassy to the Romans against Jason may have taken place under John, in 174. 89 For a comparison, see Dequecker, “Jason’s Gymnasium,” 375–79. 90 Rostovtzeff, History, I, 324; Maehler, “Griechische Schule,” 195–96. For Hengel, Judaism, I, 75, Jason “had also undergone . . . Greek education.” 91 Jones, Greek City, 220–22, calls it a “hallmark of Hellenism.” For Gauthier, “Cités,” 225, “[l]a cité hellénistique est inconcevable sans un . . . gymnase[s].” 92 For variations in age, see Kleijwegt, Ancient Youth, 89–101. 93 See Harris, Ancient Literacy, 134–35; Gauthier, “Notes,” 1–11. 94 Histoire, I, 150[–51]. See also Robert, Noms, 492–95. 95 See further Dmitriev, City Government, passim; Préaux, Monde hellénistique, II, 562– 65; Doran, “High Cost,” 97–105. 96 So Han, Daniel’s Spiel, 45. See further Hin, “Class,” 141–66. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 51

Second Maccabees mentions the ephebeia separately from the gymnasium although they were related. It was an aristocratic and oligarchic institution (cf. 4:12) where physical training was “un des aspects essen- tiels de l’initiation à la vie civilisée.”97 Another role of the ephebeia was military training.98 According to Nigel M. Kennell, “[m]ilitary and athletic training were always essential to ephebic training.”99 One of the tasks of those trained there, jointly with the garrison of the akropolis (2 Macc 4:28; cf. Ant. 12.138), was that of safeguarding the public order.100 Active participation or sponsorship of athletic competitions by the high priest Jason outside Judea was considered an international booster (cf. 2 Macc 4:18–20).101 L. D’Amore then speaks of participation of the neoi in military campaigns.102 Fragments of Ionic capitals were found on the south-western hill ( Jew- ish Quarter). These were produced in Jerusalem by stone carvers and masons presumably from the Greek world. Some scholars identify them with remnants of Jason’s gymnasium; others identify them as from a Greek temple.103 Alternatively, these could be the remains of the Greek sacred precincts built around the agora in 167 (cf. 1 Macc 1:47; 2 Macc 10:2). The high priest Jason did not limit himself to the institution of the gymnasium only. The argumentation of Elias J. Bickerman that Jason instituted a politeuma of “Antiocheans” rather than a polis appears convincing.104 As a rule, one of the aspects of such politeumata was a military role. By instituting both the gymnasium and the “Antiocheans” Jason was probably associated with military power too.105 This Hellenistic feature

97 See Marrou, Histoire, I, 165, 167–87. VanderKam, Jubilees, 245–46 argues that Jub. 3:31 and 7:20 allude to the sporting activity at the gymnasium. 98 See Launey, Recherches, II, 813–35; Kennell, Ephebeia, 1–136. 99 Ephebeia, xii. 100 Kennell, “New Light,” 22, speaks of “civic militia.” In this direction see also D’Amore, “Ginnasio,” 147–165, who emphasizes both the military training and the participation of the ephebes in public religious processions. 101 See Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 109–11; Gauthier, “Cités,” 227. 102 “Ginnasio,” 166–71. 103 Mazar and Eshel, “First Wall,” 268 (n 9); Reich, “Stone Vessels,” 271–74. On Hellenis tic architecture, see Rosenberg, “Wall Painting,” 313–14. 104 Gott, 61–62. So Parente, “Gerusalemme,” 35; Gruen, “Hellenism,” 243; Nodet, Crise, 229. For the polis theory, see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 161–62, 168; Schäfer, History, 37; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 530–32. Mittag, Antiochos IV, 235–47, is not against the politeuma theory but argues that a differentiation between the two definitions is not always easy. 105 On various aspects of the politeumata, see Kasher, Jews, 122–35; Lüderitz, “Poli teuma,” 189–22; Biscardi, “Polis,” 1205–13; Honigman, “Jewish Politeuma,” 251–66; Cowey, “Ägyptische Judentum,” 28–31. 52 chapter two had a significant impact on the further development and perception of the nature of the Jewish high priesthood. The establishment of these institutions had created a socio-economic and political differentiation among the priesthood. The priests and/ or their sons who belonged to the institution of the “Antiocheans” (cf. 2 Macc 4:12), had easier access to the costly education at the gymnasium.106 There they came into close contact with the Greco-Macedonian people and their culture with its polytheism.107 The “Antiocheans” were also very probably exempted from certain taxes, which continued to be paid by the rest of the population.108 On the socio-religious level it would appear that there was a selection process of priests who were to serve at the temple, at the expense of those priests who were not “Antiocheans.” Certain restrictions were likely under way also with regard to their other religious rights. If so, this would have altered the traditional change of priestly courses. Consequently, this would have had a dramatic impact on the general income of these priests and their families. As 1 Macc 1:13 affirms, the promoters of the reform were given “authority to practice the commandments of the nations” (cf. 6:23). This defined group had been legitimized by the king to follow a new set of civic laws (politikoi nomoi), hence a new politeia.109 These Jews were considered royal citizens, with the same civic rights as the Seleucid colonists with whom they collaborated on a daily basis. This socio-political aspect concerned, first of all, Jason, whose high priesthood continued to assume more and more Hellenistic features.

6.2. The Jewish High Priesthood for Sale: A Hellenistic Innovation Perhaps the most innovative reform of Jason was his purchasing of the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. Still, this aspect received secondary

106 See also Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 199–200. 107 On the characteristics of Greek life, see Burckhardt, Greeks, 63–124. 108 On the existence of other similar (semi-)autonomous institutions in Koile- Syria and Phoenicia, see Tal, “ ‘Hellenistic Foundations’,” 247–48. 109 In the 3d c. of Ptolemaic Egypt there were in Trikomia (Fayûm) Jews who were referred to as “Hellenes.” To this category belonged also Greek and other ethnic groups who enjoyed, among others, “a tax-privileged status.” See Honigman, “Jewish Communi ties,” 130–31. A papyrus dated to 226 b.c.e. (CPJ No. 19) witnesses the existence of Jews in Arsinoë–Crocodilopolis, who enjoyed the same politikoi nomoi as the Greeks. Both appear to have belonged to the same politeuma. On other such politeumata, see Kasher, “Civic Status,” 100–21. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 53 attention in scholarly studies. Jason did not have the traditional right to become high priest at that point. There was his brother, Onias III, who was still living. Besides, the legitimate heir of Onias’ high priestly office was his son, Onias (IV; see below). It is no surprise that 2 Macc 4:7 states that Jason procured the office by corruption. The selling of (high) priesthood is widely known in the Hellenistic world, especially in Greece and Asia Minor. Besides inheritance and election, the Greek laws allowed the (high) priesthood to be purchased. At times the office could be put up for auction. At other times there was a fixed sum to be paid. It could be sold for a limited period of time or for life. As a rule, preference was given to those citizens or city magistrates who were actively supporting the policy of a polis and/or that of the king. These included benefactors of a city’s temple, political and military officials, sponsors of various religious festivities, or those who provided for the temple’s repairs. Sometimes offices of (high) priesthood were sold to raise money for a temple or a city that was in need of funds.110 Jason could have learned about this existing Greek/Hellenistic procedure and made use of it to further his own ambitions. This appears to have been, in a certain sense, a turning point in the history of the Jewish high priesthood which tended to be a hereditary office, as was the priesthood itself. The high priestly office soon began to be regarded as a source of revenues for the royal treasury. However, regardless of the way Jason became high priest, no revolt is mentioned against his rule, perhaps because Jason was still a member of the Oniad high priestly family.

7. The New High Priest Menelaus and the Jerusalem gerousia

The success of Jason in purchasing the high priesthood attracted the attention of other priests ready to pay even more. Thus Menelaus outbid the high priest by 300 silver talents and occupied the high priestly office in 172, or early 171 (2 Macc 4:23–26; cf. 3:4). Menelaus (Μενέλαος) was the brother of Simon the prostates of the temple who acted against the high priest Onias III, and belonged to the priestly course of Bilgah (cf. Neh 12:5,

110 See Otto, “Kauf,” 594–99; Robert, “Inscriptions,” 467–484; Laumonier, “Inscriptions,” 356–68; Jones, Greek City, 162, 175, 227–30; Rostovtzeff, History, I, 241, 621; II, 885, 895; Debord, Aspects, 101–116; Dignas, Economy, 250–71; Connelly, Portrait, 45–54; Parker and Obbink, “Sales I,” 415–47; eadem, “Sales II,” 229–52. For references to epigraphic sources and other bibliography, see Lupu, Greek Sacred Law, 48–53, 135, 300. 54 chapter two

18; 1 Chr 24:14).111 Under Menelaus’ high priesthood the Seleucid influence in Judea significantly increased as did the Hellenizing process. A chain of revolts was also generated, one of which was that of the Hasmonean priests. The promise that Menelaus would increase the annual tribute from 440 to 740 talents meant for the tax payers nearly doubling their taxes in roughly three years (cf. 2 Macc 4:8). To this should be added the public expenses for the costly reform introduced by Jason. This socio-economic aspect appears to have led Menelaus to the impossibility of paying the promised sum (4:27–29). He was summoned by the king to the capital of Antioch. The high priest reportedly brought with him some of the temple vessels, while others he had sold in Tyre and other cities (4:32). His brother Lysimachus, who was left to act as deputy (διάδοχος) high priest, was even accused by the populace of having stolen more vessels. The protest ended in bloodshed and Lysimachus was killed near the temple’s “treasury” (4:39–42).112 The actions of Menelaus and Lysimachus also caused a break with the Jerusalem gerousia, which sent three men to accuse the high priest before the king (2 Macc 4:44). Antiochus IV was in Tyre at this time because of his war preparations against the Ptolemies. But here too Menelaus managed to bribe Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, perhaps the same Dorymenes mentioned in the Olympiodorus inscription (SEG 57.1838 l. 7). Ptolemy persuaded the king in favor of the high priest and obtained the execution of the three envoys (2 Macc 4:45–49).

8. Menelaus, Jason’s Attack on the Temple, and King Antiochus IV

With the two military expeditions of Antiochus IV against the Ptole- maic princes, in 169 and 168 respectively, things had worsened in Judea.113 Indeed the position of the high priest Menelaus was greatly shaken. The following discussion will shed more light on the strategic importance of the Jerusalem high priestly office.

111 On the possible textual emendation, see de Bruyne, “Texte,” 46–47. Cf. however, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 95–96 and Parker, “Studien,” 144–48. 112 The term γαζοφυλάκιον occurs in 2 Macc 3:6, 13, 24, 28, 40; 4:42; 5:18. 113 On the first and second expedition as part of the Sixth Syrian War, see Walbank, Polybius, III, 319–27, 350–63, 396–406; Gera, Judaea, 129–141, 161–74; Huß, Ägypten, 547–61; Mittag, Antiochos IV, 159–81, 209–13. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 55

While Antiochus IV was in Egypt the ex-high priest Jason received news that the king died. He attacked Jerusalem with no fewer than 1,000 men (2 Macc 5:5; cf. 4:26). Josephus states that Jason was supported by “the majority of the populace” (Ant. 12.240; cf. 2 Macc 5:11).114 Menelaus himself took refuge in the akropolis (2 Macc 5:5). According to another independent source in 2 Macc 1:7–8, Jason “burnt the gate and shed innocent blood” (cf. 2 Macc 5:6; 1 Macc 4:38).115 Evidently, Jason tried to take control of the temple. In Antiquities it is Jason who revolts. Instead, War 1.31–32 mentions a certain Onias. Some scholars deduced that this must have been Onias IV, son of Onias III.116 Jochen G. Bunge argues that Onias IV joined with Jason and acted for some time as high priest.117 First, one does not know for how long Jason controlled Jerusalem. Second, one still must prove that Onias IV cooperated with Jason. Third, one wonders whether Jason would have given precedence to his nephew for the high priestly office. It is perhaps safer to assume that Josephus confused Jason with his brother Onias III.118 This fits with War 7.431, where Onias is referred to as “son of Simon [II]” (cf. Ant. 12.239). On his return from Egypt, Antiochus IV marched on Jerusalem to take care of Jason’s revolt. Josephus speaks of Jews loyal to the king, who pleaded with Antiochus to intervene.119 Jason eventually was forced to withdraw into the land of Ammanitis.120 Following 2 Macc 5:1, 11, however, Jason’s attack occurred during the second royal expedition.121 Instead, 1 Macc 1:20–24//Ant. 12.246–247 places the first expedition in 169 (143 Sel.) but does not mention the second one. The mention of a second Seleucid attack on Jerusalem is found also in 2 Macc 5:24, and it is paralleled in 1 Macc 1:29//Ant. 12.248. This event is dated “two years” after Antiochus’ first incursion, namely to 167 (145 Sel.). Malalas 8.263, who seems to have drawn on an independent version, places Antiochus IV’s attack during the first withdrawal, and connects it

114 On Jason and the Tobiad Hyrcanus, see Zayadine, “Tobiades,” 23. 115 According to Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 187, a temple gate “is apparently meant.” 116 So, among others, VanderKam, From Joshua, 216. 117 “Geschichte,” 10. 118 So also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 468 n 36. 119 See Haag, Daniel, 77. Josippon 4:18 records Alcimus and not Menelaus. 120 See further Hübner, Ammoniter, 226. 121 So also Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 533–36, who believes Antiochus IV attacked Jerusa lem following the second withdrawal from Egypt. 56 chapter two with a defection in Jerusalem.122 Such a course of events is substantiated by 4QHistorical Text A (4Q248). It knows of two expeditions of Antiochus to Egypt, but makes no mention of his second attack (cf. ll. 8–9).123 Also Dan 11:30 makes no explicit reference to Antiochus’ presence in Jerusalem for a second time.124 Only Josephus has Antiochus attacking Jerusalem twice. However, Ant. 12.248–256 is a conflated story with the king as its main protagonist, which in 1 Macc 1:29–35, 41–63 is presented as a series of events in 167. As Victor Tcherikover remarked, certain ancient sources do not always distinguish between the actions of the king and those of his officials.125 Antiochus IV was rewarded by Menelaus, who accompanied him into the temple. The king reportedly took some of the sacred vessels and the votive offerings made by other kings as well as 1,800 talents (2 Macc 5:15– 16, 21).126 It is improbable that the king despoiled the temple’s inner court at this point (cf. 1 Macc 1:21–24). The contemporary authors of 4Q248 l. 6 and Dan 11:28 speak of Antiochus’ return from Egypt with great riches; they make no clear reference to the looting of this sacred area (cf. Diod. 28.22). Also Josephus’ Ant. 12.247, in addition to the massacre, records the taking of the money only. The king appointed two epistatai: at Jerusalem the Phrygian Philip, and at Mt. Gerizim, Andronicus (2 Macc 5:22–23). An epistates was a royal representative appointed over a local body or a city. His role resembled that of the local strategos and held both political and military powers. Often, he would have a certain control over the city’s legislation, tax collection, and sometimes, over the enrolling of the royal citizens.127 The presence of a royal epistates alongside a (high) priest is attested in inscriptions from Olba, in the Rough Cilicia. However, it seems as if there he was appointed directly by the high priest.128

122 On the historical value of Malalas, see Bickerman, “Maccabées,” 192–209. 123 Broshi and Eshel, DJD 36, 199, dated the composition “just after the second invasion” of Egypt, and before the final edition of the Book of Daniel. 124 So Goldingay, Daniel, 301; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 298; Collins, Daniel, 384. 125 Hellenistic Civilization, 189. Cf. Barclay, BJP 10, 214–15. 126 Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 144, estimated the sum to be a little less than “three years’ tribute.” 127 On the powers of epistates, see further Mooren, Hiérarchie, 121–26; Grainger, Cities, 62–63; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 165–66; Errington, “König,” 51–63. Mitwoch, “Tribute,” 355–57, speculated that after Jason’s revolt the land tax was collected by royal representatives. 128 See Mackay, “Major Sanctuaries,” 2085–87; Trampedach, “Tempel,” 276. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 57

Especially important in 2 Macc 5:23 is the note that the king reinstalled Menelaus in the high priestly office. This indicates that Menelaus did not act as high priest for some time. It also suggests that Jason may have even proclaimed himself as the acting high priest with the help of his militants. Jason may have acted so on the pretext that he was the brother of the legitimate high priest, Onias III. His strategy of occupying the high priestly office with military aid points to the changing perception of the nature of the high priesthood. The Priestly prescriptions of the Torah played an increasingly secondary role.

9. The Royal Official Apollonius, the Profanation of the Jerusalem Temple, and the Institution of the Seleucid Akra

Both 1 Macc 1:29–32 and 2 Macc 5:24–26 indicate that Antiochus IV sent as the commander of an army Apollonius the “Mysarch” to Jerusalem. He may have been the same Apollonius, who in 173 brought tribute to Rome (Livy 32.6).129 Both sources describe Apollonius’ entry into Jerusalem as peaceful. Daniel 11:30–31 seems to suggest this event occurred sometime after the second return of Antiochus from Egypt.130 Both 1 Macc 1:29 and Ant. 12.248 date it “two years” after the king’s former attack, i.e. spring of 167 at the earliest.131 Once inside Jerusalem, Apollonius reportedly ordered a violent attack. Why did Apollonius come to Jerusalem with forces? The reason for Apollonius’ order has been a matter of speculation among scholars. Victor Tcherikover suggested that an insurgence must have taken place before in Jerusalem.132 Peter F. Mittag and some other scholars, connect the attack of Apollonius with Jason’s revolt.133 It is necessary to first understand what happened soon after. Both Dan וחללו) and 1 Macc 1:37 speak about the profanation of the sanctuary 11:31 -καὶ ἐμόλυναν τὸ ἁγίασμα).134 The former refers also to the abolish//המקרש as does Josephus in Ant. 12.251, where the (תמיד) ing of the daily sacrifice event is narrated after the second expedition of Antiochus IV to Egypt.

129 According to Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 265, he was “commander of mercenaries from Mysia.” 130 See further Collins, Daniel, 384–85. 131 Gera, Judaea, 223–24; cf. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 32–33. 132 Hellenistic Civlization, 188. 133 Antiochos IV, 252–54. .in 4Q248 l. 9 may be an echo of this event נפץ יד עם הק]דש The wording 134 58 chapter two

First Maccabees 1:36–40 adds that the sanctuary became desolated and its holidays turned into mourning. Second Maccabees 8:2 also reports that the temple (ναός) had been profaned. Given the socio-economic difficulties already faced by Judea in paying the taxes to the king,135 it is probable that Apollonius went as far as to despoil (part of) the temple’s inner court. This would have become reason enough for many Jews to react (cf. 4:39–42).136 Another revolutionary event was soon to happen. First Maccabees 1:33–35//Ant. 12.252 relates that Apollonius ordered the demolition of the city walls and the building of an Akra (ἄκρα) near the temple.137 In 1 Macc 1:33 the whole City of David—where the population of Jerusalem was mostly concentrated—was fortified with a strong wall and towers (cf. War 1.39; 5.137). Second Maccabees 8:3 also reports the demolition of the walls, but says nothing about the Akra (cf. 15:35). The Akra became the political, military, as well as administrative center of Judea. It was meant to exercise a more efficient royal control over the temple’s economy, over the taxation in Judea and over Jerusalem’s daily life.138 It housed the Seleucid colonists (Dan 11:39; 1 Macc 3:45; 2 Macc 4:29; Ant. 12.252);139 but also Hellenizing Jews (1 Macc 1:11, 34; cf. 3:36; Ant. 12.252).140 With a view to the latter, Dan 11:30, 32 points out that “the king” had regard for those “who forsake the holy covenant -cf. 1 Macc 1:34, 38).141 However, these Jews did not necessar) ”[ברית קדש] ily abandon all their ancestral laws. The foundation of the Akra has been accompanied by the building of foreign altars and sacred precincts around the market-square (ἀγορά; 1 Macc 1:47, 54; 2 Macc 10:2). The gymnasium had already been in existence for some time. There had also been developing for about eight years the community of “Antiocheans,” which new Jews and colonizers alike seem to have joined. Certain Jewish territories have been seized by the settlers

135 See Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 144. 136 On spoiling of the temples under Antiochus IV, see Polyb. 31.9; 1 Macc 1:20–24; 6:1–4; 2 Macc 1:13–16; 5:11–16; 9:1–2; Diod. 34/35.1.3–4; Jos. War 1.32; 7.425; Ant. 12.248–252, 358–359. 137 Mazar, “Temple Mount,” 466, located it on its south, while Kenyon, Jerusalem, 197–99, on the western ridge. For an overview of scholarly views on the location of the Akra, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 445–65; Kuhnen, Palästina, 51–52. See also here pp. 245–46. 138 On these aspects, see Sievers, “Jerusalem,” 203–7. 139 See further Bickerman, Gott, 133; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 189; Bar- Kochva, Judas, 443; Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 224. 140 See Hengel, Judaism, I, 281–82; Sievers, “Jerusalem,” 198–202. 141 See further van der Kooij, “Concept,” 495–501. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 59 of the Akra (cf. Dan 11:39; 1 Macc 1:32, 38).142 These large-scale socio- political and architectural transformations may point to the change of Jerusalem into a polis.143 Dan Barag claims that 18 bronze coins apparently of Antiochus IV were minted in Jerusalem between 167–164 to inaugurate the institution of the polis.144 There is, however, no sure evidence that prior to Antiochus VII Jerusalem issued coins for the Seleucid king.145

10. The Royal Edict of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes

According to 1 Macc 1:41–50 Antiochus IV issued an edict “to all his kingdom” that each should give up his/her particular precepts (τὰ νόμιμα αὐτοῦ). This is reminiscent of the similar edicts issued by Kings Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in Dan 3:4–6, 10–11 and Dan 6:7–10 (cf. 6:26–28) respectively. Today’s historians agree that a unifying policy could hardly be expressed through an edict addressed to an entire kingdom. This would have generated systematic revolts.146 No edict with such content is known from the non-Jewish sources nor is it contained in other Jewish literature. In fact, Second Maccabees refers to no such edict. Furthermore, this apparently important edict presented in First Mac- cabees as implicitly legitimating the Hasmonean revolt is not quoted. Had this document contained elements suitable for the pro-Hasmonean author’s propaganda, he would have hardly hesitated citing it verbatim. Instead, it seems that paraphrasing its text permitted the author to circumvent, obscure, or silence certain elements contained in the edict. In 2 Macc 6:1–2 the king sends an Athenian elder, probably an expert in the legislation of the polis, with the orders: 1) to compel the Jews to turn aside “from the ancestral laws and conduct their behavior no more according to the laws of God”; 2) “to profane” the temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Zeus Olympios and the one on Mt. Gerizim to Zeus Xenios.147 Also 1 Macc 1:44 speaks of “messengers” sent by the king to Jerusalem and

142 See further Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 63–71; Collins, Daniel, 388; Hansen, Polis, 52–83. 143 So Bickerman, Gott, 66–73; Fischer, Seleukiden, 20; Owens, City, 74–93; Wightman, Walls, 185–86; Gruen, “Hellenism,” 243. 144 “Mint,” 59–77. But see Finkielsztejn, “L’économie,” 246–47. 145 The last coins previously minted in Jerusalem seem to go back to 269 b.c.e. See further Barag, “Coinage,” 27–37. 146 See also Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 198–99. 147 On γέροντης as “elder/senator” of the council of a polis, see Oliver, “Gerusiae,” 472– 73; van der Spek, “Ethnic Segregation,” 398; but cf. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 275. On the two 60 chapter two

“the towns of Judea” in order to instruct the Jews to follow the foreign precepts (cf. Ant. 12.253–254).148 These elements suggest there was underway some political and administrative transformation, which heavily affected the religious life of many Jews. It is, therefore, likely that the royal edict was a juridical act for the institution of Jerusalem as a polis.149 If so, Judea would have been changed from a temple-state into a city-state.

11. A Religious Persecution in Samaria?

Josephus reproduces two letters in Ant. 12.258–263 and makes reference to a third one (12.264). The Samaritans are charged on account of their practicing of the customs akin to their southern neighbors.150 They sent a petition (ὑπόμνηνα) to Antiochus θεῷ ἐπιφανεῖ, in which they identify themselves as “Sidonians in Shekhem.”151 The king ordered his official Nicanor, through a letter dated 167/6, to acquit the “Sidonians” of the previous charges, seeing that they prefer to follow “the Greek customs.” Moreover, at their request, their unnamed temple was to be dedicated to Zeus Hellenios (12.263; cf. 12.261). Recent excavations on Mt. Gerizim yielded no trace of a foreign cult there. According to Yitzhak Magen and other archaeologists, the “temple city” continued instead to flourish well during the Seleucid rule. The continued worship of YHWH here is supported also by several contemporary inscriptions.152 “Israelites” from Delos are known to have also contributed ,Argarizein.”153 Recently [מקדש/financially) to the “holy sanctuary [ἱερόν) Jan Dušek suggested that the absence of the adjective ἅγιος in the Delos inscription No. 1 attests to the loss of the status of the temple as “holy,”

names of Zeus, see Schwartz, 276. Malalas 8.264 has the temple dedicated to both Zeus Olympios and Athene. 148 Tacitus, Hist. 5.8 speaks of King Antiochus (IV), who endeavored to introduce Greek laws/customs (mores Graecorum dare adnissus). See further Stern, GLAJJ, II, 47, who refers to the document in Ant. 12.263, where one finds the phrase “the customs of the Greeks” (τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ἔθεσιν). 149 So Hölbl, Geschichte, 167; Parente, “Gerusalemme,” 31; Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 117; Nodet, Crise, 308. On other contemporary poleis, see Grainger, Cities, 139–41; Sherwin- White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 161–83. 150 For an analysis, see Bickerman, “Document,” 105–35; Egger, Josephus, 280–81; Nodet, Crise, 185–92. 151 On other Seleucid hypomnema, see SEG 13.403; 29.1613, 1808. 152 See Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions, 3. 153 See further Bruneau, “ ‘Israélites de Delos’,” 465–504. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 61 which he places after 166. There appears to have been no garrison or colonists on Mt. Gerizim, and no walls were raised around its city.154 Seleu- cid colonists lived instead in Shekhem, Samaria and other places.155 This urges one to re-evaluate the precise meaning of certain statements found in Second Maccabees with reference to Mt. Gerizim. The excavations suggest that the Samaritan temple-community followed its own course of life until the destruction of its temple by Hyrcanus I’s army in 108.156 The exact relation of the “Sidonians in Shekhem” to the temple on Mt. Gerizim is not clear.157 Perhaps they were a multi-ethnic political and juridical entity similar in nature to the “Sidonians” in Maresha,158 “Sido- nians” in the Jamnia-on-the-Sea,159 or the “Antiocheans” in Jerusalem.160 If so, the suggestion of Morton Smith that a similar request was probably sent to the king also by the Hellenizing party of Jerusalem is plausible.161 Menahem Mor further argues that both the “Sidonians” and the “Anti- ocheans” requested the institution of the polis.162 Before using Josephus’ writings as “evidence” for religious persecution in the province of Samaria, one must consider: 1) the historian’s negative attitude toward Samaritans and their temple;163 2) Josephus’ Tendenz in Ant. 12.258–264. But what repercussions did the royal edict have on the Jerusalem temple life and on its priesthood?

12. The Royal Edict, the Jerusalem Temple, and Its Priesthood

was abolished by the (תמיד) For the author of Dan 11:31, the daily sacrifice First Maccabees .(השקוץ משומם) setting up of the desolating abomination 1:54 reports that this happened on the 15th of Kislev in 167 (cf. βδέλυγμα

154 Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 177; Magen et al., Mount Gerizim, I, 6–10, 12. 155 Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 177. For the theory that there existed a Greek temple in Samaria, see Magness, “Cults,” 157–77. 156 For the date, see Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 177–79. His assertion that 2 Maccabees “does not demonstrate anti-Samaritan sentiment” is problematic. 157 Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions, 101–4 thinks their relation would be mostly administrative. See, however, Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 177. 158 See further Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 185; Eshel, “Onomasticon,” 145–56. 159 See Isaac, “Seleucid Inscription,” 132–44. 160 So Nodet, Crise, 192. 161 Palestinian Parties, 190. 162 “Samaritan History,” 14. 163 See Coggins, “Samaritans,” 257–73; Hjelm, Samaritans, 207–12. 62 chapter two

ἐρημώσεως). It adds that an altar (βωμός) was built atop the original one Macc 1:59).164 1 ;[מזבח/i.e. of the burnt offering [cf. θυσιαστήριον) Daniel 11:37–39 seems to criticize Antiochus IV also for his alleged abandoning of his dynastic god, Apollo. True, the king contributed to the revival of the Zeus cult.165 However, the great amount of the unearthed coinage struck from October/November 175 through autumn of 164 shows that both gods continued to be worshipped.166 The mega-festival at Daphne in 166 confirms that polytheistic worship was officially allowed and even sponsored (Polyb. 30.25–26; Diod. 31.16).167 What seems to have been primarily a political and social enfranchise- ment had serious religious repercussions in Jerusalem.168 The religious taboo for Jerusalem with its temple and various concessions contained in the edicts of Antiochus III in Ant. 12.138–146 were largely modified if not abolished.169 Certain rules were introduced in order to facilitate the public practice of the non-Jewish cults as well.170 Jerusalem with its temple seems to have been adapted to the “needs” of the multi-ethnic population. The temple was no more the property of the sole Jews and their God but probably had to serve the needs of a polytheistic society (cf. 2 Macc 11:24–25).171 Non-Jewish priests may have gained access to the temple on certain occasions too. Indeed, the situation that had been created in Jerusalem seems to have been a peculiar one. As several authors pointed out, all in all, the Seleu- cids had a positive attitude towards the local temples.172 Also, Helleni- zation of a native temple did not necessarily mean the abolishment of

164 For an interpretation of the event, see Busink, Tempel, II, 879–81; Collins, Daniel, 357–58; Lust, “Cult,” 283–99. Cf. Eupolemus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev., 9.30.5; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 140–41, 308. 165 See further Kreutz, Zeus, 169–228. 166 See Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 34–43; Le Rider, Antioche, I, 190–233. 167 On the view of both Polybius and Diodorus of Antiochus IV, see Primo, Storiografia, 148–53, 192–96. On the Daphne event, see Mittag, Antiochos IV, 282–95. 168 See also Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 92–93, 96–98. 169 See also Nodet, Crise, 227. 170 The practicing of non-Jewish religion in Jerusalem in the 3d–2d c. b.c.e. might be corroborated by a Greek inscription whose provenance, however, is doubtful; see SEG 53.1852 and CII/P No. 1. 171 So also Hengel, Judaism, I, 282–83. 172 So McEwan, Priest, 193–96; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 144; Linssen, Cults, 167–68. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 63 its god.173 Marc J. H. Linssen asserts that the ruler cult may have been introduced during this period both in Uruk and Babylon, where sacrifices were brought in front of the statue of the king.174 Such ritual should be distinguished from the regular offerings, prayers or dedications “for the life of the king” (e.g. 1 Macc 7:33). For Biagio Virgilio, the aim of the royal/ dynastic cult was to enforce the influence and the power of the king in a given territory.175 Something similar may have been introduced in Jeru- salem as Dan 11:36 may also hint at.176 Coins containing Antiochus IV’s divine epithets are, in fact, known, although limited in number.177 This new religious system found a significant number of Jewish adher- ents, priests included (Dan 11:32, 35; 1 Macc 1:43, 46, 52; 2:16, 18; 2 Macc 4:14; cf. 4QMMT B 3–5). The high priest Menelaus and his supporters continued the practice of the (Hellenized) Jewish cult, while “tolerating” other forms of worship (cf. 2 Macc 11:27–33; 13:1–3).178 Albert I. Baumgarten interpreted Jub. 30:16 as referring to the marriage of the Jewish priests with foreign women at this time (cf. Ezra 9:1–2; Neh 10:28–30; 13:4).179 Halakhic concerns about marriages of the “sons of Aaron” are expressed also in 4QMMT A 75–82 and other DSS.180 Armin Lange even argues that 1 Macc 1:15 points to “an increased rate of Jewish–Greek intermarriages.”181 Notwithstanding, in the view of other priests—like the Hasmonean priests—the public practice of foreign cultic rituals or cults in Jerusa- lem rendered impossible the proper observance of the prescriptions of the Torah-based halakhah (cf. Dan 11:32–33; 1 Macc 1:46–47, 54–55, 59, 62–62; 2 Macc 6:3–5, 10–11; 4QMMT B 59–61).182 However, any opposition was met with severe punishment (cf. 1 Macc 1:50). This whole picture is

173 On similar treatment of the Babylonian temples, see van der Spek, “Babylonian Temple,” 541–62. On the Hellenization of Phoenician temples, see Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 81–82, 108–9. 174 Cults, 124–28. Van der Spek, “Babylonian Temple,” 558, speaks of “dynastic” cult. On the role and significance of royal statues in local temples, see Schmidt-Dounas, “Statuen,” 71–141. 175 “Epigrafia,” 45. 176 “The king . . . shall exalt himself and consider himself greater than any god.” 177 For Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 113, Antiochus IV was the first Hellenistic king to have introduced divine epithets on his coinage, and was soon followed by other dynasts. On divine epithets, see Hauben, “Aspects,” 441–67. 178 See Bickerman, Gott, 133; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 195. 179 Jewish Sects, 85. On Jub. 30, see Frevel, “ ‘Separate Yourself ’,” 220–50. 180 On mixed marriages in the DSS, see Harrington, “Intermarriage,” 251–79. 181 “Mixed Marriages,” 205–19; discusses also other relevant sources. 182 On Jerusalem in the Jewish halakhah, see Safrai, “Jerusalem,” 94–113. 64 chapter two corroborated by the visionary language of 1 En. 90:9. It appears to refer to various militant groups which were active before the Hasmonean revolt.183

Conclusion

As the royal edicts of Antiochus III contained in Ant. 12.138–146 show, the Seleucid king exerted political, military and religious authority in Judea. Evidence of the royal powers emerges with clarity from the appointment of Olympiodorus in 178 (probably) as archiereus over all the sanctuaries in Koile-Syria and Phoenicia. The political and military control belonged to the royal strategos of the satrapy. For a long time, the Jerusalem temple functioned as a religious and economic center. Judea was treated very much like a temple-state ruled by the high priest and the gerousia, where the practice of the Torah- based halakhah had official royal approval. The Jewish people—including probably those living around Judea—were regarded as an ethnos. Many of them felt attached to their temple and were thus under the religious authority of the high priest in Jerusalem. It is perhaps right to speak about the Jerusalem temple-community.184 The Judean high priest also like the Samaritan high priest, were under the jurisdiction of the royal archiereus, even though they appear to have enjoyed certain autonomy. The powers of the Jerusalem high priests varied from year to year. Down to 169 the high priests Simon II, Onias III, Jason and Menelaus exercised religious, administrative and political power. Jason and Menelaus seem to have been associated with military power—a Hellenistic influence. This power they could only exert in cooperation with the Seleucid akropolis. Still, there is no evidence that these high priests retained any official Seleucid title or occupied a well-defined position in the royal hierarchy. Instead, in 169, things changed significantly for Menelaus. King Anti- ochus IV appointed a certain Philip as epistates in Jerusalem. This royal official exercised political as well as military control of Judea. He was probably also responsible for the collection of taxes. This appointment set many limits to the powers of the Jewish high priest. Both Kings Antiochus III and Seleucus IV respected the hereditary nature of the Jerusalem high priestly office. Nevertheless, it was in the

183 On the groups’ identity, see further Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 354–57. 184 To distinguish it from the Samaritan temple-community. the pre-hasmonean high priests of the seleucid period 65 competence of the Seleucid king to confirm/appoint high priests in Jeru- salem. The departure of Onias III in 175 brought the rule of the Oniad high priesthood to an end. His brother and successor Jason, however, purchased the high priesthood from King Antiochus IV. This event had significant repercussions on the further development and nature of the Jewish high priesthood. This method of becoming high priest reflected the existing practices in other parts of the Hellenistic world. There soon appeared other priests who wanted to become high priests. Within roughly three years Menelaus out bided Jason. Menelaus did not belong to the house of the Oniads. The hereditary nature of high priesthood was thus completely abandoned. This comported a changing role for the high priest, who was taking on more and more Hellenistic features. Furthermore, the strategy adopted later by Jason to occupy the high priestly office by force in 169 is perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Second Temple high priesthood. There was also under way a socio-political and religious differentiation. At the initiative of the high priest Jason, in 172/1, there took place the institution of the “Antiocheans”—a kind of politeuma—and of the Greek gymnasium. This was a multi-ethnic Hellenizing community. Its members, many of whom were priests, enjoyed economic and socio-political privileges. This distinguished them from the rest of the priesthood, like the Hasmoneans. Furthermore, the tax payers saw their taxes nearly dou- bled in roughly several years. In 167, the Seleucid official Apollonius, on the order of Antiochus IV, came with forces to Jerusalem (probably) to exact the royal tribute. He also made an attempt to despoil the temple’s inner court and thus pro- as well as ,(תמיד) faned it. A new altar was also built. The daily sacrifice other cultic prescriptions, seems to have been altered. Probably in collaboration with Menelaus, Apollonius ordered the fortification of the City of David and the building of the Akra there. This became the political, military, as well as administrative center of Judea. Through an edict, Antiochus IV abolished some of the rights given by his father to the temple priesthood. This created a further split among priests. The polytheism appears to have been officially allowed, while Jerusalem seems to have been turned into a polis. The juridical status of the Jews as ethnos was abolished. Royal politikoi nomoi, which previously applied to the members of the politeuma only, took precedence over the Jewish patrioi nomoi. This, however, must not mean that all the ancestral laws had been officially abolished. Notwith- standing, many Jews considered themselves deprived of their religious, 66 chapter two socio-economic and political rights, while the temple they regarded as impure. These phenomena, together with the struggles for power which marked the high priesthood from the time of Onias III, gave rise to a chain of revolts. These conflicts were not born out of cultic disputes. It pertained to the control of the temple economy, which was concentrated in the hands of the high priest and his Hellenizing party, as well as other aspects, mostly of economic and socio-political nature. Gradually, the religious and cultic aspects became the main point. It is at this time only that the Hasmonean priests become protagonists. In the following chapter the focus will be on the Hasmoneans, their revolt, and the revolt’s role in the context of the outlined events. chapter three

The Hasmonean Revolt and the High Priesthood of Menelaus

Introduction

In the previous chapter an attempt has been made to set forth the sequence of the events in Judea down to 167. Various socio-political, economic, juridical, cultural and religious factors which led to a chain of revolts have been highlighted. The struggles for the control of the temple developed into religious and cultic disputes. By the time of the Hasmonean revolt it had involved most of the temple priesthood. The origins and the aim(s) of the Hasmonean revolt are the primary focus of this chapter. The period under study is between 166 and 162, when the high priest Menelaus was arrested. It is necessary to understand the nature of this revolt and its significance for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Three main questions will guide the present chapter: First, what attitude did the Hasmoneans have towards Menelaus and the temple authorities? Second, what impact did the policy of this high priest have on the Hasmonean revolt? Third, how did the Hasmoneans view the Seleucid dominion after 167? The importance of this treatise is twofold: First, it will study the Hasmonean revolt in relation to the high priestly office in Jerusalem and in the context of the diplomatic relations of the high priest Menelaus with the Seleucid royal chancellery. Second, special attention will be paid to the role of Judas in the revolt, especially his control of the temple between December of 164 and early 162. The results of this second point will also serve as a basis for the discussion of the alleged high priesthood of Judas in the next chapter.

1. The Beginnings of the Hasmonean Revolt

Unlike the revolts discussed in the previous chapter, the Hasmonean Μακκαβαῖος developed (יהודה) revolt under the leadership of ᾿Ιούδας in the countryside (2 Macc 8:1–7; cf. 5:27). It is reasonable to place its 68 chapter three beginning after December 6 of 167 (cf. 1 Macc 1:54), and very probably before the reported death of Mattathias in 166 (2:70). Against whom did the Hasmoneans revolt? Neither First nor Sec- ond Maccabees explicitly state that the five Hasmonean brothers (cf. 1 Macc 2:2–5) fought against the government of the high priest. Their enemies are identified with Gentiles (1 Macc 2:10, 12, 40, 48, 66, 68; 3:10, 25–26, 52–53, 58), and Jews qualified as “sinful” (2:44; cf. 1:34), “lawless” (2:44, 48; 3:5–6; 7:5), or “impious” (3:8, 15; 7:5). The contemporary (מרשיעי ברית) ”author of Dan 11:32 refers to “breakers of the covenant but never mentions the Hasmoneans explicitly.1 A unification occurred between the Hasmoneans and a certain assembly of Hasideans (Ασιδαίων) defined as “men of strength” (1 Macc 2:42; cf. 2 Macc 14:6). The identity of these people has been the object of long debates, and no convincing identification has yet been offered.2 From the meager evidence First and Second Maccabees provide, it seems that the Hasideans were well known in Judea. The first description of battles in which Judas is portrayed as the leader of the rebellions comes from 1 Macc 3:10–26, but this is not contained in Second Maccabees (cf. 8:5–7). It narrates two such battles: one with a certain Apollonius who came with an army from Samaria (1 Macc 3:10–12);3 the second with a certain Seron at Beth-Horon (3:13–26).4 The provenance of these commanders indicates that by this time the Jerusalem Akra alone was unable to decide the issue. First Maccabees 3:15 adds that Seron was joined by an “army of impious,” referring probably to forces sent from Jerusalem. Apollonius was reportedly killed by Judas while Seron fled into the land of Philistines (3:11, 24). In both cases, it appears to have been rather an ambush attack. Some historians defend the historicity of both stories.5

1 The same expression is found in 1QM i 2. For Ibba, “Rotolo della Guerra,” 44, 46, it refers to the same group as in 1 Macc 1:11, i.e. Hellenizing Jews. 2 For a survey of views, see Sievers, Hasmoneans, 38–40. On the problematic use of the term ᾿Ασιδαῖοι, see Kampen, Hasideans, 45–63. 3 Usually identified either with the μεριδαρχῆς in Ant. 12.261, or with the Mysian com mander in 2 Macc 5:24//1 Macc 1:29. Abel, Maccabées, 55–56, followed by Bar-Kochva, Judas, 202–3, combines the two views. 4 On Apollonius, see Bengtson, Strategie, II, 170–72; Bar-Kochva, Judas, 133; Gera, Judaea, 231–33. The ascent of Beth-Horon was located about half way on the northern road which connected Lydda to Jerusalem. See further Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 135–39. 5 For instance Bar-Kochva, Judas, 199–201, 207–8. The author admits though the inferi ority of the description of the battle with Apollonius. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 69

It is often assumed by scholars that the “big horn” sprouting on a sheep in the second dream vision of 1 En. 90:9b–10, 12–16 refers to Judas, while the rest of the text is an allegoric representation of his battles, perhaps down to 161.6

2. The Anabasis of Antiochus IV and the Hasmonean Revolt

The information in 1 Macc 3:26–29 makes it possible to establish a general chronological outline of the above discussed events. In the spring of 165, Antiochus IV launched a military campaign in the East (Polyb. 31.9; Str. 11.14.5, 15; Diod. 31.17a; Pliny, NH 6.136–139, 147; Tac., Hist. 5.8; Jos., Ant. 12.293–297; App., Syr. 45, 66; Porph., FGH 260 F 38, F 53, F 56).7 It was characterized primarily by 1) the temporary subjugation of the self-proclaimed king of Armenia, Artaxias I; 2) probably the renaming of Alexandria (near the Persian Gulf), to “Antiochia.” Before departing, the king appointed Lysias as chief minister and guardian of his son Antiochus (cf. 2 Macc 13:2).8 First Maccabees 3:32–37 relates that the king ordered Lysias to settle matters in Judea and left half of the royal army with him. But according to 2 Macc 8:8, it was Philip, the epistates of Jerusalem, who wrote to Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes and strategos of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia (cf. SEG 57.1838 ll. 1–7), and asked him to intervene. The latter version has been plausibly judged by some scholars as more historical.9 The expedition of Antiochus IV contributed indirectly to the following success of the revolt in Judea. First Maccabees 3:45–56 describes the gathering of the rebels at Mitspah, some 7 km north of Jerusalem.10 The source also provides some hints concerning the policy of the rebels.

6 So VanderKam, Enoch, 162–63; Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 355; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 396. Assefa, L’Apocalypse, esp. 207–36, challenged the common view that the Animal Apoc alypse (1 En. 85–90) has anything to do with the Hasmonean revolt. Still, on pp. 132–34 the author regards 1 En. 90:13–15, 19, 31 as additions which allude to the revolt. 7 See also Tarn, Greeks, 214, 463–66; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 166–80; Will, Histoire, II, 289–98; Gera and Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 240–52. 8 On Lysias ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, see Muccioli, “Crisi,” 273. 9 So, for instance, Bar-Kochva, Judas, 219; Gera, Judaea, 235–36. 10 This community is identified with the “true Jacob/Israel” in 1 Macc 2:42, 70; 3:2, 7–8, 10, 35, 45; 4:27. The same self-identity is found in the so-called sectarian DSS. See for instance Bergsma, “Qumran,” 172–89. Josephus omitted the entire story. On the Mitspah event, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 249–51. According to Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 46, Mitspah became part of Judea probably in the early Hellenistic period and marked its northern border (49). 70 chapter three

They regarded the temple as impure and implicitly rejected the authority of Menelaus as high priest. Mitspah became a military base. Several scholars have drawn many parallels between First Maccabees and the War Scroll (=1QM).11 In its turn, 2 Macc 8:16, 21–23 states that Judas appointed his brothers, Simon, Joseph (i.e. John) and Jonathan (and Eleazar), as commanders over his army of 6,000 men (cf. 1 Macc 3:55; cf. 1QM v 1–5).12 However, the precise role of Judas between 166 and 163 is not always clear. Despite the differences between the two accounts, both 1 Macc 3:38 and 2 Macc 8:9 agree that Nicanor and Gorgias were appointed to march toward Judea. The Gorgias episode might have been suppressed in Second Maccabees in line with its tendency to disprove that Judas ever fought on a Sabbath (8:25–29).13 Assuming that 1 Macc 3:49 makes reference to Pentecost, then the following battle of Emmaus (some 27 km west of Jerusalem) can be placed some time after this festival.14 Both sources emphasize the victory of Judas and the collecting of spoils. The latter became an important resource for the continuation of the revolt (1 Macc 4:23–25; 2 Macc 8:25, 27–29).15 Some scholars suggest that this failed expedition of the Seleucid commanders is allegorically portrayed in 1 En. 90:12: “they wanted to remove its horn but did not prevail against him.”16 According to Giovanni Ibba, “the horn of Israel” in 1QM i 4–5 also refers to Judas.17 The threat represented by the rebellious priests against both Menelaus and the Seleucid dominion became a daily reality. In 1 Macc 3:38 Gorgias is said to have belonged to the rank of the royal philoi.18 Bezalel Bar-Kochva identifies him with the strategos of Idumea (cf. 2 Macc 10:14–15; 12:32).19

11 See, for instance, Davies, 1QM, 58–67. He argues that “a good deal of the material in [1QM] ii–ix comes from a Hasmonean military manual.” 12 On examples of dividing the army, see Ibba, “Rotolo della Guerra,” 49. 13 For a comment, see Batsch, Guerre, 263–70. On the Hasmoneans’ decision to fight even on Sabbath, see 1 Macc 2:41. The text of 1 Macc 2:42 gives the impression that this decision was shared also by the Hasideans. See, however, Nodet, “Asidaioi,” 77. For fighting or not fighting on a Sabbath in biblical and other texts, see Batsch, 247–62; Nikiprowetzky, “Sabbat,” 1–17. 14 Bar-Kochva, Judas, 219, dates it to September of 165. On the location of Emmaus, see Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 87–88, 151–59. 15 On the collecting of spoils, see also 1QM vii 2; 11QTa lviii 11–15. 16 So, for instance, Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 357 (translation of Tiller). 17 “Rotolo della Guerra,” 45. 18 Mittag, Antiochos IV, 59–67, lists the names of twenty-five philoi and other high rank ing royal officials of Antiochus IV. 19 Judas, 239–40. So also Gera, Judaea, 238. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 71

Reportedly, forces from the Akra also joined Gorgias (1 Macc 4:1–2). It is hardly possible that these forces would have acted against the Has- moneans and their allies, without the explicit order of the royal epistates and the consent of Menelaus. For the present purpose it is especially important to stress the roles of Judas, Jonathan and Simon as warrior priests.

3. The Hasmonean Priestly Revolt and the High Priest Menelaus

The increasing success of the priestly revolt caused the high priest Menel- aus to adopt a diplomatic strategy. This emerges from the letter contained in 2 Macc 11:27–33—one of the four letters quoted in 2 Macc 11:17–38. Many scholars judge these as mainly genuine.20 These documents provide important independent information for an understanding of the way the Seleucid court perceived the Jewish revolt in the years 165–164. They might, in fact, contain the oldest information even from the time of the Hasmonean revolt itself. The problem is that these letters were put together as if they were reflecting the same historical circumstances, namely following the (first) expedition of Lysias (2 Macc 11:1–15), which is narrated after the death of Antiochus IV (9:28). Notwithstanding, with the exception of the undated letter of Antiochus V (11:22–26), the other three letters date themselves to the Sel. year 148 (roughly 164 b.c.e.; 2 Macc 11:21, 33, 38).21 By itself, this carelessness is an element which indicates that these documents had not been purposely produced by the final writer/redactor to fit their present literary context and purpose.

3.1. The Appeal of Menelaus before King Antiochus IV A brief examination of the letter in 2 Macc 11:27–33 is necessary primarily for two reasons: First, it will clarify the role of Menelaus whose name is never mentioned in the narrative which describes the Hasmonean revolt. Second, it sheds important light on the role of the Jewish rebels. From 2 Macc 11:27–33 it seems that Menelaus traveled toward Anti- ochus IV, probably beyond Euphrates. This event—not mentioned in the

20 So, among others, Zambelli, “Composizione,” 216–17; Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 117; Parker, “Letters,” 397–400. 21 See also Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 117–19. 72 chapter three narrative—supposedly occurred after the battle of Emmaus and before the Passover in 164.22 The intent of Menelaus was to negotiate with the king concerning certain requests advanced by the rebels. Menelaus had informed the king that “the Jews” desired to return home, live by their “laws” (νόμοις), and attend to their own affairs (2 Macc 11:29). Approval was given that they return by the 30th of Xanthicus (mid April?) and make use of their laws, just as before (11:30–31). The king also informed the Jews that he was sending Menelaus, probably to clarify the matter in detail. The royal letter brought by Menelaus is addressed “to the gerousia of the Jews and to other Jews” (2 Macc 11:27). The “other Jews may refer to the Jewish rebels. The letter mentions Menelaus twice but not as high priest. As a rule, a Seleucid king or a royal official of higher rank often would refer to his subject without mentioning the latter’s official status (cf. the Olympiodorus inscription). The task of Menelaus was to explain the royal concessions and convince the rebels that if they obey, they would not be harmed (11:32). At least three important elements emerge from this whole process, which must have taken several months. First, the fact that these requests had to be brought to the king first indicates the high priest was not empowered to decide the issue by himself. The role of Menelaus appears to be primarily that of mediator between the Seleucid king, the Jewish gerousia, and the rebels. Second, as in the case of Onias III, direct appeal to the king was usually dictated by the impossibility of action in the high priestly office. Third, the appeal of Menelaus to Antiochus IV and the fact that he was able to win some concessions from the king shows a measure of success for the rebellious priests. However, these concessions meant to restore a small part of the rights that existed prior to the edict of Antiochus IV (1 Macc 1:41–50; cf. Ant. 12.138–146). The subsequent discussion will clarify that even the royal ultimatum was not sufficient to convince all the rebels to lay down arms. The Hasmoneans and others continued to arm themselves and refused to acknowledge the authority of Menelaus as high priest.

22 So also Zambelli, “Composizione,” 269–70; Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 42–45; Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 119–20. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 73

3.2. The High Priesthood of Menelaus for Sale? Once the fifteen days amnesty mentioned in 2 Macc 11:30 had expired, sometime after the Passover of 164, Lysias, the chief minister of the king, launched (the first) attack on the Jewish rebels.23 Before describing the battle with the Jewish rebels, the author of 2 Macc 11:2–3 reports that Lysias threatened to turn Jerusalem into a city of Greeks, levy the tax on the temple as he had done with the sacred enclosures of other people, and also “put up the high priesthood for sale every year.” The sale of the (high) priesthood as a common phenomenon in the Hellenistic world has already been briefly discussed in relation to both Jason and Menelaus. It is impossible to know how imminent this threat of Lysias was for the high priesthood of Menelaus. The impression is that the relationship between the royal Kinsman and the Jewish high priest had significantly deteriorated. After all, Menelaus—just as Jason previously—purchased the high priesthood from the king. Their actions appear to have created a precedent in the eyes of Lysias, who might have wanted to replace Menelaus. However, it appears that the plan of Lysias described in 2 Macc 11:2–3—including the removal of Menelaus—was not implemented. Notwithstanding the negative attitude towards Menelaus, the author of 2 Macc 11:1–4 seems to implicitly defend the hereditary nature of the high priesthood (cf. 4:7–8, 23–24). Both 1 Macc 4:28–35//2 Macc 11:1–12 agree that the battle between the royalist forces and the Jewish rebels took place at Beth-Zur, located some 33 km south of Jerusalem on the road to Hebron, on the border between Judea and Idumea.24 In 1 Macc 4:28 this event is placed in “the coming year” (after the battle of Emmaus), i.e. after Nissan of 164. Hence, at least half a year had passed since the battle of Emmaus.25 As is often the case, the number of the royal troops was greatly exaggerated since the narrators intended to magnify the bravery of Judas.26 As the following analysis will show, both narratives seem to have somewhat overemphasized Judas’ apparent success.

23 On the period of this amnesty, see Gera, Judaea, 243–44. 24 Against the view that 1 Macc 6:28–54 is a doublet of 1 Macc 4:28–35, see Zambelli, “Composizione,” 271; Bar-Kochva, Judas, 276–77. See also Sievers, Synopsis, 56–57. On Beth- Zur, see Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 47. 25 During this period of time, Menelaus went back and forth to Antiochus IV. 26 65,000 men in 1 Macc 4:28; over 80,000 in 2 Macc 11:2. Cf. 1 Macc 3:34. 74 chapter three

3.3. The Jewish Rebels, the Chief Minister Lysias, and the Romans Following 2 Macc 11:13–15, Lysias escaped and began a negotiation process with the Jewish rebels. This event, again, is not reported in First Maccabees. But the letter reproduced in 2 Macc 11:17–21 and attributed to Lysias has a somewhat different version. It is addressed τῷ πλήθει τῶν Ἰουδαίων and refers to two envoys with Hebrew names: John and Absalom. These two had formerly presented themselves before Lysias with certain requests (11:15). The introduction of the letter in 2 Macc 11:13–15, the letter’s terminology, and other details suggest Lysias was addressing those Jewish circles, which formerly did not conform to the royal edict. This is corroborated by the literary context which precedes the letter (cf. 11:1–12). Lysias granted some concessions pertinent to his authority, while other requests he forwarded to his king (11:18), who probably never got them. The document dates itself to the 24th day of Dios of the Sel. 148, i.e. early November of 164. This means that the previous expedition of Lysias took place between the spring and the autumn of 164. Judas’ name is not mentioned in the royal letter. Any mention of his name would have turned his role into an official recognition and thereby undermine the authority of Menelaus more. Lysias instead promised his further support with the condition that the rebels show their good- will towards the government (2 Macc 11:19; cf. 8:8). The implication was that they recognize the authority of the high priest and that of the royal epistates. The sources, however, do not state what specific role Menelaus played, if any, in this whole process. It seems that at this point Lysias accepted the negotiations with the rebels. In his reply to the Jewish envoys Lysias makes no reference to the restoration of the rights previously held by the countryside population. Also there is no reference to the restoration of the former status of the temple (cf. 2 Macc 11:22–26). And indeed, no mention of the Akra is made. The answer of Lysias probably did not differ much from that of Antiochus IV early in 164. From another letter in 2 Macc 11:34–38, it is revealed that about the time they appealed to Lysias, the Jewish envoys met with two Roman legati. The authenticity of this letter is the most debated of the four letters in 2 Macc 11.27 If such an event did take place, it would confirm the envoys’

27 For Sherwin-White, Roman Policy, 74, Titus Mannius of 2 Macc 11:34 may be the Manius Sergius in Polyb. 31.1.6. Cf. however, Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 746 n 7. The clos the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 75 partial dissatisfaction with the policy of Lysias. In the view of Chris See- man, they “[t]he Republic’s representatives were playing the part of Anti- ochus’ friend and ally by assisting in restoring tranquility to his realm.”28 This would have been the first time that a Jewish matter was brought to the attention of the Romans.29 However, as the further analysis will demonstrate, the Hasmoneans continued to reject the authority of Menelaus as high priest.

4. The Capture, Rededication, and the Fortification of the Temple

The direct challenge to both the high priestly authority of Menelaus and to the royal chancellery came again from the Jewish rebels early in the December of 164, when they entered Jerusalem. By that time, Antiochus IV was dead.30 Why did the Hasmoneans decide to occupy the temple, and what was the significance of its control? In 1 Macc 4:36–37 “Judas and his brothers” urged their allies to go and purify the sanctuary (τὰ ἅγια) and rededicate it. The armed men (ἡ παρεμβολὴ) were summoned to march on Mt. Zion. Second Maccabees 10:1 refers to the temple (τὸ . . . ἱερὸν) and mentions “Maccabeus and those with him,” while Ant. 12.316 refers to “Judas” only. This was a violent attack on Jerusalem, similar to that of Jason in 2 Macc 5:5–7. Both Jason and Judas took Jerusalem by assault, at a time when Antiochus IV was engaged in military operations and perhaps thought dead. According to War 1.39 Judas expelled the troops from the Upper City, and confined them to the lower part, known as the Akra. The rebels appear to have occupied the unfortified south-western hill and also the temple area.

ing formula ὑγιαίνετε is defined by Exler, Form, 70, as “ ‘hapax legomena’ ” and is peculiar to Western (Roman) epistolary. Gera, Judaea, 249–52, thinks this letter is in line with the view of Polybius, as regards the generally favorable behavior displayed by Rome towards Seleucid subjects. In defense of the letter’s authenticity, see also De Filippis Cappai, Ivdaea, 34–35. 28 Rome and Judea, 108. 29 Zollschan, “Jewish Embassy,” 37–44, theorizes an embassy to the Romans against Jason in 174, but claims “no certainty” for such a suggestion. 30 Downey, History, 99, states Antiochus IV ruled when he was between 40 and 52 years old. For Del Monte, TBE, 240, the news of the king’s death was known in Babylon between November the 10th and December the 18th of 164; for Gera, Judaea, 243, this note reached Syria “no later than the end of January 163.” 76 chapter three

In line with its theological vision, Second Maccabees does not contain battle details. It states that Judas and his allies tore down the altars erected in the market-place and destroyed the sacred precincts (2 Macc 10:2; cf. 1 Macc 1:47). In 1 Macc 4:41 Judas orders “men” to fight against those in the Akra until the sanctuary should be purified by “blameless” priests whom he had chosen.31 Judas acts only as a military leader because his many bloody actions would have rendered him impure for any cultic ritual at the temple.32 Both 1 Macc 4:44–47 and 2 Macc 10:3 speak of the destruction of the old altar (θυσιαστήριον) and the building of the new one. Both sources agree that the sacrifice was resumed on the 25th of Kislev of the Sel. 148 (= December 14, 164), apparently the same month and day that the “Gentiles” profaned it, and that the celebration lasted for eight days (1 Macc 4:52–58; 2 Macc 10:5–7).33 The institution of this festival became later known as Hanukkah. Passages like 2 Macc 1:9, 18 and 2 Macc 10:5–8 even elevate its religious importance to that of the Festival of Tabernacles.34 The Jerusalem temple became once again the property of the Jewish God alone. The rebels fortified Mt. Zion with high walls and towers. They stationed their men to guard and protect it from the attacks of the Akra. The temple area was turned into a stronghold (ὀχύρωμα) according to 1 Macc 6:61. This information is not contained in Second Maccabees, which remains faithful to its vision of God saving the temple. The rebels also fortified Beth-Zur (1 Macc 4:60–61; cf. 6:26). This is implicitly confirmed by 2 Macc 13:19.35 Beth-Zur served as protection against forces from Idumea in the South.

31 We follow the reading καθαρισθῆ. Cf. the purification act in 2 Chr 29:16. 32 On the narrative aspects, see Nodet, Crise, 129–32. 33 Cf. Kislev 15 Sel. 145 in 1 Macc 1:54. There was no regular cultic practice for three years and ten days. Other sources contrast this period: two years (2 Macc 10:3), three years (1 Macc 4:52: 148 Sel. year; cf. 1:54; also Ant. 12.320–321), three and a half years (War 1.32). The last period is found also in Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7. But Dan 8:13–14 has 1150 days for the offering; 1290 days in 12:11; 1335 days in 12:12 (considered a later addi תמיד ceasing of the tion by many scholars). See further Stahl, “ ‘Eine Zeit’,” 480–94; Collins, Daniel, passim. Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 253, judge most of them as additions of “genuine prediction,” and not “prophetia post eventum.” Cf. Fischer, Seleukiden, 143–44. On Daniel containing veram historiam written after the events, see Porphyrius of Tyre (322/3–4th. c.) in Stern, GLAJJ, II, No. 464a; cf. Ant. 12.322. 34 See further Rubenstein, History, 56–63. On the ritualistic character of Hanukkah, see Regev, “Ritual,” 87–110. There is no tract dedicated to the Feast of Hanukkah in the classical rabbinic literature. 35 On possible ancient remains, see Funk, “History,” 11–13. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 77

Judas and so his brothers appear as leaders of the rebels that captured the temple and the south-western part of Jerusalem. Among the allies there appear to have been also other priests. Part of them purified the altar and probably did not take part in the bloody actions. It is reasonable to believe that this revolt was supported by all those who rejected the government under the high priest Menelaus. It seems that many of the members of this pro-Seleucid ruling class found themselves isolated in the City of David. The conquest of the temple by the Hasmoneans and their allies was meant to restore it to the priesthood that had been heretofore affected by the policy under Menelaus down to 164. By occupying the temple the rebels took control of the religious and economic center of Judea. However, Menelaus did appear to remain high priest but only de jure. The policy of the rebels also challenged the Seleucid royal authority. By implication, the Hasmoneans seem to have refused to acknowledge the right of the Seleucid king to appoint a Jewish high priest in Jerusalem. This aspect sheds further light on their perception of the role and the nature of the Jewish high priesthood at this time.

5. King Antiochus V Eupator and the New Royal Edict

The death of Antiochus IV contributed significantly to the success of the Jewish rebels. The Akra forces were powerless against the rebels, who continued to control the temple and the areas around it. Early in 163 Lysias set up Antiochus IV’s nine-year-old son as the new king (App., Syr. 46, 66).36 Following 1 Macc 6:14–15, before his death, Antiochus IV appointed a certain Philip “over the entire kingdom,” and gave him his royal insignia to guide his son in becoming a king (cf. 3:32–33).37 Philip brought the king’s body home, but fearing Lysias he fled to Egypt (2 Macc 9:29; Licin. 28.7–9). However, the rivalry between Lysias and Philip continued (cf. 2 Macc 13:23–26). There was another imminent threat for Lysias. This came from Dem- etrius I, son of Seleucus IV and cousin of Antiochus V. He had to give up his right to the throne and he replaced Antiochus IV in 170 as a hostage

36 Porphyrius, FGH 260 F 32.13 has Antiochus as 12 years old. The epithet Εὐπάτωρ appears on the king’s coins struck between 164–162. See Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 44; Le Rider, Antioche, I, 234–50. 37 On Philip and other enemies of Lysias, see Gera, Judaea, 255–61. 78 chapter three in Rome. Despite his attempt to convince the Senate about his turn of fortune, the Romans backed Antiochus V (Polyb. 31.2.1–14; 31.8.6; App., Syr. 46; Licin. 28.38–39). In the spring of 163, the Romans even sent an embassy to the quarreling Seleucid court.38 Notwithstanding the tensions around the Seleucid throne, the Jewish rebels remained a constant preoccupation for Lysias. After Antiochus V was installed as king, he sent a letter to Lysias quoted in 2 Macc 11:22–26, which concerned the Jews.39 It begins with a reference to Antiochus IV’s death. The document has been considered by most scholars to be genuine. It makes no allusion to an armed conflict between the Seleucids and the rebels that would place the sending of the letter after the expedition of Lysias–Antiochus V, as suggested instead by Bezalel Bar-Kochva, who dates it to July of 162.40 Antiochus V mentions those Jews who “do not consent to our father’s change to Greek (precepts) [ἐπὶ τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ μεταθέσει],” prefer to conduct “their own way of life,” and request that the[ir] precepts (τὰ νόμιμα) be restored (2 Macc 11:24; cf. 1 Macc 1:42). The reference is to those patrioi nomoi that had been previously abolished. The concessions in 2 Macc 11:22–26 correspond in part to the requests of the rebels, which Lysias forwarded to Antiochus IV (11:17–18). As the letter itself makes clear, it is an official abolition of the edict of Antiochus IV (1 Macc 1:41–50). Antiochus V refers to the Jews as ethnos, thus implicitly restoring their former status recognized initially by Anti- ochus III (Ant. 12.138–144). The new king permitted the Jews to conduct their (socio-religious) life (πολιτεύεσθαι) according to their former “customs” (τὰ . . . ἔθη). Another significant concession regarded the restoration of the cultic use of the temple exclusively by the Jews (2 Macc 11:24–25; cf. 6:1–2). Hence, the status of Jerusalem as polis, which may have existed for more than three years, was abrogated. Judea became, once again, a temple-state. The apparent unconditional granting of the concessions of Antiochus V–Lysias was an attempt to avoid another armed conflict. In order to understand further development of the events, it is necessary to see what

38 On the Roman policy towards Antiochus V, see Walbank, Polybius, III, 465–68; Sherwin-White, Roman Policy, 74; Seeman, Rome and Judea, 136–39. 39 Gera, Judaea, 300–3 asserts that Lysias attempted to become king. 40 Judas, 541. Also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 225–26, dated the letter to 162 because he had assumed Antiochus IV died at the end of 163. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 79 the royal letter did not say. What is its significance for an understanding of the development of the Jewish high priesthood? The edict does not mention the Akra, which continued to be considered a royal property (cf. 1 Macc 15:28). Nor did it refer to the privileged class of “Antiocheans” and the gymnasium, both instituted by the ex-high priest Jason. This edict indirectly proposed a situation that existed before the year 167, characterized by a close Seleucid control of Judea through the royal epistates. It also appears that the new king implicitly asked the rebels to accept the high priestly authority of Menelaus, abandon Jerusa- lem with its temple and also Beth-Zur, and return to their homes. As for the Hasmoneans and their allies, they did not receive official recognition. Nor did they acquire access to the ruling class. Hence, the edict did not persuade (all) the rebels.

6. The Hasmonean Attacks around Judea and against the Royal Akra

The Hasmoneans refused to accept the authority of Menelaus as high priest and that of Antiochus V as king. They launched military campaigns mostly outside Judea against strongholds and towns: in Idumea (1 Macc 5:3–5, 65–68; 2 Macc 10:14–23; 12:32–45), in Galilee (1 Macc 5:14–17, 20–23; 2 Macc 12:29–31), in trans-Jordan, especially Gilead (1 Macc 5:6– 8, 9–13, 24–52; 2 Macc 12:10–28), and in towns west of Judea, like Gaz- era/Gezer (10:24–38), Joppa and Jamnia (12:3–9). The order of events in 1 Macc 5 differs significantly from that in 2 Macc 8:30–33, 10:14–38 and 12. There are also evident contradictions between the two accounts.41 The question arises concerning the identity of the new military supporters of the Hasmoneans. Second Maccabees, which emphasizes the role of Judas more than First Maccabees does, refers to Judas’ forces at times as ἡ παρεμβολή (1 Macc 4:37; 5:28, 40, 49), sometimes as ὁ λαός (1 Macc 5:16, 18–19, 42–43, 61). Some Jews, who lived beyond the Jordan, in Galilee and other provinces, were brought into Judea as new settlers on the lands confiscated from the Seleucid colonists and their Jewish supporters (1 Macc 5:23; cf. 6:24–25; 2 Macc 5:45–54, 63). Part of the latter left Jerusalem (not the

41 For a tentative reconstruction of the chronological order of events, see Zambelli, “Composizione,” 272–79 and Sievers, Hasmoneans, 49–57. On the encounters with the “Nabataeans” in 1 Macc 5:24–26 and “Arabs” in 2 Macc 12:10–12, see Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 19–21. 80 chapter three

City of David) and united with the Idumeans, who backed the Seleucid rule (2 Macc 10:15; 1 Macc 6:21–25; cf. 4:2). Among the militants of Judas beyond the Jordan were the Τουβιανοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, perhaps survivors of the supporters of the Tobiad Hyrcanus (2 Macc 12:17; cf. 3:11).42 Part of these incomers may have later supported the Hasmonean claim to the high priestly office. The actions of the rebels seem to have occupied several months of the year 163. According to 1 Macc 6:18 the inhabitants of the Akra blockaded “Israel” round the sanctuary, trying to harm them and to strengthen the Gentiles. Josephus states that the Akra commanded the temple, although he does not explain how and when such occupation occurred (Ant. 12.362). In fact, the control of the temple meant, among other things, having control of its economic income. At some point, Judas and his allies had besieged the Seleucid Akra (1 Macc 6:18–27). Second Maccabees 12:31 mentions the festival of Pen- tecost in between the rededication of the temple and the expedition of Antiochus V–Lysias (cf. 2 Macc 13:1), while 1 Macc 6:20 dates the siege to the Sel. 150.43 The dispute of the control over the temple between the Akra officials and the Hasmoneans would, in fact, dominate the process of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.44 The decision of the Hasmoneans and their allies to occupy the Akra carried a strong political motivation. It aimed at uprooting the Seleucid control from Judea, which favored the high priest Menelaus and his party (cf. 1 Macc 6:21). This, again, seems to imply that at this particular point the Hasmoneans opposed the established tradition that the foreign king had the right to confirm/appoint the high priest. At the royal court, however, such an act was perceived as being clearly against its geo-political, military, and economic interests. This issue was aggravated by the numerous military expeditions of the rebels against the neighboring people. In addition, 1 Macc 6:21–27 reports an accusation brought by the pro-Seleucid Jews against their fellow rebels. Albeit written by a pro-Hasmonean author, this passage provides testimony concerning the policy of the Hasmoneans.

42 For details, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 70, 82–84, 510. 43 According to the fall era, Judas would have attacked the Akra beginning autumn of 163. Bar-Kochva, Judas, 543–50, discusses the dating of the siege of the Akra and the follow ing (second) expedition of Lysias. He thinks the expedition was completed in the summer of 162, which appears to be too late a date. 44 It took over two decades before the Hasmoneans occupied the Akra in 141. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 81

1. The accusation is made by those who escaped from the Akra: both Gentiles and “some of the impious of Israel” (1 Macc 6:21). 2. The accusers implicitly asked the king to avenge their “brothers,” whom the rebels put to death (6:21). These rebels are referred to as “the sons of our people” (6:24). 3. The accusers recall their loyalty to the edicts (τοῖς προστάγ-μασιν) of Antiochus IV (6:23; cf. 1:13). They further state that on account of this the rebels besieged the Akra, became hostile to them, and looted their properties (6:24).45 4. The rebels stretched out their hand not only against them but against all the royal territories (6:25).46 This may refer to their military expeditions, to what follows next, or both. 5. The rebels laid siege against the Akra to capture it, and have fortified the sanctuary and Beth-Zur (6:26; cf. 4:60–61).

There is no mention of the edict of Antiochus V (cf. 2 Macc 11:22–26). In fact, it concerned only those Jews who wanted to make use of the temple according to their ancestral laws (11:25). The accusers instead referred to their practicing of the laws sanctioned by Antiochus IV, on account of which they had been attacked by the Hasmoneans and other rebels. This means that their life in the City of David was very probably regulated by royal laws and that they continued to consider themselves as privileged royal citizens. Most importantly, there is no reference to the high priest Menelaus, although he himself probably led the delegation (cf. 2 Macc 13:3). Hence, omission of his name should be attributed to the pro-Hasmonean author. Instead, the actions of the Hasmoneans and their allies point to their policy which apparently called for a need of a high priesthood independent from the Seleucid royal throne.

7. The Attack of Antiochus V–Lysias on the Jewish Rebels, and Its Aftermath

Like Jason’s attack, the attack of Judas and his allies on the royal Akra was also followed by the military intervention of the Seleucid king, who was under the guardianship of Lysias. Perhaps for this evident similarity,

45 The expression ἐπ αὐτὴν seems to refer to Akra as in 1 Macc 6:20. 46 The LaLB tuus (σοί) instead of αὐτῶν in 1 Macc 6:25 is preferred. 82 chapter three

1 Macc 6:18–27 has no parallels in Second Maccabees. Second Maccabees 13:3 depicts Menelaus accompanying Antiochus V and Lysias on their march to Judea. The role of Menelaus during and after the rededication of the temple will be treated below. Before that, it is necessary to understand whether, and if so, in what way this Seleucid intervention might have contributed to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Second Maccabees 13:1 dates the (second) military expedition of Lysias to the Sel. 149, i.e. probably late in 163.47 The battles took place first at Beth-Zur (1 Macc 6:28–31, 49–50; 2 Macc 13:18–22; War 1.41), then at Beth-Zechariah (1 Macc 6:32–47; War 1.41–45), and finally on Mt. Zion (1 Macc 6:48, 51–54; War 1.46).48 In 2 Macc 13:9–17 there is a battle which took place near Modein. In the Beth-Zechariah battle, Eleazar, one of the four brothers of Judas, also fell (1 Macc 6:43–46). Both 1 Macc 6:53, 57 and War 1.46 speak of shortage of food, which the former connects with the Sabbatical year. This crisis was aggravated by the presence of the Seleucid troops in Judea. Taking advantage of the involvement of Lysias in Judea, the former pretender to the royal throne, Philip (cf. 1 Macc 6:14–15) laid siege to the capital of Antioch (1 Macc 6:55–56; 2 Macc 13:23). At this, Lysias convinced the boy-king of the need to return home, where they would eventually defeat the rival (1 Macc 6:55–63; 2 Macc 12:23–26). Their return can be dated to the spring of 162. But what was the situation in Judea after the departure of Antiochus V–Lysias? The version of 1 Macc 6:58–61 claims a peace agreement had been reached before the return at the initiative of Lysias. While 2 Macc 13:24 implies his meeting with Judas, Ant. 12.382 has the treaty made with Judas. These passages have been overly interpreted by certain scholars. Thus, Bezalel Bar-Kochva argues that “[w]ith Lysias’ departure, control of Jeru- salem returned to Judas.”49 In fact, the question of Judas’ role in the aftermath of the Seleucid expedition is in part connected with the important question of his alleged high priesthood.50

47 The numbers of enemy forces are exaggerated. Contrary to Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 448, there are no sufficient elements to consider that 2 Macc 13:1–22 describes the same expedition of Lysias as narrated in 2 Macc 11:1–15; the latter finds close parallels in 1 Macc 4, whereas the former in 1 Macc 6. 48 For a comment on this expedition, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 291–96; Ehling, Untersuc hungen, 114–17. Ehling, however, dates it to the winter of 164/3 since he places the capture of the temple in 165/4. 49 Judas, 345. 50 On the latter issue, see Ch. IV. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 83

First, significant for this study is the report in 2 Macc 13:24, according to which the king appointed a certain Hegemonides as strategos from Ptolemais to Gerar (?), or somewhere near the border with Egypt.51 This information, which Bar-Kochva passes over in silence, points to the fact that the geo-political and administrative division of Koile-Syria and Phoe- nicia underwent a change in 162. Hermann Bengtson claimed that in 162, Koile-Syria and Phoenicia was renamed to Koile-Syria and would have existed until 137/6.52 Second, the rebels were defeated in the decisive battle at Beth- Zechariah. War 1.45 contains independent historical testimony concerning Judas’ flight to the Gophna district, not far from Modein.53 This contradicts Ant. 12.382, according to which Judas was besieged in Jerusalem. But while 1 Macc 6:53–54 speaks of famine, it also states that only “a few men” (//Ant. 12.378) were left in the fortified temple area, while the rest scat- tered to their homes. It makes no mention of Judas. Indeed, it is unlikely that Judas would have fought in Beth-Zur, then at Beth-Zechariah, and also in Jerusalem. In addition to his numerous troops, Lysias could count on the military and logistic support of the Akra and other forces from Samaria and Idumea. Third, War 1.46 has Antiochus V leaving (additional) troops in Jerusa- lem. Following 1 Macc 6:62//Ant. 12.383a the king also ordered the wall around the temple (cf. 1 Macc 4:60) to be torn down. Fourth, before departing, Lysias reportedly urged the king to allow the rebels to live by their own precepts (τοῖς νομίμοις; 1 Macc 6:59). This note seems to reiterate the edict of Antiochus V (2 Macc 11:23–26). On the one hand, it suggests that there was some evident internal opposition—both Jewish and non-Jewish—against the full restoration of the patrioi nomoi. On the other hand, such reassurance was necessary in view of the possible resumption of the rebellions. Taken together, these elements do not support the view that Judas remained in control of Jerusalem. This would entail that he was turned from a leader of the rebels into a royal official or even had become high priest. The royal Akra continued to remain outside the Hasmonean

51 Bevan, House, 184–85, takes ἡγεμονίδην (2 Macc 13:24) as a court title and not as the name of the strategos. On the identification of Hegemonides, see Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 22–26. 52 Strategie, II, 78–81, 176–77. 53 The Gophna region, where many Hasmonean actions took place, was part of the Desert of Samaria. See Schwartz and Spanier, “Mattathias,” 252–71. 84 chapter three control for another two decades. The Seleucid king instead reaffirmed his authority over the Jerusalem temple and Judea. Second Maccabees 13:23 even has the king bring sacrifice before his departure (cf. 3:2–3, 35). Again, no mention of the high priest Menelaus is made in this context. However, this aspect requires further clarification. Before closing this chapter, it is still necessary to concentrate on two important events: the arrest and execution of Menelaus and the escape of the Oniad members into Egypt.

8. The Hasmoneans, the High Priest Menelaus, and His Arrest

It is necessary to study further the role of Menelaus in the above discussed events, those surrounding the rededication of the temple and its aftermath. Also, it is necessary to delve deeper into the attitude of the Has- moneans toward this high priest. The importance of the control of the temple implicitly emerges from 2 Macc 13:1–8. This story finds parallel in Ant. 12.383b–385, which Josephus may have excerpted from an independent source, which we labeled here as the “Oniad High Priestly Chronicle.” The analysis of these two parallel stories will further confirm that the military expedition of Antiochus V–Lysias was a (temporary) defeat for the Hasmoneans. The first significant information provided by 2 Macc 13:1–8 is that Mene- laus kept on urging Antiochus not for the country’s sake but in the hope that he would be (re)installed in the office (ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς κατασταθήσεσθαι; 13:3). This strongly suggests that Menelaus had previously appealed to Antiochus V–Lysias, just before the latter’s military expedition in Judea. The assertion of Felix-Marie Abel that Menelaus “résidait à Antioche, surtout depuis que Judas . . . avait récupére le temple” is problematic.54 It is safer to assume that Menelaus left the Akra after the news of the installation of Antiochus V reached him. He could have well been among those “impious” who escaped according to 1 Macc 6:21. Menelaus had lost control of the temple and was seeking to be reinstalled in the high priestly office with the help of the royal forces. The exercising of the high priesthood was strictly connected with his control of the temple. The exact policy adopted by Menelaus, however, remains unclear. For example, a

54 Maccabées, 450. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 85 siege against the rebels hidden in the temple’s fortified area may have been not exactly what Menelaus hoped for. But the rebellions, the loss of the temple and the attack on the Akra were not the only reasons why Menelaus traveled to the Seleucid capital. Any Jewish high priest, if he wanted to have access to or remain in the high priestly office, had to appeal to the Seleucid king to get appointment or confirmation. This was especially so when a new king came to power. Onias III, Jason, and also Menelaus did this at the beginning of his high priesthood. The verb κατασταθήσεσθαι in 2 Macc 13:3, therefore, does not mean only reinstallation; it implies also royal confirmation in the high priestly office. The use of the verb in the sense of “(re)confirm” will reappear in the sources discussed here. Indeed, Menelaus achieved his goal of defeating the rebels who opposed his high priesthood. But the surviving rebels too witnessed his ultimate removal from the high priestly office. At the instigation of Lysias who declared Menelaus responsible for all the troubles, Antiochus V reportedly ordered his arrest and later his execution in Beroea (i.e. Aleppo; 2 Macc 13:4–8//Ant. 12.384–385).55 The relationship between Menelaus and Lysias was not altogether friendly since the reign of Antiochus IV (cf. 2 Macc 11:1–3). The revolts in Judea occurred almost every year since the attack of the ex-high priest Jason in 169. Lysias may have hoped that, by removing Menelaus, both fighting sides would finally have peace. This is what Josephus’ independent version of the events in Ant. 12.383b-385 suggests. Lysias, in fact, instigated the arrest and the execution of Menelaus—whom Josephus also calls Onias (cf. 20.235)—before the withdrawal from Judea (12.383a- 384). If Lysias did have some formal negotiation with any rebels left in Jerusalem, it may be that the removal of Menelaus was something they would have requested. It is also very probable that a significant part of the temple authorities did not support Menelaus as high priest any longer. The author of 2 Macc 13:8 sees the death of the high priest Menelaus as a just punishment for his “many sins” against the temple altar with its holy fire and ashes. The term used for “altar” here is βωμός. Except for 2 Macc 2:19, in all other instances the term θυσιαστήριον is instead used,

55 The end of the story resembles that of Jason’s death in 2 Macc 5:5–10, both appar ently having died without a burial. 86 chapter three just as in First Maccabees.56 The latter has the term βωμός only to refer to the non-Jewish altar(s), just as in 2 Macc 10:2.57 It could be that by adopting this term the epitomizer wanted to stress the Hellenistic influence on the high priesthood of Menelaus.

9. The Escape of the Oniads into Egypt

Another significant event at this time period was the escape of the members of the Oniad high priestly family into Egypt. Second Maccabees 4:33–38 reports that earlier, while in Antioch, Menelaus persuaded the royal official Andronicus to kill Onias III in Daphne, a religious centre nearby.58 The reason was the charges brought by the ex-high priest against Menelaus. Some scholars see in 1 En. 90:8 an allusion to this event.59 However, according to both War 1.31–33 and War 7.420–436, Onias (III) escaped to Egypt and founded a temple in the district of Heliopolis. In Ant. 12.387–388 instead, Josephus ascribes the building of the temple in Leontopolis to Onias (IV) (Ant. 12.237; 13.62–73; 20.235). In fact, Ant. 12.387 states that Onias (IV) who, at realizing that his “uncle” Menelaus was slain and that the high priesthood was given to Alcimus, fled to King Ptolemy (VI Philometor?; 165–145). The existence of the temple of Onias is documented by a number of other sources.60 Livia Capponi re-evaluated in detail all the available literary and archaeological sources. The author concluded that the cumulative evidence points to Onias IV rather than to Onias III as the

56 The use of the term βωμός at the beginning of the epitome in 2 Macc 2:19 is rather unusual. In fact, in the story of the rededication of the altar by Judas and his followers the term θυσιαστήριον is instead used (10:3). 57 See 1 Macc 1:47, 54, 59; 2:23–25; 2:45. 58 The event is supposed to have taken place in 170, just before the Seleucid chief min ister Andronicus was himself killed (Diod. 30.70.2; cf. BM 35603 Rev. 10–15; John Antioch 132.1–2). 59 See, among others, VanderKam, Enoch, 161. 60 Josephus does not speak of the temple being demolished in 73 c.e. but that it was despoiled and closed by Lupus, the governor of Alexandria. On its possible location, see Kasher, Jews, 119–22; Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 25–30; Hata, “Temple Site,” 177–91. A Jew ish cemetery was unearthed in the area with epitaphs whose inscriptions have been pub lished mostly in CIJ 2.1451–1530 and republished in JIGRE, Nos. 29–104. the hasmonean revolt and the high priesthood of menelaus 87 temple founder.61 Capponi dates the escape of Onias IV into Egypt to the year 162.62 An independent research of this important event in the history of the Jewish high priesthood is, however, beyond the present purpose.

Conclusion

Menelaus owed his position as high priest to a great extent to the military aid of the Seleucid king but also to the support of the Hellenizing party (both Jews and non-Jews). Thanks to his policy a section of the priesthood continued to enjoy privileges of all kind. However, this policy negatively affected the other priests, like the Hasmoneans. The revolt of the Hasmonean priests which broke out in the countryside was neither the first nor the only one of its time. There were socio- political, economic, religious and other reasons behind it. The anabasis in the East of Antiochus IV and the king’s death, late in 164, favored to a great extent the initial success of the revolt. In December of 164 the rebels led by the Hasmoneans conquered the temple and the south-western hill of Jerusalem and then rededicated the temple. They both fortified its area and Beth-Zur. Jews from outside Judea were brought to settle in the area and around Judea. One of the goals of the Hasmonean revolt was the removal of Menelaus from the high priestly office. The capability of Menelaus to exercise his authority as high priest after 166—mostly religious and administrative— varied from time to time. To a great extent this was caused by the Has- monean revolt, which caused a more active Seleucid interference in the Jewish affairs. Since at least December of 164 Menelaus completely lost his control of the temple. The precise role of Menelaus following this event is not stated in the sources. The edict of Antiochus V–Lysias in 163, by which Judea became (once again) a temple-state regulated by the patrioi nomoi, did not convince the Hasmoneans and their allies to abandon the control of the temple. The rebellious priests were implicitly asked to accept the authority of Menelaus as high priest and the strategic role of the royal Akra. With

61 Tempio, 39–59, 131–38, 207–11. So also VanderKam, From Joshua, 214–22; Brutti, Devel opment, 211–16. In favour of Onias III, see Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 252–57; Parente, “Onias III,” 69–98; Parker, “Studien,” 148–56, 164–67. 62 Tempio, 164. 88 chapter three the aim of removing the Seleucid control from the Jewish ethnos and the temple, the rebels laid siege to the Akra. This was an evident declaration of war against the royal authority in this region. Antiochus V–Lysias launched a military expedition and, by the spring of 162, the Seleucids re-established their control of Judea. However, they also arrested and executed the high priest Menelaus. The Seleucid king eventually reaffirmed his full control over the Jerusalem temple and over the high priestly office. The arrest and execution of Menelaus as well as the departure of the Oniad members into Egypt opened new hopes for the Hasmonean priests. It was perhaps at this point that they decided to take control of the high priestly office. The refusal both of the high priesthood of Menelaus and of the Seleucid monarchy points to the perception by the Hasmoneans of the role and nature of the Jewish high priesthood. The high priest had to act independently of the king and be able to defend the temple and the Jewish ethnos even by military means. It is especially important to emphasize the role of the Hasmoneans as priestly warriors, which is essential for an understanding of the nature of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Even though the Has- moneans were temporarily defeated, their past achievements convinced them that continuing in their policy could bring results. In the following chapter it will be shown that Antiochus V–Lysias did not leave the Jewish high priestly office vacant in 162. It will be argued that the eviction of Menelaus was connected also with the appointment of a new high priest by the Seleucid king. chapter four

Judas Maccabeus and the High Priesthood of Alcimus

Introduction

The previous chapter treated the origin and the aim(s) of the Hasmonean revolt in order to understand its significance for the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood. This revolt succeeded in the removal of Menel- aus from the high priestly office. Yet it failed to uproot the Seleucid royal dominion from Jerusalem. This chapter will be concerned with the policy of the Hasmoneans in relation to the next high priest, Alcimus. The constant attention on the attitude of the Hasmoneans towards the Seleucid rule remains imperative. The period under study is between early 162 and 159, when Alcimus died. As it will be shown, when Alcimus came to power part of the allies of the Hasmoneans accepted his high priesthood. Judas himself died in the year 160 and Jonathan succeeded him. Three questions will guide this analysis: First, why did the Hasmoneans reject the high priesthood of Alcimus? Second, was Judas a high priest as stated by Josephus in Ant. 12.414, 419, 434, and as assumed by several modern scholars? Third, what was the nature of the leadership that Jonathan inherited from his brother, Judas? This treatise is important for two reasons. First, it will address the important question of the alleged high priesthood of Judas. Second, as in previous chapters, it aims at showing how the circumstances and the events under discussion contributed to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

1. When and Why was Alcimus Appointed High Priest?

Both 2 Macc 14:1–11 and Ant. 12.385 state that Ἄλκιμος was already high priest by the time he made his first appeal to the new king, Demetrius I Soter (162–150).1 Bezalel Bar-Kochva instead argues that there is “insufficient

1 Several Mss (Lucianic recension) in both First and Second Maccabees refer to Alcimus by the name ιακιμος or similar. For Hanhart, Maccabaeorum II, 23, these Mss are influ enced by Josephus’ Ant. 12.385; cf. also Ant. 20.235, 237. 90 chapter four support for the view . . . that Alcimus already served as high priest in the reign of Antiochus Eupator.” Bar-Kochva thinks the author of First Mac- cabees “is certainly more competent than any other source to report on domestic events.” It seems that the assertion of Bar-Kochva is connected with his view that “[w]ith Lysias’ departure, control of Jerusalem returned to Judas.”2 One problem with this assertion is that First Maccabees is not directly interested in the history of the high priesthood of Alcimus. It refers to Alcimus only to show that he was a wicked (high) priest. Another problem is the meaning of the aorist verb ἔστησεν in 1 Macc 7:9. After the defeat of the rebels in the winter of 163/2, the temple was again put under the control of the Akra. According to Josephus, after the execution of Menelaus the high priestly office was given to Alcimus, also Ant. 12.385; cf. 12.391). The suggested historical ;יויקים/יקים) called Ἰάκιμος context makes it plausible that this appointment preceded the departure of Antiochus V–Lysias.3 Such an order is also implied in 2 Macc 14:3. It introduces Alcimus as the one who happened (previously) to be high priest (τις προγεγονὼς ἀρχιερεύς). After all, Bar-Kochva also admits that Alcimus may have been appointed high priest after the execution of Menelaus. However, he believes that “[i]t cannot be assumed that Alcimus actually served in the Temple before the reign of Demetrius I.”4 One notes that soon after, in 2 Macc 14:7, Alcimus complains about having been deprived (ἀφελόμενος) of the high priesthood.5 It follows then that the verb ἔστησεν in 1 Macc 7:9 should be understood in the sense that Demetrius I “confirmed” Alcimus in the high priesthood.6 The same meaning of the verb will reappear in 1 Macc 11:27 and 14:38. Besides, the (same) verb καθίστημι had been adopted in 2 Macc 13:3 in relation to the failed re-confirmation of Menelaus (see κατασταθήσεσθαι). Such a meaning is in no way contradicted by the statement made in 1 Macc 7:5, which depicts Alcimus desiring to act as (high) priest (βουλόμενος ἱερατεύειν). Similarly, Alcimus needed to be re-installed during the second expedition

2 Judas, 345. 3 Both Mölleken, “Geschichtsklitterung,” 227 and Bunge, “Geschichte,” 27, accepted this version but only after having made unnecessary rearrangements of the texts. See more recently also Parker, “Studien,” 159–60. 4 Judas, 346. 5 This participle aorist middle verb appears in 1 Macc 11:12, implying a similar meaning of “being taken away.” See also Grimm, Zweite Maccabäer, 193. 6 So also Abel, Maccabées, 131; VanderKam, From Joshua, 228; Scolnic, Alcimus, 147; Brutti, Development, 233. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 91 of Bacchides, which actually happened, but this is not explicitly stated in 1 Macc 9.7 Furthermore, 2 Macc 14:3 introduces Alcimus as one who had willingly defiled himself (μεμολυσμένος) in the time of the revolt (τῆς ἀμιξίας).8 According to Benjamin Scolnic, “Jason [of Cyrene] artificially created a defilement that never was.”9 Elias J. Bickerman earlier suggested that Alci- mus had participated in the non-Jewish festivals and sacrifices.10 Some participation was likely. But the real issue appears to have concerned both his continuation of cultic worship at the “desecrated” temple and collaboration with the Seleucids after 167. The previous position of Alcimus and the situation created in Jerusa- lem following the arrest of Menelaus favored his appointment in the high priestly office. One should also recall the escape of Onias IV into Egypt following the arrest of Menelaus. First Maccabees 6:55–63 did not even mention the Hasmoneans in the context of the peace treaty. Soon after, its author switches the reader’s attention to the Seleucid affairs. This implicitly suggests the Hasmoneans had no (real) influence on the appointment of Alcimus, which took place early in 162, probably soon after Menelaus had been arrested. The possibility of Alcimus’ appointment was likely seen by the Seleucid chief minister Lysias as capable of pacifying the various factions in Judea.

2. The Hasmoneans and the First Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I

According to the present reconstruction of the chronological order of the events, the high priest Alcimus had four appeals before the Seleucid King Demetrius I. Each of these appeals will be analyzed separately. The immediate task is to understand how they were related to the actions of the Hasmoneans. The ultimate aim is to discover to what extent and in what specific way the events at the time of the high priest Alcimus contributed to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. As in the previous

7 See also Parker, “Studien,” 161–64. 8 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 469 renders the term ἀμιξία as “strife.” 9 Alcimus, 156. 10 From Ezra, 128–29. On other opinions, see Brutti, Development, 236–38. On textual problems, see Abel, Maccabées, 457–58, 467. 92 chapter four chapter, the process begins by examining the Judean affairs in the larger context of the Seleucid history. In 2 Macc 14:1–3 Alcimus is introduced in the context of the accession to the royal throne of Demetrius I. He escaped from Rome and landed at Tripolis (Syria) in the autumn of 162 (2 Macc 14:1; Ant. 12.389). The historian Polybius himself helped the 23-year-old pretender to escape (31.11–15).11 Demetrius executed both Antiochus V and Lysias (1 Macc 7:2–3; 2 Macc 14:2) and assumed the throne late in 162 (cf. Livy, Per. 46; Just. 34.3.5–9).12 First Maccabees 7:1 dates this event to Sel. 151 (=162/161; cf. 2 Macc 14:1; AD 3 No. -160 A ´Obv.´ 2´; Porph., FGH 260 F 32.14).13 Second Maccabees 14:3–4 relates that when realizing that he could in no way serve at the altar (θυσιαστήριον), Alcimus went to Demetrius I in the Sel. year 151. This note connecting the high priesthood with the service at the altar is indeed significant. There is no such explicit connection made in First Maccabees. The embassy of Alcimus can be dated between late 162 and the (following) summer expedition of Demetrius against Timarchus.14 Therefore, the expression “after three years” in 2 Macc 14:1 seems to point to the winter–spring of 161 for this appeal (cf. 1 Macc 6:20).

2.1. The Accusation of Alcimus against the Hasmoneans Perhaps as soon as the Hasmoneans heard that Demetrius I landed in Tripolis in order to remove Antiochus V, they resumed the revolt. This caused the high priest and his party to appeal to the king. First Macca- bees 7:5 defines them as “lawless and wicked men from Israel.” But there was another important issue at stake for Alcimus. On his part, Alcimus acknowledged the authority of Demetrius I by having presented to him a golden crown with palm and olive branches from the temple (2 Macc 14:4). Alcimus not only needed military help but, more importantly, confirmation in the high priestly office. It was up to the new king to confirm Alcimus or appoint someone else.

11 Coloru, Da Alessandro, 220, suspects some official Roman involvement in the reported escape of Demetrius. On the positive attitude of Polybius towards Demetrius I, see Primo, Storiografia, 153–57. 12 See further Walbank, Polybius, III, 478–84; Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 664–65; Ehling, Untersuchungen, 122–24. On the coins of Demetrius I, see Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 45–50, 111. Antiochus V died after October 29, 162. See AD 3 No. -161 A Left Edge; van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 168. 13 See also Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 17; Del Monte, TBE, 241. 14 On this royal military expedition, see Coloru, Da Alessandro, 220–23. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 93

For the first time “Judas and his brothers” are the explicit objects of the accusation by a Jewish high priest (1 Macc 7:6; cf. 6:21–27; 7:10). In 2 Macc 14:6 Alcimus speaks of Hasideans whose leader was Judas Maccabeus but he does not mention his brothers. Why is this leadership of Judas not reported in First Maccabees? There the role of the Hasideans is that of allies rather than of followers of the Hasmoneans. However, in Second Maccabees they do not appear elsewhere. First Maccabees implies that the high priest had been driven out of Judea, but the source does not clarify how this occurred (see 7:6). From 2 Macc 14:6–7 it is evident that Alcimus was aware of the impossibility of exercising his high priestly authority without the help of the king. Still, he was able to present himself before the king, apparently unharmed. The rebels seem to have only occupied the temple area but did not lay siege to the Akra itself.15 Alcimus also accused the Hasmoneans of causing instability in the kingdom, thus showing his own loyalty to the new king.

2.2. The Hasmoneans, the Military Power of Alcimus, and the First Expedition of Bacchides Alcimus succeeded in getting both the confirmation of high priesthood and royal protection. The new king entrusted a military expedition to his Friend Bacchides.16 At their arrival in Jerusalem, Bacchides and Alcimus are reported to have sent messengers “to Judas and his brothers” with peaceful words (1 Macc 7:8–10). The Hasmoneans considered them treach- erous while a group of scribes approached the two in hope of establishing a peaceful agreement (7:12). The Hasideans were apparently the first to have sought peace “from them.”17 But “he” arrested and executed sixty of them (7:13–16).18 The pro-Hasmonean author implicitly makes Alcimus responsible for their execution. Bacchides then camped near Beth-Zaith some 2 km west of Gophna, and about 25 km north of Jerusalem.19 There he executed some of those

15 Jerusalem was in fact the first target of the royal army (1 Macc 7:17, 19). 16 First Maccabees 7:8 describes Bacchides as one “of the king’s Friends, who ruled beyond the River.” Bengtson, Strategie, II, 181–86, thinks he replaced Hegemonides as gov ernor of Koile-Syria. See also Grainger, SPG, 84–85. 17 Parker, “Studien,” 161, suggests the event of 1 Macc 7:13 may refer to the time of Anti ochus V–Lysias, when Alcimus was made high priest. 18 Nodet, Crise, 353, argues that it was Bacchides who executed the Hasidean group. No doubt, it was Bacchides who had an army and not Alcimus. However, for Nodet, 358, “le terme « Assidéens » est d’origine purement littéraire.” 19 It is to be noted that Gophna was located well inside the Samarian province. 94 chapter four who deserted him and some “of the people” (1 Macc 7:19); ὁ λαός being intended here in the sense of the military followers of the Hasmoneans. However, no battle between the Hasmonean led rebels and the Seleucid army is narrated in First Maccabees.20 Before departing, Bacchides entrusted the country (τὴν χώραν) to Alci- mus, with whom he left a force (δύμανιν; 1 Macc 7:20). This indicates that the high priesthood of Alcimus began to be associated with military power.21 It would seem that in addition to the Akra garrison, Alcimus received troops who were to remain at his disposal. Their mission was to protect the high priest Alcimus and the temple. The military authority of Alcimus is alluded to earlier in 1 Macc 7:14, where he was said to have come with forces (ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν). The role of the Akra, however, is not clarified here. There must have been a Seleucid military commander in the Akra, with whom the Jewish high priest was supposed to co-operate. Perhaps the new Seleucid chancellery preferred to grant Alcimus some military power rather than appoint their own military official in Judea (cf. 2 Macc 14:12). The military coloring of the high priesthood of Alcimus in First Mac- cabees is contrasted by the holistic perception of his office in Second Mac- cabees. For instance, 2 Macc 14:3 connects this office with the possibility of serving on “the holy altar” while in 2 Macc 14:13 one reads of Alcimus “high priest of the greatest temple.” The “altar” (θυσιαστήριον) received much attention (only) in 1 Macc 1–7, but is never connected with the high priesthood of Alcimus. For the present purpose it is important to stress how Alcimus, “of the line of Aaron” (1 Macc 7:14), is presented in First Maccabees as a Helle- nized high priest with military power. There is, however, no Seleucid civil title attached to it. The emphasis on the military aspect of Alcimus’ high priestly rule seems to be done with the aim of justifying the later militarized high priesthood of the Hasmoneans.

2.3. The Hasmoneans, the High Priest Alcimus, and the Hasideans The supposed motivation behind the agreement of the Hasideans to negotiate with Alcimus was that they considered him “a priest of the line of Aaron” (1 Macc 7:14). This expression very probably means that Alcimus

20 As Bar-Kochva, Judas, 348 suggests, perhaps no battle took place. 21 See also Brutti, Development, 260–61. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 95 belonged to a family of high priests.22 In addition, Alcimus got royal confirmation to act as high priest. He had, it seems, all the prerequisites in order to legitimately occupy the high priestly office. The Hasideans thus had their own view of the identikit of the high priest in Jerusalem.23 Nonetheless, the Hasmoneans refused to acknowledge Alcimus as their high priest from the very beginning. But neither First Maccabees nor Sec- ond Maccabees explicitly portrays the Hasmoneans as fighting against the Jerusalem high priests either. Menelaus was not even mentioned in the narrative of the events between 169/8 and early 162, when he was arrested. Even the battle of Judas had been placed in 2 Macc 13:9–17, after the narrative about the arrest of Menelaus. By the time Alcimus became high priest, the Hasmoneans had shaped their own ideology. Apparently no collaborator of the Seleucids could act as high priest because any such candidate was regarded as “lawless and impious” (cf. 1 Macc 7:5). The reason for the continuation of the Has- monean revolt was no longer the “desecration” of the temple or the effects of the edict of Antiochus IV. The temple was rededicated, while the edict abrogated. The supposed reason of the revolt now was Alcimus, who was himself “impious” (7:9). This overtly negative depiction of the “Aaronide” high priest only serves to legitimize the continuation of the Hasmonean revolt and its effects.

3. The Hasmoneans and the Second Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I

Whoever did not share the Hasmonean policy was considered almost a traitor. The Hasmonean guerilla attacks caused the high priest to appear again before Demetrius I. It is necessary to analyze the various aspects that surrounded this second appeal of Alcimus at the royal court. It is important to realize the way this appeal shaped the policy of the Has- moneans towards the Seleucid royal dominion.

3.1. The Resumption of the Hasmonean Revolt against Alcimus The author of First Maccabees in 7:21–25 stresses that Alcimus “struggled” to maintain his high priesthood. He further states that all those who were

22 For an analysis of the expression, see Ch. 10. 23 So also Scolnic, Alcimus, 165. 96 chapter four harassing their “people” joined him and took control of Judea and ultimately caused much damage in Israel. But Judas, seeing all “the evil” done by Alcimus and his supporters among the “Israelites,” took vengeance on those who had deserted him and prevented those in the city to go out. When the high priest realized he could not successfully oppose Judas, Alcimus again appealed to Demetrius I. For the first time, both Judas and a Jewish high priest, Alcimus, are explicitly mentioned as adversaries. This confirms the violent contraposi- tion between the ruling high priest and the rebellious priest. Judas, however, was only able to organize sporadic attacks in the countryside, and occasionally attacked those going out from Jerusalem. The author does not specify “the evil” done by Alcimus. “The people” in 1 Macc 7:22 just like the “Israelites” in 7:23, refers instead to the Has- monean militants who became the object of persecution by Alcimus. But the troops in the Akra and those left by Bacchides proved to be insufficient. The majority of the population as well probably did not want to remain involved in these violent confrontations. There had been too many wars and too much damage still to be repaired. Alcimus appears to have once again lost effective control of the temple. The second appeal of the high priest to Demetrius I occurred likely in the autumn of 161, after the victory of the king against Rome’s recognized king of Media and Babylon, Timarchus (Diod. 31.27a; App., Syr. 47).24 Alcimus was able to convince Demetrius for the second time to send a military expedition against the Hasmonean led rebels (2 Macc 14:6).

3.2. The Hasmoneans and the strategos Nicanor: A Peace Treaty? The king sent Nicanor, whom he also appointed strategos of Judea.25 Sec- ond Maccabees 14:12 specifies that Nicanor was formerly the leader of the elephant force (ἐλεφαντάρχης), a military expert. He was also ordered to “(re)install” (καταστῆσαι) Alcimus as “high priest of the greatest temple” (ἀρχιερέα τοῦ μεγίστου ἱεροῦ; 14:13).

24 On his coins Timarchus appears as βασιλεωσ μεγαλου τιμαρχου. He sided with Artaxias, king of Armenia. See further Tarn, Greeks, 218–19; Ehling, Unterschungen, 124–28; Seeman, Rome and Judea, 140–42. 25 Scholars often doubt whether this Nicanor should be identified with the man who helped Demetrius I to escape from Rome (Polyb. 31.14.4) as claimed in Ant. 12.402. Cf. however, Grainger, SPG, 107–8. Identifying Nicanor with the figure(s) by the same name in 1 Macc 3:38 and 2 Macc 8:9–26 goes equally against the overall evidence. No such iden tification is made in First or Second Maccabees. He seems to be introduced as a rather new protagonist. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 97

The appointment of Nicanor points to the deterioration of the situation in Judea. A similar scenario came in 169, when Antiochus IV appointed Philip as epistates. Alcimus too found himself under the watch of the royal appointee. The latter was supposed to secure his high priestly office and impose peace in the countryside. Now Judea came under unprecedented military Seleucid control. The failure of the Hasmoneans to challenge the royal military power led them to look for a diplomatic way to promote their policy. First Maccabees 7:26–29a provides only a meager account of how Nicanor had proposed a peace treaty to Judas and his brothers. There was a meeting between the two but the enemies of Judas reportedly intended to seize Judas (7:29b–30), who became aware of this and did not meet with Nicanor again (cf. 2 Macc 14:29–30). The text of 1 Macc 7:29b–30 must, therefore, belong to the post-treaty context and finds its parallel in 2 Macc 14:18–25. The latter places the treaty issue after the battle of Nicanor with the Hasmoneans near the village of “Dessau,” in which Judas’ brother Simon was checked (14:12–17).26 Both sources agree that at one point the Hasmoneans and the Seleucid official Nicanor reached some kind of compromise. Second Maccabees 14:19 also provides the names of the three negotiators sent by Nicanor: two with Greek names, Posiidonius and Theodotus, and one with the Hebrew name, Mattathias. Bezalel Bar-Kochva argues that what 2 Macc 14:12–23a “has to say about the success of the negotiations is only a literary invention.”27 But silenc- ing such a significant event in First Maccabees is in line with its tenden- tious negative attitude against the collaboration with the Seleucids before Jonathan’s leadership.28 Besides, this was not the first time the Jewish rebels used a peaceful way to further their interests before the Seleucids (cf. 2 Macc 11:17–21). As before, the Hasmoneans bypassed the authority of the high priest by establishing a direct diplomatic channel with the royal officials. The following discussion will show that there were also other reasons for doing so.

26 Probably west of Jerusalem. See Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 121. 27 Judas, 355. See, however, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 467. 28 The change in the leadership policy under Jonathan has been stressed by Shatzman, “Jews,” 242, who, however, passed in silence 2 Macc 14:12–23a; see esp. pp. 251–58. There is thus an ellipsis between 1 Macc 7:29a and 7:29b, which can be recovered from 2 Macc 14:23b–29a. Cf. Sievers, Synopsis, 126–30. 98 chapter four

4. The Nature of the Appointment of Judas, and the Third Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I

According to 2 Macc 14:26–28, Alcimus, when he realized the good will between Nicanor and Judas, took the treaties (τὰς . . . συνθήκας) and went to Demetrius I. He accused Nicanor of having acted against the kingdom by having appointed (ἀναδεῖξαι) Judas αὐτοῦ . . . διάδοχον. The infinite aorist active verb used here is from ἀναδεῖκνυμι. It is necessary to understand the nature of this appointment and grasp its significance for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

4.1. To Whom Does the Expression αὐτοῦ . . . διάδοχον Refer? This expression has often been taken to mean that Judas was appointed high priest. Both Greek and Latin manuscripts witness different variant readings, and it is not immediately clear whether αὐτοῦ in 2 Macc 14:26 refers to the “kingdom,” to Nicanor, or to Alcimus. The second problem lies with the meaning of διάδοχος. The first interpretation has been defended by Felix-Marie Abel, who understood διάδοχος as an honorific title.29 It was inferior to that of Friend (φίλος), but its few attestations (mostly from the Ptolemaic court) have it normally in the plural genitive form.30 As a rule it was given to an individual who had to wait until a post in the hierarchy became available. Thus Judas would have become successor to Nicanor. A second interpretation is to take αὐτοῦ to refer to Nicanor, understanding διάδοχος not in its technical sense. But it is unlikely Nicanor would have given Judas even a share in his own position. It would have implied that Nicanor entrusted to a rebel some authority over the royal Akra. Another problem with both these interpretations is that Nicanor hardly had any such jurisdiction. A third interpretation is that the appointment of Judas was related to the office of Alcimus. James C. VanderKam asserts that “[i]t does sound from Alcimus’s words as if he thought the covenant between Nicanor and Judas involved the appointment of Judas as high priest in his place. The ensuing narrative seems to confirm what Alcimus claimed.”31 VanderKam

29 Maccabées, 464. 30 See Bengtson, Strategie, III, 54–55; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I, 102–3; II, 184–85 n 66; 186–87 n 72. 31 From Joshua, 242(–43). judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 99 translates διάδοχος as “successor” and assumes Alcimus was denied the high priestly office by Nicanor. Daniel R. Schwartz, follows VanderKam and argues further that “[i]t is obvious . . . that someone served as high priest” on the Day of Atonement and that Judas “would seem to be the likeliest candidate.”32 There are two occasions on which the activity of Judas is somehow connected with the temple’s (main) altar. The first was the rededication of the temple event, when Judas chose “blameless” priests to purify the altar (1 Macc 4:42). The second occasion was the Day of Nicanor. There too one reads that Judas “had the priests stand before the altar” (2 Macc 15:31). However, in both cases, Judas acted as military leader but not as priest, less a high priest.33 It should be recalled that Bar-Kochva, VanderKam and Schwartz assume that after the rededication of the temple, Judas remained in control of Jerusalem. This is misleading. First, the role of Judas emerged as primarily that of military leader. Second, Judas never controlled the City of David, which was the principal populated area.34 Third, Judas lost control of the temple with the expedition of Antiochus V–Lysias, as has been demonstrated in the previous chapter.35

4.2. Did Nicanor Appoint Judas as High Priest? What would have been the political and religious implications comported by such an appointment? The first implication is that Nicanor had or assumed to have the authority to remove the high priest Alcimus and appoint Judas in his place. But the Seleucid history demonstrates well that it was the sole competence of the king to depose one high priest and appoint another. For example, earlier, even though Lysias had had a negative view of Menelaus, the chief minister still continued to act in concert with his kings. The second implication is that the powers of Alcimus both religious and civil, were transferred to Judas. But how much local support did Judas have? If he could rely upon part of the population, another part—perhaps the majority—had already accepted Alcimus for reasons discussed above.

32 2 Maccabees, 474–75, 551–52. 33 On the role of Judas in both events, see also Batsch, Guerre, 111, 129–30. The issue of the Day of Atonement will be addressed in the following chapter. 34 See here pp. 129–31. 35 See here pp. 81–84. 100 chapter four

Furthermore, there was the question of priestly descent, which certainly did not favor Judas. But the most significant fact is that Jerusalem with its temple was under the military control of the royal Akra. There was also Gentile population in and around Judea that was not sympathetic to Judas’ policy (cf. 2 Macc 14:14–15). His appointment in the high priestly office would have stirred up a severe protest against Nicanor, which could come primarily from the Hellenized priests who continued to control the temple. After all, how could Nicanor simply hand Judea over to the leader of the rebels? Another reason is that—although both sources state that it was Nica- nor who had initiated the treaty (1 Macc 7:27–28; 2 Macc 14:18–19, cf. 11:13–14)—it came only after the rebels were checked.36 It was reportedly Simon who was checked and not Judas, who is instead soon praised for his bravery (2 Macc 14:15–17, 18). As earlier with Lysias (cf. 11:17–21), so also Nicanor was under no serious pressure to offer Judas the highest office in Judea, i.e. the high priesthood. In order to ask the king for the removal of Alcimus, Nicanor would have had to find a serious motive, such as disloyalty to the king or lack of support by the Akra and the Judean population. Nothing like this is stated in the sources. Nor is there evidence that Nica- nor contacted the king. What is the meaning then of the phrase αὐτοῦ . . . διάδοχον in 2 Macc 14:26b? In the analysis of the terminology pertinent to the high priesthood, Maria Brutti concluded that always beside the high priest there was a “deputy high priest.”37 Accordingly, Judas would have performed a “deputy” role under Alcimus, but without becoming his “successor.” Although Brutti did not deal with the context in which such appointment took place nor its historical implications, Brutti’s interpretation is still more likely. Whether there was “always” a deputy high priest is a moot point. Ear- lier Menelaus appointed his brother Lysimachus as his deputy (διάδοχος) in the high priestly office, while he was away from Jerusalem (2 Macc 4:29). When this appointment took place, Menelaus was at the height of his power. He did have authority to make such an appointment because there was no Seleucid official of Nicanor’s rank in Jerusalem. At that time the high priest Menelaus was also the political representative of Judea and enjoyed certain autonomy.

36 A similar scenario occurred in 2 Macc 11:13–14, where it appears to have been the rebels who began the negotiation (11:16–17; see also 1 Macc 9:70). 37 Development, 73–74. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 101

In the case of Judas the situation is different. Nicanor was the strat egos and the political representative of the king in Judea. He was sent to guarantee a safe rule for the high priest Alcimus. Nicanor’s diplomatic move seems to have gone in the direction of trying to bring the two fighting sides together. He appointed Judas as “deputy” high priest to Alcimus, who himself was to remain the acting high priest. Whether Nicanor officially had such authority is beyond the evidence. If correctly interpreted, this appointment of Judas would bear several implications for this study:

1. The very fact that Judas accepted or perhaps requested such an appointment is in line with the Hasmonean aspirations to occupy governmental positions in Judea. 2. The very acceptance of this position by Judas attests to his agreement to collaborate with Alcimus, with the Akra, and with the Seleucid appointee, Nicanor. The Hasmoneans agreed to collaborate apparently with the same people against whom they fought earlier. 3. The Hasmoneans implicitly accepted the high priesthood of Alcimus. Perhaps for this reason, the story narrated in 2 Macc 14:23b–29a is missing in First Maccabees, despite the great official achievement of Judas. This position promised Judas a certain influence in the temple affairs, and the hope for a future position as a high priest. 4. Judas implicitly recognized Demetrius I’s royal authority over the Jew- ish ethnos, over the temple of Jerusalem and over the high priestly office. By this time, the Hasmoneans must have realized that it was impossible for them to uproot the Seleucid rule and have an independent high priesthood in Jerusalem. Some collaboration with the Seleu- cids must have appeared to Judas as (temporarily) necessary. 5. This appointment implies that part of the temple priesthood backed Judas, although his immediate role remains somewhat obscure.

4.3. The King’s Order to Arrest Judas and the Day of Nicanor Following the treaty, Nicanor dismissed the people who had come to help him and settle in the community (2 Macc 14:23–25; cf. 14:14–15). From 2 Macc 14:25 it emerges that Judas also settled in Jerusalem. The sojourn of Judas in Jerusalem may be implied by the fact that Nicanor would later put pressure on some priests officiating in the temple to hand over Judas as a prisoner (14:31–33). As already anticipated, the high priest Alcimus found reason to appeal to Demetrius I for the third time and to accuse Nicanor of disloyalty, while 102 chapter four he depicted Judas as a threat to the “kingdom” (2 Macc 14:26; cf. 14:6). From the actions of Alcimus, one realizes that the relationship between himself and Nicanor deteriorated somewhat. Thus, Alcimus was unable to convince Nicanor to annul the treaty. As had happened previously the appeal of the high priest before a king was—as a rule—dictated by the gravity of a situation in Jerusalem.38 But Demetrius I did not consider this appointment worthy of another military expedition. Nor did the king send additional troops. Instead, he ordered Nicanor to arrest Judas and send him to Antioch (2 Macc 14:27–28), where he probably was to be executed (cf. 13:3–6). This note suggests that the appointment of Judas was not regarded by the king as important enough to organize another military expedition. Judas, however, having become aware of the danger, went into hiding (1 Macc 7:29b-30; 2 Macc 14:28–30). According to 1 Macc 7:31–32 (unparalleled in Second Maccabees) Nicanor went out to fight Judas at Kafar Salama located half-way between Jerusalem and upper Beth-Horon.39 Reportedly, some five-hundred of the soldiers of Nicanor fell while the rest fled into the City of David. Being unable to accomplish the royal order, Nicanor entered the temple and, standing in front of the priests, he threatened to destroy it unless they hand Judas over to him (1 Macc 7:33–35; 2 Macc 14:31b-33). In 1 Macc 7:33, at first the priests show Nicanor the sacrifices offered for the king but he insults them in many ways. Second Maccabees 14:31 instead speaks of regular sacrifices. The fact that Nicanor threatened the officiating priests with the destruction of the temple must not necessarily mean that Judas was high priest at the time, as argued by James C. VanderKam.40 As deputy to the high priest Alcimus, it would have been natural for Judas to spend part of his time in the temple compound. Also, Nicanor’s threat should not be considered as imminent.41 Indeed, despite their negative answer, Nicanor took no immediate action. He tried to apprehend Judas by putting pressure on the priests, whom Nicanor must have identified as Judas’ militants. This

38 Cf. Onias III: 2 Macc 4:4–6; Jason: 4:7; Menelaus: 11:27–33; 13:1–3; Alcimus: 1 Macc 7:5–7 and 2 Macc 14:3–10; 1 Macc 7:25. 39 Abel, Maccabées, 139, identified the place with the modern Khirbet ‘Idd some 10 km west of Jerusalem. 40 From Joshua, 243. 41 On the literary aspects of 2 Macc 14:1–15:36, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 68–76. On its theological function, see Arenhoevel, Theokratie, 173–74. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 103 would confirm that part of the temple priesthood was sympathetic with the policy of Judas. Nicanor then launched an attack against Judas’ men, since he had heard that Judas was in the area of Samaria (2 Macc 15:1). Most of the last chapter of Second Maccabees is dedicated to this event, and so the epitome accomplishes the narration of the last announced event: the liberation of Jerusalem (2:22; cf. 15:37).42 First Maccabees 7:39–47 (and Josephus’ Antiquities) is instead much shorter and offers only occasional parallels. The exact location of the battle is not given. Many scholars took Adasa, the camp of the Hasmoneans, to mean that the battle also took place there.43 The army of Nicanor, which included anti-Hasmonean Jews, suffered a defeat and Nicanor himself died.44 James C. VanderKam, among others, argues that the victories of Judas—including this one—are described in the cryptic language of Jub. 34:2–9 and 37:1–38:14.45 This was the first time a royal appointee in Judea fell at the hands of the Hasmoneans. In 2 Macc 15:30//1 Macc 7:47 Judas orders that Nicanor’s head and hand be cut off. In 2 Macc 15:31–35 it is stated that Judas then sent for “those” in the “Akra” and that “he fastened the torso of Nicanor to the Akra.”46 These are the only two times that the term ἄκρα occurs in Second Maccabees. Judas did not have access to the Akra. This episode confirms that the City of David was inhabited by people loyal to the king and to Alcimus (cf. 1 Macc 7:32). Both narratives end with the note that Judas and his people (ὁ λαός) decreed that this day should be celebrated annually as the Day of Nicanor.47 The event is dated to the 13th of the 12th month of Adar (1 Macc 7:49; 2 Macc 15:36). The name is of Babylonian origin and corresponds to

42 This event is emphasized by 2 Macc 15:12–16, where Onias III reappears as the protec tor of the city. This forms a kind of inclusio to the epitome (cf. 3:1–3). 43 For example, Tsafrir et al., Tabula, 57; Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 122. The men tioned Adasa was either the one west of Jerusalem located about 3 km southwest of Kaphar Salama, or more likely the northern one located about 7 km south of Gophna (1 Macc 7:45; cf. 2 Macc 15:1). 44 The author of 2 Macc 15:2–5 shields the Jewish supporters of Nicanor from any responsibility of fighting Judas on a Sabbath. 45 Jubilees, 220–29. VanderKam dates the Book of Jubilees between 161 and 152. Cf. how ever, Segal, Jubilees, 36–40, who suggests that it “was redacted following the formation of the Essene sect or stream” (322). 46 The translation of Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 510. 47 The Day of Nicanor is recorded as a minor festival in b. Ta‘an 18b (b2), on which one may neither fast nor eulogize. 104 chapter four the 27th of March of 160.48 It was the second festival decreed by the Hasmoneans after that of Hanukkah. On this happy note for Judas, the epitome in Second Maccabees ends its historical narrative.

5. The Fourth Appeal of Alcimus to Demetrius I and Judas’s Death

As 1 Macc 9:1 implies, Alcimus appealed again to Demetrius I for help. According to John D. Grainger, Judas became “in effect the governor of Judaea,” but he does not discuss this assertion any further.49 The issue to clarify now is whether Judas could have occupied some ruling position in Jerusalem after his victory over Nicanor. If so, it will be necessary to find out for how long, as well as the nature and the significance of the position. These aspects are directly connected with the issue of the alleged high priesthood of Judas. Second Maccabees 15:31 relates that Judas had priests standing before the altar after the victory over Nicanor. For the author of 1 Macc 7:50 there followed “a few days” of peace (cf. 9:57). In fact, such a significant success for the Hasmoneans could not have been ignored for long. It became a danger for Alcimus, a threat to the royal Akra, and a challenge to the authority of the Seleucid king in this region. Considering the time that was necessary for the news of Nicanor’s death to get to the king as well as the subsequent organization of the royal army and the marching to Jerusalem, one may assume that the following attack of Bacchides happened within several weeks. This is suggested by the fact that probably because of lack of time the Hasmoneans did not fortify the temple area or Beth-Zur (cf. 1 Macc 4:60–61). Nor did they have sufficient time and means to attack the Akra. During this short period, the Hasmoneans could only control the temple and the unfortified area of Jerusalem.

48 The proposed dating is suggested for several reasons: 1) It is impossible that all the events in 1 Macc 7 and 2 Macc 14–15 took place early in 161; 2) The next date given in 1 Macc 9:3 refers to the first month of Sel. 152. This dating is according to the Babylonian system (cf. Sel. 153 in 9:54), for it is highly improbable (although not impossible) that Demetrius I would have waited roughly half a year before taking action; 3) The second expedition of Bacchides could hardly occur in the summer of 161, when Demetrius I had to fight King Timarchus and others. 49 Syrian Wars, 322. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 105

King Demetrius I, in fact, sent a military force under Bacchides “a second time” (1 Macc 9:1). First Maccabees 9:2–22 offers some details, which are the last ones related to Judas. The gravity of the situation created after the murder of Nicanor is reflected in the number of the reported Seleucid troops: 20,000 men and 2,000 horsemen. Both Bezalel Bar-Kochva50 and Israel Shatzman believe that for the first time these numbers reflect more or less “the true strength.”51 By way of the Gilgal road located just east of Jericho the Seleucid army came to Jerusalem and encamped opposite the city.52 This event is dated to the first month of the Sel. 152 (1 Macc 9:3). The month in question is Nissan (cf. 1 Macc 7:49//2 Macc 15:36), i.e. April 13/May 11 of 160.53 The subsequent battle instead took place somewhere near Elasa about 4 km south of Beth-El. This second military expedition of Bacchides proved a terrible defeat for the Hasmoneans. Judas himself died and Jonathan and Simon buried him at their ancestral tomb in Modein (1 Macc 9:18–19; cf. 13:27–30).54 Next, it is necessary to delve deeper into the question of the alleged high priesthood of Judas, as affirmed by certain ancient literary sources and as defended by several modern scholars.

6. Was Judas the First Hasmonean High Priest?55

This question has significant importance for the understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.56 According to Ant. 12.414 when Alcimus died “the people” (ὁ λαός) gave the high priesthood to Judas. Josephus then introduces into his narrative a Jewish embassy to Rome and the decree of the Roman senatus (Ant. 12.415–418//1 Macc 8). Soon after, in Ant. 12.419 (unparalleled in First Maccabees) the historian

50 Judas, 386. 51 Armies, 27–28. 52 On the probable route, see Bar-Kochva, Judas, 552–59. 53 See Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 41. 54 Another Hasmonean brother, Eleazar, died in 1 Macc 6:43–46. 55 So also Syncellus, Chron. 544; Sefer Ha-Qabbalah 2.57. In Rabbinic literature one finds .Sef ;(כהנא רבא) mention that even Mattathias was a high priest: b. Meg 11a; Tg. Cant. 6.7 Qab. 2.52, 56; Mahzor Vitry, 198. It seems that reference to Mattathias is made also in PesR ,On Hasmoneans in the rabbinic tradition .חשמונאי הכהן הגדול where one reads ,[2§] 2.1 see Stemberger, “Maccabees,” 193–203. On the historical relevancy of the rabbinic texts, see Milikowsky, “Literature,” 1–15. On problems related to the dating of some compositions, see Neusner, Introduction, 21–29, 651–68; Stemberger, Introduzione, 71–74, 86–89. 56 For an introduction, see Annandale-Potgieter, “High Priests,” 408–15. 106 chapter four again refers to Judas as “high priest of the ethnos.” Josephus concludes his narrative by stating that Judas died after having held the high priesthood for “three years” (Ant. 12.434). Hence, Judas is referred three times as ἀρχιερεύς in Josephus. However, as the analysis so far has shown, Judas could not have been high priest in place of Alcimus prior to his victory over Nicanor. In order to properly perceive the role of Judas following this event, it is necessary to analyze 1 Macc 8. It interrupts the historical narrative on Judas’ military actions and switches to his diplomatic move to establish a relationship with Rome. There are certain peculiarities of its contents which need to be examined by trying to highlight the meaning of this reported diplomatic action in light of the historical context reconstructed above. It will be argued here that this chapter is the basis of the assumed view of Jose- phus that Judas was high priest.

6.1. The Question of the Historicity of Judas’s Embassy to Rome There is first the question of the relationship of 1 Macc 8 to chapters 7 and 9. Jörg-Dieter Gauger argues that it was interpolated either into the Hebrew text of First Maccabees, or perhaps into its Greek translation.57 Étienne Nodet has even claimed that 1 Macc 8 is “un artifice littéraire.”58 To be sure, such suppositions both undermine the literary unity of First Maccabees—defended in this study—and complicate further its composition history. After the eulogy of the Romans in 1 Macc 8:1–16, which Josephus significantly abbreviated (cf. Ant. 12.414), 1 Macc 8:17–18 reports that Judas sent envoys to Rome to establish friendship and alliance (φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν).59 Their appeal before the Roman Senate is described in 1 Macc 8:19–21. The Senate’s answer is given in the form of a decree, reportedly drawn from a copy of the original inscribed on bronze tablets and sent to Jerusalem (8:22).60 There are three perhaps four elements in support of the historicity of this embassy. All of them have been recently and excellently discussed in detail by Chris Seeman, who defends the historicity of this reported

57 Beiträge, 336–37. 58 Crise, 116. 59 First Maccabees 8:20, 22 speak of εἰρήνη (peace) and συμμαχία. 60 On bronze tablets, see 1 Macc 14:18, 26, 48. See also Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 381–87. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 107 embassy.61 First, on the historical level, such a diplomatic move of Judas fits the circumstances after the death of the strategos Nicanor. Judas may have already been known to the Romans since 164 (cf. 2 Macc 11:34–38). Because of his escape from Rome, Demetrius I may not have been favored by the Senate (Polyb. 31.33.1–5). Second, there may be some independent mention of this embassy in 2 Macc 4:11. The name of one of the two envoys provided in 1 Macc 8:17, namely Eupolemus, son of Hakkos, is found also in 2 Macc 4:11.62 The other envoy is Jason son of Eleazar. Also Josephus in Ant. 14.233 seems to have wrongly placed this same embassy at a much later date.63 Third, Justin’s Epitome (36.3.9) of Pompeius Trogus’ Histories, records that the Jews were the first oriental people with whom the Romans established an amicitia at the time of Demetrius, alluding very probably to Demetrius I.64 Fourth, Diod. 40.2—which is partly paralleled in Jos., Ant. 14.41–45— refers to a Jewish embassy to Rome at a time when Judea was ruled by an archiereus. The latter’s name, however, is not given. This event took place during a revolt, supposedly against Demetrius. If so, he could be Demetrius I or rather, Demetrius II.65 As far as the question of the authenticity of the decree in 1 Macc 8:23–32 is concerned, there is less certainty. Otto Roth, who had analyzed important parts of it, concluded that it is mainly genuine.66 Hugo Willrich, on the other hand, rejected both its authenticity as well as the historicity of Judas’ embassy in general.67 But for Adrian N. Sherwin-White, “[i]t is not the text of the treaty that gives rise to suspicion but the historical

61 Rome and Judea, 121–46. 62 It provides the name of the father of Eupolemus, John. He was likely involved in obtaining concessions from Antiochus III. Chris Seeman, Rome and Judea, 125, rightly observes that “Judas chose members of Jerusalem’s aristocracy who had diplomatic expe rience themselves or who came from families that did.” 63 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 22. 64 See Zollschan, “Justinus,” 153–71, who defends its historical value. 65 Usually scholars point to Judas as the archiereus, while to Demetrius I as the king. So Walton, Diodorus XII, 279 n (LCL); Stern, GLAJJ, I, No. 64. For a different interpretation, see here pp. 213–14. 66 Rom, 9–13. So also Momigliano, Prime linee, 159–62; Abel, Maccabées, 152–57; Gruen, Hellenistic World, I, 43; Gera, Judaea, 311–12. 67 Urkundenfälschung, 44–50. So also Gauger, Beiträge, 163–77, who on p. 328 suggests that 1 Macc 8 may be “eine Invention des Verfassers.” 108 chapter four situation.”68 However, as argued above, the circumstances were not inappropriate for such an embassy.69 Even though the decree as it appears now is overtly a pro-Hasmonean product, it still may contain some authentic elements. It should be noted that Judas’ name is not included in the decree.70 Doubts concerning certain specific parts of the decree are justified by way of comparison with another Roman letter reproduced in 1 Macc 15:16–21.71 As scholars have observed, it is improbable that a treaty of “alliance” (συμμαχία/foedus) was made with Judas.72 Whatever the answer of the Roman Senate was, it had no immediate effect on the policy of Demetrius I in Judea or on the ambitions of Judas.73

6.2. Why Would Judas Have Appealed to Rome? Sara R. Mandell argues that it was the “assumption of the high priesthood, given him by the people,” that led Judas to send his envoys.74 Once they established amicitia, they “acknowledged Judas to be the legitimate ruler [of the ἔθνος] that is high priest, with whom they could have diplomatic interactions.”75 It is primarily this second assertion that is necessary for consideration first. Before Mandell arrived at this conclusion she assumed that 1) Antiochus V–Lysias negotiated directly with Judas in 162; 2) Alcimus was appointed high priest by Demetrius I and not by Antiochus V.76 Both views have been discussed and rejected above.77 Mandell herself acknowledges, as do other scholars, that it is more plausible that a formal recognition of the Jewish people as “friends and

68 Roman Policy, 71. 69 That Rome would protect the rebels by threatening King Demetrius I with war is hardly credible. In fact, Josephus’ version does not have this warning. See also Seeman, Rome and Judea, 143. 70 For a comparison with other material of the same period, see Roth, Rom, 13–15; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 42–44; Gera, Judaea, 306–11. 71 This letter is accepted by many critics as mostly genuine. 72 On forms of diplomatic treaties, see Mandell, “Maccabees,” 202–20. 73 According to Seeman, Rome and Judea, 143, “[i]n all probability, the Senate recog nized Judea’s political autonomy, thus giving voice to Hasmonean aspirations.” Seeman too points out that this act had no effect on the Seleucid policy. 74 Mandell, “Rome,” 91. 75 “Rome,” 89(–90). 76 “Rome,” 87–88. 77 See here 82–84, 89–91. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 109 allies” had been made (1 Macc 8:20, 31).78 There are at least five points to consider: 1) Unlike Timarchus, Judas did not officially represent the Jewish ethnos (as did the pre-Hasmonean high priests), but was a rebellious leader against the official government of Alcimus, who probably had majority support. 2) Unlike Timarchus, Judas was not himself present in Rome. 3) Judas’ name does not appear in the decree itself. Hence, it is improbable that at this point Rome bestowed any official title on Judas, bypassing Demetrius I. 4) Before his envoys arrived in Rome, Judas died and the reply of the Senate was ineffective.79 5) One would have to assume that the Roman Senate reserved itself the right to appoint a high priest in Jerusalem. It is instead more plausible that after having taken possession of the temple area (not the City of David) and of south-western Jerusalem, Judas looked primarily for a strong protector in the hope of avoiding the expected invasion of the Seleucid army (cf. 1 Macc 8:31–32). Any title, high priest or other, at this point was a secondary issue. These observations, however, do not consider the first aspect posed by Mandell, namely whether Judas was acclaimed high priest by his “people,” as stated by Josephus in Ant. 12.414. It is this important question that must be examined now.

7. Judas, Rome, and Josephus’ Chronology of High Priests

This study defends the view that Ant. 20.224–251 has independent historical value.80 Judas, however, is not on this list. This source reports seven years of intersacerdotium between the death of Alcimus and the accession to the high priestly office of Jonathan (20.237). Also 4Qpseudo-Danielc ar frg. 1 contains the names of several post- exilic high priests but there is no trace of Judas’ name.81 Even if one were to assume that the fragment originally contained his name, there still remains the problem of whether Judas was accepted as high priest, and

78 See, among others, Sherwin-White, Roman Policy, 72. 79 In this sense, Gauger, Beiträge, 336, correctly claims that the friendship established with Rome was “völlig wirkungslos.” 80 See also Hölscher, “Hohenpriesterliste,” 7–9, 19–21; Gussman, Priesterverständnis, 273–74. 81 Contrary to Wise, “4Q245,” 313–62. His proposed reconstruction of the text also dif fers from that already proposed by Collins and Flint, DJD 22, 153–64 (with Pl. X); cf. Wise, 317. 110 chapter four by whom. By the same token, it cannot be excluded that the list might have specified, or at least implied, a seven year intersacerdotium just as in Ant. 20.237 and in First Maccabees. The question arises as to what source or sources might have led Jose- phus to claim Judas was a high priest. From his own experience Josephus knew that at various times the high priest was the highest authority in Judea. And as a rule, this priest was the one empowered to politically interact with Rome.82 For his audience and perhaps for Josephus himself, it was not clear why it was Judas and not the high priest Alcimus who established a diplomatic relation with Rome in the name of the Jewish ethnos. It seems that the report of Judas’ embassy to Rome in 1 Macc 8 led Josephus to assume that Judas—and not Alcimus—must have been the acting high priest at that time. For the Flavian historian who claimed Hasmonean descent, 1 Macc 8 also formed an excellent basis to recall the ancient, peaceful relations between the Jewish ethnos and Rome initiated by Judas (cf. War 1.38).83 Accord- ing to Chiara De Filippis Cappai, Josephus probably had access to the original document.84 Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev instead concluded that for documentary material Josephus relied most often on the existing literary compilations.85 In fact, the differences between 1 Macc 8 and Ant. 12.414– 418 can be explained as resulting from Josephus’ writing technique. Nevertheless, Josephus faced the difficulty of explaining the origin of Judas’ high priesthood that lacked royal approval. This he solved by affirming that “the people” (ὁ λαός) gave him the high priesthood (Ant. 12.414). This does not explain, however, why the same practice was not applied to Jonathan soon after Judas’ death. As the following discussion will demonstrate, this affirmation caused serious problems of chronology for the historian.

7.1. Judas and the Chronology of High Priests in Ant. 12–13 and 20 In examining Josephus’ dealings with the dates in First Maccabees or his other sources, it is evident that as a historian he was usually faithful in following these dates. At times, he would even give their correspondence

82 On the role of the high priests in Josephus’ time, see Goodman, Ruling Class, 110–16. On religious and political perception of the high priest by Josephus, see Thoma, “High Priesthood,” 196–214. 83 On Judas in Josephus’ works, see Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal,” 50–59. 84 Ivdaea, 42. 85 For further details, see Jewish Rights, 388–408. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 111 in the Olympic system and/or provide his reader with equivalent Macedo- nian or Attic month names.86 At other times, Josephus would anticipate his source or report the date at a later moment.87 Occasionally, he offered dating details not found in First Maccabees.88 However, of the nine year dates in 1 Macc 7–13 which Josephus systematically paraphrased, he copied only three: 1 Macc 10:1//Ant. 13.35, 10:67//13.86 and 13:41//13.213. It appears that he omitted those dates that are connected with the history of the Jewish high priests from the accession to the high priestly office of Alcimus to that of the Hasmonean Simon. The historian did this despite the fact that he basically followed the chronological outline provided in First Maccabees. Thus, although Jose- phus did not provide the date for Alcimus’ death (cf. 1 Macc 9:54), his assertion that Alcimus was high priest for “four years” in Ant. 12.413 or “three years” in the list of high priests in Ant. 20.237, correspond roughly with what can be deduced from First Maccabees and is supported in part by Second Maccabees.89 It is also significant that Josephus connected Judas’ death with the second expedition of Bacchides (see πάλιν in Ant. 12.420//ἐκ δευτέρου in 1 Macc 9:1).90 However, if one calculates the total number of years for the rule of each high priest from Alcimus to Jonathan (see Ant. 12.413, 434; 13.212), and adds to it the four years of intersacerdotium assumed in Ant. 13.46, the total is fifteen years. This overly contradicts the twenty years assumed by the historical narrative in First Maccabees which Josephus followed in Ant. 12–13, namely between the accession to the high priestly office of Alcimus in 162 and that of Simon in 142. A similar problem arises in the list of high priests in Ant. 20.235–238. There, Alcimus is assigned three years of high priesthood followed by seven years of intersacerdotium (cf. 1 Macc 9:54; 10:21).91 Jonathan is instead assigned seven years (Ant. 20.237–238). The total number of years amounts to seventeen compared to the twenty assumed by the historical narrative in Ant. 12–13.

86 E.g. Ant. 12.246//1 Macc 1:20; 12.285//2:70; 12.297//3:37; 12.321//4:52; 12.361//6:16; [12.363//6:20]; 12.412//7:49. 87 E.g. Ant. 12.248//1 Macc 1:29, 54; 12.321//4:52. 88 E.g. Ant. 12.264, 322. 89 See also Parker, “Studien,” 163–64. 90 On the first expedition of Bacchides, see Ant. 12.393–397//1 Macc 7:8–20. 91 Parker, “Studies,” 162, observes that Josephus lists no intersacerdotium period during the period when Alcimus acted as high priest, which evidently leaves no room for Judas being high priest between 162–159 b.c.e. 112 chapter four

But it is the account of Alcimus’ death that is anticipated in Ant. 12.413// 1 Macc 9:54–56. According to Josephus, Alcimus died before the second expedition of Bacchides, namely after Nicanor’s death (Ant. 12.409–412// 1 Macc 7:43–50), and before the embassy to Rome (Ant. 12.414–419//1 Macc 8). By anticipating the death of Alcimus, the historian also omitted the dating provided in 1 Macc 9:54//Ant. 12.413. This became “necessary” since it would have contradicted both the (new) implied historical context and Josephus’ claim in Ant. 12.413 that Alcimus was high priest for “four years.” In fact, Josephus still assumed that Alcimus died in 159 (cf. 1 Macc 9:54). It appears that since Josephus believed there could not be two acting high priests at the same time, the historian claimed—contrary to his own chronological outline—that Judas was high priest for three years after Alcimus died (Ant. 12.434; cf. 12.413–414).92 In this way, he arrived with his own calculation down to the year 156. This in turn influenced Josephus’ other chronological data, namely the period of intersacerdotium and the tenure of Jonathan as high priest. As for the report of “eight years” for Simon in Ant. 13.228, it agrees with First Maccabees. This is a significant fact since after 1 Macc 13:42//Ant. 13.214 Josephus switched to another source. Thus, the study of chronology of Josephus does not lend support to the claim that Judas was a high priest before or after Alcimus’ tenure as high priest.

7.2. Was Judas a Rival High Priest? According to James C. VanderKam, “it is acceptable to say that Judas functioned as a rival high priest to Alcimus and that he enjoyed control of the temple.” Judas’ army may have elected him “after the death of Menel- aus.” His name was not included in the lists of high priests because Judas “lacked royal confirmation.”93 VanderKam connects one’s acting as high priest with the effective control of the temple, that is, no high priest without a temple. However, VanderKam does not claim that Judas acted as a rival high priest to Mene- laus, when the former had control of the temple during most of the year 163. Furthermore, at least three of the four appeals of Alcimus to Dem- etrius I were connected with his loss of access to the temple. The cause for this was especially Judas’ guerilla attacks. The latter probably attempted

92 On this aspect, see also VanderKam, From Joshua, 243. 93 From Joshua, 243, followed by Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 475. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 113 to get control of the temple, but each time he was prevented by the royal forces. It has been argued in this work that Judas very probably acted as deputy to Alcimus. This occurred after the second appeal of Alcimus to Dem- etrius I which is dated here to the autumn of 161.94 Judas occupied this official position for only a very short period. But the only time after he may have had full control of the temple was during those several weeks following the death of Nicanor in March of 160, and before Judas died in April/May of 160. It was during this critical time that Judas very probably sent an embassy to Rome.95 One can assume that during this time Judas acted as a rival high priest to Alcimus. This assumption would be in accord with the view defended here, namely that the Hasmoneans hoped for a control of the high priestly office. But then, in this case one must reckon not only with the lack of a royal appointment for Judas, but also the lack of support from the royal Akra, and the question of his priestly descent. One also wonders how the Hellenized temple priests and other factions in Judea—e.g. the Hasideans—would have reacted to such a self-proclamation. Finally, can one equally assume that Jonathan succeeded Judas not only as military leader but also as rival high priest to Alcimus?

8. The Succession of Jonathan and the End of the High Priesthood of Alcimus

Two matters must be explored here: 1) the way in which Jonathan succeeded his brother Judas; 2) the further Hasmonean policy towards the acting high priest Alcimus. Both these aspects will highlight with more clarity the Hasmonean perception of the nature of the high priestly office for a further understanding of the institution of their high priesthood. First Maccabees 9:23–24 purports to portray a dramatic situation after the death of Judas: a great famine occurred “in those days,” i.e. in the year 160 (cf. 9:3), and the country went over to Alcimus. Jack Pastor stressed how in cases of famine the population depended mostly on the governmental authorities for the supply of food, which had to be imported from

94 See further p. 96. 95 Seeman, Rome and Judea, 122, places the embassy in 161, but does not seem to exclude the year 160 as a possibility. 114 chapter four other royal provinces. Such supply was normally stored in the fortresses and delivered under special regulations.96 The famine certainly affected the Hasmonean led rebels but should not be considered as having played a decisive role in the events that led to the death of Judas, or the later withdrawal of Jonathan beyond the Jordan.97 The decrease in the Hasmonean military supporters did not depend on the economic factors alone. So also, the resumption of the Hasmonean attacks cannot be explained away simply in connection with the end of the famine. The source further reports that surviving “friends” of Judas approached Jonathan and his brother Simon, to ask Jonathan to be their ruler and leader (ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμενον) in place of Judas in order to fight their war. Jonathan agreed (1 Macc 9:28–31). This event happened within one year following the death of Judas, for the next date in 1 Macc 9:54 corresponds to the spring of 159. Before this date, Jonathan was able to launch guerrilla attacks, while Bacchides undertook the building of a number of fortifications. Tentatively the reorganization of Jonathan’s army can be placed in the summer of 160. It appears that the military supporters of Judas, or a great part of them, recognized in Jonathan the same military leadership as Judas had before. They continued to refuse to accept Alcimus as high priest and his participation in the temple cultic life. The policy of the rebels aimed at removing Alcimus from the high priestly office, and probably at appointing Judas or later Jonathan in his stead. There certainly were also other reasons— socio-political, economic and other—for continuing the fight for so long. However, as the discussion of the high priesthood of Jonathan will show, the Hasmonean followers later believed that in order to become a high priest one had to get royal appointment and also undergo the ordination rite. Indeed, after killing the royal strategos Nicanor, the Hasmonean led rebels must have been seen as declared enemies of the king even more. The aspiration of the Hasmoneans to occupy the high priestly office became further complicated. Initially, Jonathan’s loyalists found temporary refuge in the wilderness of Tekoa (1 Macc 9:32–34) some 15 km from Jerusalem, east of Beth-Lehem. Then, Jonathan sent his brother John to ask the Nabateans, who were his friends, permission to store there the

96 “Famine,” 35–43. 97 Pastor, “Famine,” 34, 41–43, puts much emphasis on the famine to explain the histori cal events in the years 161–157. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 115 great amount of baggage they had. Reportedly, a certain tribe of Jambri from Madaba seized John and killed him (1 Macc 9:35–36; cf. 5:25–26).98 There remained only two Hasmonean brothers alive, Jonathan and Simon, who soon avenged John (9:35–42). The first clash of Jonathan as leader of the rebels with Bacchides occurred at the Jordan valley, and ended in his withdrawal (1 Macc 9:43–49). The Hasmonean priestly rebellion had been thus reduced to a minor threat beyond the Jordan. The impossibility in challenging the troops of Bacchides was elevated by the costly fortification system ordered by the latter. He built or fortified nine places, from Jericho west to Emmaus, and from Beth-El south to Beth-Zur, and also Akra in Jerusalem.99 In each one of them Bacchides stationed garrisons, while in the Akra he imprisoned “the sons of the leading men of the country,” probably followers of the Hasmoneans (9:50–53; cf. 10:6). Israel Shatzman states that Bacchides was the first Seleucid “to have established a systematic network of forts and garrisons in Judea.”100 Most of these fortifications were along the Judean border.101 This massive fortification system points to the interest which Demetrius I had for this province. The king wanted to put an end to the rebellious actions, which covered about a decade since the revolt of the ex-high priest Jason. Con- sidering those fortresses whose location is not disputed, one realizes that the hometown of the Hasmoneans—Modein and its surroundings— remained outside this network. As for Alcimus, his reinstallation in the high priestly office is not mentioned in 1 Macc 9 but there is no reason for doubting it. The history of his high priesthood was not the real interest of the pro-Hasmonean author. First Maccabees 9:23–27 has Bacchides appointing “impious men” as lords over the country, who began to persecute the former followers of Judas. This negative designation is used apparently in reference to the loyalists

98 This family is usually identified as the Arab tribe of Amrai. For a different identifica tion, see Retsö, Arabs, 378–83. Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 20, argues that the Nabateans too had to cope with similar attacks. 99 Funk, “History,” 14–15, claims to have identified in Beth-Zur a citadel built by Bacchi des. On an archaeological assessment of Bacchides’ fortifications, see Fischer et al., Roman Roads, II, 284–88. In his paraphrase of 1 Macc 9:52, Josephus omitted Beth-Zur and Gazara (Gazera?). The location of at least three places remains doubtful. See Kallai, Biblical His toriography, 85–88. 100 Armies, 43. 101 See also Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 44–49. 116 chapter four of Alcimus. This is corroborated by 1 Macc 9:29. There Jonathan is asked to fight Bacchides and “those of our nation who hate us.” It is Bacchides and not the high priest Alcimus who appointed his men in the key positions in Judea. The civil powers of Alcimus appear to have been significantly limited by the royal representative. Alcimus was left instead to take care mostly of the temple affairs. First Maccabees 9:54–57//Ant. 12.413 reports that in the Sel. 153, in the second month, Alcimus gave order to tear down the wall of the inner court of the temple. The “second” month mentioned in 1 Macc 9:54 must be the Babylonian Ajjar, roughly May of 159. The author accuses the high priest of destroying the works of the prophets. This architectural enterprise implies a relatively peaceful time for Alcimus, when he no longer had to face the danger of his position being threatened by the priestly rebels. Several scholars have speculated that Alcimus was trying to introduce a Hellenistic innovation into the temple by trying to remove the wall that separated the Jews from the Gentiles.102 This interpretation fits with what has been argued here about Alcimus; namely that he was a collaborator of the Seleucids under Menelaus, and was open to Hellenization.103 It could be that such an architectural transformation was part of the wider strategy of Bacchides himself. But Alcimus died at the beginning of the work, about one year after Judas, an event the pro-Hasmonean author interpreted as divine punishment. He was high priest for slightly more than three years (cf. Ant. 12.413; 20.237). At Alcimus’ death, Bacchides returned to the king and the land of Judea was reportedly quiet for two years (1 Macc 9:57). His return was probably connected with the need to appoint a new high priest, which only the king could do. The main political and military powers were likely entrusted to the commander of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem.

Conclusion

The study of the Hasmonean policy vis-à-vis the high priesthood of Alci- mus contributed significantly to the further understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. It emerges that by the time

102 See further Abel, Maccabées, I, 174 n 54; Busink, Tempel, II, 883; Schmidt, Temple, 105. But see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 391–93. 103 If so, this initiative may have resembled that of Menelaus in 167, when non-Jews were allowed to offer their sacrifices at the temple. The reasons behind such decision might have been socio-political and economic. judas maccabeus and the high priesthood of alcimus 117

Alcimus became high priest the Hasmoneans had already looked for an opportunity to occupy the high priestly office. The powers of Alcimus and his capability to exercise them depended much on the development of the Hasmonean revolt. This, in turn, determined the degree of Seleucid control and presence in the region. Regardless of the fact that Alcimus was appointed high priest by Anti- ochus V–Lysias (after the arrest of Menelaus), and was accepted by their former strategic allies such as the Hasideans, the Hasmonean priests resumed their guerilla attacks against the “Aaronide” high priest. This led Alcimus to appeal apparently four times before king Demetrius I, between the winter of 162/1 and the spring of 160. Sometime after the second appeal of Alcimus, Judas managed to establish a peace treaty with the strategos of Judea, Nicanor. The latter appointed the Hasmonean as deputy (διάδοχος) to the high priest Alcimus. Judas thus implicitly acknowledged both the high priesthood of Alcimus, as well as the authority of the Seleucid king over the Jerusalem temple and over the high priestly office. This agreement indicates that the Hasmoneans at the end were ready to collaborate with the Seleucids in exchange for government positions. But this appointment ended in a (third) protest of Alcimus before the king, who ordered Nicanor to arrest Judas. The two engaged in a battle and Nicanor died in the March of 160. Following this event Judas probably controlled the temple for only several weeks. There is no evidence that the Hasmonean led forces acclaimed Judas as their high priest at that time, although this is not excluded. Besides, Judas evidently lacked royal confirmation. In addition, perhaps the majority of the temple priesthood was with Alcimus. Josephus’ triple claim that Judas was high priest for three years after the death of Alcimus (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434) is a deduction based on his reading of 1 Macc 8//Ant. 12.414–418, namely that because Judas interacted with the Roman Senate he must have been a high priest. This assumption led the historian to anticipate the account of Alcimus’ death, and also to omit six out of the nine dates provided in 1 Macc 7–13. This literary operation caused evident contradictions not only within the historical narrative in Ant. 12–13, but also with Josephus’ list of high priests in Ant. 20.224–251. However, Judas died in April/May of 160, very probably before his envoys even got to Rome. The former military supporters of Judas elected his brother, Jonathan, as their “ruler and leader.” They recognized in Jonathan the leadership authority of Judas. There is no allusion that Jonathan would have become (rival) high priest at Judas’ death. 118 chapter four

But the securing of the high priestly position of Alcimus became a matter of Seleucid capability to control the Judean province. The subsequent military activity of the royal Friend Bacchides and his fortification of the Judean border caused the rebel priests and others to seek refuge beyond the Jordan valley. There the third Hasmonean brother, John, also died. The political and certain administrative powers of the high priest were significantly limited. Alcimus was restricted mostly to temple affairs. However, his sudden death in the May of 159, followed by the departure of Bacchides, created additional hope for Jonathan and Simon for the control of the high priestly office. For the present purpose, it is especially important to emphasize the depiction of the high priest Alcimus as both “of the line of Aaron” and as being associated with military power. This latter Hellenistic development—which has been discussed in relation to the high priests Jason and Menelaus—will become especially relevant in the discussion of the nature of the Hasmonean high priesthood. chapter five

Jonathan and the High Priestly Office: 159–152 B.C.E.

Introduction

The previous chapter dealt with the attitude of the Hasmoneans towards the high priest Alcimus in particular and the Seleucid rule in Judea in general. During the high priesthood of Alcimus there was an increase of Seleucid military/colonist presence in Judea. Attention was paid to the development of the high priesthood of Alcimus, especially his militarized representation. Judas, the leader of the Hasmonean revolt, died in 160. After his death, the Hasmonean led forces under the command of Jona- than were reduced to a minor threat beyond the Jordan valley. According to the royal letter alluded to in 1 Macc 10:3, 6–7, King Dem- etrius I Soter (162–150) permitted Jonathan to recruit troops, manufacture arms, and settle in Jerusalem. Several scholars have argued that, after the death of Alcimus in 159, there was a high priest in Jerusalem, whom Jona- than expelled and then he himself assumed the high priestly office. His name would have been purposely omitted from First Maccabees, just as had been done to the high priests Jason and Menelaus. Such a scholarly claim makes at least three significant implications on the understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. First, seeing that there are no reported revolts between 157 and 152, it would seem that the Hasmoneans implicitly accepted the legitimacy of this alleged high priest. Second, Jonathan would have been unable to assume the high priestly office before 152 due to the existence of a high priest. Third, in 152 Jonathan would have usurped the high priestly office by finally removing the alleged high priest. In this chapter it is necessary to focus on three important aspects: 1) The policy and role of Jonathan (and Simon) as warrior priests after the death of Alcimus; 2) The history of the high priestly office between 159 and 152; 3) The circumstances surrounding Jonathan’s military appointment in 152 and its significance for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. 120 chapter five

1. Jonathan, the Expedition of Bacchides, and the Peace Treaty

First Maccabees 9:57 relates that the royal Friend Bacchides, at seeing that Alcimus was dead, returned to the king and then there was peace for “two years.” In Ant. 13.22 Josephus is, again, in agreement with First Macca- bees. Alcimus died very probably in May of 159. The described events in 1 Macc 9:58–73 are supposed to have begun in 157.1 From 1 Macc 9:58 it is implied that, sometime after the departure of Bacchides, Jonathan and his men returned to Judea. The enemies of the Hasmoneans designated as “the lawless” (οἱ ἄνομοι) appealed to Bacchides (the king is not mentioned). They urged him to return to Judea and capture their enemies “in one night.” Jonathan and Simon with their followers took refuge in Beth-Basi some 2 km south-east of Beth-Lehem and fortified it (1 Macc 9:62).2 Although the Hasmoneans based themselves well inside the fortified area of Bac- chides, they apparently encountered no serious opposition from the royal garrisons. Moreover, the subsequent siege of Bacchides concluded with a peace treaty (9:70–73).3 Before his return to the king, Bacchides reportedly executed “many” of those who urged him to march on the Jewish rebels (9:69). Who were these “lawless” people and why did they appeal to Bacchi- des again? The return of Jonathan to Judea was probably interpreted as a threat, which surfaces later in 1 Macc 10:7–8. The accusers of Jonathan likely included the Hellenized Jews—former militants of the high priest Alcimus. Since there was no longer a high priest, only the Hellenized ruling party had authority to require the intervention of Bacchides. The latter reacted positively to their request. What were the terms of the peace treaty? Reportedly it was Jonathan, who had promoted the negotiation, probably indirectly, with Bacchides (1 Macc 9:70). After the siege, Jonathan received some of the prisoners

1 1 Macc 9:57–73//Ant. 13.22–34 purports to cover the period between Alcimus’ death in 159 (1 Macc 9:54–56) and 152 (cf. 10:1). Seven years is roughly the time span covered in some details in 1 Macc 2:1–9:53 (cf. 2:70 and 9:57). 2 First Maccabees 9:61 reports the execution of fifty leaders of the plot. The subject of the verbs συνέλαβον and ἀπέκτειναν is not clear. Josephus understood it to be Bacchides (Ant. 13.25; cf. 1 Macc 9:69//Ant. 13.31). However, see Sievers, Hasmoneans, 77–78 n 18. On Beth-Basi, see Abel, Géographie, II, 269. 3 First Maccabees 9:66 has ἐπέταξεν in the Greek Mss V and 340, instead of ἐπάταξεν as suggested in Kappler’s edition. Thus, Jonathan probably added to his forces the tribes of Odomera and Phasiron. Cf. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 395. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 121 back and began “to judge the people.” He was permitted to settle in Mich- mash, which was on the northern border of Judea. From the reading of 1 Macc 10:6–7 it follows that, down to 152, Jona- than was not allowed to settle in Jerusalem, muster forces, or manufacture arms. By agreeing to the peace treaty he apparently accepted the royal authority of Demetrius I and the king’s control of Judea through the officials and garrisons both in the Akra and in other places. These were likely also responsible for the collection of taxes. In their turn, the temple and Akra officials had to accept the agreement between Bacchides and Jonathan. This was an important achievement for the Hasmoneans, since they were recognized by Bacchides as a subject of negotiation. This treaty was a further important step towards the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. First Maccabees as well as Josephus are silent on both Jewish and Seleucid affairs soon after 157. This silence may indicate that the agreement was more or less observed by all interested parties. But the very fact that later in 152 Demetrius I entrusted Jonathan with military command (1 Macc 10:2–6), strongly suggests that Jonathan did not completely lay down arms or dismiss all his armed followers (cf. 9:73). This further implies that the Hasmonean ambition to control the high priestly office was not abandoned in 157. Jonathan had only undertaken a different strategy in pursuing the same goal.

2. Jonathan at Michmash as “the Wicked Priest”

In agreement with Gert Jeremias and Hartmut Stegemann, here I distin- and (הכוהן הרשע) ”guish between the figure behind “the Wicked Priest -and related designations in 1QpesherHabak (איש הכזב) ”the Man of Lie“ kuk ii 1–2 and col. v 11.4 Arguably, the identification of “the Wicked Priest” figure with the Hasmonean (high) priest Jonathan can be accepted for the following main reasons:5

4 Contrary to Lim, “Wicked Priest,” 45–51; cf. however, idem, Pesharim, 72–74. In sup port of this interpretation, see also Eshel, “Meaning,” 330–36. 5 This proposal was made first by Vermes, Manuscrits, 94–96. The texts concerning the Wicked Priest are 1QpHab i 13; viii 8, 16; ix 9, 16; xi 4, 12; xii 2, 8, 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 8, and very probably, 4QpIsac xxx 3. For a good recent re-evaluation of the evidence, see VanderKam, “Wicked Priest,” 350–67. 122 chapter five

1. One of the problems with the multiple identifications of “the Wicked Priest” from Judas to Alexander Janneus, advocated by Adam S. van כוהני] der Woude,6 lies with the expression “the last Jerusalem Priests who accumulate wealth” in 1QpHab ix 4–5.7 Most [ירושלם האחרונים scholars agree that it applies to the Hasmonean (high) priests.8 Since 1QpHab ix 6–7 claims that their wealth will be given into the hands of the Kittim, it must point to the period before the invasion of Pompey in 63 b.c.e.9 2. The expression “the last Jerusalem Priests” should be distinguished in 4QpHosb (4Q167) ii 3. The latter (כוהן האחרון) ”from “the Last Priest is probably referred to, just as before, as “the Lion of Wrath” in col. ii 2, usually identified by scholars as Alexander Janneus.10 However, “the Last Priest” is never referred to as “the Wicked Priest.” 3. Indeed, there is no such designation as “the Wicked Priests.” Further- more, assuming several “Wicked Priests” would suggest there were also several “Teachers of Righteousness.” 4. There are at least two explanations why the Pesher Habakkuk does not use the title of high priest: a) In a similar manner, Alcimus is never called high priest in First Maccabees, although at one point the Has- moneans implicitly acknowledged his high priesthood; b) the pesher starts referring to Jonathan while still a priest in Michmash. Other reasons for identifying “the Wicked Priest” with Jonathan will be discussed in the course of the present study.

In fact, reference to Jonathan’s sojourn in Michmash seems to be implied in 1QpHab viii 8–9, which distinguishes between the two stages in the life of “the Wicked Priest.” The first stage is marked by the period when he The true name here appears ”.[שם האמת] was called by the true name“ in antithesis to “the Wicked Priest.”11 It emerges that the author(s) of the Pesher Habakkuk implicitly applauded the initial policy of Jonathan.

6 “Wicked Priest,” 349–59. See also García Martínez and van der Woude, “ ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis,” 521–41. 7 Both Allegro, DJD 5, 38 and Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 571, suggest a parallel reading in 4QpNah 3–4 i 11. 8 Bengtsson, “Three Sobriquets,” 195, points to the “ruling priestly class.” 9 See van der Woude, “Wicked Priest,” 352; Flusser, “Pharisäer,” 148. On “Kittim,” see Vermes, “Historiographical Elements,” 122–33, 139. 10 So Allegro, DJD 5, 33 (with Pl. X); Schiffman, Reclaiming, 237. 11 See Horgan, Pesharim, 41. As Charlesworth, Pesharim, 92 infers, the successors of Jonathan could hardly be considered to have had “the true name.” See also Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 41, 52. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 123

3. Jonathan and the Weakening of the Seleucid Rule in Judea

In order to understand the (relative) peace and Jonathan’s increase of power between 157 and 152, it is necessary to briefly look at what happened in the rest of the Seleucid kingdom and beyond. There were several threats to Demetrius I, which led to a gradual weakening of his control in Judea. Thus, sometime in 157 the king of Pergamum, Attalus II gave his support to Ariarathes V to regain control of the royal throne in Cappadocia. The latter lost it to his brother Orophernes thanks to the military intervention of Demetrius I in 158 (Polyb. 3.5.2; 32.12; Diod. 31.32; App., Syr. 47; Just. 35.1.1–4). Most importantly, in 157 Attalus II set up in Cilicia as claimer to the Seleucid throne a young boy of obscure origins from Smyrna called Alex- ander Balas, who claimed to be the son of King Antiochus IV (Diod. 31.32a; Just. 35.1.6–8).12 The goal of this strategy was to undermine the influence of Demetrius I at least in Cappadocia.13 In addition, Alexander enjoyed the logistic support of Heracleides, a former friend of Antiochus IV, who backed an earlier revolt of Timarchus against Demetrius. Moreover, Alex- ander could rely on King Ptolemy VI of Egypt (165–145). Probably in the summer of 153, Alexander arrived in Rome to make his claim for the Seleu- cid throne, which the Senate endorsed by early 152 (Polyb. 33.15; 33.18). The new king could thus muster troops (cf. Polyb. 33.18.14), establish alliances with other kings and occupy “his father’s” kingdom.14 In the eastern part of the kingdom too the Parthians became a constant threat (Str. 11.9.2; 11.11.2).15 There was also a revolt or perhaps an attack on the Seleucia-on-the-Tigris in the summer of 157. Demetrius I may have been present in Babylon in 156 (AD 3 No. -156 A ´Rev.´ 18´–20´; No. -155 A ´Rev.´ 8´–17´).16 Furthermore, between the years 155 and 153, Demetrius had to face the claims to the Seleucid royal throne of Orophernes and then of a certain

12 Livy in Per. 52 recorded Alexander as homo ignotus et incertae stirpis, a statement that actually contradicts his Per. 50. Appian, Syr. 67 refers to “certain [τις] Alexander” ψευδόμενος εἶναι τοῦ Σελευκείου γένους. 13 See Will, Histoire, II, 312–14; Seeman, Rome and Judea, 149–50. 14 See Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 665–66; Huß, Ägypten, 583–84; Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies, 208–15; Grainger, Syrian Wars, 325–30. 15 See further Tarn, Greeks, 219. 16 See further Del Monte, TBE, 90–91. 124 chapter five

Andriscus, both of whom found support among the populace (Diod. 31.40a; Just. 35.1.1–5).17 Hence, it was not in the interest of the royal court to launch a military expedition in Judea after 157. The royal chancellery was seemingly aware that pressing too hard could have caused Jonathan to organize new revolts and become an ally of Alexander Balas. As long as Demetrius I could exact his tribute, there was no serious reason to interfere. In addition, as his former friend Polybius 33.19 [apud Athen. 10.440b] affirms, in the latter years of his rule Demetrius I cared little about strengthening his royal dominion (cf. Jos., Ant. 13.36).18

4. The Institution of Jonathan’s Military Office

A significant turning point in the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood was to take place in this time period. According to 1 Macc 10:1, Alexander Epiphanes, “son of Antiochus,” occupied Ptolemais (Akko) in the Sel. 160, where he began to reign (see ἐβασίλευσεν; cf. 10:52). The year referred to in 1 Macc 10:1 probably follows the Macedonian system and refers to early 152.19 In this year, Alexander I Balas (152–145) struck his first coins with the title “King.”20 Josephus, who had access to additional source(s) for the Seleucid history, asserts that the soldiers in Ptolemais betrayed Demetrius I and opened the gates to Alexander (Ant. 13.35).

4.1. Demetrius I Appoints Jonathan as Military Commander For almost two years, down to 150, there were two reigning kings: Dem- etrius I in Antioch-on-the-Orontes and Alexander I in Ptolemais (Akko). The Seleucid kingdom began to split into two parts and the local entities sided with one or the other king. Alexander established his control over

17 Diodorus 31.32 a reports that the people of Syria were not pleased with Demetrius I and his drastic demands. On the attitude of Diodorus towards Demetrius I, see Primo, Storiografia, 196–200. 18 Polybius states that the king was prone to drink and laziness. Walbank, Polybius, III, 561–62, dates the passage between 154–152, and notes how “it relates facts relevant to the background of the success of Demetrius’ opponents.” 19 So Grainger, Syrian Wars, 334; but cf. Abel, Maccabées, 180 n. 20 In Jos., Ant. 13.199 one reads “Alexander, surnamed Balas.” Strabo 16.2.8 has “Balas Alexander,” while Just. 35.1.6–7 reports that Balas “was given” the name of Alexander. For his coins, see Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 51, 54. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 125 most of the Phoenician cities, as is apparent from the striking of his coins in Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon and Berytos.21 Judea found itself in a rather peculiar situation. The temple and the Akra officials owed much of their ruling positions to Demetrius I. In addition, they had an old enemy based in Michmas, the leader of the rebels, Jonathan. Although Jonathan probably launched no attacks on Jerusalem, he had many reasons for hating Demetrius (cf. 1 Macc 10:5, 46). Judea was also geographically located close to Alexander’s capital. In this geo-political context the role of Jonathan became crucial, especially for Demetrius. In fact, Demetrius I did make an attempt to assure himself of the support of Jonathan and of the Akra officials.22 At first, Jonathan continued to recognize the royal authority of Demetrius. This is suggested by the letter alluded to in 1 Macc 10:3, 6–7, reportedly sent in order “to honor” Jona- than, and by which the king sought to win his support against Alexander I (10:4). That such a letter did exist is suggested by 1 Macc 10:7, according to which, Jonathan read the letter in “the hearing of all the people [τοῦ λαοῦ] and those from the Akra.” According to 1 Macc 10:6 Jonathan got permission to recruit troops, make provision of arms and obtain release of the hostages kept in the Akra (cf. 10:9).23 The king required also that Jonathan be his ally (σύμμαχον). These details are important here for two reasons. First, they shed light on the past relationship of Jonathan with Demetrius I. During those roughly five years following the year 157, the Akra officials appear to have kept in custody a certain number of former military supporters of Jonathan (cf. 1 Macc 9:70–72). Second, Jonathan became a royal military official. His people were thus legitimized through becoming part of an official army at the service of the Seleucid king.24 Such concessions fit the developing political and military situation of the Seleucid kingdom highlighted above as both reigning kings needed allies, troops, arms, and money. It is not clear how Jonathan’s position was supposed to match with the hierarchy of Judea. Nor is there information about the further steps taken by the Akra. It would have been quite natural that Demetrius I should have given Jonathan some official Seleucid title but this could hardly be

21 See further Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 122–23. 22 On this aspect see also Sievers, Hasmoneans, 81. 23 The arms dominate the Hasmonean policy (cf. 1 Macc 15:6–7; Ant. 13.246). 24 For Shatzman, Armies, 23, “[i]t is . . . reasonable to infer that the organised, regular army is to be ascribed to Jonathan.” Reference to the manufacture of arms (cf. 1 Macc 10:21) exists in 2 Chr 32:5 in reference to King Hezekiah. 126 chapter five a high one. First Maccabees 10:8 informs that those from the Akra were frightened at Jonathan’s reading of the letter.25 On the one hand, the Akra officials were aware that Jonathan could lay siege against them, and also switch loyalty (cf. 10:4). On the other, it was Demetrius I himself who bestowed on Jonathan military authority. There is no sound reason to believe that the Akra officials would have defected from Demetrius I. In fact, Jonathan did not try to occupy the Akra. The very fact that it continued to receive orders from Demetrius, including the release of hostages (1 Macc 10:6, 9), points in the direction that its officials still considered the latter their king. Below, the authenticity of part of the letter quoted in 1 Macc 10:25–28, which was probably sent to the Akra authorities, will be argued.26 In it, Demetrius makes no reference to Jonathan, but praises the “Jewish ethnos” for persevering in loyalty (10:26). Such royal appraisal, again, fits well in this period of the rivalry between the two kings. The reader is also informed that after Jonathan settled in Jerusalem (1 Macc 10:10–11), the “foreigners,” stationed in the fortresses which Bac- chides built, fled and returned to their homes. Only in Beth-Zur did some of those “who had abandoned the Law and the precepts remain, for it was their refuge” (10:12–14). Édouard Will made an attractive suggestion that it was Demetrius I himself who withdrew them.27 A complete withdrawal of troops, however, is unlikely to have been ordered. This important issue was still hotly debated several years later (cf. 1 Macc 11:41–53). Their presence was a means of controlling of the province, while the fortresses built by Bac- chides were considered royal properties. Moreover, nothing is said about the Akra in this context. It is more probable that at least some of these “foreigners” continued to collaborate with Jonathan. According to Josephus, Hyrcanus I was the first to hire mercenaries (War 1.61//Ant. 13.249). After him, Alexander Janneus reportedly had 8,000 (War 1.93) or 6,200 (Ant. 13.377) of them.28 But the process of employing foreign troops might well have begun under Simon

25 The king very probably sent a copy of the letter separately to the Akra. 26 See here pp. 147–49. 27 Histoire, II, 315. 28 Janneus was both high priest and king. In Diod. 40.2 the Hasmoneans are accused of instituting a kingdom with the help of mercenaries (μισθοφόρων). jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 127 or even Jonathan. Christiane Saulnier thinks Jonathan may have included in his army the Diaspora Jews.29

4.2. Jonathan as Royal Military Official and 11QTemple Scroll Jonathan may have not been the only Jewish priest to have become a Seleucid official. If the interpretation of Maria Brutti30 and Gerassimos G. Aperghis31 regarding the position of Simon the prostates of the temple in 2 Macc 3:4 as a royal representative is correct, then one may have here an example of a Jewish priest of the Bilgah course being at the same time a Seleucid official. The high priest Jason also obtained authority from Antiochus IV to found a gymnasium and probably a politeuma in Jerusalem. It has been argued that one of the aspects of these institutions was military, and Jason himself may have had some official military power. Jason later used forces to remove Menelaus from the high priestly office. As claimed above, Menelaus and later Alcimus were probably given some military authority, which they must have exercised in cooperation with the Akra commander. However, there is no mention of an official military title held by either of these high priests. There are instead other records of Jewish priests obtaining military titles in the 2d c. b.c.e. When writing about “Onias” in War 7.427, Josephus states that besides the temple in Leontopolis, the (high) priest also erected a “fortress” there.32 This, however, is not stated in Antiquities. According to Gideon Bohak33 and Livia Capponi,34 the Ptolemaic military strategos Onias, known from Ap. 2.48–56, should be identified with the temple builder. Both Victor Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks suggested that the Onias mentioned in CPJ No. 132 (ca. 164 b.c.e.) was probably a strategos of the district of Heliopolis and identified him with the homonymous person in Ap. 2.50.35 Besides, Ant. 13.285–287 reports that the sons of Onias,

29 “Cadre politico-religieux,” 208. 30 Development, 255, 264. 31 Seleukid Economy, 285, 287. So also Rappaport, “Heliodoros,” 12–13. 32 According to Gruen, “Origins,” 69–70, Onias did not carry the title of high priest; but cf. Ant. 20.236. Gruen’s suggestion seems to be connected with his theory that the Oniad temple “was a reinforcement, not a rival, of Jerusalem.” 33 Joseph and Aseneth, 24, 31–32. 34 Tempio, 51, 57, 59. 35 See further CPJ Nos. 244–46. It should be recalled that Livia Capponi, Tempio, 164 for example, dates the arrival of Onias into Egypt to 162. 128 chapter five the temple builder, Chelkias and Ananias, were military commanders of Queen Cleopatra III (see also Ant. 13.349–351).36 The above examples demonstrate the extent to which the Jewish (high) priesthood underwent the Hellenization process, well before the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. That is, the activity of the Jewish (high) priest was no more limited simply to the religious affairs as outlined in the Priestly Torah. An implicit criticism to the employment of foreign troops by Jonathan and his successors comes from the so-called statutes/laws of the king in 11QTemple Scrolla lvi 12–lvii 19. It urges that “the king” must be an Isra- elite and not a foreigner, that his troops must be from among the “sons of Israel,” and that he should not multiply horses.37 It is reasonable to follow the reasoning of Casey D. Elledge38 and Sidnie White Crawford39 in that the statutes in 11QT lvi–lix are not simply a midrashic tractate based on Deut 17:14–20 and 1 Sam 8:5–20, but also an expanded legislation that reflects the viewpoint of its author(s). There is a growing scholarly consensus that the Temple Scroll is a composite work, whose final author/redactor included older sources. Many scholars believe that this final author belonged to priestly circles.40 A date in the early Hasmonean period is defended by many scholars.41 Émile Puech claims to have identified 39 fragments belonging to a copy of the Temple Scroll, which he groups under 4Q524 and dates on paleograph- ical grounds to 150–125 b.c.e.42 The dating of the Temple Scroll to the second half of the 2d c. is suggested also by Florentino García Martínez,43 James H. Charlesworth and Andrew de la Ronde Van Kirk,44 Lawrence H. Schiffman and others scholars.45

36 See Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 32–34; Capponi, Tempio, 108–9. For a different inter pretation, see Gruen, “Origins,” 59–60. Cf. however, Bohak, 24 n 26; Barclay, BJP 10, 196. 37 See Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, [346–49]; Elledge, Statutes, 53, 115–17. 38 See further Statutes, 36–45. 39 See further Rewriting Scripture, 97–100. 40 See Swanson, Temple Scroll, 242; Riska, House, 190. Wacholder, Dawn, 211, identifies the final author with the Teacher of Righteousness, who died “in 170.” This theory was developed by Wise, Temple Scroll, 194, but dates the “final redaction” to 150. 41 See especially Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, [390]; Maier, Tempelrolle, 47; Schiffman, “Tem ple Scroll,” 251–53. 42 DJD 25, 86–87. 43 “Temple Scroll,” 432. 44 “Temple Scroll,” 247–49. 45 See Schiffman et al., “Temple Scroll,” 4–5. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 129

Because the Temple Scroll mentions a “king” certain scholars connected it with Alexander Janneus.46 To be sure, the use of the title “king” and the concept that he should be an Israelite can be understood as a criticism of the Seleucid royal domination. Moreover, the tractate is not about a Hasmonean ruler/king but about an ideal “king,” as corroborated by the mention of the high priest there. Furthermore, the statutes appear to be partly the result of an ideology that had in the background the military leadership established by Jonathan, as subject to the Seleucid king. Hence, the claim in 1 Macc 10:12 that the foreigners fled can also be understood as aiming to disprove that Seleucid troops united or at least collaborated with Jonathan. This may also be one of the several reasons why the organization of Jonathan’s army is mentioned only at 1 Macc 10:21 (cf. 10:6).47

5. Jonathan’s Capture and Fortification of the Temple Mount and of Western Jerusalem: An Archaeological Assessment

The dynamics of Jonathan’s actions after his appointment as military leader are important in so far as they provide circumstantial evidence on his perception of the high priesthood. According to 1 Macc 10:10–11, Jonathan settled in Jerusalem and began to build and renew the city (cf. Sir 50:1–4 of the high priest Simon II). Jonathan ordered those doing the works “to build the walls also around Mount Zion.”48 Following the example of his brother Judas in 163 (cf. 1 Macc 4:60–62), Jonathan too, appears to have actually turned the temple area into a stronghold and put it under his military control.49 This was an important achievement for Jonathan to claim authority over the Jewish religious and socio-economic center. But did Jonathan have royal sanction for the occupation of the temple area? Where Josephus took the information about Jews fleeing to Antioch in Ant. 13.42 is unknown. This note is difficult to simply view as the result of his inference. It would have been expected that some temple authorities

46 Hengel et al., “Polemical Character,” 28–38. 47 For other possible reasons, see here pp. 168–69. 48 See also the translation of Zervos, NETS, 493. For Mt. Zion as the temple area, see 1 Macc 4:37; 5:54; 7:33; 14:26, 48. Zsengellér, “Maccabees,” 189–90, identifies nine designa tions implying the Jerusalem temple in First Maccabees. 49 As already stated, according to Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 176–77, the temple city on Mt. Gerizim, was never fortified with walls. 130 chapter five would have judged Jonathan’s action as a threat to their positions, and perhaps even a sacrilege. This would have led certain Jewish officials to appeal to the king. The temple’s location was on the eastern ridge of Jerusalem, and it was supposed to be controlled by the Akra (cf. 1 Macc 1:36). Its capture and fortification was thus a rebellious act against King Demetrius I. At the same time, it was evidence that Jonathan was probably looking to occupy the high priestly office himself. As the two Seleucid kings continued to rule in their respective capitals without attacking each other, Jonathan also occupied the south-western hill. Of significance are the final reports of the excavations in the present day Jewish Quarter conducted by Nahman Avigad from 1969–1982,50 which complete those reports of the excavations executed near the temple mount and the City of David by Kathleen M. Kenyon from 1961–1967,51 and at the Armenian Garden and the modern citadel by Douglas A. Tush- ingham from 1961–1967.52 The results show that on the south-western part of Jerusalem there were large empty spaces before the mid 2d c. b.c.e.53 There are also the remains of the city wall and towers which encircled the area.54 Their construction may date back to 152–150 (1 Macc 10:10; cf. Ant. 13.41). This wall appears to have mostly followed the line of the ancient city wall apparently built by King Hezekiah that existed prior to the Babylonian conquest in 587 (2 Kgs 20:20; Sir 48:17). Josephus, in his War 5.142–145, calls it the “first wall.” He thought it was built by Kings David and Solomon.55 The fortification of the south-western hill became a necessary strategy for Jonathan in view of the possible attack of one or the other Seleucid army.56 Most scholars agree regarding the sudden increase of the population on the south-western hill, which began with the middle of the 2d c. and ended around the middle of the 1st c. b.c.e. The increase is well evidenced by a variety of archaeological finds inside the western defense wall in

50 See Geva, Jewish Quarter, I–II. 51 Jerusalem. 52 Jerusalem. 53 See further Geva, “Introduction,” 24, 26. 54 For a description of the remains, see Reich, “Area A,” 85–92; Geva and Avigad, “Area W,” 134–35, 159–77; eadem, “Area X-2,” 205–7, 232–34. 55 On the uncovered remains of this wall, see Geva, “Summary,” 511–18. 56 See further Avigad, Jerusalem, 65–73; Wightman, Walls, 108–9; McNicoll, Hellenistic Fortifications, 201. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 131 comparison to those on the south-eastern hill, where the settlement still continued to be concentrated.57 Such demographic development is supported especially by the import of Greek stamped amphora which begin to be attested in this area especially after 150;58 a significant number of pottery remains, which are distinguish- able from the later 1st c. Hasmonean pottery found in Jericho, Qumran or Machaerus for example;59 and an increase of local seal impressions and other archaeological artifacts in this area dated to the early Hasmonean period.60 These elements are independent witnesses to the activities of Jonathan and Simon as known from literary sources.61 The uncovered remains are important in that they reveal something about the socio-economic and religious life of Jerusalem in the early Hasmonean period both in the City of David and on the south-western ridge. It will be necessary then to see in more detail of what importance this appointment of Jonathan was for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The analysis will proceed by examining some scholarly proposals which assume that there was a high priest after the death of Alci- mus and down to 152.

6. Jonathan and the High Priestly Office: Was There a High Priest in Jerusalem between 159–152 b.c.e.?

Of significance here is the silence in First Maccabees on the high priestly office after the death of Alcimus. Some scholars have claimed that after Alcimus there must have been a high priest in Jerusalem. The reason why his name is missing in the ancient sources is due to damnatio memoriae decreed by the Hasmoneans, just as in the case of Jason and Menelaus. The main promoter of this theory was Hartmut Stegemann. He suggested

57 So, for instance, Avigad, Jerusalem, 64–79; Shiloh, City of David, I, 29–30; Cahill and Tarler, “City of David,” 42; Lipschits, “Jerusalem,” 173–74. 58 For details, see Ariel, “Imported Greek Amphora,” 268; idem, “Imported Amphora,” 224–25. 59 Geva, “Hellenistic Pottery,” 147–50. 60 For details, see Reich, “Seal Impressions,” 258; Vanderhooft and Lipschits, “Typology,” 29–30. 61 For a discussion of the two types of sources, see Geva, “Summary,” 526–34. However, Geva argues that it was Simon who fortified the south-western hill. But 1 Macc 12:35–37 (cf. 13:10), on which the archaeologist relies much, seems to speak of the building higher (προσυψῶσαι). 132 chapter five

מורה) ”identifying this high priest with the “Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit known from several Dead Sea Scrolls, who became later the leader (הצדק of a community. One of his main arguments is that in post-exilic Judaism designated no one but the high priest. Since “the Teacher הכוהן the term of Righteousness/the Righteous Teacher” is mentioned several times as 1QpHab ii 8; 4QpPsa 1, 3–4 iii 15), he must have been a former high) הכוהן priest in office after Alcimus.62 His title as “Teacher” was given to him by his community after he had been expelled by Jonathan.63 Hans Burgmann systematically rejected these arguments.64 In examining the high priestly terminology in biblical and extra-biblical sources, he correctly noted that there are indeed cases in which the high priest is -As a rule, this is the case when it is inter 65.הכוהן referred to simply as or similar designations. Nowhere in the ,הכוהן הגדל changeably used with .הכוהן הגדל Dead Sea Scrolls is the Teacher of Righteousness defined as Yet other scholars have continued to build upon Stegemann’s theory. Since their theories are based to a certain extent on the identification of the archiereus in the letter of Demetrius I in 1 Macc 10:32, 38, they will be examined in the next chapter. Worth stating here is the proposal of Émile Puech. He argues that the Teacher of Righteousness was the son of Onias III, and even suggests a name for him, Simon (III).66 This scholar believes that “les Hassidéens partisans d’Onias III n’ont pas dû rester inactifs à la mort d’Alcime mais qu’ils ont dû revendiquer et appuyer la candidature du fils d’Onias III.”67 They did this, presumably “avec ou sans nomination par le séleucide.” At first, the Hasmoneans implicitly accepted this alleged son of Onias III. However, later on, “pour . . . des motifs plus personnels que religieux, Jona- than réussit à se faire nommer grand prêtre,” siding eventually with the “hellénisants.”68

62 Stegemann, Entstehung, 102, 210, was undecided whether the Teacher had entered the office in 159 or in 157. 63 Stegemann, Entstehung, 213–20; idem, Essener, 205–6. 64 “Intersacerdotium,” 143–76. Burgmann isolates eight of Stegemann’s arguments. Most of them are based on inference due to the silence of First Maccabees. 65 For a discussion, see Wise, “Teacher,” 587–602. 66 “Grand prêtre,” 137–58. As Puech, 151–54, puts it, the founder of the temple at Leon topolis could not be the son of Onias III (cf. Ant. 12.387; 13.62; 20.236), but son of Simon the captain of the temple and brother of Menelaus (cf. 2 Macc 3:4; War 7.423). For other candidates for the Teacher of Righteousness, see Charlesworth, Pesharim, 32–33. 67 “Grand prêtre,” 155. 68 “Grand prêtre,” 150–51. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 133

This hypothesis comports two significant implications: 1) the Hasideans had or were believed to have had power to appoint a high priest; 2) at the time Jonathan became high priest he united with the former Hellenized ruling class of Judea. The first point has found no support here, while the second one must be re-qualified. It is worth asking, in whose interest was it that there should be a high priest in Jerusalem? For example, was King Demetrius I interested in appointing a high priest in Jerusalem? Anyone wishing to become high priest after Alcimus would have to get royal approval. By that time, however, the Jewish high priestly office had turned into a constant problem for the royal court itself. Sometimes those who urged royal intervention were even punished for the “excessive” concern for their own positions (cf. 2 Macc 13:3–8//Ant. 12.383b-385; 1 Macc 9:69). But as long as the royal authority was not undermined and the Seleucid garrisons could guarantee the exaction of the tribute, the king had no real need to interfere in the internal affairs of Judea. The implementation of the royal policy could be guaranteed by the officials of the Akra, who had the support of the Hellenized temple priests. On their part, the Hasmoneans appear to have more or less tolerated such a state of affairs, at least between the years 157 and 152. Therefore, it seems not to have been in the interest of Demetrius I to appoint a high priest in Jerusalem, whose candidacy and policy could stir up new revolts, and thus increase the existing threats to the king’s control of the province.69 Were the temple authorities greatly interested in having a high priest? As the study of the history of the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood has shown, any candidate for the high priestly office would have needed the support of a significant part of the temple authorities and of the Akra. The ruling party in Jerusalem was composed of Hellenized oligarchic priestly and non-priestly families whose members continued to be privileged royalist citizens, even after Jonathan became high priest.70 This view was recently expressed also by Hanan Eshel. According to Eshel, however, the Teacher of Righteousness—“a conservative opponent of the Hellenizing circles”—acted as high priest between 159 and 152, despite the fact that his supporters consisted of a minority group.71 But how could one control the temple without the explicit approval of the Seleucid king and the Akra

69 For a similar view, see Zeitlin, Rise, 121–22; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 394; Burgmann, “Intersacerdotium,” 142–43; Ehling, Untersuchungen, 138. 70 More on this important aspect will be said in the following chapters. 71 Dead Sea Scrolls, 56. 134 chapter five officials? Also, how would the Hasmonean led rebels have reacted to such figure? Étienne Nodet even suggests that after the death of Alcimus, Judea may have had no government but was attached to Samaria.72 To be sure, many temple authorities would have been content to divide among themselves certain prerogatives held once by Alcimus. But the military control of Judea must have remained in the hands of a special appointee of Bacchides who would have resided in the Akra. Such decen- tralization of the powers of the Jewish high priestly office could, therefore, well satisfy the temple authorities. It is possible that the non-appointment of a high priest was part of the peace treaty after the Beth-Basi battle. There were no more Hasmonean revolts very probably because there was no successor to the high priest Alcimus. The very fact that Bacchides negotiated with Jonathan in 157 did open new hopes for him. Furthermore, the present study has shown that pre-Hasmonean high priests exercised at different times various civil powers, including probably military power. The latter they exercised at a rather low level and in concert with the royal official of the Akra. The very fact that the Seleucid king gave permission to Jonathan to recruit troops and manufacture arms strongly suggests there was no high priest. Besides, Jonathan proceeded to better fortify the south-western hill of Jerusalem and also Mt. Zion (1 Macc 10:10–11). This was another civil power which even a high priest could hardly exercise (cf. Sir 50:1–4), since it was a royal prerogative (cf. Ant. 12.138–144). All these elements further weaken the theory about the existence of a high priest.

7. The Jewish High Priesthood and the Day of Atonement Ritual

However, the most quoted argument in support of the alleged existence of a high priest between 159–152 is that the Day of Atonement ritual required his presence.73 This service was the outmost expression of the religious authority of the Jewish high priest. It was characterized by his entrance into the holy of holies once a year.74

72 Crise, 97–98. One, however, wonders how the Jerusalem temple priesthood would have reacted to such decision. 73 So, among others, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 475. 74 For details on this important ritual, see Haran, Temples, 178. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 135

7.1. Was There a Regular Cultic Life at the Temple before 152? In the opinion of Hanan Eshel, “[i]t is conceivable that after the Hel- lenizing High Priest Alcimus died in 159 b.c.e., one of the priests of the conservative circles served unofficially as High Priest on the Day of Atone- ment, though he probably considered himself a legitimate High Priest.” Once he was deposed by Jonathan, he founded his own community and became known as the Teacher of Righteousness.75 This assumption of Eshel resembles that of Émile Puech discussed above. Further, according to both scholars, the alleged acting high priest between 159 and 152 was of the “house of Zadok.”76 In the present study, it has been demonstrated that the ex-high priests Jason and Menelaus took conscious steps in the introduction of various Hellenistic reforms, which concluded probably with the institution of the polis in 167. Cultic prescriptions for the high priests began to play almost a secondary role. Political and socio-economic reasons were becoming of primary importance. Although the temple was rededicated by the rebels, the Hellenizing party resumed its control of the temple under the high priest Alcimus. Many of its members continued to live primarily in the City of David (1 Macc 10:9; cf. 13:49–52; 14:36), at Beth-Zur (10:14; cf. 11:65–66), and at Gazara (cf. 13:43–48). The question of their permanence in Jerusa- lem is fundamental for the evaluation of both 1) the influence they had on the temple cultic life even at the time of the high priesthood of Jonathan; 2) the context of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Another element is worthy of attention here. According to 2 Macc 4 the high priest Onias III left Jerusalem before the news of the death of Seleucus IV and the assumption of the royal throne by Antiochus IV reached him. Based on other sources both events occurred roughly in the September of 175. However, it took several more weeks before Jason assumed the high priestly office, i.e. very probably after the Day of Atone- ment. One also wonders to what extent was the service on this festival accomplished by Menelaus between the years 167 and 164. Moreover, in 163 Menelaus had no access to the temple which was under the control of the rebellious priests. Furthermore, some of the appeals of Alcimus to the king may have been partly connected with the impossibility for him to serve on the Day of Atonement.77

75 Dead Sea Scrolls, 60 and 54. See earlier, Lim, Pesharim, 78. 76 Dead Sea Scrolls, 33. On “Zadokite” priests, see here Chapter X. 77 On the presence or absence of high priests, see Brutti, Development, 77–79. 136 chapter five

The temple cultic life like other aspects of the religious life, were “adapted” to the political, socio-economic and religious changes. The high priests themselves were often the protagonists of these transformations. These changes together with the revolts which accompanied them had a deep impact on the regular temple cultic life, as well as on the religious life of every Jewish family. Thus, the purification of the temple ritual in 164 was performed by the “blameless” but still rebellious priests (1 Macc 4:2), and not by a high priest. In the time of revolts, the cultic activity of the high priest depended heavily on the development of the events in Judea and beyond, and not vice-versa.

7.2. A Priest Appointed to Serve on the Day of Atonement? The non-existence of a high priest, however, must not mean that in times of peace there was no performance of the Day of Atonement ritual. In case there was no high priest or for certain circumstantial reasons he could not be present, such cultic ritual could probably be performed by a specially appointed priest, after he wore the linen vestments (cf. Lev 16:4). Several sources seem to support such a view. The first passage is taken from the Temple Scroll that is part of the description of the temple. It is assumed to be based on the so-called “temple source,” and covers cols. ii–xiii, xxx–xlviii. While 11QTa xxv 10–xxvii the ,(הכהן הגדול) describes the ritual to be performed by the high priest 10 concern of 11QTa xxxv 1–9 appears to be about those eligible to enter “the .(ll. 1, 9 ;קוד[ש הקודשי]ם) ”holy of holies In particular, the end of 11QTa xxxv 5 and the beginning of l. 6 have —אשר יבוא איתם divided the scholars. Yigael Yadin proposed to read “who enter with them,” suggesting that “apparently the high priest and his deputy are intended.”78 However, the proposal of Elisha Qimron,79 and אותה Florentino García Martínez with Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar,80 who read fits the context better. The translation would be “who איתם instead of enter it,” i.e. the holy of holies. Yadin, in fact, stated in connection with l. 6 that the ban is on entering the “inner court.” At the end of l. 6 and at literally “to fill the—מלא את ידיו the beginning of l. 7 the visible words are hands,” which refers to the (high) priestly ordination (cf. Lev 16:32; 21:10).81

78 Temple Scroll, II, [149] n. 79 Temple Scroll, [50]. 80 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1254. 81 See Delcor, “L’investiture,” 155–56; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 538–40. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 137

The same holds true for “the sacred vestments” mentioned just before in l. 6, which—as a rule—are referred to as the high priestly vestments of Aaron and his successors.82 What matters here is that there does not seem to be an explicit mention of the high priest in 11QTa xxxv 1–9, although he appears elsewhere (cf. xv 15; xxiii 9; xxv 16; lviii 18). It indirectly emerges that an appointed priest after wearing the high priestly vestments could enter the holy of holies and perform the ritual particular to a high priest.83 This observation is even more relevant when one considers the view expressed by some scholars that the author(s) behind the “temple source” had in mind the actual temple in Jerusalem.84 The candidate who would officiate on the Day of Atonement could be ;Kgs 25:18 2 ;הכוהן המשנה) a deputy high priest or second (in rank) priest 1QM ii 1 [=4QMd l. 4]; 11QTa xxxi 4). Thus Menelaus left his brother Lysi- machus as his deputy in the high priesthood (2 Macc 4:29). Likewise Judas was appointed deputy to Alcimus by the royal strategos Nicanor (14:26). In both cases these substitutions were meant to be only temporary. A priest designated to perform this specific cultic ritual would hardly need royal or ἀρχιερεύς, and had הכהן הגדול approval. He did not carry the title of no official civil power. An explicit example comes from m. Yoma 1:1–2 (also 3:9; 4:1; 7:1). It speaks of the second priest who was to be ready for serving in the holy of holies seven days before the start of the Day of Atonement. To him are ascribed a series of cultic services before and during the festival. Besides, t. Yoma 1:4 seems to reflect the same incident as in Ant. 17.165–167. Jose- phus tells of a high priest appointed (ἀρχιερέα καταστῆναι) to serve, very probably, just on the Day of Atonement. The reason was that the official high priest Mathias was considered ritually impure (cf. b. Yoma 12b).85 As Morton Smith suggested, the rules of m. Yoma might have been based on an old tradition.86 Therefore, one can agree with Hanan Eshel (see above) that on the Day of Atonement between 159 and 152 some priest(s) may have acted

82 See Exod 28:2; 29:29; 31:10; 35:19; 39:1, 41; 40:13; Lev 16:4, 32. 83 Qimron followed by Maier, Tempelrolle, 149 and Riska, House, 47, proposes the read see l. 5). The “sons of Aaron” in the Temple Scroll, as) וכול איש מה]כוהנים בני אהרו[ן :ing in other Dead Sea Scrolls, refers to priests in general. 84 So Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, [182–84]; Stegemann, “Institutions,” 162. 85 See further VanderKam, From Joshua, 410–11. Cf. m. Horayot 3:1–6. 86 “Maccabees,” 321–22. 138 chapter five on the cultic level “as high priest(s).”87 Whether this priest was the later Teacher of Righteousness—which is plausible, or someone else, is beyond evidence. What this study argues is that if someone served for this festival he must have done so with the approval of the temple authorities and perhaps of the Akra officials.

Conclusion

The external and internal growing threats against King Demetrius I led the royal official Bacchides to conclude a peace treaty with Jonathan in 157. Jonathan’s increase of military power was favored, among others, by the political crisis which characterized the rule of Demetrius I between 157 and 152. Jonathan became thus a subject of negotiation. Jonathan was allowed to settle at Michmash, where he continued to build his leadership position. This was a further significant step towards the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. However, the real turning point in this process took place only after the arrival of the rival King Alexander I Balas in Ptolemais in 152. In order to assure the loyalty of Jonathan, Demetrius I appointed him a military leader. Jonathan got permission to recruit troops, manufacture arms, and settle in Jerusalem. Jonathan became thus a military official at the service of the Seleucid king. This aspect is very important for further understanding the nature of Jonathan’s high priesthood. The next important phase towards the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood was characterized by Jonathan’s capture and fortification of the temple area and of the south-western hill of Jerusalem. A protest may have been formulated before Demetrius I, which however had no effect on Jonathan’s policy. When Jonathan took control of the temple area there was no high priest. The appointment of a high priest after the death of Alcimus and before 152 was not in the interest of Demetrius I nor that of Jonathan. Many of the temple authorities very probably accepted such vacancy in the high priestly office, which allowed them to exercise major powers. The cessation of the Hasmonean revolt could be connected with such vacancy.

87 Dead Sea Scrolls, 57. The question remains whether such priests had to undergo the ordination rite peculiar of a high priest required by Lev 16:32 or not. More on this feast and the ordination rite shall be said in the following chapter. jonathan and the high priestly office: 159–152 b.c.e. 139

Also, the appointment of Jonathan as military leader further suggests there was indeed no high priest in Jerusalem. The cultic performance peculiar of a high priest, especially on the Day of Atonement, was only one of the several aspects of the role played by the high priest in the Seleucid Judea. By this time the Jewish high priest was seen more as a political collaborator of the Seleucid government who struggled to maintain his position. The available evidence allows it to be argued that between 175 and 152, on several occasions there was no high priest to serve at the temple on this feast. The cultic service itself was probably performed by the deputy high priest or by a specially designated priest, who must have had the approval of the temple authorities. Such cultic figure(s) had no permanent official status and almost certainly no civil power. Hence, such a person would have not represented a serious threat to Jonathan’s policy of taking control of the high priestly office and more. The question of the existence or not of an acting high priest in the year 152 will be readdressed from a different angle in the following chapter that begins with the institution of Jonathan as high priest.

chapter six

The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part One (152–150 B.C.E.)

Introduction

The previous chapter focused on two main issues. First, particular attention was dedicated to the history of the high priestly office between 159 and 152 b.c.e. It has been argued that there was no (at least official) high priest in Jerusalem during this period. Second, it analyzed the role played by Jonathan (and Simon) and concentrated on his appointment as royal military official. This event marked a real turning point in the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The present chapter deals with historical issues related to the appointment of Jonathan as archiereus. The main question that is central to this study is the following: Was Jonathan appointed to act as a Jewish/biblical or as a Seleucid/Hellenistic high priest? In order to study the nature of Jonathan’s appointment it is necessary to understand his relation to the temple priesthood and the royal Akra. It will then be important to investigate how the military power of Jonathan interacted with his new office of high priesthood. The importance of this chapter lies in the fact that it will deal with one of the most eloquent periods in the Hasmonean high priesthood. More precisely, detailed analysis shall be made of the way the first Hasmonean became high priest. This chapter will also open the discussion of certain Dead Sea Scrolls that are believed to disclose information about the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The period under study here is from 152 to the summer of 150.

1. The Institution of Jonathan’s High Priesthood

According to 1 Macc 10:17, Alexander I Balas (152–145) wrote “letters,” in which the Seleucid rival king appointed Jonathan archiereus and a royal “Friend” (10:18–20). How and when did Jonathan became archiereus? What was the reaction of the temple priesthood to this event? Did the Akra officials collaborate with Jonathan? These are some of the most important questions which must be dealt with here. 142 chapter six

As argued in the preceding chapter, Jonathan’s fortification of the temple area and more, reported in 1 Macc 10:10–11, was not part of the royal concessions of Demetrius I Soter (162–150; cf. 10:6). This was the first step of Jonathan’s defection from Demetrius after the peace treaty in 157. Jona- than opened negotiations with the rival king in Ptolemais, Alexander I. Thus, the Hasmonean leader could secure his new position against a possible military attack by Demetrius.1 But the strategic position of Jonathan—which could have hardly remained unnoticed by Alexander I—and the latter’s need of allies offered the Hasmonean leader the possibility to negotiate new concessions from the rival king. Jonathan could ask for what he did not or could not obtain from Demetrius I, namely, the high priesthood. First Maccabees 10:15 relates that Alexander I “heard” of the promises made by Demetrius I and the battles fought by Jonathan. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that it was Jonathan who first addressed the king.2 At least, it can be said that Alexander found out Jonathan was willing to become an archiereus. The king also likely knew that the high priestly office in Jerusalem was vacant. This vacancy in fact made the appointment for Jonathan much easier.3 When was Jonathan appointed archiereus? According to 1 Macc 10:21 Jonathan put on “the sacred vestments” in the seventh month of the Sel. year 160. The year here follows the Babylonian system as confirmed by the The date .(סכות/mention of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles (σκηνοπηγία in question translates into October of 152.4 On the one hand, this date has been challenged by a number of scholars who suggested the year 153.5 But this can be dismissed because the arrival of Alexander I in Ptolemais can be placed at the end of 153 at the earliest, the same year he was recognized by the Roman Senate as king (Polyb. 33.15; 33.18).6 Even after this event Jonathan still remained loyal to Demetrius I for some time, as argued above.

1 Cf. 1 Macc 6:48, 51–54 and War 1.46 of Antiochus V–Lysias late in 163. 2 In Ant. 13.43 Alexander is presented as if he were the first to have taken the initiative. Josephus’ inference seems to derive from the combination of both 1 Macc 10:15–17 and 10:46–47, for which he has no direct parallel. 3 So also Grabbe, Judaism, I, 294. 4 According to Goldstein, I Maccabees, 401, it fell on October 23 to 30. 5 So Stegemann, Entstehung, 250; Schunck, 1. Makkabäerbuch, 339; Grabbe, “Maccabean chronology,” 66–67; Schäfer, History, 52. 6 Ehling, Untersuchungen, 149, points to the summer of 152. This may be too late a date. For a discussion, see Walbank, Polybius, III, 42, 557, 560–61. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 143

On the other hand, Jochen G. Bunge thinks Jonathan’s appointment could not have occurred before the battle between Demetrius I and Alex- ander I (1 Macc 10:49–50).7 Jonathan would have remained loyal to Dem- etrius until 150, but without offering him any military aid. In 150, Jonathan had recourse to Alexander whom he bribed in order to obtain the high priesthood (cf. 10:59–66). The pro-Hasmonean author combined the year of the arrival of Alexander (10:1) with the month-date of Jonathan’s investiture (10:21). Bunge concludes that Jonathan was high priest for seven years as stated in Ant. 20.238, and not for “ten” as suggested by the chronological dates in First Maccabees. Bunge’s hypothesis does not stand up under scrutiny for several reasons. It is highly improbable that Jonathan remained loyal to Demetrius I for so long a time. His capture and fortification of the temple was by itself an act of disloyalty towards the king. Evidence for Jonathan’s switching of loyalties can be found in 1 Macc 10:3–5, 46–47, which is itself a kind of Hasmonean apology. Besides, Jonathan was closely watched by Alexander I and was surrounded by the king’s allies. By the middle of 150, most of the south-eastern Seleucid provinces had sided with Alexander, as attested in contemporary astronomical diaries and reported by Justin 35.1.9. The latest document from Uruk mentioning Demetrius I king is AO 17265 ´Rev.´ 26´–27´ and dates to the 1st of June, 151. The first mention of Alexander as king is made in BibMes 24 12 ´Rev.´ 15´ dating itself to April/May, 150. The last mention of Demetrius as king in Babylon is in AD 3 No. -149 A ´Rev.´ 1´–14´ and dates itself to June/July, 150. However, the same document also refers to Alexander as king.8 We shall pass to the remaining argument of Bunge that Jonathan was high priest for “seven years” as stated in Ant. 20.238. There seems to be some explanation as to why in Ant. 20.238—which has an independent historical value—it is said that Jonathan was high priest for “seven years.” In introducing the discussion, it is necessary to ask, how did the temple authorities and priesthood react to this appointment of Jonathan? The reference to “letters” in 1 Macc 10:17 may indicate that a copy of the letter reporting the appointment of Jonathan as archiereus (cf. 10:18–20) was also sent by Alexander I also to the temple authorities and the Akra officials. Such an act would have been a normal procedure since the Akra

7 “Geschichte,” 29–43. 8 See further Del Monte, TBE, 91–94, 242. 144 chapter six was the visible political symbol of the Seleucid dominion in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Macc 15:28). The appointment of Jonathan as archiereus is implicitly presented as a peaceful event. The language of 1 Macc 10:21, however, undermines such a depiction. Also, earlier 1 Macc 10:7–8 informed the reader that, at the appointment of Jonathan as military leader, the Akra felt threatened. The subsequent fortification of the temple area by Jonathan certainly increased fear among the temple authorities (cf. Ant. 13.42). But his appointment as archiereus must have become a major reason to fear Jonathan still. In addition, his apparently friendly relations with Alexander I could hardly be ignored. This sudden increase of power in the hands of Jonathan would have likely pushed the temple authorities to hope in the successful victory of Demetrius I. The non-acceptance of Jonathan as high priest was also connected with the rejection of the royal legitimacy of Alexander I. It is peculiar that Jose- phus preserved a record that Alexander ruled for five years (Ant. 13.119), instead of seven as suggested by First Maccabees and other sources. The first official encounter of the temple officials with Alexander and hence his recognition as legitimate king was—so it emerges—after the latter’s victory over Demetrius I in the war of the summer of 150 (1 Macc 10:61–64; cf. 10:48–50). This suggests that at least some of the temple authorities accepted Jonathan as high priest only two years after his appointment. The origin of the “seven years” in Ant. 20.238 can be explained as reflecting this situation. This aspect is also relevant when dealing with the tenure of Jonathan as high priest. According to the chronology in First Maccabees he was high priest for (a full) nine years, and not ten as assumed by Bunge. There was thus an intersacerdotium period of seven years according to the chronology of First Maccabees, and Josephus’ list of high priests in Ant. 20.237. One notes that contrary to Second and First Maccabees the list in Ant. 20.225–240 does not display a negative attitude towards the high priests Menelaus (Onias) and Alcimus (Jacimus). It does not contain a strictly pro-Jonathan or pro-Simon ideology either. One is prompted to think that the source upon which it is based reflected the viewpoint of those temple circles who accepted Jonathan as high priest only after the death of King Demetrius I. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 145

2. The Letters of Demetrius I and the archiereus of 1 Macc 10:32, 38

First Maccabees 10:22–25a relates that Demetrius I wrote a (second) letter—after the first one mentioned in 10:3 (cf. 10:7). Its text is reproduced in 1 Macc 10:25–45. The relationship between these letters and the use of the term archiereus in 10:32, 38 are both relevant issues for an understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. It is necessary to go back to Bunge’s reconstruction first. The author, in fact, claims that there was only one letter sent by Demetrius I, namely the one alluded to in 1 Macc 10:3, 7, but which corresponds to the text in 1 Macc 10:25–45. There would be parallels between Jonathan’s actions in 1 Macc 10:7–11 and 10:25–45. Since the context of the second letter dates it to the year 152 (cf. 10:1), the high priest in 10:32, 38 could not have been Jonathan because Bunge argues that Jonathan became archiereus in 150. Therefore, the person in question was the acting high priest whom Jona- than expelled, and whom Bunge and other scholars identified with the Teacher of Righteousness.9 There are two fundamental questions to be answered: To whom was the second letter of Demetrius I addressed? Who was the archiereus of 1 Macc 10:32, 38?

2.1. An Anonymous High Priest at the Time of Jonathan? As claimed above, Jonathan’s appointment as archiereus should be dated to 152, as indicated by 1 Macc 10:21. Following Bunge instead, one has to admit that Demetrius I sent no letter to Jonathan. Such an inference undermines even more the author’s historical reconstruction. Can 1 Macc 10:25–45 be the text of the letter alluded to in 1 Macc 10:3, 7? Several elements prove the contrary. According to 1 Macc 10:6, Jonathan was to be an ally of Demetrius I, could recruit troops and manufacture arms and received hostages from the Akra. Instead, 1 Macc 10:36–37 speaks of the enrollment of up to 30,000 Jews in the royal army, some of whom were to be stationed in the king’s major fortresses. There were also Jew- ish rulers to be appointed, but no mention of Jonathan is made. The text itself presupposes that the Jewish captives in any part of the kingdom be set free (10:33), but the Akra is not mentioned. By assuming—as Bunge

9 For details, see “Geschichte,” 29–43. 146 chapter six did—that all these concessions were made to a high priest who acted in Jerusalem down to 150, one can hardly imagine how Jonathan could overthrow such a powerful (military) leader. Then does 1 Macc 10:32, 38 refer to Jonathan? Thus, Édouard Will asserted that Demetrius I gave Jonathan “tous les privilèges conférés jadis par Antiochos III . . . concéda des agrandissements territoriaux.”10 First, Will paid little attention to the edict in 2 Macc 11:22–26, in which it was Antiochus V who had restored much of the rights granted by Antiochus III (cf. Ant. 12.138–144), but was later withdrawn by Antiochus IV (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–50). Second, the immediate context of 1 Macc 10:25b-45 (10:22–25a, 46–47) and the present order of the narrated events (cf. 10:18–20) suggest Jonathan as the implied addressee. As the following observations will make it clear, Will’s judgment is uncritically based on this text:

1. In 1 Macc 10:25 the ethnos is mentioned but not Jonathan. 2. In 1 Macc 10:47 Alexander I is the originator of “peaceful words” to Jon- athan’s party. This contradicts the initial statement in 1 Macc 10:3 that it was Demetrius I who wrote (first) to Jonathan. 3. In 1 Macc 10:22–23 Demetrius blames his chancellery for having allowed Alexander to go ahead by establishing friendship with Jonathan. Again, it appears to be in clear contradiction with 1 Macc 10:4. 4. In 1 Macc 10:26 Demetrius still praises the Jews for their loyalty. 5. There are other difficulties like the internal arrangement of the second letter and the nature of the concessions in 1 Macc 10:29–45. 6. The assumption that the archiereus referred to in 1 Macc 10:32, 38 was Jonathan would entail that Demetrius legitimized Jonathan’s appointment as archiereus previously made by Alexander.

Without considering the objections raised by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor as to the question of the authenticity of the purported letter in 1 Macc 10:25–45 (see below), Hanan Eshel argued that originally this letter of Demetrius I—which Eshel dates to 152—contained the name of the high priest who acted before Jonathan. His name would have been deleted during the composition of First Maccabees.11 One, however, wonders why was this name not recorded also in 1 Macc 10:32, 38 instead of the title of archiereus? Also, how does one explain that

10 Histoire, II, 315. 11 Dead Sea Scrolls, 55. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 147 this name would have been deleted in 1 Macc 10:25, while the title is left intact in 1 Macc 10:32, 38? The mention or not of a high priest in the heading of a royal letter depended on specific circumstances. If it was intended specifically for a high priest, his name would be often included (cf. 1 Macc 12:20//Ant. 12.225 of Onias III; 1 Macc 11:30//Ant. 13.126 of Jonathan, passim). But when in 2 Macc 11:27–33 Antiochus IV addressed “the gerousia of the Jews” the king mentioned Menelaus in the main body of the letter but without his official title. The omission of a high priest in 1 Macc 10:25 is best understood in terms of the lack of such figure at the time. To enforce this view, it is necessary to have a closer look at the contents of 1 Macc 10:25–45, and consequently test the authenticity of the announced letter.

2.2. The Letter of Demetrius I and the Question of Its Authenticity Already Elias J. Bickerman judged 1 Macc 10:25–45 as “obscur et peut-être corrompu,” but the author did not offer any detailed analysis.12 Instead, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, while he criticized some of Bunge’s results, basically agreed that there was only one letter of Demetrius I in 1 Macc 10, but which antedated the nomination of Jonathan as archiereus. He observed that there are evident contradictions and difficulties in 10:25–45 which question the letter’s genuineness. Thus, in 1 Macc 10:31 the inviolability is extended to the entirety of Jeru- salem; in 1 Macc 10:43 this privilege seems to be limited to the temple and its precincts. The concession of the Akra (10:32) and of Ptolemais (10:39) to Jerusalem authorities Murphy-O’Connor judged as improbable. Instead, the annexation of the three districts from Samaria to Judea (10:38) the author accepted as authentic. Having also compared 1 Macc 10:25–45 with the edicts of Antiochus III in Ant. 12.138–153, Murphy-O’Connor concluded that most of the impersonal section style is genuine (1 Macc 10:31, 34–38, 41–42, 44–45); it begins with Jerusalem and ends with its restoration; the “I” singular style is the work of the Hasmonean redactor (10:29–30, 32–33, 39–40, 43). First Maccabees 10:38 is genuine, while the high priest to which it refers became the later Teacher of Righteousness.13 Murphy-O’Connor convincingly argues that the reported transfer of the Akra to the Jewish high priest in 1 Macc 10:32 would entail that the king granted Judea independence, which was not the case for another decade

12 Institutions, 180. 13 For details, see “Demetrius I,” 413–17, 419. 148 chapter six

(cf. 1 Macc 11:20; 13:49–52). Furthermore, this independence never came as a royal gift. Even after Simon had occupied the Akra in 141, it was later asserted as a royal property by Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129) through his messenger Athenobius (cf. 15:28). Other elements also question the authenticity of the letter as a whole. The statement in 1 Macc 10:32 that the archiereus should place his people so as to guard the Akra, is unreliable. First, the Akra housed royal military colonists already. Second, the assumption is that the alleged archiereus retained military power. This aspect seems to reappear in 1 Macc 10:36–37 which speaks of enrollment of Jews in the royal army. But how does one explain that Jonathan—and not this archiereus—was given permission by Demetrius I to recruit troops? Nor can the number of 30,000 Jewish soldiers in 1 Macc 10:36 be accurate. As Israel Shatzman observes, “Demetrius’ offer is almost twice as much as the highest number (16,000) of mercenaries known to have been ever employed by the Seleucid kings.”14 Also, such a number would come close to half of any known Hellenistic army.15 Furthermore, it implies that there were far more Jews able to fight in Judea. Later, Jonathan is said to have had 10,000 troops. The number might be still too high. However, in case of a war Jonathan’s army certainly included temporary recruits (10:74; cf. also 11:44).16 But there is another exaggeration. How could Demetrius I promise Ptolemais with its environments (1 Macc 10:39), where Alexander I was ruling as king (cf. 10:1)?17 Or did Demetrius assume that Jonathan alone was capable of defeating Alexander? To be sure, Ptolemais never became part of the Hasmonean controlled territory. Also the reference to the three districts of Samaria “and Galilee” having been annexed to Judea in 1 Macc 10:38 is hardly reliable.18 The three districts were probably Lydda, Ramathaim and Aphairema (11:34). Their incorporation into the Judean province would have been, first of all, in the interest of the Hasmoneans.19 Indeed, a few years later Jonathan would

14 Armies, 28–29. See also Polyb. 30.25. 15 Armies, 30, 34. Cf. however, Str. 12.8.11. 16 Armies, 28. 17 Later on, Tryphon promised Jonathan that he would hand over Ptolemais to him, but which Tryphon controlled (1 Macc 12:44–45). 18 See also Smith, Palestinian Parties, 199. The expression καὶ Γαλιλαίας in 1 Macc 10:30 can hardly stem from the Seleucid chancellery. On the possible administrative status of Galilee, see briefly Leibner, Settlement, 315–16. 19 On the location of Modein, see here p. 38. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 149 ask King Demetrius II to exempt them from tribute offering 300 talents to the king (1 Macc 11:28). But neither Bunge nor Murphy-O’Connor accepted that the implied archiereus in 1 Macc 10:38 was Jonathan. Had Demetrius I given these districts to the Jerusalem high priest, why would have Alexan- der I taken them away later from Jonathan? Further, based on 1 Macc 10:29–31, 34–36 and 43, Demetrius I exempted the Jewish ethnos from paying (almost) all forms of tribute. In addition, in 1 Macc 10:40–42, 44–45 the king appears to have provided Jewish authorities with numerous financial grants. This picture hardly fits into a time of impending war. No Seleucid king actually made so many concessions, not even Antiochus III (Ant. 12.138–146) or Demetrius II (1 Macc 13:36–40). Demetrius I, just like Alexander I, struggled for the maintenance of as much tax control as possible. Last but not least, 1 Macc 10:31 and 43 allude to the inviolability of the temple. According to Kent J. Rigsby who studied this phenomenon in the Greco–Roman world, it is “improbable” that “at so early a date” the Jerusa- lem temple was given this privilege. The author, in fact, regards the letter of 1 Macc 10:25–45 as a later “patriotic fiction.”20 Notwithstanding, certain parts of 1 Macc 10:25–45 are valuable for studying the religious, economic and political life of the Seleucid Judea. For example, the reference to military recruits in 1 Macc 10:36–37 gives some circumstantial evidence that, in fact, Jonathan and his recruits officially became part of the royal forces. The purported letter also provides an important list of taxes that had to be paid to the Seleucid king, before Judea became independent in 129.21

2.3. A Letter of Demetrius I Addressed to the Jewish ethnos? Jerome Murphy-O’Connor is probably correct in claiming that “[n]othing in the form . . . suggests that [1 Macc 10:25–28] might be inauthentic.”22 The “we” style predominates in this text. As a whole, it has the characteristics of being based on a genuine letter. Several factors can be brought in support of this:

20 For details, see Asylia, 528–31. 21 On this list of taxes, see Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 69–70, passim. 22 “Demetrius I,” 418. On p. 419, Murphy O’Connor hypothesizes that 1 Macc 10:25–28 might have been originally a letter brought to Jerusalem, and which was followed by a negotiation process. 150 chapter six

1. The letter begins with Demetrius I’s greeting of the Jewish ethnos (1 Macc 10:25), and ends with the king’s exhortation to remain loyal in view of future rewards (10:27–28).23 There is instead no epistolary ending in or after 1 Macc 10:45. 2. Both 1 Macc 10:22–24 and 10:46–47 clearly stem from the hand of the pro-Hasmonean author. The very fact that it contradicts the reported praise of the Jewish loyalty on the part of Demetrius I in 10:26–27 is a sign that at least this text does not belong to the same author. 3. Jonathan’ name does not appear in 1 Macc 10:25–28 (cf. 10:3); cf. Ant. 13.48. 4. Unlike in 1 Macc 10:32, 38, there is no mention of an archiereus in 1 Macc 10:25. 5. The praise of the Jews for not having gone over to the side of Dem- etrius I’s enemies in 1 Macc 10:26 fits the historical circumstances between 152–150, here discussed. Since the author of 1 Macc 10:46 reports that Jonathan and his people “did not trust” Demetrius, it likely refers to the period prior to the defection of Jonathan.24 If so, the latter was very probably still part of the implied group of addressees.

Therefore, while 1 Macc 10:25b-28 may stem from the chancellery of Dem- etrius I, the mention of archiereus in 1 Macc 10:32, 38 cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a (official) high priest in 152. Finally, why would the pro-Hasmonean author have wanted to quote the letter of Demetrius I (1 Macc 10:25–28) after that of Alexander I (cf. 10:18–20)? As it stands now, the reader is induced to believe that the whole of 1 Macc 10:25–45 had been addressed to Jonathan and his men, as if they were the (only) official representatives of the ethnos (cf. 10:22–25, 46–47). This is how Josephus interpreted it in Ant. 13.48//1 Macc 10:25 and Ant. 13.51//1 Macc 10:32. The historian, in fact, has the king addressing “Jon- athan and the Jewish ethnos.”25 Further, the present collocation of 1 Macc 10:25–45 leads one to believe that Demetrius—whose royal legitimacy was likely accepted by many temple authorities—implicitly, confirmed the high priesthood of Jonathan granted by King Alexander (cf. 11:27, 57).

23 Originally, in between 1 Macc 10:26 and 10:27 there may have been listed some concessions. 24 However, more analysis would be needed than has been offered heretofore. 25 Josephus, however, does not mention Jonathan’s name at Ant 13.54//1 Macc 10:38. VanderKam, From Joshua, 254–55, suggests that Demetrius I “perhaps hinted . . . at placing someone else in the high priestly office,” but the author does not discuss this issue any further. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 151

3. The Appointment of Jonathan as archiereus and Its Implications

The fundamental question which lies at the basis of the present study is the following: In what specific sense was Jonathan appointed to act as high priest by King Alexander I? Was Jonathan appointed to act as a traditional biblical/Jewish or as a Hellenistic/Seleucid high priest? Uriel Rappaport, among others, asserts that “from a legal point of view,” the appointment of Jonathan was “similar” to that of the pre-Hasmonean high priests Jason, Menelaus or Alcimus.26 The intent is to concentrate rather on the nature of Jonathan’s appointment as archiereus. One way of doing so is by studying the various powers of Jonathan in comparison with those of the pre-Hasmonean high priests. Another way is by comparison with the available Hellenistic/Seleucid sources on the appointment of archiereis. In order to achieve the desired goal, it is necessary first to analyze in detail the aforementioned royal letter in 1 Macc 10:18–20. The text of the letter can be divided up into four parts:

Greeting: “King Alexander to [his] Brother (ἀδελφός) Jonathan, greeting.” Motivation for writing: “we have heard about you that you are a mighty man and worthy to be our Friend (φίλος).” Nomination: “and now we have appointed (καθεστάκαμεν) you today archiereus of your ethnos and you shall be called King’s Friend”27—and he sent him a purple and a golden crown— Condition: “and you are to take our side and preserve friendship with us.”

The present letter—like certain others in First Maccabees—had likely undergone two translations: from Greek into Hebrew, and then back into Greek. The “we” style—characteristic of many Seleucid letters— predominates the whole letter.28 Part A containing the greeting formula is characteristic of the official Hellenistic letters.29 Part D of the letter seems to have been shortened (cf. 1 Macc 10:26–27). It may have included some regulations. No mention of the future status of the Seleucid Akra is made. However, sometimes royal letters were accompanied by oral clarifications

26 “1 Maccabees,” 726. Cf. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 236–39. 27 The verb used is indicative perfect active of καθίστημι. On the performative character of a royal letter, see Ma, “Seleukids,” 92–95. 28 Cf. the Olympiodorus inscription and the letters in 2 Macc 11:17–33. 29 On headings in official Hellenistic letters, see Exler, Form, 50–52. 152 chapter six from the (royal) carriers.30 The text is also broken by the author’s recording of the insignia sent to Jonathan. This letter had been written in the context of an impending war, probably ad hoc. Hence, it did not necessarily follow all the established rules for the Seleucid royal correspondence.31 The decision to appoint Jonathan as archiereus did not necessarily take into full account the existing tradition of appointing high priests in Jerusalem. First Maccabees 10:18–20 has the appearance of an official royal notification/offer to Jonathan. The author of First Maccabees provides no comment. No eulogy or decree is recorded and no reference to the descent of Jonathan from Jehoiarib is made (cf. 2:1–5; 14:29).

3.1. Jonathan as “Brother” and “Friend” of King Alexander I Balas Jörg-Dieter Gauger refutes the authenticity of most of the documents in 1–2 Maccabees. He argues that the use of adelphos in 1 Macc 10:18 was drawn from 1 Macc 11:30. The author uses this as his main proof that the whole letter is not based on an authentic document.32 To be sure, Jona- than was in a far more privileged position under Alexander I than he was later under Demetrius II. The study of the circumstances which led the royal chancellery to write this letter point to the need for Alexander to build up a new hierarchy as counterpart to that of Demetrius I. Jonathan had much to propose to Alexander, who seems to have cared little about what titles were offered in exchange. The very fact that Jonathan accepted the high priesthood from Alexan- der I means he acknowledged the latter’s royal authority (cf. 1 Macc 10:1; 10:15; but cf. 10:3, 22). However, the question is why did Alexander not appoint Jonathan simply as archiereus without conferring him also the title of philos? Also, why is Jonathan addressed as adelphos? Was all this part of the Hellenistic procedure at the time of the appointing of a Jewish high priest in the pre-Hasmonean period? It is necessary, therefore, to focus first on these two terms. King Alexander I addresses Jonathan as “Brother” (1 Macc 10:18). Later on, Jonathan would be addressed again by the same appellative, but this

30 On postal service in antiquity, see White, Ancient Letters, 214–17. On the material used for writing, see Trapp, Letters, 6–11. 31 On a letter’s genre and literary style, see Welles, RC, xli–l. The formula “A to B χαίρειν” often supposed ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε, or its derivative (cf. 2 Macc 11:28.33). See Exler, Form, 70–71; Trapp, Letters, 34–35. 32 See further Beiträge, 117–24. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 153 time by King Demetrius II (1 Macc 11:30). In the like manner, King Seleucus IV addressed his chief minister Heliodorus with the appellative “Brother” (SEG 57.1838 l. 13). Heliodorus in turn used it in his letter to Dorymenes (l. 7), who may have been the strategos of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia.33 The latter, however, did not use this appellative when writing to Diophanes, who was a local official for Idumea or Maresha. In a letter dated to 163, King Antiochus V addresses his protégé Lysias as “Brother” (2 Macc 11:22). In another letter from 109, King Antiochus IX addresses Ptolemy X of Egypt as “Brother” (OGIS 257). Another early 1st c. inscription from Cilicia refers to a certain archiereus Zenas as ἀδελφὸς τῶν βασιλέων (SEG 26.1451). These few examples illustrate how the term adelphos was used in diplomatic circles as an honorific appellative, similar to patēr (cf. Ant. 12.148; 1 Macc 11:32).34 Its usage by a sovereign meant that the addressed subject was in a preferential relationship. The importance of Jonathan’s new position vis-à-vis King Alexander I is further corroborated by the adoption of the term philos in 1 Macc 10:18. After a quick inquiry the royal chancellery decided that Jonathan was reportedly “worthy” to be called the king’s Friend (φίλων βασιλέως; 10:20; cf. φίλον καὶ σύμμαχον in 10:16). This term began to first be used as a title to include a king’s close court people, and later those who were becoming his political and military allies. Among them there were military commanders, administrative officials, (high) priests, and judges.35 Thus, according to 2 Macc 8:9, Nicanor son of Patroclus was one of the First Friends (τῶν πρώτων φίλων) of Anti- ochus IV. In 1 Macc 3:38 instead, the military commanders Ptolemy son of Dorymenes, Nicanor and Gorgias are described as ἄνδρες δυνατοὶ τῶν φίλων τοῦ βασιλέως. They were royal military officials, just as Jonathan was later. Also Bacchides, with whom Jonathan concluded a peace treaty in 157, was a royal Friend but of Demetrius I. There are also examples where the title of Friend or First Friend appears to have preceded that of archiereus. In an inscription from the area of Pamukçu in Mysia dated to 209, Nicanor who was appointed archiereus over the cis-Tauric region is referred to as Friend of Antiochus III

33 Ἠλιοδώρος Δορυμένει τῶι ἀδελφῶι χαίρειν/ Βασιλεὺς Σέλευκος Ἠλιοδώρωι τῶι ἀδελφῶι χαίρειν (SEG 57.1838 ll. 7, 13). 34 See Corradi, Studi, 337–39; Bickerman, Institutions, 43, 45, 19; Muccioli, “Crisi,” 255– 57, passim. 35 See Corradi, Studi, 325; Bickerman, Institutions, 40–41, 189; Mooren, “Institutions,” 574; Le Bohec, “Philoi,” 93–124; Muccioli, “Crisi,” 259–62. 154 chapter six

(SEG 37.1010 ll. 18–20).36 In another inscription dated to 189, Antiochus III required that the holder of the high priesthood (τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης) in Daphne be ἀνδρὸς φίλου (OGIS 244 l. 24). The expression seems to be used in a technical sense but certainty is not sure.37 Also Olympiodorus was introduced into the rank of the First Friends of Seleucus IV before being apparently appointed archiereus of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia in 178 (SEG 57.1838 ll. 32–33).38 As a rule, those who were named king’s Friends were closely related to the royal chancellery and trusted officials of the king himself. Jonathan was appointed archiereus and at the same time was elevated in rank by entering the circle of the Friends of Alexander I. It is necessary now to closely investigate the significance of Jonathan’s appointment as archiereus in relation to the ethnos of the Jews, and in comparison with other Hellenistic archiereis.

3.2. The archiereus Jonathan and Other Hellenistic archiereis The appointment of Jonathan as archiereus of the ethnos in Part C of the royal letter in 1 Macc 10:18–20 is indeed peculiar. The ethnos was the juridical status of the Jews, which was restored by Antiochus V in 163 (2 Macc 11:24–25). As suggested in this study, Jewish ethnos probably also included neighboring Jewish communities around the borders of Judea, who felt attached to the Jerusalem temple. Some examples of high/chief priests from other parts of the Hellenistic world better clarify the position of Jonathan and his successors. One good example is the (high) priests of Zeus temple-state in Olba. Strabo refers to these (high) priests in the line of Teucer as δυνάσται ruling over the Rough Cilicia (14.5.10).39 Their rule appears to have covered the period from the early 3d c. down to the early Roman Imperial period. Theodora S. MacKay claims that by the 2d c. the Teucerian high priests adopted “the outward forms of a Hellenistic ruler on the Seleucid model.”40 Ulrich Gotter also states that the rule of the Olbian (high) priests “resembled the monarchial

36 Malay, “Letter,” 7–15. On Nicanor and his powers, see Ma, Antiochos III, 145–47, and especially, Müller, “Hellenistische Archiereus,” 528–34. 37 See also Welles, RC, No. 44. 38 See further Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 129, 132. 39 Most of these high priests were called either Teucer or Ajax. 40 “Major Sanctuaries,” 2087. MacKay also speaks of local priests “who adopted Greek customs.” See also Boffo, Re, 44. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 155 regimes in Hellenistic states.”41 Gotter also notes that the Teucerian (high) priests in Olbia—unlike those in Cappadocia and Pontus—were not appointed by the monarchs. It does seem that the Seleucid control in this area was of limited nature. Laura Boffo further remarks that the increasing power of the Teucerian high priests went hand in hand with the process of Hellenization. Thus Kai Trampedach pointed out that the wars for the Seleucid throne even more favored the strengthening of the Olbian high priestly dynasty.42 MacKay even suggests that Zenophanes, who appears on some inscriptions as one of the Olbian high priests, may have been the same Zenophanes who helped Alexander Balas to recruit troops (Diod. 31.32a).43 The evidence of a Hellenistic fortification system seems to point to the military role exerted by at least some Olbian high priests.44 Later on, some Olbian high priests were also named adelphoi of the Seleucid kings (SEG 26.1451–1453), just like Jonathan was. Furthermore, some of them struck coins in their own name, just like some later Hasmonean high priests did. Like the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Janneus, the Olbian high priests became in time both high priests and kings.45 Another important example is a certain archiereus Attis. In the seven preserved letters from the years 163–156, he emerges as the head of the Cybele temple-state at Pessinous in Galatia (see OGIS 315).46 It also emerges that the Attalid Kings Eumenes II and Attalus II dealt directly with this archiereus in political and military matters. Like with the Olbian high priests, Strabo refers to the (high) priests in Pessinous as δυνάσται (12.5.3). As Biagio Virgilio has shown, the role of the archiereus Attis—as well as of other archiereis in Pessinous—involved both religious and civil powers.47 Like the Hasmonean high priestly dynasty, the dynasty of the high priests at Pessinous survived into the 1st c. b.c.e. (Str. 12.5.3). Somewhat different but no less relevant is the case of the (high) priest of Ma of the temple-state of Cappadocian Comana. According to Strabo, he was δεύτερος κατὰ τιμὴν ἐν τῇ Καππαδοκίᾳ μετὰ τὸν βασιλέα. Strabo specifies that “considerable territory” belonged to the temple, while the

41 “Priests,” 102. The term archiereus is attested from at least the late 2d c. 42 “Tempel,” 274–75. 43 “Major Sanctuaries,” 2088. See earlier also L. Boffo, Re, 45. 44 See also Boffo, Re, 44–45; MacKay, “Major Sanctuaries,” 2083–85. 45 See Boffo, Re, 46, who dates this reform to the early Roman period. 46 See also Welles, RC, Nos. 55–61. 47 For a detailed study, see his Pessinunte, passim. 156 chapter six revenue is enjoyed by the (high) priest (12.2.3).48 Strabo also refers to the (high) priest of the temple of Morimene as the “second in rank” after the (high) priest of Commana in Cappadocia Magna. He too is said to have enjoyed the revenue of the temple territory (12.2.6). Both were (high) priests for life.49 Further, Strabo refers to the (high) priest of Ma of Pontic Commana.50 The geographer states that this (high) priest too was “second in honour after the king.” Twice a year during the festival of Ma he also wore a diadem (12.3.32). Some of the high priests were clearly royal officials, and exercised powers that went beyond religious affairs.51 In the aforementioned inscription, one reads that Antiochus III appointed (ἀποδεδείχαμεν) Nicanor at the latter’s request as “archiereus of all the temples” (ἀρχιερέα τῶν ἱερῶν πάντων) in the cis-Tauric region (SEG 37.1010 ll. 31–32).52 Elsewhere, Antiochus III refers to a former appointment (see ἀποδεδείχαμεν) of the archiereus of the temples of Apollo and Artemis “Daitttai” and of the other temples whose precincts are located in Daphne (OGIS 244 ll. 21–24, 28–29).53 This (retired) archiereus had jurisdiction over all the temples in Daphne. It appears that Olympiodorus too was appointed archiereus in 178 over the temples of Koile-Syria and Pho enicia by Seleucus IV, as argued plausibly by Dov Gera and others.54 The name of the archiereus Nicanor (see above) reappears on a later inscription from Sardis in Lydia. It is a petition to the successor of Nica- nor in the high priestly office, Euthydemus.55 A (high) priest of Apollo in Pleura (Pergamum) asked this new royal archiereus for permission to set up a stela in the temple (SEG 46.1519). This example shows how a (high) priest of a local temple had to appeal to the archiereus over the satrapy.56

48 Here, Strabo reports there were more than 6,000 temple servants (cf. 12.3.34), and that the (high) priests belonged to the same family as the kings (12.2.3). See further Volk mann, “Zweite nach dem König,” 285–316. 49 The Romans appear to have kept the established Hellenistic traditions by appointing as high priests local military leaders. See, for instance, Strabo 12.8.9. 50 See Olshausen, “König,” 187–212. Strabo himself claimed descent on his mother’s line from a high priestly family of the Pontic Comana (10.4.10; 12.3.33), just like Josephus claimed to descend from the Hasmonean high priestly family. 51 On other archiereis with state powers, see Robert, Noms, 436–38 with n 7; Debord, Aspects, 54–58, 272; Dignas, Economy, 227–29. For Gotter, “Priests,” 94–100, the definition “temple-state” is appropriate only in certain cases. 52 See also Boffo, Iscrizioni, No. 5. 53 Welles, RC, No. 44; Jalabert and Mouterde, IGLS III/2, No. 992. 54 “Olympiodoros,” 136–38, 149; Jones, “Inscription,” 104. 55 Ma, Antiochos III, No. 49; Müller, “Hellenistische Archiereus,” 519–23. 56 See further Dignas, Economy, 50–52. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 157

In similar matters the same procedure had to be followed by at least some pre-Hasmonean high priests. Jonathan, however, by becoming philos of King Alexander I, became a member of the royal hierarchy. Based on available sources, no pre- Hasmonean high priest of the Hellenistic period held a royal court title. This study, therefore, argues that the appointment of Jonathan to the high priesthood was intended in the Hellenistic sense. Chris Seeman correctly states that “[f ]rom a Seleucid perspective, the king was not proposing an entirely new concept of high priesthood.”57 However, Jonathan’s status as archiereus was unique in the history of the Jewish high priesthood. It implied a strong political connotation, similar to that of other archiereis in Hellenistic states. In addition, Jonathan had official military power and was at the command troops. Most of the remaining discussion will deal with this important aspect regarding the Hellenization of the high priesthood in Jerusalem.

3.3. The archiereus Jonathan and His High Priestly Vestments That Alexander I had a Hellenistic perception of Jonathan’s appointment to the high priesthood seems to be confirmed by the sending of the purple and golden crown to the Hasmonean leader (1 Macc 10:20). The scholarly consensus is, however, divided between considering these items a Helle- nistic high priestly dress,58 or an insignia of a Friend,59 or both.60 Purple was, first of all, a royal color. In time it began to be shared by the royal court’s high ranking officials, and later, also by royal cult (high) priests/priestesses.61 According to Hartmut Blum, Jonathan and later Simon “erhielten die πορφύρα eindeutig als Zeichen für die Zugehörigkeit zu einer königlichen Rangklasse.”62 But Blum follows those scholars who argue that the mention of purple in 1 Macc 10:20 is a gloss. This assumption is based on the fact that later Alexander I would dress Jonathan in purple (10:62). However, there Jonathan was included in the ranks of the First Friends of the king.

57 Rome and Judea, 150. 58 So Bickerman, Institutions, 253; Abel, Maccabées, 183; Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 400. 59 So Grimm, Erste Maccabäer, 150; Keil, Makkabäer, 170. 60 For instance, Dancy, I Maccabees, 142. 61 For details, see Blum, Purpur, 268–73. 62 Purpur, 229, 227 n 171. In 2 Macc 4:38, Andronicus was reportedly stripped off the purple cloth before being executed at the order of Antiochus IV. 158 chapter six

An instructive example comes from Athenaeus (2d/3d c. c.e.). He recorded a banquet at the court of Alexander I, during which the king was asked by an Epicurean philosopher from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, by the name Diogenes, to wear a purple and golden crown, and so become “the (high) priest” of the god Aretes. The king granted this honor without delay (5.211a–b).63 This is evidence of the Hellenistic/Seleucid high priestly dress.64 It also sheds light on the method followed by Alexander in appointing high priests in his kingdom. By accepting the Hellenistic high priestly items Jonathan publicly acknowledged the royal authority of Alexander I over Judea, over the Jerusalem temple and over the high priestly office. Jonathan thus agreed to act as Hellenistic/Seleucid archiereus over the Jewish ethnos on behalf of the Seleucid king. He had some religious authority apparently also over those Jews who lived outside Judea but associated themselves with the Jerusalem temple. However, according to 1 Macc 10:21, Jonathan put on “the sacred vestments” (τὴν ἁγίαν στολὴν). Mathias Delcor and other scholars plausibly argue that although there is an apparent resemblance between what Jona- than received and the traditional Jewish high priestly vestments, one cannot confuse them.65 Indeed, the author of 1 Macc 10:21 would have hardly referred to the Hellenistic items as “sacred.” “The sacred vestments” in 1 Macc 10:21 instead remind one of the cultic equipment of the Jewish high priest described in Exod 28, 29:4–7, 39:1–32 and Lev 8:7–9. They reflected in part the royal dressing of the pre-exilic Judean kings and were manufactured from gold, blue, purple and crim- son yarn and fine linen (cf. Ant. 3.159; m. Yoma 7:5).66 Later descriptions of the high priestly vestments attest to slight variations, but still reflect the main elements found in the Torah (cf. Sir 45:7–12; Wis 18:24; 11QTa

63 See Blum, Purpur, 231. Diogenes was executed later by Antiochus VI. 64 In 204 b.c.e., a certain Berenice was appointed high priestess for the cult of the queen Laodice in Phrygia (or Caria), and was supposed to wear golden crowns (στεφάνους χρουσοῦς; OGIS 224 l. 14). On other evidence of golden crowns sometimes bearing the image of the king, see Welles, RC, Nos. 36/37. 65 “L’investiture,” 159. 66 The Jewish high priestly vestments were correlated in material, manufacture and color with the temple’s inner court (cf. Exod 39:1). There are two definitions of the (high) Exod 28:2, 4; Lev 16:4), and ;בגדי־קדש) ”priestly vestments in the HB: “sacred vestments Exod 29:29; 31:10). For further details and some ;בגדי הקדש) ”vestments of the sanctuary“ terminological problems, see Haran, Temples, 165–74. The wording in 1 Macc 10:21 is, how ever, unique in the LXX. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 159 lviii 18–21; Let. Aris. 96–99; Philo, Mos. 2.109–135; Spec. 1.82–97).67 Also Josephus provides descriptions that closely resemble the Torah texts (e.g. War 5.230–235).68 The author of 1 Macc 10:21 distinguishes thus between “the sacred vestments” which Jonathan donned and the Hellenistic high priestly insignia in 1 Macc 10:20. Jonathan’s donning of “the sacred vestments” was the first cultic implementation of his appointment to the high priestly office. This indicates that Jonathan and his loyalists believed he had valid royal appointment and that he could legitimately act as high priest in line with the biblical/Jewish tradition. When and how did this manifestation of Jonathan as Jewish high priest occur?

3.4. The archiereus Jonathan and the Feast of Tabernacles There is no date attached to the letter in 1 Macc 10:18–20.69 Some scholars wonder why Jonathan put on the sacred vestments not on the Day of Atonement (on the 10th of the 7th month), when the presence of a high priest was mostly needed, but on the Feast of Tabernacles (the 15th of the 7th month). Solomon Zeitlin even suggested that this could be due to the fact that the royal letter arrived too late.70 The Day of Atonement ritual went on for one day;71 the Feast of Tab- ernacles for seven days; and concluded with a sacred assembly.72 During this festival all the priestly courses and the Israelite males were required to appear before YHWH.73 According to Menahem Haran, it was a pilgrimage feast “par excellence.”74 For Jeffrey L. Rubenstein it was instead

67 See also m. Yoma 7. 68 On the Jewish high priestly vestments as expression of political power (in Josephus), see Gussmann, Priesterverständnisse, 395–409. 69 This was often the case with copies of the letters and sometimes even with the origi nals. See Exler, Form, 98. 70 Rise, I, 125. 71 On the Day of Atonement ritual, see Exod 25:9; 30:10; Lev 16; 23:26–32; Num 29:7–11; 11QTa xxv 10–xxvii 10; Philo, Spec. 1.186–188; Jos., Ant. 3.240–243; m. Yoma. For a presenta tion, see Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact, 28–33. 72 See Lev 23:34–36; Deut 16:13–15; Neh 8:14–18; 11QTa xxvii–xxix; xlii; John 7:2; m. Suk kah. See also Budd, Leviticus, 325–30. 73 See Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16. On priestly courses, see 1 Chr 24:7–18; Ant. 13.372– 373; m. Sukk. 5:7. 74 Temples, 298, 305, passim. 160 chapter six an appropriate occasion for Jonathan to publicly introduce himself and demonstrate his religious authority.75 The fact is that the Torah does not single out any particular feast on which “Aaron”—the prototype of the (post-exilic) high priesthood—was supposed to wear “the sacred vestments.”76 Also, there was no specific assignment to a high priest for the Feast of Tabernacles. This equally applied to the two other major pilgrimage feasts, namely the Feast of Pass- over and the Feast of Harvest.77 By the time of Josephus the Jewish high priest appears to have worn “the sacred vestments” only on these three major festivals (Ant. 18.94; cf. Lev 23:34).78 Indeed, this practice might go back to the Hasmoneans. The point is that the Day of Atonement ritual required that the high priestly vestments be manufactured entirely of linen (Lev 16:4, 23, 32).79 Therefore, one must look for another explanation as to why, and what kind of sacred vestments did Jonathan don on the Feast of Tabernacles. Deborah W. Rooke contributed in a new way to the discussion. The author suggests that given the closeness between the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, “Jonathan’s inauguration to his high priestly duties was in fact at the Day of Atonement.”80 Rooke soon admitted that the chronological note in 1 Macc 10:21 is rather a vague reference (cf. 4:52, 59; 13:51; 14:27). However, her mention of “inauguration” of the high priest deserves further attention. Following Exod 29:35 and Lev 8:33–36 the consecration of a high priest had to go on for seven days. Exodus 40:1 seems to suggest that it had to be done on the first of Nissan. Thus, in Exod 40:12–13 Moses is commanded by YHWH to bring Aaron in front of the Tent of the Meeting, wash him, then anoint“ ,(בגדי־הקדש) ”clothe him with “the vestments of the sanctuary ,For the latter rite .(קדשת אתו) ”and “consecrate him ,(משחת אתו) ”him

75 History, 63–64. 76 On the prerogatives of the high priest, see Haran, Temples, 208–15. 77 On these feasts, see Haran, Temples, 290–300. 78 Later on, the high priestly vestments became a real political instrument, first of Herod the Great and his son Archelaus, and then under Romans down to 37 c.e., when Vitellius—after removing the high priest Caiaphas—placed them back under the custody of the temple priests (Ant. 18.91–95; cf. 20.6–14). See also Ant. 18.90–95 on the high priestly vestments of Hyrcanus I. 79 Haran, Temples, 173–74. On p. 291 the author noted how the Day of Atonement is ”.feast“—חג never referred to as a 80 “Day of Atonement,” 360. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 161

,(lit. “fill the hands”; cf. 21:10) ימלא את־ידו Lev 16:32 uses the expression just as does later 11QTa xxxv 6–7.81 (הכוהן הגדול) The rules for the consecration ritual of the high priest are reasserted in 11QT xv–xvi.82 The first innovation is that part of the consecration ritual which the Torah ascribes to Moses (Exod 29:7, 10, 12; Lev 8:14–15, 23–24), in the Temple Scroll is performed by the elders of the -xv 18–xvi 3; cf. m. Yoma 1:5). Their duty was to con ;זקני הכוהנים) priests secrate the high priest and his “sacred vestments” with the blood of the consecration ram and burn the (first) bull. The second innovation is that 11QTa xv 15–16 refers to the high priest only as the one “who was consecrated to wear the vestments in place of his father” (also xxxv 6–7; cf. Lev 16:32).83 No explicit mention of the anointment ritual is made. In places where one would expect the mentioning of the anointing oil, it was omitted (e.g. xv 15–16; xvi 3). It seems that for the author(s) of the Temple Scroll, once the appointed high priest was dressed with the sacred vestments, he was to be then consecrated with the blood of the consecration ram.84 Hence, the first element of the consecration ritual was the clothing with “the sacred vestments,” just as recorded in 1 Macc 10:21. The absence of the anointing oil in the Temple Scroll may mean that by the early Has- monean period this element was no more part of the consecration ritual. Also Josephus does not refer to a high priest being anointed, not even when he deals with Aaron (e.g. Ant. 3.191).85 Further, one wonders whether every high priest, and in this case, Jona- than would have waited for the 1st of Nissan to be consecrated. The donning of “the sacred vestments” should have been done in the temple but First Maccabees does not state this. The discussion so far prompts one to think that Jonathan was consecrated by his loyal priests on the Feast of Tabernacles, when he first donned the sacred vestments.86 This event may have occurred days or even weeks after his appointment as archiereus by

81 See Delcor, “L’investiture,” 155–56; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 538–40. 82 For a comment, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, [91–96]; II, [66–71]; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 561–66; Heger, Cult 54–61. According to García Martínez et al., DJD 23, 365, the texts of 11QTa (11Q19) and 11QTb (11Q20) “are clearly copies of the same work.” 83 The hereditary nature of the high priesthood is implicitly defended here. 84 On the supposed cultic duties of the high priest at the time of his investiture, see further Heger, Cult, 62–70. 85 After having examined several other sources, Delcor, “L’investiture,” 161, concluded that “tout laisse supposer que cette pratique fut supprimée par la volonté des souverains séleucides après la mort d’Onias III.” 86 See also Delcor, “L’investiture,” 162–63; Rooke, “Day of Atonement,” 360. 162 chapter six

King Alexander I. The language of 1 Macc 10:21 seems to imply that this act was made secure by Jonathan’s troops. It is this military aspect that must be considered next.

4. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and the Temple Priesthood

The author of First Maccabees does not mention the temple in the context of Jonathan’s high priesthood. Even the Akra is next heard of in 1 Macc 11:20 (cf. 10:7–8), which reports a later attempt of Jonathan to conquer it. In both cases this silence strongly suggests Jonathan did not find much support there. Instead, his position as archiereus must have been backed up by the old pro-Hasmonean militants and by the new recruits. Jonathan probably also enjoyed the support of certain temple priests. Still, First Maccabees is silent on these matters. Therefore, the intent is to discuss certain Dead Sea Scrolls whose composition or final redaction is usually dated to the early Hasmonean period. It is necessary to check what the possible reactions of non-Hasmonean parties to the institution of the Hellenistic high priesthood of Jonathan and his successors were.

4.1. Jonathan, the Community of 4QMMT, and Other Groups The predominant scholarly consensus is that 4QMMT [4Q394–399]— represents—(מקצת מעשי התורה) ”known as “some precepts of the Torah an earlier stage in the formation of legal and theological views as they appear in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.87 The present study identifies the “they” group of the MMT with the Hellenizing temple priesthood.88 For the latter, one finds support in MMT B 8–9, which is against the sacrifices (and tithes) brought by Gentiles at the Jerusalem

87 So Schiffman, Qumran, 139; Regev, Sectarianism, 161. García-Martínez, Qumranica Minora, I, 103, assigns it to a pre-Qumranic group. For the basic editio princeps of 4QMMT, see Qimron et al., DJD 10. 88 So also Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 52–53. Sharp, “Phinehan Zeal,” 220–21 too, claims that Hellenization of the temple was the primary concern of the MMT group. For a simi lar opinion, see Regev, Sectarianism, 233–41. Kaufman, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 58, identifies the sender community with the supporters of the Oniads but passes in silence the “they” group. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 163 temple.89 The issues debated in MMT regard thus the cultic life as consequences of the Hellenizing policies favored by the high priests Jason, Menelaus, and—to a certain extent—Alcimus. To whom was MMT originally addressed? The legitimacy of the status of the addressee emerges with clarity from the text of MMT C 18–26. It reminds the recipient of the Jewish kings whom he should follow as models (cf. 1 Macc 2:52–60). There follows then a warning in MMT C 26–32: every- thing was written in the hope that God would remove from the addressee the evil plan. If he changed, this would be counted to him “as righteous- since he will be doing what is good for his own welfare and (לצדקה) ”ness for the welfare “of Israel.”90 The addressee is assumed to have both civil and religious powers. The sender group hoped that the addressee would interfere in the temple affairs and bring about some cultic and probably calendrical changes. No doubt, such authority was detained by the Seleucid kings. Evident examples are the edicts of Antiochus III (Ant. 12.138–146), of Antiochus IV (1 Macc 1:41–50), or of Antiochus V (2 Macc 11:22–26). But no scholar would ever claim that MMT was addressed to a Seleucid king. The only other figure who was believed to have an authority over the temple affairs was the Jewish high priest. Given the contents and the date of MMT as well as its function among the DSS there is no basis for arguing in favor of a pre-Hasmonean high priest.91 Many scholars plausibly argued that MMT was meant to be read by a Hasmonean high priest, probably Jonathan.92 This view has been challenged by Hanne von Weissenberg. The author argues that MMT could be understood “as a reformatory declaration” meant to be read in the hope that the Jerusalem temple cult would be reformed.93 But who was (originally) the person believed to have the necessary authority to implement such cultic reform? To be sure, civil and religious powers of the addressee

89 For sacrifices brought by, or in favor of the Gentiles, see: 1 Macc 7:33; 12:11; 2 Macc 3:32, 35; 4:60; 5:15; 9:16; 13:23; 3 Macc 1:9, 13; Jos., Ant. 11.336. For a discussion, see Schwartz, Studies, 108–11. For a detailed analysis of the worldview of the MMT group also in reference to the Temple Scroll, see Regev, Sectarianism, 95–161. Anti-Hellenizing attitude was pecu liar of the community living later in Qumran as shown by Magness, Archaeology, 202–6. 90 Both MMT and First Maccabees prefer the use of the term “Israel.” 91 Qimron et al., DJD 10, 109, state that of the six manuscripts of MMT (4Q394–399) the oldest copy dates around 75 b.c.e. 92 So, for example, Qimron et al., DJD 10, 121; Schwartz, “MMT,” 78; Regev, Sectarianism, 104–7; Schiffman, Qumran, 322. 93 For further details, see 4QMMT, 222–25. 164 chapter six which emerge from MMT can be identified with those of the high priest Jonathan.94 A number of scholars, however, see in the appointment of Jonathan as high priest a major cause for the (final) separation and exile of the MMT community.95 The contents of the MMT highlighted above do not lend support to such an assumption.96 First of all, there is no evidence that this community actually withdrew from Jerusalem or from elsewhere.97 The sender community exposes its precepts (B 1) by usually introducing them B 29, 37, 42). The former ;ואנחנו חושבים) ”with the formula “but we think ואתם) ”tried to persuade their addressees with the formula “but you know B 68, 80; C 8). To be sure, the earlier separation to which MMT ;יודעים C 7–10 refers, regards such aspects as the temple, its priesthood, purity, sacrifices and calendar as issues.98 Furthermore, the senders of the MMT assume that their addressees know the reason behind the separation, as if both sides shared the same policy earlier. Moreover, its members acknowledged the legitimacy of the institution of both secular and religious powers of the addressee, identified here with Jonathan. The sender group also acknowledges the sanctity not only of the temple to which they hoped to return and whose priests they call “sons of Aaron” (B 17, 79, 82), but of Jerusalem as a whole (B 29–30, 49, 60–62, 63–64).99 The present view is supported by the conclusions of the study of the priesthood in the DSS reached by Robert A. Kugler, that “the Scrolls’ polemic never questions the legitimacy of the priests, or even of the Wicked Priest.”100

94 Puech, “Jonathan,” 264–65, suggests that the purple and the golden crown sent to Jonathan, as well as his military power, would lead his army to consider him “ ‘leur roi’.” This study argues that these were Hellenistic high priestly dress. 95 See Vermes, Manuscrits, 79; Stegemann, Essener, 205–6; Schiffman, Qumran, 101–3, 120. According to Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 60, the “sect” was founded around 170, while in 150 the deposed high priest (the Teacher of Righteousness) joined the “sect” by becoming its leader. 96 Recently the same view has been persuasively argued by Collins, Qumran Commu nity, 95–98. However, contrary to Collins, 103–113, the present study identifies the Wicked Priest with the high priest Jonathan. 97 See especially von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 222. 98 For Talmon, “Calendar Controversy,” 395, the calendar “was the prime cause of the Covenanters’ secession.” The Jerusalem leadership followed in the temple the lunar calen dar of 354 days, whereas “the covenanters at Qumran” the solar 364 days. Talmon, how ever, seems to rely much on his interpretation of such passages as MMT A and 1QpHab xi 4–8. 99 Hempel, “Laws,” 83, notes how in MMT the focus on Jerusalem and the temple is “more pronounced” than in the Damascus Document. 100 “Priesthood,” 113. So also Liver, “Sons of Zadok,” 29. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 165

Much of these issues—including the separation—lay at the basis of in the Community Rule (1QSerekh (יחד) ”the rules of the “Community ha-Yaḥad). Of the ten Cave 4 copies, three? of them (4QSb,d-e) are regarded by some scholars as older versions and are dated to the second half of the second century b.c.e.101 This period, again, appears to be the most likely one for dating the original MMT document, and hence corroborates the identification of its addressee with Jonathan. Some scholars further claimed that MMT displays the tone of addressing a leader as if he were at the beginning of his rule.102 First, if one assumes that the MMT group drafted its views after Jonathan was appointed a military official, then one must also take into account that the Hasmonean leader had more urgent issues on his agenda. These included the organization of his army, the manufacture of arms, and the fortification of Jeru- salem in the context of an impending war.103 Second, one must reckon with the degree of the real influence of Jonathan over the temple priests. As this study will further show, the Hasmoneans had to wrestle for many years with many temple priests.104 It does seem as if the community that composed the original MMT document felt ignored. Eyal Regev, in his study of the temple issues in MMT, suggests that the final rupture from the Hasmoneans “must be sought perhaps not much time later.”105 This time probably coincided with the rise of the Teacher of Righteousness as the leader of the community. This would place the composition and the sending of the MMT between late 152 and probably 147. The discussion concerning the identity of the recipient alluded to in MMT has been reopened by Annette Steudel. In line with certain other scholars, Steudel suggests the possibility that 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer (4Q448) might be the lost introduction to MMT.106 If true, this would bear significant support to the present view that the addressee

101 See especially Metso, Textual Development, 151–55; Schofield, From Qumran, 273–80. .1QS viii 13) is attested in 4QSd,e) יבדלו The keyword 102 Puech, “Grand prêtre,” 142: “avant -150”; Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 57 n 76: “around 152.” According to Strugnell, “MMT,” 71–72, it has been sent to a leading high priest “not- yet-Wicked Priest.” 103 Zsengellér, “Maccabees,” 195 asserts the Hasmoneans “did not intend to reform the corrupted line of the priesthood and the Hellenistic type of worship.” 104 This aspect received only minor attention. See, however, Puech, “Grand prêtre,” 142; Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 52–53; Regev, Sectarianism, 108. 105 “Abominated Temple,” 277. 106 “4Q448,” 247–63. Eshel et al., DJD 11, 404–5, date 4Q448 to the time of Alexander Janneus. 166 chapter six referred to in the MMT was Jonathan. Yet, as Steudel admits, definite proof is “impossible.” The text which interests this study is found in 4Q448 ”.for Jonathan, the King“—על יונתן המלכ ii 2 and reads The first difficulty regards the place of 4Q448 among the DSS. Is it a “sectarian” work? According to Casey D. Elledge, the document reflects “an early stage in Qumran ideology.”107 Second, scholars are divided over whether this prayer is “for” or “against” Jonathan.108 Third, which Jona- than is meant? For example, Geza Vermes109 and Émile Puech110 suggest it is the same as the Wicked Priest, whom they identify with the first Has- monean high priest. But the occurrence of the title “king” led other scholars to point to Alexander Janneus.111 The latter is known from his coins -At least one can affirm that, if—as some schol 112.ינתן and יהונתן as both ars believe—4Q448 is a “sectarian” prayer in favor of Jonathan, then the first Hasmonean high priest becomes a plausible candidate even more, seeing the evident strong opposition towards Janneus in some DSS (e.g. 4QpesherNahum).113 Reference to Jonathan’s high priesthood is perhaps to be found also in 4Qpseudo-Danielc ar (4Q245) 1 i 10. The restored proposed reading is The issue turns around whether before the final preserved nun .יונ[תן שמעו or a taw.114 It does seem that both Jonathan (יוחנן) there was another nun and his brother Simon seem to be listed in line with the pre-Hasmonean high priests. Nevertheless, it is far from sure whether the author(s) of the list considered them legitimate high priests.

4.2. Jonathan, His Military Power, and 1QPesher Habakkuk 1QpesherHabakkuk viii 8–9 seems to allude to the sojourn of Jonathan as “the Wicked Priest” in Michmash (cf. 1 Macc 9:73). The same passage appears to refer to the rule of Jonathan in Jerusalem: “when he began to rule over Israel.” Many scholars agree that to rule over Israel must refer to

107 Bible, 100. 108 See the detailed discussion by Main, “King Jonathan,” 114–35. 109 “King Jonathan,” 294–300. 110 “Jonathan,” 241–70. 111 So Lemaire, “Roi,” 57–70 (first Jonathan as a possibility); Eshel et al., DJD 11, 412–14; VanderKam, From Joshua, 336. 112 See Meshorer, TJC, 209–17. 113 See the balanced discussion in Steudel, “4Q448,” 258–63. 114 See Collins and Flint, DJD 22, 156–61; Wise, “4Q245,” 323–26, 343. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 167 the high priestly rule, and not necessarily royal rule (cf. MMT C 18–26).115 implies a change in the public life, and Jonathan had וכאשר The wording in his leadership such two well distinct stages: from a military leader to an archiereus of the Jewish ethnos. Jerusalem, as the place of action of the Wicked Priest, is explicitly stated מקדש) ”in 1QpHab xii 7–10 which refers also to the “sanctuary of God Again, there is no reference to the illegitimate rule of the Wicked .(אל Priest in the pesher.116 This is confirmed even in the negative depiction which follows in 1QpHab viii 10–11. Once the Wicked Priest began to rule, and betrayed the statutes [אל] he became arrogant, abandoned God“ -The portrayal given here would imply Jonathan as being pro ”.[בחוקים] foundly concerned about his military power, which he likely used in strengthening his legacy as Hellenistic archiereus. 1QpesherHabakkuk xii 7–9 even speaks of defilement of the Jerusalem In passages like 117.ויטמא את מקדש אל :temple by the √Wicked Priest 1QpHab viii 13, 16–17 and xi 12–14 reference is being made to the Wicked Priest’s performance of other inappropriate actions offensive to God.118 Allusion to such behavior seems to also be made in MMT C 26–32. It is significant that in Pesher Habakkuk it is assumed that the Wicked Priest entered the temple, although it does not specify on what occasion(s). Jonathan, in fact, seems to have been at odds perhaps with most temple authorities for many years. In what way could Jonathan “defile” the temple? The fortification of the temple area may have been interpreted by the followers of the (later) Teacher of Righteousness and other groups as a sacrilegious act. Jonathan also probably installed in the temple compound his armed men to guard it. This is what the Hasmoneans did in 164 when they first captured it (1 Macc 4:60, 61; omitted in 2 Maccabees). It is also possible that the presence itself of Jonathan in the temple area may have been interpreted by the community behind the pesher—and perhaps by others—as an act of defilement. This might have been connected with Jonathan’s military activity, which in the eyes of his opponents would render him unfit to occupy the high priestly office.

115 Brownlee, Pesher of Habakkuk, 138, notes that for Hyrcanus II, who became first high ”.to reign“—מלך priest and then king, one would expect the verb 116 So Schofield and VanderKam, “Hasmoneans,” 83; Collins, Qumran Community, 106. See also Regev, Sectarianism, 107. .was added above the line הרשע Here, the epithet 117 referring to the rebellion of the “violent men” against God in 1QpHab מרד The verb 118 viii 11 reappears in connection with the Wicked Priest in ll. 16–17. 168 chapter six

One notes that the same expression as in 1QpHab xii 7–9 is met in Dan 11:31 and 1 Macc 1:37 (cf. 2 Macc 8:2) in reference to the bloody actions of Apollonius, which led to the defilement of the temple in 167. One cannot, therefore, exclude the use of forces by Jonathan against his opponents even inside the temple compound. Émile Puech thinks Jonathan was named Wicked Priest because he despoiled the temple treasury to maintain his troops and the fortification project.119 There is reason to believe that Jonathan was in need of great resources, especially at the time of an impending Seleucid war. There were, however, several other ways in which Jonathan could “defile” the temple in the eyes of his Jewish opponents.

5. The archiereus Jonathan, His Military Power, and the Kings’ War

If Jonathan was sanctioned to recruit troops and manufacture arms by Demetrius I in 1 Macc 10:6, 8, why is its implementation reported only in 10:21? This is even more evident with the view that the release of hostages is mentioned before the letter of Alexander I, and before even the fortification project initiated by Jonathan (10:9; cf. 10:6). Such literary arrangement could serve at least three goals:

1. To avoid depicting Jonathan as a military occupant of Jerusalem and especially of its temple area. 2. To show Alexander I as implicitly confirming Jonathan’s military power along the high priesthood (cf. 1 Macc 10:15, 19). 3. To defend the military aspect of the high priesthood of Jonathan and that of his successors.

This Hellenistic model of high priesthood introduced by Jonathan continued uninterruptedly down to Alexander Janneus. Separation of powers came temporarily only with the latter’s death. His wife Shalomzion Alexandra (?) assumed the royal power (War 1.107//Ant. 13.407), while the queen appointed as high priest her elder son Hyrcanus II (War 1.109//Ant. 13.408; 20.242). However, the high priesthood of Janneus—who was at the

119 “Jonathan,” 266–67. Cf. however 1 Macc 14:15 of Simon. the high priesthood of jonathan: part one (152–150 b.c.e.) 169 same time a king—was a somewhat different phenomenon from that of Jonathan and Simon. That the military appointment of Jonathan by Demetrius I was confirmed by Alexander I is implied by the language in Part D of the letter which appears to be a condition imposed by the king: namely that Jona- than “preserve friendship” (1 Macc 10:20; cf. 10:3).120 Alexander required that Jonathan become his political and military ally against Demetrius (cf. Ant. 13.44). However, it took about two years before Alexander I and Demetrius I met in battle. On the outcome of this war depended the further fate of Jonathan’s high priesthood, and perhaps his life. Josephus in Ant. 13.58–61 provides a detailed account of the war, which suggests he had access to additional source(s). Certain details of the battles and of the place(s) where these occurred is provided by AD 3 No. -149 A ´Rev.´ 1´–14´.121 The Babylonian diary suggests that the event took place by June of 150.122 The war ended with the death of Demetrius I (1 Macc 10:48–50, 52–53; Str. 13.4.2; Livy, Per. 52; Porph., FGH 260 F 32.14; Just. 35.1.9–11).123 It follows that Demetrius ruled for a full twelve years, which agrees with the chronology of First Maccabees (cf. AD 3 No. -161 A Left Edge; Polyb. 3.5.3). Whether Jonathan provided Alexander I with troops is not stated in First Maccabees (cf. 11:44). Now that on external level his strategy worked out, Jonathan could concentrate on the strengthening of his Hellenistic type of high priesthood on internal ground.

Conclusion

Jonathan’s official military position and subsequent control and fortification of the temple area soon formed the basis for him to claim supreme authority in Judea. Jonathan’s men likely opened contacts with the rival king, Alexander I Balas. The latter saw in Jonathan a convenient military

120 In 1 Macc 10:20 one reads twice καί with the infinitive: καὶ φρονεῖν . . . καὶ συντηρεῖν. Syntactically, it is difficult to explain it as a condition. Only the context can help us. On συντηρέω in Hellenistic letters, see Welles, RC, 367. 121 For a comment, see Del Monte, TBE, 92–93. 122 The winter of 151/0 as proposed by Will, Histoire, II, 316, is erroneous. 123 For a comment, see Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 667; Hölbl, Geschichte, 170. Del Monte, TBE, 93–94, suggests that the war occurred in the region south of Babylonia. According to van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 169, it took place between Seleucia-in-Pieria and Antioch-on-the-Orontes, after which some of Demetrius I’s troops fled to Seleucia- on-the-Tigris. 170 chapter six and political ally. Jonathan’s siding with Alexander was fundamental in view of the fact that the Akra and part of the temple authorities continued to support Demetrius I as king. In 152 Alexander I appointed Jonathan as archiereus. Analysis has shown that the vacancy in the high priestly office at the time favored such appointment. However, Jonathan was appointed to act as a Hellenistic/ Seleucid high priest. He was also nominated a royal Friend—a Seleucid court title. Also, Jonathan continued to act as Seleucid military official at the head of his troops. Alexander also sent Jonathan a purple and a golden crown, which were characteristic of the Hellenistic archiereis. Jonathan was thus appointed to act as archiereus over the Jewish ethnos on behalf of the rival king. This appointment of Jonathan was hoped to turn Judea over to Alexander. All this was the Hellenistic aspect of the institution of Jonathan as high priest. The proper Jewish cultic ritual instead occurred on the Feast of Taber nacles in October of 152. This was not only an appropriate public occasion for Jonathan to declare his religious authority, but probably also the first appropriate festival on which to get himself consecrated by his loyal priests. This was the cultic investiture of Jonathan as Jewish high priest. However, First Maccabees does not explicitly connect this investiture with the temple and temple priests. The subsequent actions of Jonathan and the increase of his military power began to be detested by many priests within a short time. There is also reason to believe that he had recourse to violence in order to strengthen his high priesthood. Jonathan’s policy prompted thus certain priests and non-priests to regard him as “the Wicked Priest.” The present study of passages from 4QMMT and 1QpHabakkuk further suggests that Jonathan found initial support for his high priesthood— besides his military and other followers—among priestly circles that opposed the Hellenizing temple authorities. It has been argued that the cause behind the alluded separation of the original MMT group was not related to the institution of Jonathan’s high priesthood. The following chapter will deal with the way Jonathan implemented his Hellenistic type of high priesthood under King Alexander I, and the way various groups reacted to this consolidation process. chapter seven

The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part Two (150–145 B.C.E.)

Introduction

The previous chapter dealt with historical issues related to the appointment of Jonathan as archiereus by King Alexander I Balas in 152 b.c.e. The Hellenistic character of the high priesthood of Jonathan has been highlighted. Jonathan continued to act also as the king’s military official and was granted the title of royal Friend. The aim of the present chapter is twofold: First, it is necessary to analyze the way Jonathan implemented his high priestly rule after the death of King Demetrius I Soter in 150 and down to the summer of 145, when a new king sat on the Seleucid throne. In order to achieve this it is imperative to further discuss the civil powers of Jonathan and see how they related to his high priesthood. What role did Jonathan play as high priest in the temple life? Secondly, it is expedient to study the way the various parties reacted to this process of the consolidation of Jonathan’s high priesthood. As before, when necessary, attention shall be paid to the development of the Seleucid affairs. The following reasons make this chapter important: First, various sources will help to uncover certain aspects of the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood that were not (specifically) treated in previous studies. Second, these aspects will be discussed in light of the Jewish halakhah. Third, the results will further confirm the present argument that Jonathan acted as a Hellenistic/Seleucid archiereus.

1. The archiereus Jonathan and His Socio-Economic Policy

Once King Alexander I became the king of the entire Seleucid kingdom in 150, he found an occasion to thank his political and military allies. The most important of them was King Ptolemy VI (165–145). The occasion was a wedding between his daughter Cleopatra Thea and Alexander at Ptolemais/ Akko. This event laid the basis for the strengthening of Alexander’s friendship (φιλίαν) with Ptolemy (1 Macc 10:54). As 1 Macc 10:52–54 reports, in 172 chapter seven his request to Ptolemy, Alexander made reference to the defeat of Dem- etrius I (cf. 1 Macc 10:49–50), an event that was crucial for Jonathan.1 Nearly all of 1 Macc 10:51–66//Ant. 13.80–85 concerns events which surrounded the wedding but nothing is said about the internal affairs of Judea. In fact, Jonathan was also invited to the wedding (1 Macc 10:59–60// Ant. 13.83; cf. 13.85).2 This event is dated to the Sel. 162 (1 Macc 10:57). The establishing of the exact date depends on whether the Seleucid battle took place near the Persian Gulf or near the Mediterranean Sea. As previously stated, it ended by June of 150. If one calculates by the Macedonian system in 1 Macc 10:1, then one has to date the travel of Jonathan to Ptolemais by the 30th of September of 150, when the year ended.3 If the Babylonian system is instead assumed, then one can date Jonathan’s travel even later but before the end of the Babylonian year in March of 149.4 While the Babylonian system remains a possibility, the Macedonian reckoning in 1 Macc 10:57 is preferred, just as in 10:1.5 First Maccabees 10:60 relates that Jonathan did not go to Ptolemais empty handed but “with pomp.” The high priest, in fact, brought “silver and gold” and “many gifts” which he gave to the two kings and also to their “Friends.”6 Giving of gifts by the Jewish high priests to Seleucid kings and high officials is severely criticized in 2 Macc (4:7–8 of Jason; 4:24–25, 39–50 of Menelaus and Lysimachus). The report here reveals the “gener- osity” of Jonathan, which went probably beyond what can be understood as “wedding gifts.” The military control of most of Jerusalem with its temple area, the war booties, and the plundering in and around Judea certainly brought Jon- athan many riches. There is reason to assume that Jonathan controlled most of the taxation in Judea. Part of his income Jonathan used to give to kings and other officials to assure himself of the high priestly office (1 Macc 10:60; 11:24). Another part the high priest used for the fortification projects of the temple area, of the south-western hill of Jerusalem and other places,

1 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 415–16: “the flavor of the correspondence . . . is so Hebraic that the text is probably his [i.e. author’s] own composition.” 2 Josephus has Jonathan visiting the two kings after the wedding. 3 One still has to assume the time Alexander needed to march back to Antioch-on-the- Orontes, for his embassy to go to Ptolemy, and back to Ptolemais. 4 So Abel, Maccabées, 164 n; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 416; Hölbl, Geschichte, 170, dates the travel of Ptolemy VI to 150/149. 5 So also Dancy, I Maccabees, 149; Schunck, 1. Makkabäerbuch, 341 n; Huß, Ägypten, 584 n 372 suggests October of 150. 6 “Friends” may have a technical meaning here. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 173 as well as for the organization of his army (1 Macc 10:10–11; 12:35–38; cf. 13:10; 14:32). Much wealth later passed into the hands of Simon. He was able to build in Modein a costly burial monument and additionally fortify Jerusalem (13:25–30; cf. 14:37). Simon reportedly spent much of “his” wealth to pay his forces and provide them with weapons (14:32).7 The issue of money and wealth surfaces several times in Pesher Habak kuk. Assuming that the identification of the Wicked Priest with Jonathan is correct, one may acquire additional information. The pesher speaks of no public projects but rather of the personal enrichment of the Wicked Priest. In 1QpHab viii 10–11, there is the statement that when the Wicked ”.(הון) Priest began to rule, “he betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth In the discussion here of 1QpHab xii 7–9, which refers to the defilement of the temple by the Wicked Priest, it has been assumed that Jonathan may have used part of the temple treasury to accomplish his military projects.8 This seems to be corroborated by the immediate mention of the riches of the Wicked Priest in 1QpHab xii 9–10. The pesher further alludes to the Wicked Priest’s robbing of the “violent .who had rebelled against God” (1QpHab viii 11). Adam S (אנשי חמס) men van der Woude made a strong case that this expression designates the Hellenizing Jews.9 As argued here, initially both the community of the Teacher of Righteousness and the supporters of the Wicked Priest appear to have shared a negative attitude towards the Hellenization process.10 The same phenomenon emerged from our discussion of the MMT, where the “they” group has been identified with the Hellenizing priesthood in control of the temple. Soon after, the pesher refers to the Wicked Priest’s seizing of the wealth “of the people” (1QpHab viii 12). Later on, it records his plundering of the towns of Judea (xii 9–10) and the taking of the possessions of the poor (cf. xi 2–6). It is not clear whether this refers to a direct plundering or interpreted so because of the tax burden imposed by the Wicked Priest. Whatever the reason, the priestly group behind the pesher’s accusations

7 Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces, 1, states that the establishment of the “Royal Estate” in Jericho can be attributed either to Hyrcanus I or to Simon. 8 See here pp. 167–68. 9 “Wicked Priest,” 355. Nitzan, Pesher of Habakkuk, 178 and Schiffman, Reclaiming, 233, point to Pharisees. Brownlee, Pesher of Habakkuk, 140 instead, argues for the “apostates” and points to Samaritans. 10 Boccaccini, Essene Hypothesis, 185–86, claims that the “Essenes” supported the Mac cabean revolt against the high priest Menelaus. For a similar opinion, see also Puech, “Grand prêtre,” 149. 174 chapter seven judged such actions as unfit for a high priest. There is reason to believe that other priests and non-priests also shared in this opinion with respect to Jonathan’s high priestly rule. One of the reasons why Jonathan came to Ptolemais with gifts was, to introduce himself to the chancelleries of the two Hellenistic kings and thus win international political prestige. In fact, Jonathan used various strategies in order to build up his own image as Hellenistic high priestly ruler. Before proceeding with this aspect, it will be important to see who the people that opposed Jonathan were.

2. The Identity of the Opposition to the High Priesthood of Jonathan

According to 1 Macc 10:61 “scoundrels men [ἄνδρες λοιμοὶ] from Israel, renegade men [ἄνδρες παράνομοι],” pleaded against Jonathan in Ptolemais, but King Alexander I would pay no attention. The very fact that a group appealed to the king points to the gravity of the situation about the government of Jonathan (cf. 2 Macc 4:39–50 of Menelaus).11 But who were the men that accused Jonathan? For Jonathan A. Goldstein the opposition in 1 Macc 10:61 included partisans of the Oniad high priests who could act through King Ptolemy VI.12 This interpretation is probably influenced by the fact that just before paraphrasing the wedding story (1 Macc 10:51//Ant. 13.80), Josephus reports the foundation of the temple in Leontopolis by Onias (IV; Ant. 13.62–73) and the disputes between the Judean and the Samaritan Jews living in Alex- andria (13.74–79). The whole of Ant. 13.62–79 is not a continuation of what precedes since Josephus took it from another source. Also, Ant. 13.62–79 anticipates the wedding story. Josephus has four other places where he writes about Onias’ departure. All of them suggest this event occurred before 160.13 Thus, Livia Capponi believes Onias IV founded his temple shortly after Jonathan was appointed high priest, namely in 151/0.14 In this she agrees with other scholars.15

11 Rappaport, “Connection,” 96, stresses how the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty “caused a major revolution in Judaean Jewish society.” 12 I Maccabees, 416; cf. Abel, Maccabées, 195 n. 13 War 1.31, 33; 7.420–436; Ant. 12.387–388; 20.235–236. See here pp. 86–87, 91. 14 Tempio, 58–59. 15 E.g. Gruen, “Origins,” 69; VanderKam, From Joshua, 218–19. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 175

However, there is no clear evidence of an Oniad opposition against the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood, although such opposition cannot be excluded. Onias IV escaped to Egypt probably accompanied by the ardent militants of his family. The Oniads lost the control of the Jeru- salem temple in 172 when Menelaus bribed Jason. Since that time, except for the year 163, it remained mostly in the hands of the Hellenizing party loyal to the Seleucid kings. Therefore, the protesters in Ptolemais were likely a group of people who had certain authority in Judea and who hoped to win over Alexander I. First Maccabees 10:61 seems to suggest that the king accepted them for an audience, although Josephus took it to mean that the accusation was not formulated yet (Ant. 13.84–85). The inference seems to lend support for the subsequent actions of the king. This indicates that the king considered these people important enough to be listened to, despite the fact that Jonathan was his strategic ally and Friend. The expression ἄνδρες παράνομοι (1 Macc 10:61) appeared first in 1 Macc 1:11 to denote the party that promoted the Hellenizing reform. In 1 Macc 11:21 this designation will be used in connection with those who went to the king to accuse Jonathan of having laid siege to the Akra. In both cases they appear as Hellenizing Jews or supporters of them. In 1 Macc 15:21 instead, the definition ἄνδρες λοιμοὶ is used to denote those who were opposing Simon.16 The employment of the same expression in 1 Macc 10:61 makes it probable that the same party is implied. There is strong reason for arguing that these were the people who ran the temple affairs prior to 152, and continued to exercise a certain control even after Jonathan had become high priest. The temple authorities and other prominent Jews would have been the ones that were mostly concerned about Jonathan’s and his party’s increased powers. This would have prompted them to send representatives who formulated an accusation before King Alexander I. Instead of revealing the content of their accusation, however, the pro- Hasmonean author describes the greatness of the royal wedding and Jona- than’s participation in it. The Hellenistic type of Jonathan’s high priesthood was almost surely the main issue for accusation. In the judgment of his fierce opponents, Jonathan’s military activity would render him unfit to occupy the high priestly office. Perhaps, the removal of Jonathan from the high priestly office may have been judged as still possible. Certain temple

16 See here pp. 262–63. 176 chapter seven and Akra officials must have also viewed it as a threat to their positions. They may have depicted it as a challenge to the royal authority itself. As can be expected, First Maccabees is silent on Jonathan’s use of forces against internal enemies although this likely had taken place regularly. Instead, the pro-Hasmonean author systematically connects the use of forces with the threat represented by the foreign enemies. However, allusions to Jonathan’s use of forces against opposition groups may exist in several pesharim. In addition to the passages already discussed, in 1QpHab xi 4–8 one reads that the Wicked Priest attempted to kill the Teacher of Righteousness on the latter’s Day of Atonement (cf. 1QpHab ix 9–10; 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 7–9). The author(s) of the pesher espoused cultic disputes as his version of the issue. A reference to this clash is perhaps found in 1QHodayota xii 5–12. The author, identified by some scholars with the Teacher of Righteousness, complains about having been driven from his land. Shemaryahu Talmon plausibly argued that the Teacher’s celebration must have fallen on a different day than that followed in the temple.17 This view was re-elaborated by Joseph M. Baumgarten. He claims that the issue at stake was rather the religious dispute on how to celebrate the Day of Atonement.18 If Jonathan is the same as the Wicked Priest, then his reason for such repression may have been connected with securing his personal rule rather than care for strictly cultic issues. Hence, the opposition to Jonathan must have used various pretexts— political, halakhic and others—to convince Alexander I of the removal of Jonathan from the high priestly office. On the one hand, Jonathan’s policy, especially military, also had dramatic economic consequences for the tax payers and for the temple income. As far as the Jewish halakhah was concerned, it had little if any interest for the king or his chancellery. Fur- thermore, a royal decision against Jonathan’s high priestly position would have fostered a new wave of Hasmonean revolts. This was certainly not a desideratum for the king after a war was just completed.

3. More Hellenistic Titles Conferred on the archiereus Jonathan

Despite the accusations brought by the opposition, Jonathan reportedly won favor before Alexander I. The king ordered his officials to dress

17 “Yom Hakkipurim,” 549–63. 18 “Yom Kippur,” 184–91. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 177

Jonathan in purple and proclaim in the middle of the city that nobody should accuse him of anything. In addition, Jonathan was given several Hellenistic titles (1 Macc 10:62–66//Ant. 13.84–85). It is necessary to clarify, as much as possible, the real powers hidden behind these titles and how they related to those Jonathan already had, and especially to his high priesthood.

3.1. The archiereus Jonathan as King’s “First Friend” and strategos The new honorific title given to Jonathan by Alexander I was that “of the First Friends” (τῶν πρώτων φίλων). This title was included in the Seleucid hierarchy at least since Seleucus IV.19 It was one of the highest titles which the king could confer on his subjects. According to Federicomaria Muc- cioli, only that of συγγενές was above it.20 It has previously been mentioned that Olympiodorus of the Maresha dossier was included in the rank of the First Friends of Seleucus IV before being apparently appointed archiereus in 178 (SEG 57.1838 ll. 32–33). This appears to be now the oldest attestation for the Seleucid kingdom.21 The title of τῶν πρώτων φίλων was also held later by Nicanor, son of Patroclus, under Antiochus IV. The former led the royal troops in 165 against the Jewish rebels under the command of Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 8:9; cf. 1 Macc 3:38). The very fact that Jonathan had troops and remained loyal to the king must have convinced Alexander I to elevate the Hasmonean high priest into the royal hierarchy. By becoming First Friend, Jonathan entered into a close relationship with his king even more.22 Such a title likely enabled him to take part in the king’s important meetings where political, military and other decisions had to be made.23 Besides, Jonathan was reportedly given by Alexander I also the title of strategos (1 Macc 10:65). This was the highest military title Jonathan could obtain.24 This title strengthens the present argument that Jonathan was both appointed and acted as a Hellenistic archiereus.

19 See further Corradi, Studi, 336–37; Muccioli, “Crisi,” 260–62. 20 “Crisi,” 262; cf. however, “Crisi,” 260–61 n 26. The same hierarchical order appears to have been established by the Ptolemies; see Mooren, Hiérarchie, 36. Mooren, 50–51, pointed to the period 197–194 when the “First Friends” were introduced in the Ptolemaic Egypt. 21 Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 129, 132–33 with n 30. 22 On the classification of Friends, see Le Bohec, “Philoi,” 116–19. 23 On the elevated role of the First Friends, see Le Bohec, “Philoi,” 123. 24 The title of strategos occupies much of the study of Bengtson, Strategie. 178 chapter seven

Several examples should be helpful here. Ptolemy (son) of Thraseas is recorded on two groups of inscriptions as both στρατηγὸς/στραταγὸς καὶ ἀρχιερεύς Συρίας Κοίλας καὶ Φοινίκας (OGIS 230 ll. 1–3; SEG 41.1574 ll. 5–6, 9–11, 19, 21–22, 29; cf. Ant. 12.138).25 In the Memphis decree dated to 112/1, a certain Dorion appears as ὁ συγγενὴς καὶ στρατηγὸς καὶ ἱερεὺς τοῦ πλήθους τῶν μαχαιροφόρων (saber-bearers) (OGIS 737 ll. 5–6).26 In Ptole- maic Cyprus one finds many examples of men who held at the same time the titles of strategos combined with archiereus. Both titles were held by most of Cyprus’ rulers from Polycrates of Argos (203–197; SEG 20.194, 196, 197) to Helenos (end of the 2d c. b.c.e.). Polybius 18.55.4–6 has Polycrates also responsible for the collection of revenues under the Ptolemaic king (cf. 27.13).27 The archiereus Attis too emerges as the one who actively collaborated with the two Attalid kings in their military disputes with the Gauls.28 According to Charles B. Welles, Attis was also in control of the Pergamene mercenaries.29 Besides religious authority, Attis exercised both political and military powers, although there are no civil titles preserved. Attis appears to have been involved in military struggles just as Jonathan was.30 Likewise, as both Strabo 14.5.10 and the epigraphic and other archaeological finds suggest, some Olbian high priests in Rough Cilicia also held military power. However, at least some of them seem to have been less dependent on the Seleucid kings than Jonathan for example. Where the title of strategos is attested, it normally precedes that of archiereus. By conferring the title of strategos, Alexander I sanctioned Jonathan to act as supreme military official in Judea on behalf of the king. Perhaps an analogy is found in the appointment of Nicanor as strategos over Judea by Antiochus V (2 Macc 14:12). The author of 1 Macc 10:65 claims that Alexander I conferred on Jon- athan also the title of μεριδάρχης, the exact meaning of which remains unclear. According to William W. Tarn “[m]eridarchs are not heard of in

25 See here pp. 40–41. 26 See Launey, Recherches, II, 1072–77; Thompson, Memphis, 99–103. 27 For other sources, see Mitford, “Helenos,” 94–131. See also Boffo, Re, 141, 260–65; Müller, “Hellenistische Archiereus,” 537–39. 28 For details, see Virgilio, Pessinunte, 83–102. Rome decreed autonomy for Galatia in 165 (Polyb. 31.2). 29 RC, 247, 250. 30 For further comments, see Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 26, 48–49; Virgilio, “Anatolia,” 231– 34; Sartre, Anatolie, 74–75. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 179 the Seleucid Empire except in Palestine . . . only in Jewish writers.”31 Her- mann Bengtson argued that the whole of Judea may have been considered a μερίς.32 Recently Livia Capponi suggested that the jurisdiction of such a title may have regarded only a μερίς, which she understands as a “quarter” or “corporation” inside Judea.33 How would such title have functioned along with the other titles of Jonathan? One notes that the Seleucid fortresses built by Bacchides in 160 are not mentioned. In light of 1 Macc 11:41 and more, it is plausible to think that these did not pass under the control of Jonathan. This is especially true for the Akra. Hence, the conferment of such a title would not have had any connection with these fortresses. The title of meridarches is recorded in two documents in Ant. 12.261 (cf. 12.264) where it is held by a certain Apollonius. The latter apparently covered a public function in Samaria. The assumed context is the religious persecution following the edict of Antiochus IV (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–50). Dov Gera asserts that Diophanes mentioned in the Olympiodorus inscription (SEG 57.1838 l. 1) may have also held the title of meridarches of Idumea.34 Diophanes was instructed to implement the royal order of Seleucus IV related to the appointment of Olympiodorus over the temples of Koile- Syria and Phoenicia. In both cases, the title of meridarches would have been connected with the administration of the province and of the religious affairs. The conferment of an additional title may have become necessary for Jonathan in view of the strong opposition he faced especially from the temple authorities. This aspect will become clearer in the discussion of the popular decree in honor of Simon (1 Macc 14:42–43) in Chapter IX.

3.2. The Limits to the Powers of the archiereus Jonathan All one learns about the opposition to Jonathan in Ptolemais is that it disappeared when he was dressed in purple (1 Macc 10:64). However, this seems to be a somewhat exaggerated report. If, as claimed above, this embassy represented the Jewish anti-Hasmonean elite, one would expect

31 Greeks, 242 n 4. Tarn considered this title as “an unintelligent gloss.” But see Bengt son, Strategie, II, 172 n 2. 32 See Strategie, II, 24–28. So also Bickerman, Institutions, 198, 203. 33 Tempio, 26 n 88. 34 “Olympiodoros,” 145. 180 chapter seven that the king should have granted them at least some assurance. Indeed, the opposition to Jonathan did not return home empty handed. To be sure, Jonathan did not get all that he probably wanted. Thus, his hometown Modein remained outside his controlled territory (cf. 1 Macc 11:28, 34). Besides, the geographical closeness of the Seleucid king with his army would, of course, prevent Jonathan from conquering any new territory. Nothing is said of his brother Simon occupying any particular ruling position in Judea at this point either. The City of David appears to have never been attacked as long as Alex- ander I ruled as king (cf. 1 Macc 11:20–22; 12:36; 13:49–52), while its population probably continued to enjoy privileges of all kind. In the Akra, which was considered a royal property (cf. 15:28), there likely remained a Seleucid garrison (cf. 1 Macc 11:41; Ant. 13.246–247), which continued to supervise the royal fortresses.35 Perhaps it even cooperated with Jonathan on certain issues. Also Beth-Zur, which was a harbor of anti-Hasmonean Jews (cf. 1 Macc 10:14), was not conquered until after the death of Alexan- der I (cf. 11:65). Joseph Sievers suggests that there might have been close collaboration between the Akra and “Gezer” also (cf. 13:45–48). This could reportedly extend to economic, cultural and religious spheres.36 Both these fortified places were occupied only in 141, and by Simon. Further, no allusion is made to the royal tribute to be paid by Judea. The military projects initiated in 152, in addition to the royal tribute and the taxes collected by Jonathan himself, likely brought a difficult socio- economic situation in Judea.37 This leads one to wonder to what extent Jonathan enjoyed as high priest the support among the countryside population. Again, nothing is said at this point about his acting as high priest, the temple or the temple priesthood. Therefore, the next step is to study the way these new civil titles of Jonathan helped strengthen his position as a Hellenistic archiereus.

4. Further Consolidation of the High Priesthood of Jonathan

It is necessary to analyze the period between 150 and 145, the year in which King Alexander I died. The next described event in 1 Macc 10:67 dates itself to the Sel. 165, which translates into 147 b.c.e. Similar relationship

35 On the mixed population of the Akra, see Sievers, “Jerusalem,” 198–202. 36 “Jerusalem,” 204. 37 On the supposed taxes, see Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 160–70. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 181 between the narrative time and the narration time is met in 1 Macc 9:57– 73, and also after 10:47. This narrative gap may suggest that the changes/ events that occurred did not fit the purpose of the work; or its author may have found them controversial at times. Indeed, the reader continues to receive no information about the high priesthood of Jonathan for the following years. First Maccabees 10:67–89 is almost entirely dedicated to the military role of Jonathan in the context of the Seleucid struggles for the royal throne. In order to properly understand the socio-political context of Jonathan’s actions, it is necessary to consider the state of the Seleucid affairs first. This will consequently help understand the way Jonathan acted in order to enforce his position as the Hellenistic high priest.

4.1. Jonathan and the Seleucid Struggles for the Royal Throne From several sources, Alexander I emerges with weak control over his kingdom (Diod. 32.9c; 33.3; Just. 35.2.2). The king spent most of his time in Ptolemais, which developed a significant political, military, administrative, and fiscal role.38 The royal affairs were left mostly in the hands of Alexander’s trustee Hammonius. According to Livy, Per. 50, he executed amici omnes regis. The latter’s authority can be inferred also from Jose- phus’ Ant. 13.106–108. The weak control of Alexander over parts of his kingdom found its expression also on coinage.39 On at least one coin, which reads βασιλεωσ αλεξανδρου, his wife Cleopatra is represented wearing a diadem.40 The influence of her father Ptolemy VI during the following years over the Seleucid affairs is confirmed by the fact that by 146 the latter struck coins in his own name in Ptolemais and in other coastal cities of Phoenicia.41 Further, between 149–147 in both Antioch-on-the-Orontes and in Seleucia-in-Pieria there were issued bronze coins with the inscription αδελφων δημων. This was a political league established between the two cities.42 The eastern satrapies of Media and Susiana isolated themselves as

38 See Rappaport, “Akko-Ptolemais,” 31–48; Grainger, Cities, 156–57, 162; Le Rider, “Poli tique monétaire,” 394–404. 39 See Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 223, 226, passim. 40 See Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 57. 41 Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 123; Huß, Ägypten, 584. From 150 on, the coins of Alexander I adopted on the reverse the Ptolemaic eagle type tetradrachm. See further Fleischer, Herrscherbildnisse, 60–63; Hoover, “Coinage,” 492–94. 42 See Grainger, Cities, 157. Ehling, Untersuchungen, 158–59, points to the year 150 for the establishment of this league. 182 chapter seven the Parthian dominion continued to extend from the East.43 In the West, King Attalus II of Pergamum furthered his own interests on Seleucid soil.44 Still, Alexander I did little to strengthen his power, but relied mostly on his kinship with Ptolemy VI. The rule of Alexander I was further threatened by the arrival from Crete in Seleucid territory of the elder son of Demetrius I, Demetrius II Nica- tor, with his claim to the royal throne (1 Macc 10:67). Josephus adds that Demetrius came with many mercenaries provided by a certain Lasthenes (Ant. 13.86; cf. Just. 35.2.1–2).45 Demetrius’ arrival is dated by historians to early 147.46 Both 1 Macc 10:68 and Ant. 13.87 allude to war preparations. The situation that had been created around the Seleucid royal throne resembled the one in 152–150. According to 1 Macc 10:69, the new claimant to the Seleucid throne, Demetrius II, appointed Apollonius over “Koile-Syria.” This man gathered forces in Jamneia and declared war on Jonathan. But following Ant. 13.88 and 13.102, it was Alexander I who left Apollonius “Taos” in charge of Koile- Syria. According to Josephus, however, Apollonius’ pretext for attacking Jonathan was the latter’s unwillingness to be subjected to the king. But as 1 Macc 10:47 states, Jonathan remained loyal to Alexander “all the days.”47 As John D. Grainger asserts, it is more likely that Apollonius defected to Demetrius, while Jonathan remained “subject” to Alexander.48 The whole of 1 Macc 10:69–87 is focused on the battle between Jonathan and Apollonius near Azotus (Ashdod), which was well outside the territory controlled by the Hasmonean high priest. It could be that Jonathan wanted to avoid fighting the enemy closer to Jerusalem, since the Akra could play a major role in favor of Apollonius. Not only did the future fate of Jonathan’s high priesthood depend on the outcome of this battle but also his own life. But Jonathan reportedly was the victor. This battle can be conveniently dated to 146.49

43 See further Potts, “History of Elymais,” 350–53. 44 See further Downey, History, 121; Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 667. 45 According to Griffith, Mercenaries, 168–69, the “Macedonian” mercenaries remained on the side of Demetrius I before, and on that of Demetrius II later. Alexander I appears to have never enjoyed full-hearted support of them. 46 So, for instance, Will, Histoire, II, 317; Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 667; Ehling, Unter suchungen, 159. 47 The sources do not report the location of Alexander I at this point. 48 Syrian Wars, 339, 342. 49 So also Grainger, Cities, 159; Hölbl, Geschichte, 171; Huß, Ägypten, 585. Also in 146, the Achaean War of Rome took place (see Polyb. 38.9–18). the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 183

4.2. More Civil Powers for the archiereus Jonathan Why was it so important to dedicate so much space to one single military event, while skipping over all of Jonathan’s activities in Judea between 150 and 147? Why is so much said about Jonathan’s military leadership, while nothing is said about his high priesthood? The weakening position of Alexander I left the opposition to Jonathan little ground to challenge him even on the diplomatic scale. Jonathan’s reported success against Apollonius only consolidated his position as archiereus and strategos. For the enemies of Jonathan it became a clear message of power on both internal and external levels. The existence and deployment of an army could be used by Jonathan’s men as a vehicle of propaganda in calling for an independent Jewish state. Once the battle was over, Alexander I sent Jonathan a “golden buckle” (πόρπην χρυσῆν), as it is the custom to give “to kings’ Kinsmen” (τοῖς συγγενεῦσι τῶν βασιλέων). Like adelphos or patēr the term syggenēs was an honorific title. Thus, it was held by Lysias either under Antiochus IV or under his son Antiochus V, or under both (2 Macc 11:1–2; cf. 1 Macc 3:32–39). The same title was assigned by Demetrius II to Lasthenes from Crete, who was in command of the royal forces (11:31). A certain Meno- genes is recorded as syggenēs of the Attalid King Eumenes II (OGIS 290); under King Attalus II he became ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων (OGIS 291–296). In an inscription from Salamine, a certain Theodoros held the titles of syggenēs, stratēgos, nauarchos, in addition to that of archiereus.50 In OGIS 104 one reads about Χρύσερμον Ἠερακλείτου ᾿Αλεχανδρέα, τὸν συγγενῆ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου (IV Epiphanes; 222–204). And in OGIS 105 apparently the same Alexander appears as royal syggenēs, stratēgos and ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν κατὰ τὴν νῆσον.51 As these examples show, most often the title of syggenēs regarded persons who were at the top of the royal affairs as was the case with the ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, or the ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων for example. This aspect led Federicomaria Muccioli to doubt whether Jonathan was ever given such title.52

50 On this archiereus, see Mooren, Hiérarchie, 191–92. Mooren, 21, argues that the title of syggenēs is not attested before Antiochus IV. 51 On this archiereus, see further Corradi, Studi, 281–90; Virgilio, Pessinunte, 116–18; Muccioli, “Crisi,” 261–64. 52 See “Crisi,” 264–73, also for other references. Muccioli, however, brought evidence which attests that later on in both Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms the title of syggenēs could be assigned also to lower class royal officials. 184 chapter seven

On the one hand, 1 Macc 10:89 does not expressly state that Alexander I actually conferred the title of syggenēs on Jonathan. On the other hand, the political context would not be improper for the conferring of this title. One way or another, this honorific title would have hardly added anything to Jonathan’s actual powers. The more important issue, however, is the reported decision of Alex- ander I to give Ekron and its surroundings to Jonathan (1 Macc 10:89). First, Modein—the hometown of the Hasmoneans—continued to remain beyond Jonathan’s controlled territory. Second, the pro-Hasmonean author gives no hint of the reaction of the Ekron population to Jonathan’s rule. Jonathan likely could extend his political, military and administrative rule south-westward, settle (other) Jews there and exercise taxation rights.53 Jonathan may have already exercised religious authority over certain Jewish communities outside Judea, those who associated themselves with the temple of Jerusalem. But now, he could pretend to exercise his jurisdiction as high priest also over certain non-Jews. Considering also the later annexation of the three districts (cf. 1 Macc 11:57) and the taking of hostages (cf. 11:62), there is reason for believing that the non-Jews were probably “encouraged” to observe the religious laws of the Jews and contribute to the temple income.54 No wonder, then, that the pro-Hasmonean author is so specific about the civil titles and other royal concessions granted to Jonathan.

5. The archiereus and strategos Jonathan on the Battlefield: History and Halakhah

The battle of Jonathan against Apollonius is the first clear example in First Maccabees of the active military role played on the battlefield by the Hasmonean high priest. According to the Priestly sections of the Torah, however, the Aaronide high priest was not to engage in military affairs.55 Thus, according to Num 19:11–22 even a contact with a corpse or a grave causes a person to be unclean for seven days (cf. 31:19; Hag 2:13). In Num 5:1–3 such people had to be expelled from the dwelling camp during this

53 Antiquities 13.102 reads τὴν ᾿Ακκάρωνα καὶ τὴν τοπαρχίαν αὐτῆς. On Ekron as royal estate, see Kahrsted, Syrische Territorien, 66–67; Kallai, Biblical Historiography, 85 n 41. 54 According to Weitzman, “Circumcision,” 37–59, circumcision was an imposed prac tice since the time of Mattathias (cf. 1 Macc 2:46; Ant. 13.257–258 of Hyrcanus I). However, see further, Cohen, Jewishness, 117–18. 55 On the use of the term “Aaronide,” see Chapter 10. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 185 period. But as for a (high) priest, according to Lev 21:10–12 he was even forbidden to go near his dead relative, rend his garments, or leave the temple. In other words, the Jewish high priest had to be confined to the religious sphere only. However, as shown in Chapters II–V, under the Seleucids the situation was very complex and changed often from one year to another. At least since Onias III every high priest would travel back and forth to the Seleu- cid kings, urge them to launch military attacks against his home enemies or be permitted to order their execution. But the pre-Hasmonean high priest does not appear to have officially conducted a war while in office (cf. 2 Macc 4:40; 5:5). This is because he appears to have never been officially a royal military commander. Furthermore, he never officially had his own army, as did Jonathan. The claim of Adolf Büchler that “Jason, Menelaos und Alkimos nicht Hohepriester, sondern die politischen Vorsteher Judäas mit dem Titel ἀρχιερεύς waren,” goes to the other extreme.56 At various times these high priests acted as political representatives. Sometimes they even enjoyed limited military power, or at least were associated with it. However, they likely also performed cultic rituals, at least on certain occasions and to the extent that it was possible for them. Indeed, a comparison of Sirach 50 (cf. Hebrew and Greek versions) with First Maccabees shows how at least the perception of the high priesthood had changed over several decades. The former depicts the high priest Simon (II; Sir 50:1–4) as administrator of the temple and of the city, but above all, as officiating in the temple (50:5–21). First Maccabees instead, focuses on the political, military and administrative powers of the Hasmonean high priests. It says nothing about the cultic role played by them. Participation in battles, however, was not unusual for the Hellenistic/ Greek canons of the high priesthood. But Jonathan seems to have created an unprecedented situation in the history of the Jewish high priesthood. In the eyes of those who criticized the monopoly of powers held by Jonathan, the participation in the battle would have rendered him not only impure, but unfit to occupy the high priestly office of Aaron. It is necessary then to look for echoes of the military actions of Jonathan (and his successors) in the Jewish literature of the 2d c. b.c.e. The proposed question is: How was the warrior Hasmonean high priest judged by his (priestly) adversaries?

56 Tobiaden, 141. 186 chapter seven

5.1. The Jewish High Priest according to Some Early Dead Sea Scrolls 11QTemple Scrolla xvi 4, which deals with the ordination of the high priest, apparently requires that the latter attain himself to the prerequi- -If this interpreta 57.(קדוש י[היה כול ימיו) ”sites (of Lev 21) “all his days tion is correct, then this renewed legislation might be an implicit critique of the militarized high priesthood introduced by Jonathan. This aspect is strengthened by the early Hasmonean date of the Temple Scroll, which is defended by more and more scholars. In the imagination of the author(s) of the Temple Scroll there should also be an Israelite king (lvi 12–lix 21). This aspect seems to be an implicit criticism of the combination of the high priesthood with the civil powers by the Hasmoneans. First, such critique emerges from its supposition of as two (מלך) ”and the Israelite “king (הכוהן הגדול) ”both “the high priest distinct figures. Second, in 11QT lvii–lviii the high priest plays a purely cultic role, whereas it is the king who conducts the battle.58 But before the war the high priest had to instruct the king on the actions to be taken after having consulted God through the Urim and Thummim (lviii 18–21).59 From his part, Casey D. Elledge concluded that the royal ideology of this document is both anti-Hellenistic and it presupposes a king with no priestly origin, providing thus a polemical view of the Hasmonean high priesthood.60 A similar dual ruling concept seems to be assumed also in 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah (4Q285//11Q14), a text related to the War Scroll in its content but distinct in its hierarchical ideology.61 Here, there is a Davidic ”(?)to lead the war. The “chief (נשיא העדה) ”prince of the congregation“ priest seems to be assumed in 4Q285 frg. 5 l. 5//11Q14 1 i 14. The mention of the Davidic prince resembles somewhat the utopian vision of Ezek 40–48. However, the appearance of a chief/high priest in Ezekiel is disputed.62

57 See Milgrom, “Temple Scroll,” 510–11. On the priestly purity in 11QTemple Scroll, see further Himmelfarb, Kingdom of Priests, 96–98. 58 For a comment, see Batsch, Guerre, 192–99. 59 On this aspect, see Batsch, Guerre, 199–202. 60 Statutes, 45–69. Similarly Schiffman, Courtyards, 505–517. 61 It is not clear whether a high priest is assumed, as argued instead by García Martínez has been pre כוהן et al., DJD 23, 14; Alexander and Vermes, DJD 36, 239. Only the term served (11QTa lxi 15). The interpretation that a high priest is implied might be influenced in part by the assumption that Sefer ha-Milḥamah would be the lost end of the War Scroll. See further the discussion by Schultz, Conquering the World, 352–53. 62 See Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 109–19. Ezekiel 44–48 does not refer explicitly to a Davidic but he is promised in Ezek 34:23–24 and 37:24–25. Expectation of a Davidic ,(נשיא) ”prince“ king is found also in the Pss. Sol. 17; see Atkinson, ‘I Cried to the Lord’, 130–79. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 187

There was another element for which the Hasmonean high priests were probably criticized. First Maccabees 10:84–87 concludes the narration of Jonathan’s battle against Apollonius by reporting that he laid siege to Azotus, and that after having burned its temple of Dagon, Jonathan and those with him returned to Jerusalem with “much spoils.”63 Just before the battle, Jonathan also reportedly plundered Joppa (10:75–76).64 The text in 1QpHab viii 12 referring to the taking by the Wicked Priest -may refer to the practiced plun (הון עמים) ”of the “wealth of the people dering by Jonathan (cf. 1 Macc 12:31). 1QMegillat ha-Milḥamah65 (1Q33) vii 2 ascribes the despoilment of the dead and the collecting of war booty to persons between the ages of twenty-five to thirty.66 As for the War Scroll, however, it is not against the presence of the priests on the battlefield (cf. Deut 20:2–4).67 In its description of the eschatological war, before its start, there shall appear between the battle lines seven priests among “the sons of Aaron” dressed in special linen vestments (cf. Exod 39:27–29; Lev 16:4). These vestments could not be brought then into the sanctuary (1QM vii 9–11).68 The priests would have to be accompanied by seven Levites (vii 14). The role of the priests, however, was not to fight but rather encourage the others to do so (cols. vii 12–ix 9). In fact, according to 1QM ix 7–8 “the priests” could not come into contact with the slain so as to avoid defilement, “for they are holy” (ix 8–9). In the eschatological plan of the War Scroll there is a role reserved also In 1QM ii 1–6 he is depicted alongside 69.(כוהן הראש) ”for the “chief priest “the head priests” and other priestly and non-priestly groups in the context of cultic service at the temple.70 The preparation of war is assigned instead to non-priests (ii 6–7). However, in 1QM xv, when the war gets to its final stage, the chief priest—together with priests and Levites—is

63 On the temple of Dagon, see Isaac, Near East, 14, 34–35. 64 On the law concerning the destruction of foreign places of worship, see for instance, Deut 12; 20. On the war booty, see Num 31:25–31. First Maccabees says nothing about the purification ritual after the battles; cf. Num 31:19–24. 65 On the Mss of the War Scroll, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 16–33. 66 11QTemple Scrolla lvii 3 has the age limits between 20 and 60 years old. For com parison with other texts, see Schiffman, Courtyards, 507–8. 11QTemple Scrolla lvii 6 speaks of 12,000 warriors, while 1QM ix 4–5 assumes an army of 34,000, namely 28,000 foot soldiers and 6,000 horse riders. 67 On the laws of warfare in Deuteronomy, see Rofé, “Laws,” 23–44. 68 For a comment, see Yadin, Scroll of the War, 217–20. 69 For an introductory comment, see Batsch, Guerre, 173–74. 70 Schultz, Conquering the World, 221, points to the Tamid offering. 188 chapter seven present during the final battle.71 He is supposed to recite a prayer before it (1QM xv 4), encourage the fighting men (xvi 13–14), and eventually praise God for the victory (xviii 5–6). Besides, in the final ceremony the chief and other priests are permitted to go near the (משנה) ”priest, his “deputy fallen enemies (xix 11–13).72 Nevertheless, the chief priest is not involved in the war itself, although there is no mention of an Israelite king in the War Scroll either.

כוהן הגדול and כוהן הראש The Titles .5.2 in the War Scroll necessitates further כוהן הראש The mention of the title was due to the כוהן הגדול attention. For Yigael Yadin its use instead of author(s) opposition to the Hasmonean high priesthood.73 In fact, the majority of the coins that were struck in Jerusalem by the Hasmonean 74.הכהן [הגדל] high priests from Hyrcanus I onward carry the title However, Yadin’s other argument is less convincing. In 1QM ix 8–9 the priests are assumed to be anointed with the anointing oil. As already emphasized, the anointing oil is lacking in the consecration rite of the high priest described in 11QT xv–xvi. In the view of Yadin, the whole anointment ritual was avoided since in the Temple Scroll this act was reserved 75.(כוהן הראוש) ”to the eschatological “chief priest is not used in the Temple Scroll. Besides, in כוהן הראש First, the title it does not mention the כוהן הגדול its description of the consecration of anointing oil. It should be added that 1QM ix 7–9 is paralleled in 4QMc (4Q493) ll. 4–6, which is usually dated to the first half of the 1st c. b.c.e., and considered to be the oldest copy of the War Scroll.76 Second, most scholars, including Yadin himself, agree on the fact that in its final form the War Scroll postdates the Temple Scroll, probably by several decades.77 The War Scroll reflects the viewpoints peculiar of the

71 For a comment, see Ibba, “Rotolo della Guerra,” 202–7. 72 For a comment on this specific role of the high priest, see Yadin, Scroll of the War, 224–26; Ibba, “Rotolo della Guerra,” 245. Batsch, Guerre, 178–84, passim, dealt with these aspects but paid less attention to their historical context. ,in the War Scroll, see Xeravits, King כוהן הראש Scroll of the War, 208. On the use of 73 164–72. The author too, stresses the opposition of the War Scroll community to the Has monean high priesthood. 74 See Meshorer, TJC, 201–9, passim (Pls. V–XXIV). 75 Temple Scroll, II, [65] n. 76 See, for instance, Baillet, DJD 7, 50 (Pl. VIII). 77 Temple Scroll, 245–46: “after the Roman conquest but before the end of Herod’s reign.” For other opinions, see Duhaime, War Texts, 65–97. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 189 yaḥad community.78 Its eschatological design could, therefore, be understood in the restorative sense aimed at implicitly criticizing the early Has- monean high priesthood. Thus, not only the title but also the allusion to the anointing oil can be taken rather as a critique against the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood first introduced by Jonathan. The dating of the War Scroll favors such an interpretation. In his study of the historical development of the text of 1QM, Philip R. Davies empha- appears“ כוהן הראש sizes that unlike in 1QM xv–xix, in 1QM ii the role of to be confined to the cult, and he plays no role in the conduct of the war.”79 Davies concludes that 1QM ii–ix is a compilation of traditions “which arose during and immediately after the Maccabean wars,” while 1QM xv–xix is “the end-product” to be dated “to the second half ” of the 1st c. b.c.e.80 Even with the publication of 4QMa-f (4Q491–496) scholars still seem to agree that 1QM reflects the final version of the War Scroll.81 Furthermore, according to Giovanni Ibba, 1QM xv–xix is a reworked text whose content seems to reflect the late 1st c. b.c.e. ideology of a future holy war against the “Kittim.”82 Also Brian Schultz points to the early Hasmonean period as the likely date for the composition of 1QM i–ix, while the second half of the 1st c. for cols. x–xix.83

6. The archiereus Jonathan and the Cult at the Temple

There are two important questions that must still be considered in this treatise. The first question is whether or not Jonathan performed any ritual peculiar of a Jewish/biblical high priest at the Jerusalem temple? As has been stressed, no explicit mention of the Jerusalem temple and/ or its altar is made in connection with the high priesthood of Jonathan in First Maccabees. Even in the case of Alcimus, mention of the temple

78 On this aspect, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 327–65. 79 1QM, 26 n 6. On the role of the high priest, see further Schultz, Conquering the World, 318–23. 80 1QM, 89. 81 So, for example, E. & H. Eshel, “Recensions,” 362–63; Duhaime, War Texts, 100–1. The dating of the final redaction of the War Scroll to 163 b.c.e. as argued by Gmirkin, “War Scroll,” 486–96, does not find support in this study. 82 “Rotolo della Guerra,” 50. One agrees with Eshel, “Kittim,” 43, that after Pompey, the yaḥad began to associate the Kittim with the Romans. However, in the earlier War text(s) the Kittim appear to have been associated with the Seleucids (cf. 1QM i 2). For a concise argumentation, see Duhaime, War Texts, 97–99. 83 Conquering the World, 390. 190 chapter seven is only made in the context of the controversial architectural reform initiated by the high priest. In 2 Maccabees instead, Alcimus’s high priesthood is connected with access to “the holy altar” (14:3), while in 14:13 one reads of Alcimus “high priest of the greatest temple.” It does seem that the pro-Hasmonean author purposely avoided mentioning the temple and the altar in connection with the high priestly office. The lack of any such mention becomes even more evident when one looks at the attention which the temple received in the story of Judas. This aspect is even more striking when one considers that the temple of Dagon in Azotus, which Jonathan reportedly burned down, is mentioned three times (1 Macc 10:83–84; 11:4). It has been suggested here that most of the opposition to Jonathan came from the temple authorities, who continued to exercise a certain control of the temple even after Jonathan had been appointed archiereus. There is, therefore, strong reason to believe that Jonathan had to struggle with part of the priesthood in order to control the temple’s affairs. The City of David probably housed many temple authorities. This part of Jerusalem was conquered by force only in 141, as we shall see later. In the chapter on Simon of this study, it will be argued that the priests continued to exercise a significant influence over the temple affairs during the entire tenure of Jonathan as high priest. This study has also pointed out that except for the Day of the Atone- ment there was no cultic ritual that would have necessarily required the presence of the high priest. However, there were years when there was no high priest in Jerusalem to officiate and some other priest probably performed the whole ritual. By the time of King Herod the Great (37–4 b.c.e.), and up to 37 c.e, the high priest would wear “the sacred vestments” only for the three major festivals of the year (Ant. 18.90–95; cf. 20.6–14). As argued here, this practice of wearing the sacred vestments might go back to the Hasmonean high priests. Further, referring to 1QpHab xii 7–9 it has been supposed that the reported defilement of the temple by the Wicked Priest may allude, among other things, to Jonathan’s use of armed men even inside the temple compound. Also, his political and administrative obligations would sometimes prevent him from following a regular cultic activity. In light of these points, albeit partly speculative, one wonders if Jona- than ever had peaceful access to perform cultic rituals peculiar to a Jewish/ biblical high priest. One can perhaps state that if Jonathan indeed performed any cultic ritual at the temple, such service was probably secured the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 191 by his armed men (cf. 1 Macc 10:21). Some of them were probably priests just like the Hasmoneans themselves. This leads us to the second question: Who exactly backed the Helle- nistic type of high priesthood of Jonathan? Perhaps the most important support came from the Hasmonean militants. That the term ὁ λαός is sometimes used in First Maccabees to denote the military followers of the Hasmoneans has been regularly pointed out.84 The same military sense of the term “people” is probably meant in 1 Macc 10:7, 46–47. In 1 Macc 10:78, 80–81 both terms ὁ λαός and ἡ παρεμβολὴ are interchangeably used to denote those who fought at the side of Jonathan. In other instances, one finds expressions like οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ (9:33, 48, 60, 62, 67; 12:48, 50, 52) or οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ (9:44, 58; 10:87; 11:73; 12:28–29), which are also used with military connotation. But the military followers of Jonathan were not the only ones to back his high priesthood. Other Jews must have also supported Jonathan, in one way or another. Among these there were very probably certain temple priests (cf. 1 Macc 11:23). It has also been argued that the priestly community behind MMT initially welcomed Jonathan’s high priesthood. Jonathan almost certainly found support also among those Jews—in and outside his controlled territory—who shared his political and military goals of an independent Jewish state. A brief discussion of the Seleucid events that had a significant impact on the further development of the high priesthood of Jonathan will close this chapter.

7. The archiereus Jonathan and the Royal Triad

There were in 147–145 b.c.e. two contenders for the Seleucid royal throne: Alexander I and Demetrius II. Ptolemy VI of Egypt played, again, a decisive role in these disputes. By the end of 146 he began to invade the Phoeni- cian coast.85 First Maccabees 11:1–3 claims that Ptolemy intended to add the whole kingdom to his own. According to Josephus’ Ant. 13.103–104, instead, Ptolemy’s intent was to support Alexander.86 During his sojourn in Ptolemais, however, Ptolemy was about to be slain by Hammonius who ran the affairs of Alexander (Ant. 13.106–107). After this event Ptolemy

84 See also 1 Macc 3:55; 4:17; 5:18, 42–43, 60–61; 6:19; 7:6, 48. 85 On details, see Huß, Ägypten, 585. 86 See Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 708–11; Huß, Ägypten, 585–86. 192 chapter seven switched his support to Demetrius II, to whom he promised in marriage his daughter Cleopatra Thea—the wife of Alexander I (Ant. 13.109–110; cf. 1 Macc 11:9–12; Diod. 32.9c; Livy, Per. 52). First Maccabees 11:4–7 reports a meeting of Jonathan with the Ptole- maic king (see μετὰ δόξης; cf. 10:60). This report underlines the international prominence of the Hasmonean high priest. The outcome of this encounter is not stated. As a result, Jonathan probably obliged himself not to harm the Ptolemaic forces, which Ptolemy stationed along the coast (cf. 11:3). Having advanced as far as Seleucia-in-Pieria (1 Macc 10:8), Ptolemy VI found help among the inhabitants of Antioch-on-the-Orontes who expelled Alexander I (Ant. 13.111–112) by preferring Demetrius II (Just. 35.2.3). According to 1 Macc 11:14 instead, Alexander I was at this time in Cilicia trying to calm down a revolt. Ptolemy entered Antioch-on-the- Orontes and put two diadems on his head: that of Egypt and that of Asia (1 Macc 11:13//Ant. 13.113). In all this, Ptolemy appears to have been helped by two officers of Alexander who remained in the administration of the capital, namely Hierax and Diodotus (later known as Tryphon; Diod. 32.9c; 33.3). Josephus states that soon after, Ptolemy persuaded the Antiocheans to accept Demetrius as king (Ant. 13.114), while Diodorus specifies that Ptolemy claimed for himself Koile-Syria only (32.9c).87 The battle, between Alexander I on the one hand, and Ptolemy VI and Demetrius II on the other, took place outside Antioch (1 Macc 11:15; Str. 16.2.8; Jos., Ant. 13.116; App., Syr. 67). At first, Alexander managed to flee but later met death at the hands of an Arabian chieftain, Zabdiel (1 Macc 11:16–17; Ant. 13.116, 118).88 According to Diod. 9d–10.1, however, Alexan- der was assassinated by his two officers. Three (1 Macc 11:18) or five days (Ant. 13.118) after the battle Ptolemy too died of wounds (Polyb. 39.7.1; Str. 16.2.8; Livy, Per. 52; Porph., FGH 260 F 32.15).89 Josephus preserved a record that Alexander I ruled for five years (Ant. 13.119).90 First Maccabees 11:19 places the beginning of the reign of Dem- etrius II to Sel. 167, which according to the Macedonian reckoning translates into 146/5 b.c.e. He was accepted as king in Babylon by the 8th of

87 Poseidonius seems to have been the primary source for Diodorus especially for the events of the years 145 onward. See Primo, Storiografia, 200–204. 88 However, both Livy, Per. 5 and Just. 35.2.4 have Alexander I killed in the battle. See also Retsö, Arabs, 314–15. 89 For some comments on the events outlined above, see Will, Histoire, II, 317–18; Huß, Ägypten, 586–88; Ehling, Untersuchungen, 160–64. 90 This means counting from the death of Demetrius I in 150. the high priesthood of jonathan: part two (150–145 b.c.e.) 193

September of 145 (AD 3 No. -144 ´Obv. 14´–15´, 34´–37´).91 The battle of the three kings took place probably before the August of 145.92 Again, nothing is said about the participation of Jonathan’s troops in the battle of the three kings. The death of Alexander I marked the beginning of a period of major instability in the Seleucid kingdom. The next chapter will make clear that Jonathan initiated a difficult process in the consolidation of his high priesthood. However, some conclusions must be drawn first.

Conclusion

The death of King Demetrius I in the early summer of 150 secured the way for the consolidation of the Hellenistic type of the high priesthood of Jonathan down to 145. There were several primary reasons which contributed to this process. On the external level, probably in September of 150, Alexander I promoted Jonathan from the rank of Friend to his First Friend. Jonathan entered into more closeness with his king. Late in 146, Jonathan received Ekron with its surroundings over which he could also extend his high priestly authority. The lack of proper interest of Alexander in his kingdom’s affairs strengthened Jonathan’s internal position even more. Jona- than also used riches which he continued to accumulate over the years to bribe the Hellenistic king(s) and their friends. In 150, Jonathan was appointed by Alexander I as a royal strategos over Judea, which was primarily a military title. This was to a certain extent a decisive achievement in order to be able to act as high priest. Jona- than was also made meridarches, which probably implied more effective administration over the temple affairs. The conferring of both these civil titles by Alexander appears to have been made with the aim of consolidat- ing the authority of his loyal appointee in Judea. On the internal level, Jonathan could secure his position as a Hellenis- tic archiereus by relying on his armed men, sometimes referred to in First Maccabees as “the people” (ὁ λαός). In addition, the high priest enjoyed the support of some Jews who opposed the Seleucid Akra, and hoped for

91 See Del Monte, TBE, 95–96. 92 The last document of Ptolemy VI dates July 15, 145. The first dated document of the next king, Ptolemy VIII, is from August 13, 145. See van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 170. 194 chapter seven a politically independent Judea. They were probably less interested in Jewish/biblical legal and/or cultic issues related to Jonathan’s high priesthood. Jonathan may have found temporary support also among those Jews, who in various ways opposed the old Hellenizing elite. How- ever, here one has to reckon with the Hellenization of the high priesthood of Jonathan itself. Instead, the strongest opposition that the high priest Jonathan had to wrestle with came from the temple authorities. His concentration of both civil and religious powers was seen by many priests and non-priests alike as a threat to their own positions. Such tension seems to find echoes in 11QTemple Scroll, 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah and 1QMegillat ha-Milḥamah i–ix. The authors of these texts promoted the ideology according to which the high priestly office was to be disassociated from the military power. This critique likely reflects a wider opinion current in Judea in the early Hasmonean period. Further, the accumulation of riches by Jonathan and his violent actions began to be severely criticized even by those groups who initially accepted his high priesthood, or were ready to do so. Among these there was the community behind the MMT, which however, by this time had turned into opposition to the Hasmonean high priest. One therefore wonders to what extent Jonathan could perform cultic rituals peculiar of the Jewish high priest, especially the service on the Day of Atonement. It is plausible that if any such action took place, Jonathan was probably protected by his men, perhaps militant priests. The implementation of his costly military and other projects as well as his “generous” gifts to Hellenistic kings and other royal officials contributed to the building up of Jonathan’s own image as a Hellenistic high priestly ruler. Occasional collaboration of Jonathan with the Akra was likely to take place. This aspect regarding the relationship between Jonathan and the Akra will open the next chapter, which will analyze the development in the high priesthood of Jonathan between 145 and the end of 143. chapter eight

The High Priesthood of Jonathan: Part Three (145–143 B.C.E.)

Introduction

The previous chapter studied the consolidation of the Hellenistic type of the high priesthood of Jonathan under King Alexander I Balas, between 150 and 145, when the king died. There were external and internal difficulties encountered by the Hasmonean high priest along this process. These intensified with the arrival of King Demetrius II Nikator on the Seleu- cid soil in 147. The controversial relations of Jonathan with the temple authorities have already been pointed out. This phenomenon had a direct impact on the role of Jonathan as high priest in the temple life, especially its cult. The aim of the present chapter is to analyze the development in the high priesthood of Jonathan between 145 and the end of 143. How did the various factions in Judea react at the high priestly rule of Jonathan after the death of his protégé, Alexander I? What was the reaction of the Akra and the temple officials to this event? Did Demetrius II confirm the Hel- lenistic model of the high priesthood of Jonathan? If so, on what specific conditions was it done? In 144, Jonathan sided with the rival King Anti- ochus VI: Why? Was this decision connected with the nature of Jonathan’s high priesthood? This treatise is important for two main reasons: First, it will explore the various ways in which both the anti-Hasmonean Jewish circles and certain Seleucid officials undermined the high priestly rule of Jonathan, and the various ways Jonathan reacted to this increasing threat. Second, it will shed light on the role of Simon while Jonathan acted as high priest. This last aspect will serve also as basis for chapter 9.

1. Jonathan’s Attack of the Royal Akra and King Demetrius II

The difficult relationship of Jonathan with the royal Akra residents emerges indirectly from 1 Macc 11:20, which describes his attack of the Akra with siege engines. Josephus adds that in that place lived a Macedonian garrison and “some of the wicked [ Jews]” who abandoned ancestral customs 196 chapter eight

(Ant. 13.121). Similar information is found in 1 Macc 1:34//Ant. 12.252 and 1 Macc 11:21. The latter states that some [Jews] “hating their nation”— defined as “renegade (παράνομοι) men”—went to the king and reported Jonathan’s action. Demetrius II then ordered Jonathan in writing to meet him in Ptolemais (11:22). The expression “in those days” in 1 Macc 11:20 suggests the aftermath of the war of the three kings. As already stated, this war ended prior to August of 145.1 The march of Demetrius II on Ptolemais was probably connected with his expulsion of or subduing of the Ptolemaic garrison (Ant. 13.120), which likely took place in August–September. While the date of the travel of Jonathan in this latter period can be identified, his siege of the Akra began perhaps in the summer of 145. Jonathan’s attempt to conquer the Akra may have been part of his political design to gain independence of his high priestly rule from the Seleucid royal throne. The Akra residents very probably continued to support Demetrius II.2 The report in 1 Macc 11:20 that Jonathan summoned “those from Judea,” seems to indicate that Jonathan could rely on other people in addition to his own forces. Possibly Jonathan had launched a powerful propaganda campaign against the Seleucid rule, of which the Akra in Jerusalem was its daily expression. As 1 Macc 11:21 reveals, there were some Jews who backed the Seleucid royal rule at the expense of the Hasmonean high priesthood.3 The accusatory party probably hoped to overthrow Jonathan from the high priestly office. They may have requested from the new king another high priest whose powers would be limited to religious affairs. Jonathan had to choose between two risks: either going to Ptolemais which he actually did, or refusing the king’s order by risking a Seleucid military attack. The risk which Jonathan undertook by going to Ptolemais is emphasized in 1 Macc 11:23. First, earlier Jonathan sided with Alexan- der I against Demetrius I, father of Demetrius II. Second, in 146 Jonathan refused to accept the royal authority of Demetrius II by having fought against Apollonius. Third, Jonathan neglected the Seleucid royal authority by attacking the Akra. This time too Jonathan did not meet the Seleucid king with empty hands but brought numerous precious gifts (1 Macc 11:24; cf. 10:60; 11:6).

1 Demetrius’ II’s first coins date from 146/5; see Fleischer, Herrscherbildnisse, 64. 2 The Akra may have even offered support to Apollonius against Jonathan. For other possible political and military scenarios, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 152. 3 Those who went to the king were not necessarily inhabitants of the Akra. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 197

For the first time Jonathan is depicted as going to Ptolemais accompanied by both “elders of Israel” and “priests” (1 Macc 11:23). This indicates that he wanted to appeal before the new king supported by local ethnic representatives. The selection of priests indicates Jonathan felt his high priestly office was indeed at risk. These priests were probably supposed to endorse the argument that Jonathan was the fittest person to occupy the highest religious office, amid his several civil offices. However, the appealing of Jonathan before Demetrius II was also connected with his need of confirmation in the high priestly office. It was not an automatic procedure. This, therefore, became an excellent occasion for the opposition to send (again) its representatives designated as “lawless” (ἄνομοι) to openly accuse Jonathan before the king (1 Macc 11:25; cf. 10:61). How did the new king react to all this?

2. The Confirmation of Jonathan in the High Priestly Office

Jonathan eventually succeeded in his attempt at winning over the young king with costly gifts and in prevailing over the opposition (1 Macc 11:26).4 Demetrius II reportedly “confirmed” Jonathan’s high priesthood (11:27). The same verb ἔστησεν was adopted in reference to the confirmation of Alcimus’ high priesthood by Demetrius I (7:9). Jonathan was in fact confirmed to act as a Hellenistic archiereus on behalf of the new king. In addition, Jonathan became an official of Demetrius II, just as he was for Alexander I. Whether the confirmation of Jonathan’s high priesthood came during his meeting with the king or later is not stated. First Maccabees lacks the information concerning Jonathan’s return to Jerusalem (cf. 10:66, 87; 11:7). Its author switches to a correspondence between Jonathan and Demetrius II, which, however, occurred later on. There were several convenient reasons for Demetrius II to confirm the high priesthood of Jonathan. First, the arrest of Jonathan would have taken the risk of fostering a new wave of rebellions. It was easier to handle the temple authorities and the Akra officials than Jonathan’s armed men. Second, Jonathan appeared before Demetrius as a Hellenistic high priestly ruler ready to recognize the authority of the new king and offer his loyalty and also military support in case of need (cf. 1 Macc 11:43–44). Third,

4 Demetrius II was about 16 or 17 years old in 145 b.c.e. 198 chapter eight

Jonathan had his own forces which could guarantee that the royal tribute would regularly be paid. Notwithstanding, the claim in 1 Macc 11:27 that Demetrius II bestowed on Jonathan all the previous “honors” (τίμια) is not supported by what follows. Of all the titles previously held by Jonathan only that of First Friend is explicitly recorded. No mention of strategos or meridarches (cf. 10:65) is made. Nor is there anything said with regard to Ekron and its territory (cf. 10:89), although one would assume that this remained under the jurisdiction of the Hasmonean high priest.5 It is also somewhat improbable, although not impossible, that the new king would soon elevate Jonathan to the rank of his First Friends bypassing that of Friends (cf. 1 Macc 10:20; 10:65). Josephus does not even mention the title of Friend (Ant. 13.124). Furthermore, the royal Akra and the fortresses built earlier by Bacchi- des (cf. 1 Macc 9:50–52) are not even mentioned after Jonathan’s travel to Ptolemais. This is significant since the siege of the Akra was presented as the reason why the king urged Jonathan to meet him. In any event, Jonathan’s failed attempt to conquer the royal Akra in 145 was not primarily a military failure. On the one hand, it reveals the political strength on both internal and external levels of the Jewish opposition faced by the high priest. On the other hand, it indicates the Seleucid political influence in Jerusalem. In fact, the following analysis of the royal letter will show that Demetrius decided to impose certain limits on the Hasmonean high priest.

3. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and King Demetrius II

It is necessary to focus on the content of the correspondence between Jonathan and Demetrius II in 1 Macc 11:28–37. The report on the correspondence does not seem connected directly with the story of Jonathan’s meeting with Demetrius II in Ptolemais.6 The same holds true for certain other narrated events in 1 Macc 11–12, where—despite many geographical indications—the author provided no chronological data for the events he had described. Some of his stories are simply lumped together with

5 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 431 claimed that Jonathan retained all the previous privileges except that of the Kinsman of the king, but did not discuss this further. 6 Contrary to Abel, Maccabées, 208–9; Dancy, 1 Maccabees, 157; VanderKam, From Joshua, 261. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 199 little care for their chronological and/or thematic sequence. This, however, does not impinge on the immediate aim here. The specific question concerns what can be learned from this correspondence about the high priesthood of Jonathan.

3.1. The High Priesthood of Jonathan and King Demetrius II The author of First Maccabees does not state when Jonathan made his request to the king. Nor is this request reproduced verbatim. According to 1 Macc 11:28 Jonathan requested Demetrius II to make Judea and the three districts of Samaria (Aphairema, Lydda and Ramathaim; cf. 11:34) free of royal taxation by promising 300 talents. The fact that these districts are said to have been Samarian (cf. 1 Macc 10:30, 38; 11:34; cf. Jos., Ap. 2.43), means that they were not yet part of Judea.7 The hometown of the Hasmoneans, Modein, which belonged to the district of Lydda, was still beyond the political and military control of Jonathan. However, he may have exercised there his authority as high priest. The royal answer is given in written form, which may imply a written request first forwarded by the Hasmonean high priest. The content of the letter implies that this correspondence followed some time after the meeting of Jonathan with Demetrius II in Ptolemais. First Maccabees 11:32–37 purports to reproduce “the copy” (τὸ ἀντίγραφον) of an original letter sent by Demetrius II to Lasthenes his Kinsman (συγγενής), whom he addressed as Father (cf. Ant. 12.148). The king sent this copy to Jonathan and “ethnos of the Jews” so that they become famil- iar with it (1 Macc 11:30–31). The whole of 1 Macc 11:30–37 is in the first person plural style. In the discussion of the previous letter of Demetrius I in 1 Macc 10:25–45 it was determined that it shares many elements with this one.8 The reproduced text here lacks a date, which was a normal procedure for copies of documents. The ongoing analysis will illustrate that, all in all, the text of 1 Macc 11:30–37 is based on a genuine document. This is the first attested Seleucid document that mentions both the name of a Jewish high priest and the ethnos of the Jews as the entity over which the former exercised his rule. As Jonathan A. Goldstein remarks,

7 See also Goldstein, I Maccabees, 432. The reading τὴν Σαμαρῖτιν should probably be corrected into τῆς Σαμαρίτιδος; see Ant. 13.127; Schunck, I Makkabäerbuch, 346 n 28a. According to Rappaport, Judaea, 10–11, the three districts were “royal domains,” which were later inhabited by Jewish military settlers (22–26). As Smith, Palestinian Parties, 200 observed, Jonathan’s acquisition of these territories was a “step toward the port of Jaffa.” 8 Compare especially 1 Macc 10:29–32 with 1 Macc 11:34–35. 200 chapter eight

“[t]hereafter, documents to the Jewish body politic and also Jewish coins mention both the Hasmonean chief and the Jewish nation or its authoritative organs.”9 Demetrius II addresses Jonathan as his Brother (τῷ ἀδελφῷ; 1 Macc 11:30; cf. 10:18). Also “the ethnos of the Jews” is mentioned (cf. 10:25). It is unusual that the greeting formula χαίρειν is located between the mention of Jona- than and the “ethnos of the Jews.”10 Several ancient textual versions and Josephus’ Ant. 13.126 have χαίρειν at the end of the introductory formula. In fact, τῷ ἔθνει τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων reappears in the letter itself (1 Macc 11:33). The expression “they continue to do what is right toward us” (συντεροῦσι τὰ πρός ἡμᾶς δίκαια) in 1 Macc 11:33 implies that some time elapsed between the king’s meeting with Jonathan and the publication of this letter. This correspondence can be dated at least several months after the meeting of the two in Ptolemais. Demetrius II, after having assured himself of the loyalty of Jonathan and of the Jews, decided to make some concessions. The royal letter, therefore, can reasonably be dated to the winter of 145/4. One thing that becomes evident is the lack of a title for Jonathan. Nor is his high priesthood mentioned in the body of the letter. On the one hand, this would have been a known practice followed by Hellenistic kings.11 This can be considered as another element in favor of the genuineness of the document. On the other hand, the absence of the title archiereus recalls the letter of Antiochus IV to the gerousia of the Jews in 2 Macc 11:27–33, which too, mentions Menelaus twice but never as high priest.12 It could be that by omitting this title on a public document, the king may have also wanted to please the opposition to Jonathan’s high priesthood, especially certain temple authorities. The very fact that the king does mention Jonathan in the greeting formula implies that by this time Demetrius II had confirmed him as archiereus. Since Demetrius II ordered that a copy of the letter be given to Jonathan, it is plausible that the latter was the one supposed to set it up in a prominent place in the temple precincts (cf. 1 Macc 11:37). The mention of the temple, however, needs further discussion.

9 I Maccabees, 431. 10 Cf. 1 Macc 13:36; 15:12; 2 Macc 11:16, 27. 11 Thus, the Attalid King Eumenes II addressed Attis without mentioning his title of (high) priest; see Welles, RC, No. 56. Also King Seleucus IV appealed to his chief-minister Heliodorus without mentioning his title; see SEG 57.1838 l. 13. 12 For the mention of the title, see instead 1 Macc 12:6; 13:36; 14:27; 15:2. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 201

3.2. The archiereus Jonathan, the Temple, and King Demetrius II According to 1 Macc 11:37, Demetrius II ordered his official, Lasthenes (cf. Diod. 33.4.1), to make a copy of the royal decisions, that it be given to Jonathan “and placed on the holy mountain in a conspicuous place.” This was a standard ending of a Hellenistic royal letter.13 First, the royal order demonstrates the religious, political and socio- economic importance of the Jerusalem temple in the life of Judea organized as a temple-state.14 Second, the royal order implies that the king thought Jonathan had sufficient administrative power over the temple affairs for implementing the royal decisions. Further, the expressions τοῖς θυσιάζουσιν εἰς ‘Ιεροσόλυμα in 1 Macc 11:34 and ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ in 1 Macc 11:37 both stress the sacredness and uniqueness of the Jerusalem temple. To be sure, it is somewhat unusual to find them in a Seleucid royal document. Still, one could perhaps sup- pose that the royal scribe drew from the letter previously sent by the high priest to the king. Sydney Tedesche and Solomon Zeitlin claim that the royal exemption of “those who sacrifice in Jerusalem” was a privilege for the Hasmonean high priest. It did not regard the “Samaritans and the Hellenized Jews who, not recognizing the sanctuary, offered sacrifice outside of Jerusalem.”15 It should be stated that by that time aspects of Hellenization affected Jona- than no less than they did many other Jews. Besides, this study claims that Hellenized priests had significant influence over the temple affairs while Jonathan was high priest. According to Yitzhak Magen who excavated on Mt. Gerizim, the Samar- itan temple flourished enormously during the Seleucid period.16 Its population may have reached “some 10,000 people mostly priests and Levites who depended on the temple on their livelihood.”17 Their rivalry with

13 See further here p. 226 n. 6. 14 On Jerusalem as temple-state or temple-city, see Hengel, Judaism, I, 24–25; Weinfeld, “Zion,” 104–15. 15 Tedesche and Zeitlin, 1 Maccabees, 192 n. 34. 16 For details, see Mount Gerizim, I, 167–80. 17 Mount Gerizim, 177. The same population number was suggested for Maresha; see Kloner, Maresha Excavations, I, 154. The peak population for Jerusalem in the 7th c. b.c.e. was between 7,000–15,000 (lower) and 40,000 (higher). Such numbers might have been again reached only late under Hyrcanus I and especially Alexander Janneus. On various num bers, see Faust, “Settlement,” 109–13, who suggests 20,000–26,000 people; Geva, “Summary,” 519, argues for 7,000–8,000, out of which 2,000–3,000 lived on the south-western hill. 202 chapter eight the priests and Levites on Mt. Zion must have been a daily expression.18 Jonathan’s request may have been connected with the need to enforce his authority as high priest in the region and thus increase the economic income for the temple and for the Judean state. It would thus appear that one has to deal in 1 Macc 11:34, 37 with the important question of legitimization of the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem at the hands of the Hasmonean high priest. This can also be viewed as propaganda against the Samaritan and the Oniad temples, as well as against those groups who contested the legitimacy of Jonathan’s high priesthood and of the Jerusalem temple cult.19 The royal exemption can perhaps be interpreted as also being aimed to encourage the inhabitants of the three Samarian districts annexed to Judea (cf. 1 Macc 11:34), and probably Ekron (cf. 10:89), to pay the temple taxes and bring their sacrifices to Jerusalem. The Tyrian silver shekels, half shekels, and quarter-shekels were in use at the Jerusalem temple down into the 1st c. c.e.20 Donald T. Ariel argues that “there is every reason to believe that Tyrian shekels would have been current in Jerusalem even without the Temple-tax.”21 First Maccabees 11:28 reports that Jonathan also asked Demetrius II to make Judea “free of tribute” (ἀφορολόγητον) in exchange for 300 talents. The term derives from φόρος, which seems to have denoted a fixed tribute to be paid to the king in silver.22 However, the exact request of Jonathan led scholars to contradictory interpretations.23 It is unlikely that the king would have ceded once and for all his taxation right. The meaning could be that Jonathan obliged himself to pay annually 300 (silver) talents.24 According to Joseph Sievers, one of the

18 The Levites, however, are never mentioned in First or Second Maccabees. 19 As argued here, First Maccabees was written very probably shortly after Hyrcanus I destroyed the Samaritan temple. It could be that parts of this royal letter were “rewritten” with the result to underline the unique sacredness of the Jerusalem temple. According to Honigman, “Jewish Communities,” 120–22, a Jewish temple existed since the Persian period down into the 1st c. b.c.e. also in Edfu/Apollinopolis Magna, midway between The bes and Elephantine. 20 See, for example, Liver, “Half-Shekel,” 173–98; Kindler, CLI, 9. 21 “Survey,” 284. According to Ya’akov Meshorer, TJC, 73–74, “[f ]rom 127/6 b.c.e. onwards Tyrian shekels were the only official coinage acceptable in the Temple as pay ment of the half-shekel tribute.” 22 See Martinez-Sève, “Fiscalité,” 87. For a discussion of other cases of aphorologesia in the kingdom, see Capdetrey, “Basilikon,” 111–15, 119–27. 23 Compare Abel, Maccabées, 208 and Dancy, I Maccabees, 157–58. 24 So also Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 171. The high priest Jason raised the tribute to 440 talents (2 Macc 4:8), while Menelaus to 740 talents (4:24). From 1 Macc 15:28–31 the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 203 roles of the Akra was to generate revenues for the king (cf. 2 Macc 4:28).25 How exactly this worked out in relation to Jonathan’s offices is difficult to ascertain. The discussed requests at least show how Jonathan promoted a policy of strengthening his high priesthood and trying to gain gradual independence from the royal throne.

4. King Demetrius II and the Limits to Jonathan’s Powers

Further, it can be illustrated that Jonathan’s demand regarding taxation was generated in part by the increase of the military control of Judea by Demetrius II. Hence, it is necessary to discuss the way Jonathan’s military position was related to the royal troops in Judea. Consequently, it is expedient to understand the possible implications of the royal policy for the high priesthood of Jonathan. Diodorus, who drew here on Poseidonius, is the most detailed source on Demetrius II. Diodorus presents the king as young and given much to parties (33.4.1; 33.7.9). He also mentions a certain person “who was placed over the kingdom,” usually identified with Lasthenes (cf. 1 Macc 11:31–32), and who incited the king to violent actions against his subjects (Diod. 33.4.1). Both 1 Macc 11:38 and Ant. 13.129–130 report that the king dismissed his (regular) army and kept the mercenary forces only, which caused a revolt.26 Also Diodorus reports a revolt against Demetrius II in the capital of Antioch (33.4.2–3), which is described in some detail in 1 Macc 11:43– 51 and Ant. 13.134–142. The high priest Jonathan was asked by the king to send troops to help him quell the revolt. Jonathan did so by sending 3,000 men (1 Macc 11:43–44). This number might well represent more or less Jonathan’s standing army.27 This is the second recorded time after the battle against Apollonius that Jonathan’s men fought in defense of a Seleucid king. Focus is again on Jonathan’s external military activity rather than on religious affairs or internal events. One would expect that by helping Demetrius II Jonathan confirmed still more his position as high priest. one learns that later Antiochus VII Sidetes requested 500 silver talents for the devasta tion Simon caused to Joppa, Gazara and the Akra, and another 500 for their tribute. On examples of indemnities, see Aperghis, Seleukid Economy, 72–73. 25 “Jerusalem,” 203–4. 26 See also Griffith, Mercenaries, 168. 27 So also Shatzman, Armies, 28; Kasher, “Changes,” 340. 204 chapter eight

Instead, as the ongoing discussion will show, Jonathan acted here as a royal official. Jonathan in exchange asked Demetrius II to remove the royal troops from the Akra and from other fortresses for “they kept fighting [πολεμοῦντες] against Israel” (1 Macc 11:41).28 It is not clear whether these garrisons were in Judea under Alexander I. But there is reason to believe that some of them were sent by Demetrius II after Jonathan’s attack on the Akra. This may have been the price Jonathan had to pay for the confirmation of his high priesthood in 145. Regardless of the fact that the Hasmonean high priest fulfilled the request of Demetrius II, the king did not remove his garrisons. Nor did Jonathan make use of his forces to limit their activity. First Maccabees 11:53 relates that Demetrius broke all the promises made by heavily (σφόδρα) oppressing Jonathan. Reference is probably made to the concessions in the royal letter to Jonathan in 1 Macc 11:30–37. There is reason to believe that such royal policy towards Jonathan was achieved through the active collaboration of certain Jerusalem temple authorities and other Jews who opposed the Hasmoneans. Some Jewish factions may have preferred Seleucid royal authority to the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood of Jonathan. They apparently obtained certain limits to the military activity of Jonathan and thus tried to limit his influence over the temple affairs too. This is corroborated by the fact that Demetrius II dismissed many of his troops, very probably, to avoid the need of having to pay them (cf. Ant. 13.129–130).29 Yet he continued to closely control the activity of Jonathan by reportedly establishing garrisons in Judea. As a result, the relations between Jonathan and the king had deteriorated. The weakening of Jonathan’s position and his loss of part of his privileges led the high priest to switch his loyalty to another claimer to the Seleucid throne, Antiochus VI Epiphanes Dionysus (144–140 b.c.e.). There- fore, it is necessary to study the development in the high priesthood of Jonathan in relation to this rival king.

28 Among these fortresses there probably was Beth-Zur (1 Macc 11:65; cf. 10:14). The expression ἐν τοῖς ὀχυρώμασιν in 1 Macc 11:41 is the same as in 1 Macc 10:12 with reference to the fortresses built by Bacchides (cf. 9:50–51). 29 On the post-war repayment, see Griffith, Mercenaries, 291–94. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 205

5. The archiereus Jonathan, King Antiochus VI, and Seleucid Affairs

Several sources made it explicit that Antiochus VI was merely a child when he was set over the Seleucid royal throne (1 Macc 11:39, 54, 57; 13:31; Livy, Per. 52; 55; Jos., War 1.48–49). According to 1 Macc 11:57 the boy-king confirmed Jonathan in the high priesthood. However, it is first necessary to contextualize the reported events. From 1 Macc 11:19, which reports the year of accession to the royal throne of Demetrius II until 1 Macc 13:41, another date related to the reign of Demetrius II, the author of First Maccabees provides no chronological data for any of the stories between the two passages. With the help of other sources, however, attempt shall be made to place each described event in its proper chronological context. Antiochus VI was the son of Alexander I, whom the king entrusted to “Imalkue the Arab” to bring up as a future Seleucid king. Tryphon, surnamed Diodotus, who formerly belonged to the circles of Alexander I, went to Imalkue to have Antiochus given to him with the view of proclaiming him a king (1 Macc 11:39–40; Str. 16.2.10; Diod. 32.9c; 33.4a; Livy, Per. 52; Jos., Ant. 13.131; App., Syr. 68).30 John Grainger argues that Tryphon was probably among those who instigated the revolt in Antioch against Demetrius II (cf. 1 Macc 1:42–51).31 According to Diodorus 33.3, both Diodo- tus and a certain Hierax were in charge of the administration of the city under Alexander I, and later aided Ptolemy VI in capturing it (32.9c).32 Also First Maccabees, after having dealt with the role of Jonathan’s troops in this revolt, resumes its narrative on Antiochus VI and Tryphon in 11:54–56, begun in 11:39–40. The institution of the kingship of Antiochus VI took place in two stages: At first, he began to reign (see ἐβασίλευσε; cf. 10:1) in Apamea where he put on the (royal) diadem (11:54). In fact, according to Josephus, Tryphon was an Apamean by birth (Ant. 13.131).33

30 In Diod. 32.9d–10.1 an Imalkue is known as Diocles, while in 33.4a as Iamblichos. Josephus, Ant. 13.131 refers to him as Malchos. Abel, Maccabées, 212, argued Imalkue was a son of Zabdiel (cf. 1 Macc 11:17). On the support of Imalkue to Alexander I, see Grainger, Cities, 177–80; Retsö, Arabs, 316–17. 31 SPG, 69; so also Ehling, Untersuchungen, 166. Strabo 16.2.10 speaks of Tryphon quell ing a revolution but does not mention Antioch, or Antiochus VI. 32 Appian, Syr. 68 tells that Diodotus was a “slave” (δοῦλος) of the royal house. It is not clear when, and if, Tryphon was formerly a slave. 33 Josephus’ source here is closer to Diod. 33.4a. Str. 16.2.10 has Tryphon surnamed Diodotus born at Casiana, a fortress of the Apamean country. While Livy, Per. 52 refers to him only with this name, in Per. 55 he states that the nickname of Diodotus was Tryphon. Appian, Syr. 68 reports that only at a later time did Diodotus take the name of Tryphon. 206 chapter eight

Later on, Tryphon took control of Antioch with the help of forces whom Demetrius II had earlier dismissed (1 Macc 11:55–56). In fact, it was Try- phon who further ran the royal affairs. Seeing that Jonathan was First Friend of Alexander, it is possible that the Hasmonean high priest personally knew Tryphon. The earliest dated silver coins of Antiochus VI struck in Apamea indicate Sel. 168.34 Based on numismatic evidence Arthur Houghton showed that the Apamean mint of Antiochus substituted that of Demetrius II in Antioch only in the Sel. 169. Demetrius detained his influence in Antioch at least until late in 144 b.c.e.35 This challenges the view of both Robartus J. van der Spek36 and Kay Ehling,37 who claim that Tryphon occupied the capital by the summer of 144. These considerations also help one place Jonathan’s earlier sending of troops to Antioch (1 Macc 11:43–44) not before the winter of 145/4. An attempt can also be made to date the royal letter referred to in 1 Macc 11:57. First, that Jonathan would have acknowledged the royal title of a rival king is not without precedence. He did the same thing in the case of Alexander I who established himself in Ptolemais in 152. Second, Antiochus VI is not mentioned by his title of king in 1 Macc 11:57 (cf. 12:39; 13:31), which mentions him as being “young.” Third, the report of the occupation of Antioch just before the sending of the letter can be understood as a narrative technique aimed to implicitly legitimize the royal authority of Antiochus. Fourth, in light of the following narrated events in 1 Macc 11–12, it emerges that this letter had been sent before Tryphon occupied the capital. These elements suggest the royal letter was sent to Jonathan by Antiochus VI very probably from Apamea either in the spring or summer of 144.

6. The Confirmation of Jonathan as archiereus by King Antiochus VI

It has been suggested that Jonathan dealt directly with Tryphon in pursuing confirmation of his high priesthood. But why would Jonathan have looked for this confirmation? Did Antiochus VI also confirm the other Hellenistic titles of Jonathan?

34 On the coins of Antiochus VI, see Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 63–67. 35 “Accession,” 277–79. 36 “New Evidence,” 171. 37 Untersuchungen, 166. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 207

It is first necessary to introduce the contents of the royal letter. Quiet abruptly the reader is informed that Antiochus wrote to Jonathan in the following way: I confirm you in the high priesthood (῞Ιστημί σοι τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην), and set you (καθίστημί σε) over the four districts (νομῶν), and that you be one of the Friends (τῶν φίλων) of the king (1 Macc 11:57). The rest of the letter is paraphrased: Antiochus reportedly sent Jona- than golden vessels, gave him authority to drink from golden cups and wear purple and a golden buckle (1 Macc 11:58). The king also appointed (κατέστησε) Simon, Jonathan’s brother, as strategos from the Ladder of Tyre down to the borders with Egypt (11:59). Why the pro-Hasmonean author passed from a verbatim form of the letter to a paraphrase of it is unknown. It contains no statement on the alliance of Jonathan with Antiochus VI (cf. 1 Macc 10:18, 26; 11:33), and indeed no condition or exhortation is included (cf. 10:20, 27). This raises the suspicion that there was a deliberate intent to obscure certain parts of the original letter. According to Josephus, Antiochus had ambassadors sent to Jonathan who assured his alliance with the new king, after accusing Demetrius II for having caused him many sufferings (Ant. 13.145–147). The letter lacks the greeting formula, which could hardly be omitted in an official letter. Notwithstanding, its contents appear to be based on a genuine document. This is enforced by the letter’s discrepancy with the preceding narrative material, and especially by what follows. Also the political and military context discussed here in which Jonathan found himself supports the authenticity of the letter. A look at what has been preserved in the text reveals three important elements: First, there is reference to the royal confirmation of the high priesthood of Jonathan. Second, there is royal confirmation of Jonathan’s jurisdiction over the four districts. Third, there is mention of Jonathan being made a Friend of the new king. Why did Jonathan think it necessary to have his high priesthood confirmed by a rival boy-king? This question is even more urgent in light of the fact that less than a year before, Jonathan had already had his high priesthood confirmed by Demetrius II (cf. 1 Macc 11:27). It has been argued here that the political pressure of Demetrius II on Jonathan was implemented in collaboration with the internal enemies of 208 chapter eight the Hasmonean high priest.38 Given the circumstances around the Seleu- cid throne before Tryphon captured Antioch, there was likely a period of intense diplomatic and military activities. There passed at least half a year between the proclamation of Antiochus VI as king and the occupation of Antioch. This time span can be assumed from the records of Diodo- rus, who tells that at first Demetrius II did not pay much attention to the proclamation of the boy Antiochus as king by Tryphon (33.4a). Demetrius reacted only when Tryphon successfully built up a huge army. Astronomi cal Diary 3 No. -143 A ´Rev.´ 18´–22´ has the troops of Antiochus—who is not acknowledged as king yet—operating in Babylon in the summer of 144.39 During this period the kings were using all the available means to gather as many allies and mercenary troops as possible.40 The provincial rulers and factions too were building up their own strategies. Therefore, Jonathan’s switching policy was almost certainly generated by a certain threat experienced by him with regard to his position as high priest and military and political leader under Demetrius II. In fact, it is indirectly revealed from the royal letter in 1 Macc 11:57 that Jonathan asked Antiochus VI—probably Tryphon—for confirmation of his high priesthood. The same verb ἵστημι is used as in 1 Macc 11:27, in reference to Demetrius II. In exchange, Jonathan offered Tryphon his political and perhaps military support (cf. Ant. 13.145). This is corroborated by the appointment of Simon as strategos over the coastal plain, a power which, however, he hardly exercised.41 It could be that both Jonathan and Simon took part in a wide political conspiracy against Demetrius. Why was it so important for Jonathan to remain an archiereus in Hel- lenistic fashion? To be sure, separation of civil offices from the religious one would have conditioned the further policy of the Hasmonean leader. Having to give up the high priestly office would have created an excellent occasion for someone else to occupy it. Jonathan would have found himself rivaled by this person who might have easily gotten the approval of Demetrius II. The Hellenistic model of high priesthood instead was a potential form of government, by which Jonathan could consolidate his

38 On opposition against Jonathan, see Sievers, Hasmoneans, 86–87. 39 See further Del Monte, TBE, 100. Babylon was occupied by the Parthians in 145. See also Potts, “History of Elymais,” 352. 40 On methods of recruiting mercenaries, see Griffith, Mercenaries, 254–63. 41 Grainger, Syrian Wars, 359, in fact, observes that the two Hasmonean brothers were actually invited to attack the cities along the coastal plain. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 209 own policy and expand his political, military and religious monopoly even beyond the borders of Judea. But there was another reason why Jonathan appealed to Antiochus VI– Tryphon. The confirmation of Jonathan as archiereus was sealed by the conferring of the title of Friend of the king (1 Macc 11:57). This act was accompanied by the sending of a service of gold plate. Its use was a royal right which the king could extend to his First Friends and Friends. In addition, Jonathan was granted the right to dress in purple and wear a golden buckle (1 Macc 11:58//Ant. 13.146; cf. 1 Macc 10:89). Jonathan became thus a member of a new royal hierarchy. In this way, he secured for himself political and military support against Demetrius II and the latter’s militants in and around Judea. Tryphon also approved the (re)annexation of the four districts under the jurisdiction of Jonathan (1 Macc 11:57). The districts in question are the three mentioned in 1 Macc 11:34, namely that of Aphairema, Lydda and Ramathaim. As for the identity of the fourth district, Ekron seems to be the most likely one (cf. 10:89). In fact, the reader was expected to know the names of all four districts from the preceding narrative. It seems that Josephus understood it in this sense (Ant. 13.145). This interpretation is in line with 1 Macc 11:53, which claims that Demetrius II broke all the promises he made. It will be important then to see if and in what way the policy of the high priest Jonathan changed both on the internal and external levels.

7. The archiereus Jonathan and His Expansionist Policy

Once Tryphon occupied the capital of Antioch in late 144, Livy (Per. 52) has Demetrius II take refuge in Seleucia, while Josephus (Ant. 13.145) mentions Cilicia (cf. 13.86). It is not clear whether it was Seleucia-in-Cilicia or Seleucia-in-Pieria, or even Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. What is clear is that Cilicia, Mesopotamia and Babylonia remained loyal to Demetrius. Both kings continued to mint coins in the territories under their control and to conquer new ones.42 In the eastern part, however, the Parthians were already a constant threat.43

42 See Str. 16.2.19. Antiochus VI minted at Berytus and Byblos. Demetrius II continued to mint in Tyre and Sidon. On this period, see further Bevan, House, 226–27; Will, Histoire, II, 340–41; Grainger, Cities, 132–33, 157–60. 43 For details, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, From Samarkhand, 223–24. 210 chapter eight

The defection of Jonathan left little hope for the opposition in his removal from the high priestly office. It could only hope for a victory for Demetrius II. Jonathan’s siding with Antiochus VI–Tryphon, together with the appointment of Simon as strategos, opened the way for the Hasmoneans to use forces against both internal and external opponents apparently without being limited by either of the two kings. It is no wonder that 1 Macc 11:60–74 describes the separate military campaigns of both Jonathan and Simon against the surrounding people and cities. The text as a whole contains many narrative inaccuracies and ideological tendencies, which do not concern this study.44 Three main issues, however, should be particularly noted. The first issue regards the reported military expeditions of Jonathan around Judea, to Gaza, Ashkelon, Damascus (?) and other places, where he conquered or established alliances with the neighboring cities (1 Macc 11:60–62).45 At one point, the high priest also took hostages who must have been used as either slaves or mercenaries in his army. Plundering of people and taking of slaves became a significant practice for the consolidation of Jonathan’s high priestly rule. The second issue regards the expedition of the troops of Demetrius II against Jonathan in 1 Macc 11:63–64, 67–74. The former intended to remove (μεταστῆσαι) Jonathan from the office (χρεία; 11:63), which refers to his high priesthood. The battle took place on the plain of Hazor. After an initial check Jonathan’s army reportedly managed to repel the enemy. Jonathan could probably rely also upon some Jewish settlements in Galilee.46 A recently unearthed Hellenistic administrative building in Kedesh (Galilee) yielded evidence, which, as the archaeologists claim, was abandoned “in or just after 145.”47 The third issue regards the conquest of Beth-Zur by Simon reported in 1 Macc 11:65–66, where he stationed a Hasmonean garrison. This action reveals the intent of the Hasmonean brothers to occupy the Seleucid fortresses in Judea previously built or fortified by Bacchides (9:50–53). Beth-Zur was an important stronghold facing Idumea and remained

44 On this aspect, see briefly Ehling, Untersuchungen, 171–72. 45 According to Isac L. Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 245, the LXXIsa 11:14 alludes to the conquests of Jonathan. 46 On the existence of sparse settlements, see Leibner, Settlement, 318–26. 47 See Herbert and Berlin, “Administrative Center,” 54. The authors concluded that Jonathan plundered but did not occupy the place itself. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 211 uninterruptedly in the hands of the enemies of the Hasmoneans probably since 162 (1 Macc 6:50; 10:14; cf. 2 Macc 13:22).48 However, the threat on the part of Demetrius II’s commanders was not over. Later, 1 Macc 12:24–25//Ant. 13.174 reports that Jonathan heard that they “returned” to fight him, so he went with his army to the country of Hamath to meet them. This is the third stated time Jonathan decided to face the enemy outside Judea (cf. 1 Macc 10:77–87; 11:63–74). The enemy was reportedly afraid to openly face Jonathan’s army in combat, and withdrew by crossing the Eleutherus river (1 Macc 12:26–30//Ant. 13.175–179). As with 1 Macc 11:60–74, here too one notes a lack of historical accuracy. The organization and the marching of Jonathan raise some question marks.49 As Étienne Nodet aptly notes, “[c]es récits donnent l’impression que c’est Jonathan—et non Tryphon—qui a reconquis la Syrie pour le compte d’Antiochos VI. . . .”50 Also, where one would expect to see Simon leading the army after his appointment as strategos, announced in 1 Macc 11:59, it is Jonathan who does so. According to 1 Macc 12:31–32, Jonathan then attacked the Arabs, called Zabadeans. Josephus informs that Jonathan attacked the Nabateans (Ant. 13.179; cf. 1 Macc 9:35). Simon instead attacked Ashkelon and Joppa, whose inhabitants wanted to hand the stronghold to Demetrius II. Simon stationed a garrison there (1 Macc 12:33–34). This was the third time the Has- moneans attacked Ashkelon (cf. 10:86; 11:60), and the second time Joppa (cf. 10:67).51 The latter was a seaport and an important trade center (Diod. 1.31.2; Str. 16.2.28). For the present study, four things must be singled out: First, in the context of the rivalry between Demetrius II and Antiochus VI–Tryphon, military strategy became, in fact, an important and effective factor in

48 The intense occupation of Beth-Zur from at least the 5th c. (cf. Neh 3:16) seems to be firmly established by numismatic and other evidence; see Funk, “History,” 14–15, 17. Coins of both Antiochus IV and Hyrcanus I have also been found; see Sellers, “Objects,” 80–81. 49 The narrative implies that Jonathan would have marched some 400 km (or about 240 miles) in order to anticipate the enemy. What was the location of the enemy camp at the time the message left for Jonathan? Note the two indicative aorist forms in 1 Macc 12:24 (ἤκουσεν. . . ἐπέστρεψαν). Between the departing of the message and the arrival of Jonathan to the Hamath region, one would have needed at least several weeks. Why did Jonathan march so far and apparently without difficulties? Moreover, where was Tryphon with his army at this time? 50 Crise, 108. 51 Joppa passed temporarily under Ptolemy VI (1 Macc 11:60) and then probably under Demetrius II. According to Josephus’ Ant. 13.180, Simon left a garrison in Ashkelon, but this seems to be pure inference based on 1 Macc 12:33–34. 212 chapter eight securing Jonathan’s high priesthood. Jonathan, again, acted as a Hellenis- tic archiereus with little care about the Jewish halakhah. Second, behind these military attacks there was plunder (see ἔλαβε τὰ σκῦλα αὐτῶν: 1 Macc 12:31), but also expansion of Judean borders. This enabled Jonathan to expand his high priestly authority. Third, this is the first time Simon is reported to have undertaken military actions outside Judea, and the second time he acted separately from Jonathan (cf. 11:64–65). Leaving Simon “in the country” (11:64) was likely part of the Hasmonean strategy in order to ensure safe succession in the Hasmonean high priestly office.

8. The archiereus Jonathan and His External Diplomatic Relations

Jonathan did not limit himself to the use of forces only in order to strengthen and expand his Hellenistic model of high priesthood. First Maccabees 12:1 reports an embassy being sent to Rome and Sparta after his first military confrontation with the troops of Demetrius II. The chronological notes in First Maccabees and the order of the narrated events support the historicity of this embassy, which can tentatively be dated to early 143.52 If so, the envoys returned to Jerusalem only in 142. It is necessary to understand the reason for this embassy, and the way it contributed to the consolidation of Jonathan’s high priesthood.

8.1. The Embassies of the archiereus Jonathan to Rome and Sparta In their address before the Roman Senate the Jewish envoys Numenius, son of Antiochus and Antipater, son of Jason, state that they had been sent by “Jonathan the archiereus and the Jewish ethnos,” to confirm and renew (cf. 1 Macc 8:17–22) the friendship (φιλίαν) and alliance (συμμαχίαν; 12:3, 16). Unlike the letter(s) to Sparta there is no quotation from the letter to or from the Roman Senate. First Maccabees 12:4 states that the Romans gave the Jewish envoys letters of support for safe conduct to Judea. Josephus in his War 1.48, independent from First Maccabees, claims that

52 Sherwin-White, Roman Policy, 78, underlines the Seleucid threat as being the cause behind the Hasmonean push to seeking Rome’s help. However, the author also argues that before Hyrcanus I any alliance with Rome remains “unsupported and doubtful,” but adduces no significant proof. Instead, for Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 748–51, “[t]he tim ing [for this embassy] . . . would not be inappropriate,” although he too does not offer a conclusive judgment. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 213

Jonathan strengthened his rule by the “friendship” with the Romans (cf. Ant. 13.165). Why would Jonathan have sent an embassy to Rome? As Sara R. Mandell reminds us, “Rome never granted an eternal amicitia.”53 It had to be renewed by every local ruler or polis. The earlier reported amicitia of Judas with Rome (1 Macc 8:17) had no political validity for Jonathan. That Jonathan would have desired the stipulation of a political and a military alliance (i.e. foedus) is certainly possible. But this would have had the implication of a political and perhaps even a military engagement (cf. 8:23–32). Even in the Roman letter quoted in 1 Macc 15:16–21, considered by most scholars as mainly authentic, one does not find any Roman political or military obligation. Interfering in Seleucid affairs other than those regarding the foreign policy and the succession in the royal throne does not seem to have been on the agenda of the Roman Senate at this time. There is reason to believe that only a renewal of “friendship” had been confirmed by the Romans (cf. 1 Macc 12:1). Also Josephus understood it this way both in his War 1.48 and Ant. 13.165. This is despite the fact that just before in his paraphrase of 1 Macc 12:3//Ant. 13.164–165 the historian preserved both juridical terms, namely συμμαχία and φιλία. The developments around the Seleucid throne got out of the control of Rome. This may have prompted Jonathan to bypass the authority of the Seleucid king. Jonathan’s plan to conquer the Akra (cf. 1 Macc 12:36) seems to have been the primary reason that pushed him to contact Rome.54 Here too, Jonathan is portrayed as having acted as a Hellenistic high priestly ruler, who sought the protection of Rome against the Seleucids. He was very probably the first official leader of Judea to have been introduced to Rome as archiereus of the Jewish ethnos.55 And no civil title of Jonathan is mentioned in 1 Macc 12:3. This diplomatic move with Rome was a further proof of opposition to the Seleucid royal throne itself. The importance of this event for the history of Judea may also find an echo in Diodorus 40.2. This source is partially paralleled in Josephus’ Ant. 14.41–45. Diodorus reports that at a time

53 “Rome,” 86. 54 Chris Seeman, Rome and Judea, 160, accepts the historicity of this embassy but argues that “it is not possible to anchor Jonathan’s overture to any specific set of events.” Seeman further assumes that it could happen any time, even at the beginning of Jonathan’s tenure as high priest. 55 Thus the first time an official leader of Judea is being introduced to the Romans, is not as king, political or military leader, but as archiereus. 214 chapter eight when Judea was ruled by an archiereus the Jews revolted (ἀφεστηκότας) from Demetrius (?) and sent an embassy to the (Roman) Senate. If the emendation of ἱεροῦ into Δημητρίου is correct, it could be that the king in question is Demetrius II and so the archiereus could be Jonathan.56 While the motivations for the renewal of diplomatic relations with Rome by Jonathan were political and perhaps military ambitions, what then was the reason for his renewal of relations with the Spartans? Jonathan’s letter to the Spartans is reproduced in 1 Macc 12:6–18. From 1 Macc 12:7 it is evident that Jonathan attached to this letter a copy of another letter received by “the archiereus” Onias, probably Onias I, from the king of the Spartans, probably Areius I.57 The text of the copy itself is given in 1 Macc 12:20–23 (cf. Ant. 12.226–227). The pro-Hasmonean author took great pains to mention no pre- Hasmonean high priest other than Alcimus. Here, not only is Onias mentioned in two documents, but the letter of Areius to Onias underlines the international prominence of the latter. Why would the Hasmoneans have inserted such an edifying letter, in a time when the Oniad temple in Leon- topolis was probably already functioning? Firstly, the Hasmonean letter appears to legitimize implicitly the diplomatic relations of Jonathan with the Spartans by pointing out a similar practice between Onias (I) and Areius (I).58 This tradition seems to have been well established by the time of the composition of First Maccabees.59 Secondly, both letters speak about an alleged affiliation of the Jews with the Spartans based on Abrahamic tradition.60 Jonathan’s letter ends with the request for a renewal (ἀνανεώσασθαι) of the brotherhood and friendship (1 Macc 12:10; cf. 12:17–18).

56 Usually scholars point to Judas as the archiereus, while Demetrius I as the king. So, for instance, Walton, Diodorus XII, 279 n (LCL); Stern, GLAJJ, I, No. 64. However, Judas was not entitled to act officially as archiereus. Unlike Justin’s Epitome 36.3.9, Diodorus does not speak of this embassy as being the first one. 57 See Gruen, Heritage, 253–68; VanderKam, From Joshua, 124–37. 58 In 2 Macc 5:9, Jason fled to the Spartans hoping to find protection there διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. In Ant. 14.247–255 Josephus reports a decree of the city of Pergamum that must belong to the time of Hyrcanus I. It ends with asserting that the city’s ancestors were φίλοι with the Hebrews, whose father was Abraham. 59 This aspect was accepted also by Gruen, Heritage, 265, although he objects to an early Jewish–Spartan relation at the time of Areius I. In favor of their historicity, see how ever, VanderKam, From Joshua, 135–36. 60 According to Plutarch, Lycurgus 20.3, Hecateus of Abdera visited Sparta at the time of Areius I, and wrote a book on Abraham and the Egyptians. Stephanus of Byzantium (FGH 273 F 120) quoted Polyhistor, who narrated about a common genealogy of Jews and Spartans. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 37, traces this tradition back to Eupolemus. See, how ever, Gruen, Heritage, 267–68. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 215

However, Abrahamic tradition was not the primary reason why Jona- than addressed the Spartans. International prestige and thus his position as high priest mattered much more. This aspect emerges from the reading of 1 Macc 12:1–2, which affirms that similar letters were sent to other places as well. It is, in fact, improbable that in all these letters reference should have been made to Abraham.61 Jonathan probably wanted to make known to other Hellenistic powers that a new high priest had begun to rule in Judea. Just as Onias (I) supposedly acted as the founder of the Oniad high priesthood, so also Jonathan acted as the founder of a new high priestly dynasty, that of the Hasmoneans. Jonathan’s ultimate goal was to gain international recognition and thus strengthen his position as Hellenistic archiereus.

8.2. Jewish Supporters of the High Priesthood of Jonathan The greeting formula in 1 Macc 12:6 deserves further attention. In translation it states that “Jonathan the archiereus, the gerousia of the ethnos, the priests, and the rest of the Jewish people send greetings to their brothers Spartans.” Just as in the address to the Roman Senate in 1 Macc 12:3, here too Jonathan is referred to with the title of archiereus, while the ethnos is mentioned separately from it (cf. 10:20). For the first time in First Maccabees there is attested the gerousia of the ethnos, not mentioned in 1 Macc 12:3 as a supporting body of Jonathan.62 The implication would be that the gerousia represented the Jewish ethnos but was probably subject to the authority of the high priest Jonathan, who is listed first.63 Little is known about the specific role of the Jewish gerousia and its members during this period.64 Under the ex-high priest Menelaus the gerousia members are assumed to have had some authority in the administration of the temple revenues, and were able to challenge the authority

61 Gruen, Heritage, 266–67, puts both letters on the same level when he argues that the Jews “attempted to assimilate Greeks into their own traditions.” 62 Cf. τῇ γερουσία τῶν Ιουδαίων in 2 Macc 11:27. The γερουσία occurs also in 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44; 3 Macc 1:8. It is attested also in Jdt 4:8; 15:8; 11:14. In the Hebrew Bible, where the .elders (of Israel)” occurs, the LXX has sometimes γερουσία“—זקני (ישראל) expression But more frequently it translates literally with πρεσβύτεροι, a term, which appears also in 1 Macc 1:26; 7:33; 11:23; 12:35; 13:36; 14:9, 28; 16:2. See further Sisti, “Governo,” 158–61. 63 A similar ruling system seems to emerge from 2 Macc 4:43–50, which narrates events from the time of the high priest Menelaus. See also 2 Macc 11:27. 64 Horsley, Scribes, 63–65, asserts that the gerousia was (predominantly) an aristocratic priestly body. The more common view is to view it as both priestly and lay aristocracy. See Grabbe, History, II, 190–91, 229–34; see here pp. 41–42. 216 chapter eight of the high priest before the king (2 Macc 4:43–44). Elsewhere too, such an institution could be involved in the administration of the temples’ revenues.65 The Jewish gerousia must have undergone a structural transformation in the 2d c. Judea.66 Therefore, it is difficult to say whether 1 Macc 12:6 reflects the historical situation at the time of Jonathan or that of under the high priest Hyrcanus I. Nevertheless, in many aspects its role was connected with the temple administration and other affairs. Still, one must not assume that all members of the gerousia were willing to back the high priesthood of Jonathan. The second supporting body of Jonathan listed in 1 Macc 12:6 are “the priests” (οἱ ἱερεῖς).67 Already in 1 Macc 11:23 a group of priests is mentioned together with “the elders” as supporters of the cause of Jonathan. The issue at stake was the confirmation of Jonathan in the high priestly office by King Demetrius II. However, the priests are less prominent in the narratives concerning Jonathan’s high priesthood than the elders are. Perhaps because of their status as priests they do not take part in the meeting described in 1 Macc 12:35–36. Nor are they recorded in a later letter addressed to Simon by Demetrius II in 1 Macc 13:36. Nevertheless, they will reemerge as an important and decisive institution in relation to the legitimization of the high priesthood of Simon in 1 Macc 14.68 In order to further learn about the nature of the high priesthood of Jonathan, it is necessary to focus on his internal military policy.

9. The Military and Administrative Projects of Jonathan: Literary and Archaeological Evidence

The Seleucid royal dominion which the Akra in Jerusalem represented continued to remain the major problem for Jonathan. According to 1 Macc 12:35–36, he summoned the elders of the people (τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τοῦ λαοῦ) to plan the building of fortresses in Judea, and to raise the Jeru- salem walls higher and make several other repairs in the city. Decision also had been taken to build a separating wall between the Akra and the

65 See Dignas, Economy, 198–99, passim. 66 In the second introductory letter in 2 Macc 1:10, whose authenticity is much debated, the gerousia is listed as if it were Judas’ supporting body. The fact that no mention of it is made for the time of Alcimus, does not mean that there was no such institution. Its history in the 2d c. Judea deserves separate research. 67 Antiquities 13.166 reads τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἱερέων. 68 See here esp. pp. 264–66. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 217 rest of Jerusalem. Josephus writes that Jonathan gathered “all the people in the temple” to decide on its fortification, building of towers, and the repairs of the city walls (Ant. 13.181–182). Some of his details seem to be based on the inference that after its demolition by Antiochus V–Lysias in 163, the temple fortification wall was not yet rebuilt (cf. 1 Macc 6:62// Ant. 12.383).69 Based on the chronological order of events described in 1 Macc 11:54– 12:35 it is impossible that all of them would have occurred by the end of 144. As discussed above, the letter of Antiochus VI to Jonathan (11:57) should be dated probably before the late 144. Thus, the second military expedition of Jonathan (12:24–32) can be dated to the winter of 144/3, at the earliest. This allows one to date his initiation of the massive building project to the spring of 143. The very fact that the high priest Jonathan had to accomplish this project in collaboration with the “elders” may indicate the latter enjoyed (certain) support among the populace. Also the role of Simon reemerges in the note of 1 Macc 12:38. It relates that Simon built Adida on the edge of the Shephelah and fortified it. This passage, again, shows him acting independently from his brother Jonathan. Kathleen M. Kenyon claimed to have identified some remains in Jeru- salem of the building activity of Jonathan. These would include remains of several walls and a massive tower on the south-eastern hill close to the temple area.70 Gregory J. Wightman even suggested identifying the remains of a wall south of the temple area with the barrier raised by Jon- athan.71 In chapter five in this treatise concerning the establishment of Jonathan in Jerusalem, it was posited that the most likely place was the south-western hill. It was also suggested that it was Jonathan who began rebuilding the so-called “First Wall” in 152.72 It was also argued that in 1 Macc 12:36 the verb ὑψῶσαι should be understood in the sense of raising the existing wall higher.73 The reason behind Jonathan’s blockade was to isolate the Akra inhabitants so that they could “neither buy nor sell” (1 Macc 12:36; cf. 6:18–20;

69 See also Grimm, I Maccabäer, 193; Marcus, Josephus, VII, 317 n g (LCL). 70 Jerusalem, 192–93, 199. 71 Walls, 186; cf. Kenyon, Jerusalem, 200, Fig. 29 Site H. 72 See here pp. 129–31. See also Broshi and Gibson, “Excavations,” 151; Geva, “Summary,” 526–34. 73 So Goldstein, I Maccabees, 463. In 1 Macc 12:35 the verb οἰκοδομέω is used to indicate the building of new strongholds (cf. 4:60; 10:10; 15:39). 218 chapter eight

11:20); hence primarily an economic blockade.74 The archaeological remains show that Jerusalem imported a variety of Greek artifacts, such as wares, lamps, and also food (especially fish), as well as other goods.75 The most evident of all is the import of Greek amphora, hundreds of which were found in the City of David.76 A considerably less number have been uncovered on the south-western hill.77 According to Donald T. Ariel about 95% of the amphora stamps were found in the City of David.78 Most of the amphora handles are stamped and contain the names of their fab- ricants, sometimes the month, dates and other incised elements such as the image of Helios, the sun god.79 Most of these amphorae are dated between ca. 260 and ca. 150, and originate in Rhodos, while others are Knidian, Chian, or Koan.80 Ariel concluded that “whereas the import of Greek amphoras declines somewhat abruptly around 150 b.c.e. at the City of David . . . the finds from the Jewish Quarter continue towards the end of the 2nd century.”81 Gerald Finkielsztejn lowered the former date by a few years and connected it with the blockade of the Akra by Jonathan.82 Further, Ariel and Finkielsztejn noted a similarity in the proportions of the different groups between Jerusalem and other sites such as Mare- sha, Samaria or Scythopolis.83 Thus the degree of commercial activity of Jerusalem was not much different from other surrounding cities. Some amphorae may have arrived in Jerusalem empty in order to be filled up with local drinks and food. But even according to the (minimalist) interpretation of Ariel other amphorae must have arrived with a variety of imported foodstuffs, mostly wine and oil.84 In his turn, Yitzhak Magen finds “surprising” the fact that the excavators of the temple city on Mt. Gerizim yielded “no imported pottery from the Greek islands.”85 This is true also with regard to other Greek imports. This

74 On the significance of this blockade, see Sievers, “Jerusalem,” 203–4. 75 See further Rosenthal-Heginbottom, “Fine Wares and Lamps,” 192–223. 76 Ariel, Excavations, II, 14–25; Gunneweg and Yellin, “Origin,” 89–93. 77 For details, see Geva, “Hellenistic Pottery,” 115–17; Ariel, “Imported Amphora,” 224–25. 78 Excavations, II, 21. See also Snow and Prag, “Stamped Amphora,” 404. 79 See further Ariel, Excavations, II, esp. 38–65, 80–81. 80 Excavations, II, 14. 81 “Imported Greek Amphora,” 268. So also Ariel and Shoham, “Stamped Handles,” 138; Prag, Excavations, V, 471. 82 “Hellenistic Jerusalem,” 27*. 83 “Amphora Stamps,” 137–51. 84 So Johnsson, “Export,” 142–44; Snow and Prag, “Stamped Amphora,” 407–8. 85 Magen et al., Mount Gerizim, I, 10. According to Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 209, “[t]here were no imported vessels from the Mediterranean, such as storage jars from the the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 219 would entail a sharp distinction between the two temple cities. Accord- ing to Magen, “the archaeological evidence indicates that mount Gerizim continued to grow and develop, and no signs of a pagan presence have been discovered there.” Gentile population was instead concentrated in Shekhem, Samaria, and other places.86 It appears that the population of Jerusalem was far more exposed to the Hellenizing process than the one on Mt. Gerizim. This phenomenon fits in well with the Hellenistic reforms promoted by the Jerusalem high priests Jason, Menelaus, and to a certain extent Alcimus. Both Ariel87 and Finkielsztejn88 connect the intense trade there with the dietary habits of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid garrisons as well as of the Hellenized Jews concentrated mainly in the City of David. The latter appears to have continued to enjoy a privileged status thanks to the location of the royal Akra. There is strong reason to believe that both colonizers and Hellenized Jews living in Jerusalem continued to interact with royal chancelleries and with the Hellenistic world independently from the Hasmonean high priest. This aspect is important for further identifying the opposition to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Also worth attention is the report in War 7.284–285. It mentions ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς . . . Ἰωνάθης who built a fortress, which he called “Masada.” Schol- ars debate whether it was Jonathan or Janneus.89 Coins of Ptolemies, Seleucids, and of Hyrcanus I, have been found there.90 Therefore, the high priest Jonathan remains a strong possibility. The above discussed literary sources and archaeological finds indicate the extent to which Jonathan was busy with military and administrative projects in order to safeguard his Hellenistic type of high priesthood. Not a single word is spent on the temple or the temple affairs. Indeed, the policy of Jonathan (and Simon) was aimed at a systematic achievement of independence of the Hasmonean high priesthood from the Seleucid royal throne.

Greek islands bearing stamp impressions, known from many Hellenistic-period sites, including Jerusalem”. 86 Mount Gerizim, II, 177, 209–10. 87 Excavations, II, 18–21. 88 “Hellenistic Jerusalem,” 27*–29*. See also Prag, Excavations, V, 471. ;יותן and יהונתן Some scholars think it was Janneus, who appears on his coins both as 89 see Meshorer, TJC, 209–17. But Josephus refers to him always as Alexander (cf. War 1.85). See further Tsafrir, “Desert Fortresses,” 126–27; Meshel, “Nabataean ‘Rock’,” 110. 90 See Meshorer, “Coins,” 85–86, but who opts for Janneus (p. 71). 220 chapter eight

10. The Capture of Jonathan in Light of Some Dead Sea Scrolls

The pro-Hasmonean author overemphasizes the role of Jonathan when he states that Tryphon wanted to become king, but was allegedly afraid that Jonathan would not let him do so (1 Macc 12:39–40//Ant. 13.187). The real issue at stake was not so much what Tryphon intended to do, but rather what Jonathan’s real ambitions were. Later Tryphon would also accuse Jonathan of not having paid the money to the royal treasury for the offices (χρείας) he held (1 Macc 13:15). Tryphon decided to march on Jonathan (1 Macc 12:40). In response, the Hasmonean high priest reportedly met him at Beth Shean with 40,000 men (12:41).91 This number is exaggerated but Jonathan certainly made a very strong impression on Tryphon, who invited Jonathan to release the army and accompany him to Ptolemais.92 Tryphon promised that he would hand it over to Jonathan together with several other fortresses (12:42–45).93 The Hasmonean leader dismissed most of his army and left for Ptolemais reportedly with only a 1,000 men, while sending another 2,000 to Galilee (1 Macc 12:46–47//Ant. 13.191).94 What many Seleucid commanders could not accomplish by war, Try- phon was able to achieve by treachery. Once Jonathan and his men entered the city, Tryphon’s men closed the gates and made an assault on Jonathan’s men and killed them. Jonathan himself was taken prisoner (1 Macc 12:48//Ant. 13.192). Tryphon also sent his men to kill the Has- monean troops in Galilee who did manage to return to Jerusalem and report the incident (1 Macc 12:49–53//Ant. 13.192–196). With reference to this event Josephus states in his War 1.48–49 that Jonathan’s pact with Antiochus VI did not prove sufficient for his security (ἀσφάλεια), and defines Tryphon as a τύραννος.95 The capture of Jonathan appears to have received several echoes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus 1QpHab ix 9–12 speaks of the “Wicked Priest”

91 The author does not use the Greek name Scythopolis, although Josephus does it in a second instance (Ant. 13.188). On its location and extent during the Hellenistic period, see Arubas et al., “Beth-Shean,” 1621. 92 Contrary to Bar-Kochva, “Hellenistic Warfare,” 89; Shatzman, Armies, 29, evaluates the number as “rather too high”; cf. 1 Macc 16:4. According to the recent estimation of Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 52, at this time the whole population of Judea, including the three “toparchies,” was about 60,000. 93 Grainger, Syrian Wars, 359 reports Tryphon occupied Ptolemais in 143. 94 For Tal, “Hellenism,” 61–62, there were Seleucid fortresses in Galilee. 95 According to War 1.49 Antiochus VI happened to be in Ptolemais. the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 221

This event may also be .(]אויביו) ”delivered into the hands of “his enemies alluded to in 1QpHab viii 13–ix 2 and xi 8–xii 3. Also 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 9–13 refers to the end of life for the Wicked Priest at the hands of the violent 96.(גואים) ”nations“ The seizing of Jonathan may have also been in the background of the author of 11QTa lvii 5–11. It instructs the imagined king to select 1,000 men of war from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. They should stay with him day and night and never abandon him, and thus avoid the hand of “the seizing him.97 (הגואים) ”nations Further echo about the capture of Jonathan may be found in 4Q523 here.98 The text יהונתן 4QJonathan) depending on the identification of) seems to allude to the removal of “Jonathan” in l. 2, and mentions “armies” in l. 3. However, seeing the fragmentary condition of the text, no (הצבאים) sure connection between the remaining words can be claimed. According to Albert I. Baumgarten an encrypted reference to the subsequent death of Jonathan may also be found in CD viii 11–12, which refers to the chief ”of Judah (שרי) of the kings of the Greeks taking vengeance on the “rulers (cf. viii 3).99

Conclusion

This chapter has dealt with the activity of Jonathan as Hellenistic archiereus after the death of King Alexander I. While the three Hellenistic kings were engaged in war in 145, Jonathan laid siege to the Seleucid Akra. The opposition brought the news to the victorious King Demetrius II, who ordered the high priest to come to Ptolemais. The exact outcome of that meeting is not revealed in First Maccabees. However, Jonathan appears to have managed to obtain royal confirmation of his Hellenistic type of high priesthood. He also at last succeeded to place under his jurisdiction the three Samarian districts—his hometown Modein included.

96 See further Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls, 44–46. 97 See Elledge, Statutes, 39–41, 119–22. Elledge argues that “[t]his legislation can be iden tified nowhere in the Hebrew Bible,” and uses the discussed event as an indication for the terminus post quem for the final redaction of 11QT. 98 Émile Puech, “4QJonathan,” 75, 78, points to the first Hasmonean high priest, and dates 4Q523 to 150–125. See also Elledge, Statutes, 121. 99 See further Jewish Sects, 89–90. 222 chapter eight

This notwithstanding, a difficult era soon began for the Hasmonean high priest. Perhaps as a condition, Jonathan’s civil powers were significantly limited by Demetrius II. Also, the Akra and part of the temple officials interacted with the Seleucid chancelleries and with other Hellenistic institutions often independently from the high priest. Because of the deterioration of his relations with Demetrius II and the internal threat experienced against his high priesthood, Jonathan sided with the rival King Antiochus VI. By the summer of 144 the boy-king, under the auspices of his general Tryphon, confirmed the high priesthood of Jonathan. The latter was also included among the royal Friends and given permission to dress like a royal official. Jonathan acted as a Hellenistic high priestly ruler also on the diplomatic level. Either late in 144 or early in 143, he sent envoys to renew diplomatic relations with Rome. Jonathan’s ambition probably was to get recognition of his high priesthood, and obtain direct Senate support against expected Seleucid military attacks. Instead, the goal of Jonathan’s letters to the Spartans and other people was to make himself manifest as the founder of a new high priestly dynasty in Judea. Indeed, after 145 the policy of Jonathan was aimed at strengthening and expanding the jurisdiction of his high priesthood. Not only this, but through his policy Jonathan pursued a systematic achievement of independence for his high priesthood from the Seleucid royal throne. Also his brother Simon played an active military and political role in the consolidation of Jonathan’s Hellenistic type of high priesthood. Indeed, Jonathan continued to act as a Hellenistic high priest with limited regard to the Jewish halakhah. While the two Seleucid chancelleries were engaged in territorial disputes, Jonathan and Simon launched a series of military attacks outside Judea. The high priest used the hostages and plundering for building up and sponsoring his army and for the massive fortification project begun early in 143. A new blockade of the Akra was also set up. In addition to his own army, the Hasmonean high priest could rely on part of the temple priesthood, on certain members of the Jewish gerou sia, as well as on certain elders of the people. Part of the population that aspired at independence from the foreign rule must have also backed the high priesthood of Jonathan. The whole Hasmonean policy, however, became a clear signal and a challenge to Tryphon, who guided the boy-King Antiochus VI. The latter soon succeeded in treacherously capturing Jonathan at Ptolemais later in 143. On the one hand, Tryphon too was pursuing his ambition of the high priesthood of jonathan: part three (145–143 b.c.e.) 223 proclaiming himself king. On the other hand, there was the Hasmonean army with Simon alive. In the following chapter it is necessary to clarify these intricate phenomena in relation to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Special attention will be paid to the role of the temple officials and the temple priesthood in general.

chapter nine

The High Priesthood of Simon (142–140 B.C.E.)

Introduction

The previous chapter concluded the activity of Jonathan as high priest. His ambition of achieving independence from the Seleucid throne has been emphasized. Attention has also been given to the role played by Simon during this process. But Jonathan was captured in Ptolemais later in 143, by Tryphon, protector of the boy-King Antiochus VI. As the previous chapters have illustrated, it was the Seleucid king alone who would normally appoint or confirm the high priest in Jerusalem. This chapter will concentrate on the situation around the Hasmonean high priestly office left vacant by Jonathan. Subsequently, it will analyze the way in which Simon subsequently became military leader and high priest. This is necessary in order to understand his contribution to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The study of the early high priesthood of Simon is important for at least four reasons. First, according to a decree issued by an assembly of priests and other Jews in 140, Simon was given consent to act as high priest. This happened apparently after he was first “appointed” high priest by “the people” (1 Macc 14:35) and “confirmed” by King Demetrius II (14:41). Who were these “people”? Second, why did Simon need such a public decree? Third, the process by which Simon became high priest helps clarify certain aspects in relation to the high priesthood of Jonathan. Four, how did the decisions of this assembly contribute to the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood?

1. The Decree in Favor of Simon in First Maccabees 14

The study of the document reported in 1 Macc 14:27–45 is extremely important for a deeper understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Not only does it reveal the various stages which led to the final stage of the institutionalization of the Hasmonean high priesthood, the study of this document will also unveil elements not found in the narrative texts. Literary as well as historical questions related to the decree itself must be addressed first. 226 chapter nine

1.1. The Delimitation of the Text of the Decree First Maccabees 14:25–27a separates itself from 1 Macc 14:16–24, which treats the diplomatic relations of Simon with Rome and Sparta (see below). The rhetorical question of 1 Macc 14:25–26b serves as an interpretative introduction to the text of the decree. This is corroborated by the mention of the “sons” of Simon in 1 Macc 14:25. The favors listed in the decree, in fact, regard Simon alone (14:41). The text of the decree itself begins at 1 Macc 14:27b. This is suggested by the introductory formula: καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῆς γραφῆς. In 1 Macc 14:48–49 the reader is informed that apparently a copy of these “tablets” was given to Simon “and his sons.”1 First Maccabees 14:49 instead is followed by the letter of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129) to Simon (15:1–9). Scholars are divided with regard to the exact end of the text of the decree: at 1 Macc 14:45,2 at 1 Macc 14:46,3 or at 1 Macc 14:49.4 First Macca- bees 14:48–49 mentions the inscription of the decree and a copy of it. The inscription itself appears to have been made on “bronze tablets,” which were placed “on stele (στήλαις) on Mount Zion” (14:26).5 First Maccabees 14:48 specifies that these tablets were to be placed “in the precincts of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place” (14:48). Similar regulations are found at the end of many Hellenistic decrees.6 Thus, 1 Macc 14:48–49 appears to reflect the standard ending of a Hellenistic decree. However, the main difficulty in getting a scholarly consensus lies in 1 Macc 14:46–47. James C. VanderKam considers the whole of 1 Macc 14:46–49 as describing the process of ratification.7 First Maccabees 14:46– 47 alone states that: a) “all the people” consented that Simon should act “according to these decisions,” i.e. those listed in 1 Macc 14:27b–45;8 b) Simon consented to act as high priest (ἀρχιερατεύειν) and be strategos “of the Jews and priests.”

1 One may assume that the reported text is based on this “Hasmonean” copy. 2 So SVM, History, I, 194 n. 15; Schenker, “Einsetzung,” 166. 3 For example, Krentz, “Decree,” 147. 4 So Abel, Maccabées, 261; Martola, Capture, 230; van Henten, “Decree,” 119. 5 On bronze tablets, see also 1 Macc 8:22; 14:18. 6 See SEG 41.1574 l. 2; SEG 37.1010 ll. 46–50; OGIS 244 ll. 41–43; OGIS 737 ll. 20–23; SEG 57.1838 frg. E ll. 10–15; 1 Macc 11:37. See also Austin, HW, Nos. 110 ll. 45–49; 113 ll. 57–60; 115 ll. 25–30; 135 ll. 40–45. 7 From Joshua, 275. 8 The same verb εὐδοκέω is adopted both in 1 Macc 14:46 and 14:41. Besides, the phrasing εἶναι στρατηγός occurs both in 14:47 and at 14:42. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 227

Although Simon is not explicitly mentioned as participating in the assembly, his offices of archiereus and strategos would have been vali- dated rather than assigned. The assertion in 1 Macc 14:46 that “he consented” to hold these offices is purely rhetorical. Simon had already been high priest for over two years (cf. 14:27). Also, the title of ethnarch (14:47) is not mentioned before; it appears only in 1 Macc 15:1–2.9 This suggests that the author (or translator?) of First Maccabees felt free to insert into his text details not stated in his source. The author also passes from a verbatim report in 1 Macc 14:27b to a gradual paraphrase of the decree beginning especially in 1 Macc 14:41.10 This is indicated by the first person plural (see ἐγνώρισεν) ἡμῖν in 14:28 compared to the third person plural form εὐδόκησαν in 14:41 (cf. εἶπαν in 14:48). A similar example is the edict of Antiochus IV in 1 Macc 1:41–50, and the letter of Antiochus VI to Jonathan in 11:57–59. Such writing technique permitted the pro-Hasmonean author to obscure or circumvent certain elements that did not fit into his desired ideology. This also allowed him to emphasize other aspects that were perhaps less evident in the supposed original document.

1.2. The Question of the Authenticity of the Decree Many scholars believe the text of 1 Macc 14:27b–49 is based on an authentic decree.11 First Maccabees 14:27b–28 records a “great assembly” which took place on the 18th of (Babylonian) Elul in the Sel. 172, “the third year of Simon, great high priest.” The date corresponds to September 13 of 140 b.c.e.,12 i.e. when the decisions of the assembly that follow had been pro- mulgated. First Maccabees 14:29–40 reviews the history of the Hasmoneans prior to the gathering of the assembly. In 1 Macc 14:41–45 instead it relates Simon’s future powers in reference to the temple, its priests, the country, and other rules. Furthermore, in 1 Macc 14:41–45 Simon is assigned new powers when compared to 1 Macc 14:29–40. These elements suggest that one must separate 1 Macc 14:27b–40 from the second part of the decree, which begins at 1 Macc 14:41.

9 According to Sharon, “Title,” 493, the first ethnarch was Hyrcanus II. 10 This aspect has been noted, among others, by Krentz, “Decree,” 150. 11 For the contrary view, see Willrich, Urkundenfälschung, 69–72. 12 See Goldstein, I Maccabees, 501. 228 chapter nine

Previously, some comparative material was cited that shows that at least the ending of the decree follows the existing rules in the Hellenis- tic world. More specific examples of comparison with other decrees have been brought by scholars, who also offered detailed analysis in so far as the contents are concerned. Thus Jan W. van Henten compared the decree with several Ptolemaic priestly decrees.13 Edgar Krentz directed scholarly attention to several Seleucid decrees.14 Gregg Gardner concluded that Simon’s deeds “strongly resemble the benefactions of an εὐεργέτης in Greek honorary decrees.”15 And Adrian Schenker drew some parallels between the institution of Simon as high priest and that of Solomon as king in 1 Chr 28–29.16 The comparative study is important to show that this particular decree reflects a Hellenistic and not a strictly Jewish juridical process. This aspect is corroborated by the mention of the term δῆμος in 1 Macc 14:25.17 This term appears four times in the letter quoted just before in 14:20–23 where it refers to the Spartan people. However, the translator of First Maccabees appears to have adopted this Greek term even though his Hebrew original ,in both 1 Macc 14:25 and 14:46.18 In any event העם probably read simply the Greek text contains several semantic elements that are found in other known Hellenistic honorary inscriptions. However, by itself comparative study is not sufficient proof that a decree is genuine and not a forgery. Yet, as the following analysis will show, it is the contents of the decree and certain other characteristics of it that speak in favor of its authenticity. The contents of this decree were probably the main reason why Jose- phus decided to omit the entire document from his paraphrase of First Maccabees and pass on to another source. The historian appears to have found this text less intelligible and perhaps less edifying for the Has- monean high priesthood. This despite the fact that earlier, in War 1.51–53, Josephus wrote that Simon was appointed high priest after his victory over Cendebeus (cf. 1 Macc 16:1–10; Ant. 13.225–227).

13 “Decree,” 116–47; idem, “Royal Ideology,” 265–72, 277. 14 “Decree,” 148–53. 15 “Leadership,” 334, 335–37, 340–43. 16 “Einsetzung,” 158–69. This comparison had been earlier suggested also by Arenho evel, Theokratie, 67. 17 Cf. also 1 Macc 8:29; 12:6; 15:17; 2 Macc 4:48; 11:34. 18 Since reference is made to “tablets” (plural) set up on Mt. Zion (1 Macc 14:26; cf. 14:48), it could be that the decree itself was inscribed in Aramaic and/or Hebrew and also Greek. If so, the latter might have already used the term demos. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 229

The place of the promulgation of the decree has been identified as being the temple court, which many scholars derived from the enigmatic expression ἐν ασαραμελ (1 Macc 14:27).19 Given the emphasis which is laid on priests such a suggestion is attractive. However, other interpretations of this expression have been offered as well.20 The mention of priests as participants seems to be another element in favor of the historicity of the event. The decree refers also to rulers of the ethnos and elders of the country who took place in the assembly (1 Macc 14:28, 41, 44). Some of the participants would have been still able to witness the described event(s) at the time of the composition of First Maccabees. The same can be said with regard to the inscription placed in the conspicuous place of the temple area. This too, might have been still visible towards the end of the 2d c. b.c.e. Another element that seems to support the authenticity of the decree is the author’s changing of style. This is noted in particular when he introduces his sons/descendants as co-recipients of the favors granted to Simon (1 Macc 14:49; cf. 14:25). The present study defends the view that First Maccabees was composed under Hyrcanus I. The latter apparently used this document to legitimate his claim to the high priestly office, previously occupied by his father.21 The order of events recorded in the decree further advocates its authenticity. Thus, 1 Macc 14:36–37 summarizes Simon’s conquest of the Akra, its purification and the placing there of his men (cf. 13:49–52). The review history culminates in the report on the powers granted by King Deme- trius II to Simon (14:38–39). Why is the conquest of the Akra recorded before this diplomatic interaction? Given the dates in 1 Macc 13:41 and 13:51, the letter of Demetrius II antedated the conquest by a period that could extend up to a year. It follows that 1 Macc 14:31–37 contains a list of all the (primarily) military achievements of Simon prior to the gathering of the assembly in 140. Further, in 1 Macc 14:38 the decree directs the reader’s attention to Simon’s diplomatic achievements with Demetrius II. Then 1 Macc 14:40 reports the establishing of friendship between the Jews and the Romans,

19 See Abel, Maccabées, 256; van Henten, “Decree,” 120. 20 See Goldstein, I Maccabees, 501–2: “prince of God’s people.” Similarly Krentz, “Decree,” 148. Yadin, Scroll of the War, 44 n. 6 emended as ενα(σι)σαραμελ to include all the titles of ,נשאי Simon listed in 1 Macc 14:47—including ἐθνάρχης—which would correspond with .שר while στρατηγός with 21 So also van Henten, “Decree,” 120. 230 chapter nine which, again, finds parallel in 1 Macc 14:16–19, 24. This information comes after the royal confirmation of Simon’s high priesthood in 14:38, an order that agrees with the preceding narrative. Last but not least, the authenticity of the decree is corroborated by the topographical notes. First Maccabees 14:31–32 emphasizes how Simon arose to fight for his ethnos, how he armed the fighting men, and paid them. The text of 1 Macc 14:33–34 then reaffirms Simon’s fortification activity in Judea (cf. 13:10, 33), and his conquest of Beth-Zur (cf. 11:65–66), Joppa (cf. 13:11) and Gazara (cf. 13:43–48, 53). Arnaldo D. Momigliano claimed that because of the way it explains the topographical location of each place, 1 Macc 14:33–34 is an addition. It would provide information that would have been “useless” for a “Palestin- ian reader.”22 In particular, Momigliano found the reference to Gazara as being located “on the borders of Azotus” to be a very vague topographical explanation. A careful look at the territorial dominion of Simon leads to the conclusion that these references are instead accurate.23 Beth-Zur was on the border of Simon’s Judea (1 Macc 14:33; cf. 4:61). This picture changed only under Hyrcanus I, who extended his rule into Idumea.24 As for Joppa, it was a seaport situated outside the borders of Jonathan’s Judea (cf. 1 Macc 13:11; Let. Aris. 115; Str. 16.2.28). Gazara (Γάζαρα: 1 Macc 14:34) instead remained on the border of Judea even during the rule of Hyrcanus I. Its occupation by the Jews is recorded first by Strabo 16.2.29, who appears to have confused it with Gadara in the trans-Jordan.25 Contrary to the mainstream opinion, some scholars argue that Gazera (Γάζερα) is to be identified with Tell Gezer, while Gazara with Tell Yaoz/Ghazza, located ca. 1 km north of Naḥal Soreq and ca. 1.5 km east of the coast.26 Such identifications have significant implications for

22 Prime linee, 169. 23 On these places, see Aharoni et al., Bible Atlas, Maps 206–7. 24 Aharoni et al., Bible Atlas, Map 210; cf. War 1.63; Ant. 13.257–258. 25 See Stern, GLAJJ, I, 293. 26 Fischer et al., “Remains,” 152–55. The name “Gazera” appears in 1 Macc 4:15; 7:45. For “Gazara,” see 1 Macc 9:52; 13:43, 53; 14:7, 34; 15:28, 35; 16:1, 19, 21; 2 Macc 10:32. For the 2d c. remains on Tel Gezer, see Reich, “Archaeological Evidence,” 48–52. An inscription was found in cursive Greek letters engraved probably by a siege prisoner on a stone that was part of the building built by Simon. Its translation seems to run as follows: “Pamparas: ‘may fire(?) fall upon the palace of Simon’.” For a comment, see Frey, CIJ, II, No. 1184; Boffo, Iscrizioni, No. 13. On Simon’s building in Gazara, see 1 Macc 13:48. On the discovery of the “boundary of Gezer” inscriptions written in both Hebrew and Greek, see Reich and Greenhut, “ ‘Boundary of Gezer’,” 58–63. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 231 an understanding of the early Hasmonean conquest policy, but should not detain us here. The expression “on the borders of Azotus/Ashdod” can imply its administrative borders, which in 1 Macc 14:34 may be intended as a district (cf. 10:89 of Ekron).27 In 1 Macc 16:10 one finds reference to “the countryside of Azotus.” Significant is the tradition preserved by Strabo 16.2.2. Here, the Azotians are regarded as one of the four ἔθνη along with Judeans, Idumeans, and Gazeans. Menahem Stern argued that Strabo’s description reflects the conditions to a time before the twenties of the 2d c. b.c.e.28 In fact, in 16.2.21, Strabo gives another geographical description of the Has- monean Judea, but which concerns his contemporary situation. There- fore, all in all, the topographical notes in 1 Macc 14:33–34 reflect the actual situation of Simon’s Judea. The text of 1 Macc 14:27b–49 can thus be considered as being based on an authentic (Hasmonean?) copy of the original inscription. The decree can be used as an independent historical document complementary with the narrative material that precedes it. Attention can now be turned back to the reconstruction of the events that followed soon after the arrest of the high priest Jonathan.

2. Simon’s Succession as Military Leader and the Use of ὁ λαός

It is necessary to consider how Simon Thassi (cf. 1 Macc 2:3) was able to take the military leadership of Jonathan, who supported this succession, and in what way. Therefore, one ought first to delve deeper into the meaning hidden behind the term ὁ λαός in 1 Macc 13. A correct understanding of this term is especially important in connection with the appointment of Simon as high priest. First Maccabees 13:1 reports that Simon heard that Tryphon gathered a large army to invade Judea. Simon went up (ἀνέβη) to Jerusalem where he spoke in front of “the people” (ὁ λαός; 13:2).29 Josephus has Simon gather the people “in the temple” (Ant. 13.197; cf. Ant. 13.181//1 Macc 12:35 of Jonathan). The historian probably added this detail in order to underline

27 For Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien, 67, Azotus belonged to the “Eparchie Idumäa.” See Abel, Géographie, II, 138, 172; Fischer et al., “Remains,” 153–54. 28 GLAJJ, I, 262–63. 29 The expression ἀνέβη εἰς in 1 Macc 13:2 seems to contrast the departure of Mattathias with his five sons to Modein narrated in 2:1 (ἀνέστη . . . ἀπὸ). 232 chapter nine the immediate succession of Simon as high priest. In both sources, Simon is credited with a speech which is more rhetorical in Josephus. He recalls the wars fought by him and by his family for the laws, for the temple and for Israel (1 Macc 13:3–6//Ant. 13.198–200). The people’s response is that Simon should be their “leader” in place of Judas and Jonathan (1 Macc 13:8//Ant. 13.201). There is no mention of whether Simon did or did not participate in the expedition. Probably he did not (cf. 1 Macc 12:40). First Maccabees 12:50–51 reports that 2,000 men of Jonathan (cf. 12:47), when they saw that Tryphon’s forces had come to attack them, realized that Jonathan had perished with his companions (12:52). But they could hardly have accurate knowledge of what happened inside Ptolemais (cf. 13:12–19). The narrator appears to anticipate in 1 Macc 12:48 what the 2,000 people and Simon apparently discovered later. In 1 Macc 13:1–9 the term ὁ λαός is clearly used in the military sense. This is corroborated by the fact that Simon is set up as “leader.” No mention of the high priesthood of Jonathan is made in this context. The term ἡγούμενος here, as in 1 Macc 13:53 in the case of John (Hyrcanus I), implies a military appointment.30 Further, 1 Macc 13:10 states that Simon summoned all the fighting men—which may include the reserve (call-up) troops—to complete the walls of Jerusalem (cf. 12:35–37). This would entail that in the meeting in 1 Macc 13:1–9 only (part of ) the so-called standing army took part (cf. 12:52). in the military sense is attested also in both the העם/The use of ὁ λαός Hebrew and Greek Bible (e.g. Deut 20; Josh 6; 8; 10; Judg 20; 1 Sam 1:40; 30:21, passim; cf. LXX).31 There are also a number of examples in the DSS that are roughly contemporary with First Maccabees. Among these are the Temple Scroll (e.g. 11QT lviii 5–16; lxi 15; lxii 3–5) and the War Scroll (e.g. 1QM iii 13; viii 9; ix 1; xvi 7, 9; xvii 13–14).32 Both these texts provide regulations to be followed in the case of war; in both of them the term .often has a military connotation העם The first related action of Simon as military leader in place of Jonathan was connected with the seaport, Joppa. There, he sent Jonathan son of Absalom with considerable forces who drove out its inhabitants and occupied it (1 Macc 13:11; cf. 14:5, 34). At this point, the narrative concerning

30 See also 1 Macc 5:6, 18; 9:30, 35; 14:35 and 2 Macc 14:16, 20. 31 For other examples, see VanderKam, From Joshua, 279–80. 32 For a comment, see Yadin, Scroll of the War, 44; Elledge, Statutes, 170–80. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 233

Tryphon is resumed (cf. 1 Macc 13:1). Tryphon left Ptolemais to invade Judea with the high priest Jonathan as his hostage (13:12). Simon instead moved out and encamped at Adida facing the Shephelah, which he had fortified previously (13:13; cf. 12:38). A negotiation process first followed. Tryphon sent envoys to Simon claiming that Jonathan was detained because he was in debt to the royal treasury for the “offices” (χρείας) he held.33 The “offices” here must have included the high priestly office as well as civil offices. This aspect high- lights the Hellenistic character of the high priesthood of Jonathan. The request was that Simon should pay a hundred silver talents, and send two of Jonathan’s sons as hostages so that once liberated the latter would not revolt again (1 Macc 13:15–16). Was it at this point that Simon found out about his high priest brother being alive? The author of 1 Macc 13:17–19 offers no comment. Simon knew that Tryphon was speaking deceitfully, yet still fulfilled Tryphon’s request. The motivation for this was that Simon was afraid of the people (τὸν λαὸν), who would accuse him of the death of Jonathan. This detail attests to the vital role played by the military supporters of Jonathan in the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.34 Hence, Jonathan’s men still hoped for the return of their high priest. Tryphon, however, did not fulfill the pact but set out with his army by taking the road to Adora (1 Macc 13:19–20).35 Simon’s army marched close it, but apparently did not attack. Contrary to what Josephus has to say in his parallel version in Ant. 13.207, earlier in his War 1.49 the historian reported the military defeat of Tryphon. That there was no battle is suggested not only by the “correction” made by Josephus, but also by the taciturnity of First Maccabees on this matter. In the meantime, the inhabitants of the Akra who continued to be under the blockade kept sending messengers to Tryphon to urge him to come to them by way of the desert, and also send them food (1 Macc 13:21). Nothing is said on the provenance and the identity of these messengers. What seems to matter even more here is that the enemies of the Has- moneans seemingly hoped that Tryphon would win over the Hasmonean army, and that their former positions would be re-established. A military

33 On βασιλικόν as “royal treasury,” see Welles, RC, 321. 34 Since the context here is the war with Tryphon, it is plausible to assume that the term ὀ λαός has a primarily military connotation. 35 On Adora (some 8 km south-west of Hebron), see Abel, Géographie, II, 239. 234 chapter nine failure of Simon’s army would have likely brought the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood to an end.

3. The Death of Jonathan and the Hasmonean Tomb in Modein

Reportedly, a climate factor stopped the joint plans of Tryphon and his Jewish supporters. That night, when he had set out with his cavalry, there was a heavy snow. Several studies on climate changes have come to the conclusion that between 300–200 b.c.e. and 100 c.e. there was a generally wet-cool climate in Judea.36 This evidently would increase the possibility of snowfalls. Without making a further attempt, Tryphon apparently decided to return to Gilead and had Jonathan killed in a place called Baskama, where he was buried (1 Macc 13:22–23).37 Josephus adds that Tryphon intended that very night to get to Jerusalem and that after killing Jonathan, he returned to Antioch (Ant. 13.208–209). Perhaps soon after, Simon sent for the remains of his brother Jonathan and buried him in Modein the “city of his ancestors.” This note indicates that by this time Modein was firmly established as Hasmonean controlled territory. Simon erected there a costly monument with seven pyramids over the tombs of his parents and for his four brothers, and one for himself (1 Macc 13:25–30; cf. 14:32, 37). The author of First Maccabees himself witnessed this monument, as did Josephus (Ant. 13.210–212), and probably Eusebius (Onomasticon 132.16–17) and Jerome (4th c. c.e.).38 However, no trace of the tomb has been confirmed unanimously by modern archaeologists. As already stated, the location of Modein itself is still debated.39 The structure of the tomb appears to have been built in the Hel- lenistic fashion.40 There is some roughly contemporary surviving evidence of family tombs near Jerusalem similar in architecture to that

36 See further Sinclair, “Climate,” 415–27, with references to other studies. 37 Josephus names the place βασκὰ. See further Abel, Maccabées, 239. 38 Jerome, De situ e nominibus locorum hebraicarum, PL 23, 958. The Madaba Map reads: Μωδεειμ. ἡ νῦν / Μωδιθα. ἐκ ταύτης ῇσαν / οἱ Μακκαβαιοι; see Avi-Yonah, Madaba Map, Pl. 7. Di Segni, “ ‘Onomasticon’,” 115–20, claims partial dependence of the Map upon the Onomasticon of Eusebius. 39 For a recent discussion, see Zissu and Perry, “Identification,” 5–20. 40 Tal, “Hellenism,” 63, states that “the quantity of [Hellenistic] architectural decora tions used in the Hasmonean monumental burials in Jerusalem and the palaces in Jericho exceeds the frequency of their appearance in the Seleucid coastal sites.” Tal, 73, further claims that the selection of Modein was “intentional, helping to forge a common language between the West and the East.” the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 235 described here.41 The elements of the Modein tomb cannot be regarded as incidental.42 Steve Fine remarks that “[w]ere this complex discovered . . . in Syria or Egypt, no one would suspect that it was a Jewish tomb.”43 First Maccabees 13:27–30, in fact, lists no element with a Jewish religious motif. It depicts instead suits of armour (πανοπλίαις) with carved (war)ships on the columns surrounding the pyramids (13:29).44 No lily or menorah is mentioned. The former had been for a long time the symbol of Jerusalem and of the temple. It appeared on certain Persian Yehud coins, and later on those of Antiochus VII, Hyrcanus I and Janneus, as well as on Has- monean bullae.45 There is a unanimous opinion among numismatists that bronze coins of Antiochus VII were struck in Jerusalem by Hyrcanus I, from 132/1 down to 129, when almost full independence from the Seleucid throne was achieved.46 After Antiochus died in 129, Hyrcanus began to issue bronze coins in his own name. One notes that on the type H of the bronze coins of Hyrcanus there appears a crested helmet—another Greek military sometimes ,יהוחנן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים :symbol.47 His coins read as well as derivations of these.48 ,יהוחנן הכהן ]הגדל[

41 For a survey, see Fedak, Monumental Tombs, 140–48. Important parallels are the tombs of Bene Hezir, Jason, and Zechariah. Hachlili, Funerary Customs, 131, accepts the date of Avigad for the priestly tomb of Bene Hezir (cf. 1 Chr 24:15) as mid-2d c. b.c.e. Barag, “Exploration,” 78–110, suggests 130–75 b.c.e. On other such Jewish (high) priestly tombs, see Hachlili, 262–73. 42 The carved ships were connected with Simon’s conquest of Joppa. Certain coins of Janneus had an anchor. So Meshorer, TJC, 37; Schwentzel, “Images,” 268–86. On Hellenistic warships, see Casson, Ships, 97–135. 43 Art, 61. 44 For a comparison of these elements with surviving tombs from Koile-Syria, see Fine, Art, 61–65. See also earlier Goldstein, I Maccabees, 474–75. On the trophies in the Seleucid kingdom, see Charles-Picard, Trophées, 68–75. 45 The lily was an important symbol already in the first temple period. See Meshorer, TJC, 8–10, 34–35, 37; cf. Lett. Aris. 68, 75. According to Meshorer, 55–57, the menorah reached its highest importance under the Hasmoneans, and was later incised on the coins of the high priest Mattathias Antigonus. Five menorahs are engraved on the walls of “Jason’s tomb”; see Rahmani, “Jason’s Tomb,” 73–74. On the menorah symbol, see further Fine, Art, 146–63. 46 See Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 75; Meshorer, TJC, 30–31. 47 Meshorer, TJC, 36, sees it as an influence from the Seleucid coinage. According to 1 Macc 15:6 in 139/8 Antiochus VII gave Simon the right to mint coins for Judea, probably in the name of the king. So far no coins of Simon have been identified. See Ben-David, “Maccabees,” 100–1; Kindler, CLI, 9. 48 There are eight types of coins. See further Ben-David, “Maccabees,” 98–103; Ariel, “Survey,” 280–283; Meshorer, TJC, 201–9 (Pls. V–XXIV). 236 chapter nine

The described military symbols of the Modein tomb strongly suggest that Simon perceived both himself and his brother Jonathan as Hellenistic high priestly rulers. The same seems to be true in the case of Hyrcanus I. It may have been for this same reason that Josephus “deleted” the military elements in his Ant. 13.211//1 Macc 13:27–30.49 In fact, Josephus—like other authors of antiquity—regarded the high priesthood as superior to the kingship. Thus Philo reports how King Agrippa I claimed Hasmonean descent and stated how his ancestors regarded the high priesthood as being superior (Legat. 278). This same concept is explicitly stated in the Test. Judah 21.1–4.50 Eyal Regev has recently argued that the Hasmonean high priests—at least from Hyrcanus I to Hyrcanus II—tended to be selective in their use of Hellenistic culture. Their palaces, monumental garden architecture and swimming pools in Jericho, indicate a selective and limited influence of Hellenistic features. In the opinion of Regev, preservation of Jewish identity and “partial rejection of Hellenism” on the part of the Hasmoneans “was intentional and served a purpose.”51 In fact, the Hasmonean tomb in Modein was also no exception. However, as László Török urges, when studying the influence of the Hellenistic art, “[w]e also have to deal with a wide variety of political, social, cultural and artistic interferences.”52 Hence, it would be incorrect to base our line of thought on just one aspect, i.e. architecture. Therefore, this study has taken into account many other aspects. In what way, then, did the succession of Simon as military leader contribute to his becoming high priest in place of Jonathan?

4. Simon Becomes High Priest after His Brother Jonathan

Simon was appointed military leader by the military supporters of his family in 1 Macc 13:1–9. Jonathan was executed by Tryphon. Nothing, however, is said about the high priesthood and the further fate of Jonathan’s two sons. The handling of the two sons seems to have cleared the way

49 It is also possible that by Josephus’ times the tomb’s architecture had suffered modi fications. 50 For a discussion on whether this and similar passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs reflect any anti-Hasmonean polemic and their possible date, see Ulrichsen, Grundschrift, 171–72, 324–29. 51 “Royal Ideology,” 67–58. 52 Hellenizing Art, 61. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 237 for Simon to becoming high priest. However, only in 1 Macc 13:36, which is part of the letter of Demetrius II to Simon, one learns that at some point Simon became high priest. Once again, the high priesthood was not handed down from father to son.

4.1. When Did Simon Become High Priest? Ever since scholars have noted that there were two references to Simon being “granted” the high priesthood: in 1 Macc 14:35 and in 1 Macc 14:41. The former states that “the people” (ὁ λαός) “appointed” (ἔθεντο) Simon “as their leader (ἡγούμενον) and archiereus.” First Maccabees 14:41 instead reports that “the Jews and the priests consented (εὐδόκησαν)” that Simon be their leader and archiereus. According to Deborah W. Rooke, “it is not entirely clear exactly when or how he became high priest.”53 Joseph Sievers argues that Simon “was designated high priest soon after (or perhaps even before) Jonathan’s death.”54 James C. VanderKam presses the matter further and claims that “the people of 1 Macc 13,1–9 . . . named Simon high priest,” during their meeting after Jonathan’s capture.55 Were there two Hasmonean high priests living at the same time? From the order of events in the decree it is evident that Simon became high priest after his conquests of Beth-Zur, Joppa and Gazara (1 Macc 14:33–35). The conquest of the Akra (13:49–52) and the correspondence with Demetrius II (13:36–40) are recorded only later, in 1 Macc 14:36–40. But, while the conquests of Beth-Zur and Joppa were accomplished before the report of the royal confirmation, the same cannot be said about Gazara (cf. 13:43–48). Its occupation story is placed in the narrative right after the royal letter. As Jonathan A. Goldstein asserts, the expression “in those days” in 1 Macc 13:43 is “vague enough to permit the successful siege to have preceded” the royal confirmation.56 This explanation is supported by another element. In 1 Macc 13:33–34 one reads that Simon undertook the building of strongholds in Judea, while he also sent men to Demetrius II with the request “to grant the country a remission.” Demetrius was at this time either in Seleucia-in-Pieria where his quarters were moved, or somewhere

53 Zadok’s Heirs, 296. 54 Hasmoneans, 122. 55 From Joshua, 280–81. 56 I Maccabees, 505. The same expression is met in 1 Macc 2:1 and 11:20. 238 chapter nine in Cilicia but not in the capital of Antioch (cf. 1 Macc 14:1). Some time had elapsed between the sending of Simon’s envoys and the arrival of the reply from the king (cf. 13:35). The author appears to have organized his material in such a way as to end his report of Simon’s relationship with the outside world—including the letter of Demetrius II and its subsequent effect (1 Macc 13:34–42)—to group together the Judean affairs, namely the conquest accounts of Gazara and Akra. Similarly, in 1 Macc 13:31–32 the author anticipated the killing of Anti- ochus VI at the hands of Tryphon, and the latter’s assumption of the royal throne. Josephus places this event only later in Ant. 13.218–222, and did not follow the order of 1 Macc 13:31–40 here, for which he provides no direct parallel. Based on other sources the reported murder of Antiochus VI occurred prior to the summer of 140 (Diod. 33.28; Livy, Per. 55; App., Syr. 68; Just. 36.1.7).57 The next date in 1 Macc 13:41 corresponds to the spring year 142/1. The narrative order in 1 Macc 13:31–40 serves to highlight the usurpation of the Seleucid throne by Tryphon, and thus justify the diplomatic relation of Simon with Demetrius II. As Edwyn R. Bevan asserts, Tryphon “believed the time was come when the house of Seleucus might be set aside.”58 The narrating of the royal legitimization of the high priesthood of Simon was far more important than the conquest of Gazara. Such a narrative technique helps the reader to avoid switching too often his/her attention from one event to another. Further, the accession of Antiochus VI under Tryphon (1 Macc 11:54) occurred in the spring of 144. The last activity of Jonathan in Judea regarded his fortification project, which has been posited to begin in the spring of 143. The mention of snow in 1 Macc 13:22 would place the marching of Tryphon against Simon, and the subsequent execution of Jonathan, in the winter of 143/2. Considering that Jonathan was appointed high priest in 152, he acted as high priest for roughly nine years.

57 Grainger, Syrian Wars, 352, points to the year 142; Ehling, Untersuchungen, 178, pro poses the year 141; Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 668, argues for the year 139. This seems to be too late of a date. Tryphon may have begun to mint coins in his name as early as 142 (see Gardner, BMC Seleucid, 68–69; Fleischer, Herrscherbildnisse, 68–69), but seems to have killed Antiochus only later on. For further discussion, see van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 172. 58 House, 230–31. Diodorus 33.28a reports that Tryphon sent a golden statue to the Roman Senate in the hope to get confirmation of his kingship, which instead indirectly condemned his murder of the boy-king. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 239

The evidence from 1 Macc 14:31–35 too suggests that Simon was appointed high priest soon after he conquered Gazara. This is in accord with the date provided in 1 Macc 14:27, i.e. September of 140, which coincided with “the third year of Simon, the great high priest.”

4.2. Who Appointed Simon as High Priest and Why? First Maccabees 14:35 explicitly states that it was “the people” who “appointed” (ἔθεντο) Simon “as their leader and high priest.” Josephus speaks of Simon being appointed (κατασταθείς) high priest by the “multitude” (πλῆθος; Ant. 13.213; cf. 13.201), apparently after the death of Jonathan (Ant. 13.212–213).59 This order seems to be independently reaffirmed in Josephus’ list of high priests in Ant. 20.239. Who were these “people”? It has been stated that Simon was appointed military leader by ὁ λαός, which in 1 Macc 13:1–9 is used in a military sense to denote the Hasmonean military supporters. Joseph Sievers,60 followed by James C. VanderKam,61 thinks the same specific meaning is implied in 1 Macc 14:35. Without exploring the arguments brought by these scholars, Jan W. van Henten argues that “the λαός does not necessarily refer to soldiers in the decree.”62 The author, however, does not object to the view that in First Maccabees ὁ λαός may sometimes denote the Hasmonean army. Instead, he argues that Simon was appointed high priest first by the Seleucid ruler and later on confirmed by the Jewish people. But this order of the events goes against the evidence of the narrative in 1 Macc 13 and its parallels in Josephus analyzed above, which proved to be reliable. Besides, it actually contradicts what the decree itself states in 1 Macc 14:35. Hence, there is reason to see the Hasmonean army as the main subject behind the expression ὁ λαός in 1 Macc 14:35. After the election of Simon as its leader it continued to be by far the most powerful military entity in Judea able to decide on who was to succeed Jonathan. The Hasmonean army, however, was probably not alone in proclaiming Simon as high priest. Other non-military supporters of the Hasmoneans may have participated during the election ceremony. Among them were likely representatives of certain priestly factions and elders, who formerly

59 It is difficult to say whether this is an inference of Josephus (cf. 1 Macc 13:1–9) or is taken from another source. Josephus stopped paraphrasing First Maccabees at 1 Macc 13:42//Ant. 13.214. 60 Hasmoneans, 123, 125–26. 61 “People,” 280–81; idem, From Joshua, 276–82. 62 “Decree,” 139 n 34. 240 chapter nine backed the high priesthood of Jonathan. The priests will implicitly emerge as supporters of the high priesthood of Simon in the Spartan letter in 1 Macc 14:20. The elders instead re-appear as supporters of the high priesthood of Simon in the letter of Demetrius II in 1 Macc 13:36, and again, in the Spartan letter to Simon in 14:20. Why did “the people” appoint Simon as high priest? Simon is not said to have been appointed because of his being the brother of Jonathan nor because of his other personal qualities. The Law and the temple are not even alluded to in 1 Macc 14:32–35 (cf. 14:4–15). Also, Simon’s being of the Jehoiarib course is not mentioned after 1 Macc 14:29. The future of the soldiers and of other active supporters of the Has- moneans depended much on who was to become the next high priest. Like Jonathan, the next high priest was to be able to combine the high priesthood with the military and political leadership. Probably no one of Jonathan’s sons could (cf. 1 Macc 13:15–16) or had enough age or authority to assume this Hellenistic type of high priesthood. In 1 Macc 13:1–6 Simon had already volunteered to become a military leader. It was this military leadership which primarily formed the basis for Simon’s high priesthood. This is clear from the content of 1 Macc 14:32–34, which retells all his military achievements. Some of these happened in the time of Jonathan, while others later on. Soon after, the decree itself gave the official motivation why Simon was appointed high priest: “because of his having accomplished (πεποιηκέναι) all these things” (14:35).63 Like Jonathan, Simon too was appointed first military leader and then high priest.64 How did it happen that these “people” assumed they had the right to “appoint” Simon high priest, which heretofore was a Seleucid royal prerogative? Election of a high priest by acclamation was not a Jewish practice. According to James C. VanderKam, “[i]t would not have been proper—or at least not traditional—for an army to usurp the king’s right to appoint a high priest”65 in any part of the Hellenistic world. But as several examples show, the Hellenistic armies could at times proclaim someone its leader

63 The infinitive perfect active verb is adopted here to refer to the actions recently accomplished by Simon. First Maccabees 14:35 mentions also Simon’s faithfulness and glory which he decided to accomplish for his ethnos, which clearly refers to what has been just said in 1 Macc 14:32–34. 64 It is worth noting that later also Hyrcanus I will become high priest after having acted as ἡγούμενος for several years (1 Macc 13:53; cf. 16:23–24). 65 So VanderKam, From Joshua, 281. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 241 or approve someone’s position.66 The election of Simon first as military leader and subsequently as high priest followed a similar existing Hel- lenistic procedure.

5. The Royal Legitimization of Simon’s High Priesthood

How did the Seleucid authorities react to this event in Judea? After Simon was appointed high priest by “the people,” he sent envoys to Demetrius II to grant his country a remission (1 Macc 13:34). In reply, the king reportedly wrote a letter (ἐπιστολὴν) to Simon. From the contents of this correspondence reproduced in 1 Macc 13:36–40 one indirectly learns about certain elements that were very likely part of the letter of Simon. It also reveals certain details not stated in the preceding narrative. There are two urgent questions: Why did Simon renew contacts with Demetrius? What did he ask from the king?

5.1. The Royal Confirmation of Simon as archiereus The text of 1 Macc 13:36–40 has the characteristics considered to be based on a genuine document. That a letter with similar content was sent by Demetrius II to Simon is corroborated also by the decree in 1 Macc 14:38 (cf. 13:36), which emanated from a popular assembly. Josephus, however, omitted it. According to Jonathan A. Goldstein, this was done because the material did not fit Josephus’ chronology.67 But Goldstein’s arguments are exclusively based on the chronology of the Seleucid affairs alone. As it has been shown, Josephus had no difficulties in eliminating some of the dates he found in First Maccabees.68 As for 1 Macc 13:31–32, which reports by anticipation the killing of Antiochus VI by Tryphon, it was argued that since Josephus had other sources at his disposal, he placed this event later at Ant. 13.218–222. The historian resumes his paraphrase of 1 Macc 13:41 in Ant. 13.213. Therefore, other reason(s) must have induced Josephus to omit this royal letter. The reason seems to be the same one for which Josephus omitted the decree in 1 Macc 14. Both these documents appear to have been important for the pro-Hasmonean author, who wanted to prove the

66 For some examples, see Hammond, Macedonian State, 282–88. 67 I Maccabees, 475. 68 See here pp. 109–11. 242 chapter nine legitimacy of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.69 Their omissions by Josephus probably had to do with the controversial way Simon had become high priest. The importance of the letter in 1 Macc 13:36–40 is twofold: First, it sheds some light on the past relations of Jonathan and Simon with Demetrius II. Second, it reveals a peculiar development in the process of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. From 1 Macc 13:36–40 it indirectly emerges that Simon sent to Dem- etrius II a golden crown and a palm branch (1 Macc 13:37). This gesture attests to the fact that Simon recognized (again) the Seleucid royal authority, and requested the renewal of peaceful relations.70 The king reportedly agreed on establishing a reconciliation pact (1 Macc 13:37, 40), and pardoned all the offenses committed against him (13:39). These offenses included: 1) the switching of Jonathan’s support to Anti- ochus VI–Tryphon in 144 (cf. 11:54–59); 2) the subsequent Hasmonean military campaigns of Jonathan and Simon against surrounding people and especially against the troops of Demetrius II (cf. 11:60–74; 12:24–32); 3) the building of the fortifications in Judea and several controversial conquests (cf. 12:35–38; 13.10–11). Demetrius II addresses Simon as both archiereus and Friend of the king (1 Macc 13:36). Kay Ehling argues that because he was not addressed as strategos, “Simon stand nicht mehr in Reichsdiensten.”71 Ehling refers to 1 Macc 11:59, where Simon is said to have been appointed as strategos over the coastal region. First, as a rule, a Seleucid king would not address his subject by the military title.72 Second, addressing someone by the honorific title of Friend, by itself, meant that the addressed person was in a privileged relationship with his king and, therefore, a member of the royal hierarchy (cf. 10:20; 11:57).73 Third, the other royal concessions strongly suggest that Demetrius regarded Simon not only as archiereus but also as a military leader. In fact, the decree in 1 Macc 14 states that Demetrius “confirmed” (ἔστησεν) Simon in the high priesthood, and made him “one of his Friends” (τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ; 14:38–39; cf. 13:36). The verb ἵστημι occurs in the same form in 1 Macc 7:9 in reference to Alcimus, and also in 1 Macc 11:27 in

69 This latter aspect was asserted also by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 477. 70 On similar political gestures, see Bickerman, Institutions, 111–12. 71 Untersuchungen, 176. 72 See further Bickerman, Institutions, 192; Robert, RE, 87. 73 On the classification of Friends, see Le Bohec, “Philoi,” 116–19. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 243 reference to Jonathan. In both cases it implies a confirmation in the high priesthood and not an appointment.74 However, no mention of explicit confirmation is made in the royal letter itself. Thus Demetrius II—and not Antiochus VI—was the first Seleucid king to implicitly legitimize the high priesthood of Simon. Hence, it follows that Simon very probably requested from Demetrius II legitimization of his previous appointment as high priest by his “people” (cf. 1 Macc 14:35). The reason for this will be elucidated further below. After the royal letter, 1 Macc 13:41–42 relates that in the Sel. year 170 “the people” began to write in the records: “the first year of Simon great high priest (ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου),75 and strategos and leader of Jews.” The year here seems to follow the Babylonian system, i.e. 142/1 spring reckoning. If correct, the royal confirmation for Simon arrived after March of 142. Of significance in the royal addressing formula is the reference to the “elders” (πρεσβυτέροις) and “ethnos of the Jews” (1 Macc 13:36). In 1 Macc 12:35 the “elders of the people” are summoned by Jonathan to discuss the fortification project (cf. 7:33). And in 1 Macc 14:28 the “elders of the country” take part in the great assembly in honor of Simon. In both these cases, it seems to imply the heads of various tribes in Judea. In the case of 1 Macc 13:36, the elders probably were the signatories of Simon’s request to Demetrius II. The tribal elders, or part of them, emerge thus as an important Jewish body which backed the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.76 The appearance of the term ethnos instead shows that Demetrius II reaffirmed this juridical status of the Jews (cf. 11:30). Simon was confirmed high priest apparently also over those Jews, who lived outside Judea but associated themselves with the Jerusalem temple. The temple priests are not listed in the heading of the royal letter. It is tempting to assume that they were also missing in the letter of Simon forwarded to Demetrius II. Their absence, however, is not unusual seeing that the priests would emerge as the most important group that issued the edict reproduced in 1 Macc 14.

74 Contrary to van Henten, “Decree,” 139 n 34, who instead argues that Demetrius II (?) “appointed” Simon as high priest. as ἀρχιερεύς, and rendered הכהן The Greek translator probably took the Hebrew 75 as ὁ μέγας (so also in 1 Macc 13:42). A literal translation instead exists in the letter הגדול of Antiochus VII to Simon in 15:2, which reads Σίμωνι ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ. Incidentally, these pas sages may suggest that the translator did not use the original Greek letters here. 76 On the institution of the elders, see Ska, Libro, 447–61. On the role of the elders in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, see Grabbe, History, II, 229–34. 244 chapter nine

5.2. Towards an Independence of the Hasmonean High Priesthood Confirmation of high priesthood, however, was not the only and probably primary reason why Simon sent envoys to King Demetrius II. After the enmity with Tryphon such a diplomatic move became a necessary measure against a common enemy. Demetrius II reportedly also approved the release of Judea from the royal tribute and other taxes (1 Macc 13:37, 39; cf. 13:34), as well as the confirmation of Simon’s property rights over the fortifications he had built (13:38). This shows that previously it was forbidden to build any fortification that could be used by the Hasmonean high priest without the explicit approval of the Seleucid king (9:50–52; 11:41; 11:53). The royal letter ends with a request: enrollment of the Jews in the king’s army.77 Such a request was of vital need for Demetrius II, who was also preparing his expedition in the East against the Parthians (1 Macc 14:1–2). By itself it suggests that the king was aware of the military weight of Simon. This request—together with the concessions he made—attests to the political and military weakness of the king. Additional evidence of this is the omission of any mention of the royal Akra that continued to remain under Hasmonean blockade (cf. 13:49). All these elements seem to confirm that the “generous” concessions made by Demetrius II were mainly those requested by Simon. It does seem as if the king implicitly ceded the control of Judea to the Hasmonean high priest. The royal letter appears to be the last preserved document by which a Seleucid king confirmed a high priest in Jerusalem. This event contributed significantly to the strengthening of the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood of Simon. It also marked the final step towards its independence from the royal throne. The high priest came to be “a symbol of national self-assertion,” as Chris Seeman puts it.78 No wonder that the letter of Demetrius II meant so much for Simon and his militants. “The yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel,” and the new era of Simon as high priest began (1 Macc 13:41–42). Josephus in his conflated version in War 1.53 states that Simon freed Judea after 170 years of Macedonian rule, which implies both Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule (cf. Ant. 13.213).79 The middle aorist verb ἤρξατο in 1 Macc 13:42 indicates that for “the people,” the royal letter marked the official beginning of

77 The royal army is, however, not explicitly mentioned. 78 Rome and Judea, 401. 79 Grainger, Syrian Wars, 363, says that such autonomy was reached by Arados on the island, the former province of Commagene, and the city of Edessa. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 245

Simon’s high priestly rule; ὁ λαός here seems to be used in a broader sense and may refer to all those who by this time accepted the high priesthood of Simon. As for the “first year” referred to in 1 Macc 13:42, it does not mean the first full year of Simon’s high priesthood. The same is true for the “third year” in 1 Macc 14:27.80 Simon did not introduce a new system of calendar reckoning beginning from the day he became high priest. He merely adapted his rule to the existing Babylonian system, very probably the same as was used in the temple, to indicate the year when he became high priest. Given the date in 1 Macc 16:14,81 i.e. roughly January/February of 134, it follows that Simon was high priest for about eight years. This agrees with what Josephus relates in Ant. 13.228, and what can be inferred from his list in Ant. 20.240.

6. The archiereus Simon Takes Residence in the City of David

How did the Akra inhabitants in Jerusalem react to this event? The key role played by the Seleucid Akra since its institution under King Anti- ochus IV in 167 has been regularly discussed. In fact, one cannot study the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood without paying constant attention to the political, military and economic role played by the royal Akra. Its activity coexisted with that of Jonathan down to 143, when it was put under economic blockade by the high priest. The Akra controlled the City of David and used to have significant influence on certain other places and territories of Judea. In the City of David lived both Seleucid colonizers and probably part of the (old) Jewish elite. That non-Jews were living in the City of David is stated in 1 Macc 14:36 (see τὰ ἔθνη; cf. 1 Macc 11:21; War 1.50).82 Indeed, the Akra could have hardly existed for so long without the active support of both the Seleucid chancelleries and the Hellenized Jews. However, the letter of Demetrius II—which makes no allusion to the Akra—appears to have convinced Simon to finally occupy it; thus, 1 Macc 13:50 reports that Simon expelled those from the Akra. His men entered

80 Contrary to VanderKam, From Joshua, 275 n. 103. 81 The date is “eleventh month of Shebat,” Sel. 177; it refers to Simon’s death. 82 When Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem, one of his conditions to Hyrcanus I was (re) admission of the Seleucid garrison into the Akra, and the handing over of arms. In place of the garrison, Hyrcanus I reportedly gave hostages—includinghis brother—and paid 500 silver talents (Ant. 13.246–247). 246 chapter nine it with praise, palm branches, musical instruments and songs, “for a great enemy was removed from Israel” (1 Macc 13:51). The high priest also fortified the temple wall alongside the Akra, and eventually settled in it together with his loyalists (13:52; cf. 14:37).83 Contrary to 1 Macc 13:50–52, Josephus has Simon pull down the Akra (War 1.50//Ant. 13.215–216). The historian may have relied here on an independent source, but he does not say where Simon lived.84 There is no reason why such an act should not have been recorded in First Maccabees. In the note concerning Simon’s purification of the Akra, a certain apologetic tone surfaces. Both Simon and later Hyrcanus I may have been criticized by opponents for having settled in a “polluted” place (cf. 1 Macc 14:7, 36). The same verb ἐκαθάρισε is used both in 1 Macc 13:50 and in 1 Macc 4:43 where it indicated the purification of the “polluted” temple. Besides, the term ἀκαθαρσία is used in relation to both Gazara and the Akra (13:48; 14:7). It is also possible that Josephus misinterpreted the location of the Akra, identifying it with the Antonia fortress of his day. In Ant. 15.403 he speaks of a fortress built north of the temple by the Hasmonean “kings” and “high priests,” which they called Baris (βᾶρις; cf. War 1.118).85 Elsewhere, the latter is identified with Herod’s Antonia fortress (War 1.75; Ant. 15.403, 409). Josephus says nothing about Simon’s supposed building of a fortress. The Baris instead was probably built by Hyrcanus I, who rebuilt much of the city walls after the siege by Antiochus VII (Ant. 13.247; cf. 1 Macc 16:23). Further clarification of War 1.50//Ant. 13.215–217 may come independently from War 5.139. Here, Josephus apparently refers to the same event. He speaks of the “Hasmoneans” who destroyed part of the height of the Akra (Ἄκρα), so that the temple would remain higher than the other buildings. The ultimate aim was to join the upper city to the temple by fill- ing in the valley between with earth. According to Ant. 13.217, the project took three full years of work but the historian does not tell who ordered it, or when exactly was it done.86 Since First Maccabees does not ascribe

83 Letter of Aristeas 100–104 also refers to an Akra. Both Letter of Aristeas and 1 Macc 1:33 describe the Akra with towers. The mention of it being guarded by “the most trusted men” of the country and of sacrifices going on in the temple, may point to the post-140 period. In fact, in Let. Aris. 104, the Akra functions as a “watch/protection” of the temple while in 1 Macc 1:36 it is depicted as an “ambush” for the sanctuary. See also Honigman, “Description,” 82–85. 84 Sievers, “Jerusalem,” 201, claims—contrary to Bar-Kochva, Judas, 452—that the description of Ant. 13.217 does not derive from Nicolaus of Damascus. 85 Neither Simon nor Hyrcanus I were kings. 86 The imperfect verb ἐβασίλευον must not necessarily imply that this project was done by one of the Hasmonean kings. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 247 any such activity to Simon, it is again plausible that it had been ordered by Hyrcanus I (cf. 1 Macc 16:23–24). The occupation of the Akra by the high priest Simon is dated to the 23d day of the second month of the Sel. 171 (1 Macc 13:51). This is probably the Babylonian month of Iyyar (so also Megillat Ta‘anit), and translates into June 4 of 141. This means that the Akra in Jerusalem survived as a Seleucid institution for roughly 26 years. Simon decreed that this day should be yearly celebrated with rejoicing (1 Macc 13:52). This was apparently the third festival decreed by the Hasmoneans after that of Hanukkah (1 Macc 4:59//2 Macc 10:8), and the Day of Nikanor (1 Macc 7:49//2 Macc 15:36). The significance of the final conquest of the Akra by Simon is emphasized in the narrative (1 Macc 13:51–52), in the eulogy (14:7) and in the popular decree (14:36–37). Its conquest meant for Simon’s militants not only the end of the Seleucid dominion in Jerusalem, but also the end of several centuries of foreign royal control and influence over the high priesthood. The Hasmonean high priest could now claim full political, military, and religious authority over Judea with its temple. Before examining the decisions of the assembly in 140, it is necessary to analyze in what way the external policy of Simon contributed to this last stage in the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

7. The archiereus Simon and His Embassies to Rome and Sparta

Many scholars—without offering an exhaustive explanation—argue that ὅτι in 1 Macc 14:41, which gives the impression of continuing with what King Demetrius II actually “heard” (14:40), is an interpretative insertion.87 Jan W. van Henten instead suggests that one should keep the ὅτι by taking the verb ἤκουσε as referring not to the king but to δῆμος introduced in 14:25.88 He then argues for the year 125 as the time when the document in 1 Macc 14 might have been “composed.”89 The author is certainly right to claim that “it is highly improbable that the continuation in 14:40 should be read as Demetrius’ motivation” for confirming Simon’s high priesthood. It is thus necessary to examine the diplomatic relationship of

87 Thus Grimm, Erste Maccabäer, 216; Abel, Maccabées, 260; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 507; Schunck, I Makkabäerbuch, 359 n. 41a. 88 “Decree,” 121. 89 “Decree,” 116. Later, on p. 119 van Henten asserts that “[t]he most probable view seems to be that 1 Macc 14:27–49 goes back to an actual decree that has been adapted and embedded in 1 Maccabees.” 248 chapter nine

Simon with Rome and Sparta. This will close the analysis of the first part of the decree.

7.1. The Embassy of Simon to Rome and the Seleucid Affairs The growing power and authority of the Roman Republic even inside the Seleucid world becomes, again, evident from the study of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood itself. There are, however, some problems with the announced “alliance” of Rome with the Jews reported in 1 Macc 14:40. The primary concern is not connected so much with the technical terms adopted there but rather with the claim in 1 Macc 14:16 that it was “heard” in Rome about the death of Jonathan, and that Simon became archiereus in his stead (14:17). It appears that 1 Macc 14:24 is resumed in 15:15, which then introduces a Roman letter. First Maccabees 14:16–19 instead seems to be a continuation of 1 Macc 12:1–4 (cf. 12:16). The latter relates the sending of Numenius, son of Antiochus, and Antipater, son of Jason, to Rome under Jonathan (cf. 14:22). This embassy was dated in this treatise to early 143. Such a date is corroborated by the use of the verb “confirm” (στῆσαι) in 1 Macc 14:24. Every established local ruler would need to make anew the diplomatic relation with the Roman Senate. Simon hardly needed to send two embassies. This gives reason to place his embassy to Rome in the following year, i.e. early in 142. Josephus records only in passing Simon’s treaty with Rome, and this he does at Ant. 13.227. However, in Ant. 14.145–148 the historian paraphrased a senatus consultum he ascribed to the time of Hyrcanus II. It parallels 1 Macc 15:16–21 in several places.90 In fact, the two epistolary texts appear to draw on the same kind of source. The double claim is made that Simon was recognized by Rome as archiereus of the Jews (1 Macc 15:17, 21; cf. 15:24). One wonders to what extent the senatus was informed about the real powers of Simon. This embassy was rather used as another propagandistic device in the process of the legitimization of Simon’s high priesthood. He could claim that his

90 For a bibliography, see Eilers, “Forgery,” 212 n 9. Like many scholars, Eilers places the embassy of Simon in 139. Likewise, in Ant. 14.150–155 Josephus wrongly ascribed a decree of Athens to the time of Hyrcanus II instead of Hyrcanus I, which should be dated to 106/5 b.c.e.; see Eilers, 212–16. On the relations with Rome under Hyrcanus I, see Seeman, Rome and Judea, 198–218. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 249 position was implicitly recognized not only by the Seleucid king but even by the Romans, who subdued King Antiochus III. Reportedly, Demetrius II “heard” about Jews being addressed as “friends” by the Romans (1 Macc 14:40). This information follows the note of the confirmation of Simon as archiereus (14:39) by the king. The latter event took place in the Sel. 170 (13:36–41). This is probably a Babylonian year, and, if so, it must refer to after March of 142. But how did such news get to the Seleucid king? The Roman letter reproduced in 1 Macc 15:16–21 is addressed not to Simon but to King Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes) of Egypt; despite the fact that copies of the Senate’s decisions were sent reportedly also to Demetrius (II), to other kings, and to the archiereus Simon (1 Macc 15:22–24; cf. Ant. 14.147).91 Many scholars consider this letter as being genuine.92 Recently, however, Chris Seeman pointed to some difficulties about this view, although he does not deny the historicity of the embassy.93 It would follow that Demetrius received news about Simon’s diplomacy from Rome, which fits the note in 1 Macc 14:40. Now, it does seem that van Henten’s interpretation of ὅτι in 1 Macc 14:41 is also connected with the author’s failure to discuss the chronology of the Seleucid affairs. First Maccabees 14:1 anticipates the military campaign of Demetrius II to Media in Sel. 172; here the Babylonian year 140/39 is probably assumed. Demetrius was recognized as king in Babylonia at least until April of 141, which the Parthian King Mithradates I occupied by the following summer (AD 3 No. –141 F ´Rev.´ 25´–26´).94 According to Porphyrius (FGH 260 F 32.16), King Demetrius left Seleucia (-in-Pieria) in order to attack Antiochus (VI). He occupied the capital of Antioch in the Olympian year 160.1, and then marched to the East in 160.2, i.e. June 139 to June 138. Soon after, 1 Macc 14:2–3 reports the capture of Demetrius, an event that occurred not before 139 ( Jos., Ant. 13.184–186;

91 The choice of this letter might be connected in part with the fact that the main audi ence of the Greek First Maccabees was located in the Ptolemaic Egypt. As Chris Seeman, Rome and Judea, 179–80, has shown, the addressee list is poorly related to the historical circumstances surrounding it. 92 The letter is reportedly sent by Lucius, probably Caecilius Metellus Calvus, con sul in 142 (cf. Livy, Oxyr. Per. 22). See further Goldstein, I Maccabees, 492–94. Schunck, I Makkabäerbuch, 359 n. 40a rightly points out that Rome would never address the Jews as “brothers” (cf. 1 Macc 14:40). 93 See Rome and Judea, 178–80. 94 See Del Monte, TBE, 243; van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 172–73. Mithradates I also occupied the royal city Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (Just. 41.6.6). 250 chapter nine

App., Syr. 67; Just. 36.1.2–6; 38.9.2–3).95 If it is assumed that early in 142 Simon sent an embassy to Rome, there was sufficient time for Demetrius to find out about its outcome before his expedition in the East. As for the Jewish envoys, these returned to Jerusalem probably by the year 141.96

7.2. The High Priesthood of Simon, Sparta, and the Jewish demos In the above Roman letter the Jewish envoys are said to have been sent by “Simon the archiereus and the demos of the Jews” (1 Macc 15:17). In the heading of the Spartan letter Simon is instead being addressed as ἱερεῖ -In addition, the let .(14:20) כהן הגדול μεγάλω, which reflects the Hebrew ter addresses “the elders and the priests and the rest of the demos of the Jews.” This would suggest that in external correspondences Simon introduced himself only as archiereus (cf. 12:6). Elders and priests emerge thus as direct supporters of the high priesthood of Simon. As for the term demos, its use abounds especially in 1 Macc 14. It is somewhat unusual to find it where one would expect the use of ethnos (cf. 12:3; 13:36; 15:2). Furthermore, its appearance alongside ethnos in 1 Macc 12:6 is indeed puzzling. It would seem that the reason behind the choice of the term demos was to imitate the ruling system of the Spar- tan and other Hellenistic poleis, where the demos had an important role in the public decisions.97 It is difficult—although not impossible—to interpret the ἡμῖν in 1 Macc 14:28 as referring to the demos in 14:25.98 Jan W. van Henten convincingly states that the assembly and the decree it issued “can also be understood as the outcome of a lively interplay between Jewish and non-Jewish Hel- lenistic views and conventions about political power and ruler-ship.”99 In 1 Macc 14 the assembly acts very much like other popular assemblies in the Hellenistic poleis.100 The pro-Hasmonean translator chose the term demos to claim that the powers in the decree were given to Simon through a “democratic” process.101

95 See further Tarn, Greeks, 273; van der Spek, “New Evidence,” 172; Ehling, Untersuc hungen, 182–86; Grainger, Syrian Wars, 355. 96 Gruen, Hellenistic World, II, 748–51, seems to suggest the completion of Simon’s embassy already in the year 142. 97 Cf. 1 Macc 14:20, 21, 22, 23[3x]. 98 See van Henten, “Decree,” 120. 99 “Decree,” 133. 100 For a comparison, see Boffo, Re, 55, passim. 101 See Gardner, “Leadership,” 341. Chris Seeman, Rome and Judea, 165, aptly notes that this term “never once appears in the actual text of the present decree.” the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 251

To return to the problem(s) related to ὅτι in 1 Macc 14:41, Simon’s relations with Sparta and Rome were thus not “the immediate cause” for the assembly’s decree—as claimed by van Henten102—but its ultimate cause. The diplomatic affairs are listed in a chronological order. They followed after the military achievements of Simon and his confirmation as high priest by Demetrius II (cf. 14:32–40). Therefore, it is safer to view the ὅτι as an insertion done probably by the translator. The external diplomatic actions of Simon complete his achievements listed in the decree in 1 Macc 14:32–40. Based on these the groups introduced in 1 Macc 14:27b-28 would have approved the Hellenistic type of the high priesthood of Simon.

8. The Events Leading to the Gathering of the Great Assembly

At this point, it is necessary to ask why the assembly of 1 Macc 14 was organized after more than two years of Simon’s high priesthood, and after the death of the high priest Jonathan. Why now, after some twelve years of Hasmonean high priesthood, did this happen? On the external level, several important events took place before the September of 140. Simon sealed a successful peace treaty with Demetrius II in 141, who not only “confirmed” his high priesthood but declared Judea free of royal tribute, confirming in this way Simon’s civil powers. The ongoing struggle between Demetrius II and Antiochus VI–Tryphon was a far greater threat for the Seleucid chancelleries than the ambitions of the Hasmonean high priest. By the summer of 140, Tryphon proclaimed himself king (1 Macc 13:31–32; cf. 12:39–40).103 Whether Demetrius left for his military expedition in the East in 140 or the next year is a moot point. What matters is that Simon could claim that his high priesthood was confirmed by the only remaining legitimate king of the royal house of Seleucus (cf. 14:38).104 Albeit less relevant, a similar declining political process was under way in the Ptolemaic kingdom.105 The enemies of Simon

102 “Decree,” 122. 103 Tryphon later committed suicide in 138 when he lost ground to Antiochus VII, brother of Demetrius II. See 1 Macc 15:10–14; Str. 14.5.2; Jos., War 1.50; Ant. 13.223–224 (gives three years for Tryphon’s reign); App., Syr. 68. 104 On the question of royal legitimacy, see Bickerman, Institutions, 17–24. Later, also Hyrcanus I could claim that his father’s high priesthood was confirmed by Demetrius II, when the latter ruled again as king from 129 to 125. 105 For a concise overview, see Hölbl, Geschichte, 172–74. 252 chapter nine alluded to in 1 Macc 15:21, who took refuge in Egypt, could consequently find less support in influencing the affairs in Judea from outside. To this, one should add the increasing influence of Rome in the whole region. On the internal level, Simon had occupied the Akra in June of 141 (1 Macc 13:49–52). Both Jonathan and Simon kept its inhabitants under oppressive control, and the Seleucids did not stop it.106 Later, Antiochus VII would send a certain Athenobius to Simon with the claim that Joppa, Gazara and “the Akra which is in Jerusalem” were “cities” (πόλεις) of his kingdom (1 Macc 15:28). The royal attempt to resume control of the Akra never materialized; even when early in the time of the high priest Hyrcanus I the king tore down the walls of Jerusalem (Ant. 13.246–247).107 After Bacchides in 157, there is no attestation of a Seleucid approach of Jerusalem until that of Antiochus VII, who was the first Seleucid king to have besieged the entire city.108 Therefore, the success of Simon’s internal policy was much favored by events that happened both in and outside Judea. It is evident that Simon dealt harshly with his enemies both Jews and non-Jews. Confirmation of this is his violent occupation of the Akra and Gazara and more. Also the eulogy of 1 Macc 14:14 praises Simon for having uprooted every “lawless [ἄνομον] and wicked” man.109 There was, however, also another reason that explains the lateness of and the need for such an important popular assembly. This was connected with the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood of Simon and Jonathan before, which the Hasmoneans strongly developed in Judea. This important aspect will dominate the remaining discussion of the second part of the decree, namely 1 Macc 14:41–49.

106 Perhaps the blockade initiated by Jonathan in 143 was a temporary measure, resumed later by Simon. First Maccabees 13:49 reports some people died there. On block ades and their consequences, see Ephʾal, City Besieged, 35–68. 107 Josephus calls Antiochus, “Pious” (Εὐσεβῆς; e.g. Ant. 7.393; 13.244). 108 Timochares (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:35), the court historian of Antiochus VII, described Jerusalem as a city abundant in water and strongly fortified. This fortification preserved much of what had been built by Jonathan and Simon. On other sources on Jeru salem in the early rule of Hyrcanus I, see Bar-Kochva, Image of the Jews, 458–68. 109 There are instances in First Maccabees where the term ἄνομοι appears to designate the Jews (e.g. 2:44; 3:5; 7:5; 9:23; 9:58; 9:69; 11:25). the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 253

9. The Identity of the Groups that Composed the Great Assembly

First Maccabees 14:28 thus introduces the great assembly: ἐπὶ συναγωγῆς μεγάλης ἱερέων καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἀρχόντων ἔθνους καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῆς χώρας. In 1 Macc 14:41, however, only οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς are mentioned. Are these the same groups? The answer serves to clarify the identity of various groups that would have eventually accepted the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood of Simon. It has been anticipated that ἡμῖν in 1 Macc 14:28 refers to the various groups which composed the assembly. But who “made known” (ἐγνώρισεν) to the assembly what follows in 1 Macc 14:29–39? In the nine attestations of ἐγνώρισεν in the LXX, the Hebrew verb that -to know.” It is likely that the same verb stood origi“—ידע underlies it is הודיע or הודעתנו/הודיענו) nally in 1 Macc 14:28, either in a hiphil perfect Scholars plausibly suggest that 111.(הודע לנו) or in a hophal form 110(לנו some herald announced loudly to the assembly the contents of 1 Macc 14:29–40, after which it enunciated its own decisions contained in 1 Macc 14:41–49.112 Nemanja Vujçić brought examples which indicate that in some Hellenistic assemblies after a proposal has been read, the voting was made by a show of hands.113 The only group which is clearly recognized throughout the decree is “the priests” (1 Macc 14:28, 41, 44; cf. 14:47). Who then are “the Jews,” literally “Judeans” listed with “the priests” in 1 Macc 14:41? David Goodblatt notes that in the narrative the term “Israel” is used, whereas in the official documents (including Jewish) incorporated in the narrative, the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι appears.114 On several occasions this designation

110 See Neh 8:12; Ps 98:2; 103:7. See also 1QpHab vii 4–5; 1QHa xii 27; xv 27; xviii 14; xix 4, 9, 16; 4Q442 2; 4Q503 frgs. 51–55 ll. 9, 13. In the Aramaic .168 ,הספרים החיצונים כ ,See Lev 4:23, 28 (LXX: γνωσθῇ); Kahana 111 ,(is used five times in the haphel perfect (2:15, 17, 28–29, 45 ידע section of Daniel the root and in the imperfect (7:16). For all these, Daniel (Th.) has the aorist ἐγνώρισεν. See also .ידע Muraoka, “Hebrew Aramaic Index” under 112 See, for instance, Abel, Maccabées, 257 n; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 503; Sievers, Has moneans, 121; van Henten, “Decree,” 120. 113 “Greek Popular Assemblies,” 162 n 22. Vujçić lists several examples where the expres sion ἀράτω τὴν χεῖρα is attested. 114 “ ‘Israelites’,” 81. This same phenomenon the author noted in the Book of Judith and in several other more or less contemporary Jewish writings. 254 chapter nine comes to include the Hasmonean militants (1 Macc 11:47–51; 14:33–34, 36–37). In all these cases the use of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι is made to underlie also their ethnicity in relation to the other ethnic communities. Thus, for example, οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι was adopted as a rule in the heading of various letters to/from the Hasmonean high priests. The fact that “the Jews” are mentioned separately from “the priests” leads one to look for their identity among the non-priestly groups. The designation “the Jews/Judeans” appears for the first time in the Books of Hebrew). In some) היהודים Aramaic), or in Nehemiah as) יהודיא Ezra as cases it seems to include the elite Jews who returned from the Babylo- nian exile and began the rebuilding of the temple and the Jerusalem walls (Ezra 4:12, 23; Neh 3:34).115 They are sometimes portrayed as opposed to .(Neh 4:4 ;עם־הארץ) ”the “people of the land A peculiar case is presented by Neh 2:16. It mentions “the Jews,” and also ,[στρατηγοῖς/סגנים] ἐντίμοις], the officials/חרים] the priests, the nobles“ and the rest.” Scholars are divided between those who believe that the latter groups are a classification of “the Jews,”116 and those who understand “the Jews” as a distinct group.117 In the case of 1 Macc 14:41, however, the latter interpretation fits better. Another vexing problem must be avoided here because a similar interpretative difficulty is posed by 1 Macc 14:28. How is one to understand what follows καὶ λαοῦ? Adrian Schenker, among others, suggested to take καὶ before ἀρχόντων in the explicative sense, introducing the groups who composed the λαός.118 This sounds as a possible interpretation but it raises new difficulties. It is rather improbable that λαός should be used to include only “rulers” and “elders” here. Besides, why is the same term not used in 1 Macc 14:41? One is prompted to interpret the λαός in 1 Macc 14:28 in the same way as in 1 Macc 14:35, as referring to the representatives of Simon’s militants. They are the only ones not explicitly mentioned in the decree. Their participation in the assembly as the interested party would have been expected. In fact, λαός is listed here soon after the priests. As for ὁ λαός in 1 Macc 14:44, this seems to include all the non-priestly Jewish groups. This is suggested by the fact that this verse is part of a warning that must have regarded all those represented in the assembly. At

115 For a comment, see Gunneweg, Esra, 90–93. 116 So, for instance, Gunneweg, Nehemia, 60. 117 So, for instance, Blenkinsopp, Ezra—Nehemiah, 224. 118 “Einsetzung,” 165. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 255 the end in 1 Macc 14:46 the author refers to both priests and non-priests as “all the people” (πᾶς ὁ λαὸς). Hence, ὁ λαός may have different meanings according to the specific contexts. In so far as “the rulers (οἱ ἄρχοντες) of the ethnos” in 1 Macc 14:28 are concerned, they only appear in 1 Macc 1:26 along with “the elders.” Their presence in the assembly must have been important since in both passages they are listed first. Their exact public role is not clear. The LXX e.g. 1 Chr 24:6; Ezra) שרים usually has ἄρχοντες where the Hebrew reads 8:20; Neh 4:10; Esth 1:11). Perhaps these ruled under Simon over districts of Judea, as did his son-in-law Ptolemy, who was strategos over the plain of Jericho (1 Macc 16:11). It would follow then that οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι in 1 Macc 14:41 includes both “the rulers of the ethnos” and “the elders of the country,” as introduced at the beginning in 14:28. Both these groups represented the non-priestly Jew- ish population. It is in this sense that 1 Macc 14:47 seems to speak when affirming that Simon agreed to be strategos and ethnarches of “the Jews” and priests. The exact identity of the priests, however, shall be dealt with after a discussion of their decisions.

10. The High Priesthood of Simon, the ex-High Priest Jonathan, and the Coming of a “Prophet”

It is necessary to analyze the decisions coming from the groups discussed above. What was their significance for the high priesthood of Simon in particular, and the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood in general? First, however, it is useful to ask what has been learned from this decree about the ex-high priest Jonathan.

10.1. The Popular Decree of 140 b.c.e. and the High Priest Jonathan First Maccabees 14:29 begins with emphasizing the (priestly) origin of the Hasmoneans and their achievements, most of which regard Simon (14:31–40). It introduces the genealogy of “Simon, son of Mattathias, the descendant of the sons of J(eh)o(i)arib,” which reaffirms what is known from 1 Macc 2:1.119 Judas is not mentioned in the decree.120 Further, 1 Macc

119 On the priestly descent of the Hasmoneans, see here 268–71. 120 Geiger, Urschrift, 212 n, suggests that originally Judas might have been mentioned in 1 Macc 14:29, but was later substituted by Simon’s name. If correct, the substitution could occur during the translation process. 256 chapter nine

14:30 summarily reports how Jonathan gathered his ethnos, became high priest, and died (cf. 1 Macc 9:23–12:53). Deborah W. Rooke notes that the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by King Alexander I is strangely lacking here. She sees this as a possible “disapproval felt in some quarters over Jonathan’s preferment at the hands of a foreign power.”121 First, such an assertion does not explain why Simon still sent emissaries to Demetrius II, who replied by confirming his position. Also, there is nothing to contradict that Jonathan might have followed the same procedure in becoming high priest as did Simon later. In fact, Rooke speaks of the “precedent for Simon to follow in becoming high priest,” laid down by Jonathan. Second, the statement that Jonathan “became high priest to them” (ἐγενήθη αὐτοῖς ἀρχιερεὺς) in 1 Macc 14:30, and not high priest of “the ethnos,” may point to the controversial Hellenistic nature of his high priesthood. The implied meaning would seem to be that Jonathan was at first recognized as high priest by his armed men and other close militants (cf. 10:21b)—which has been argued here.

10.2. The High Priesthood of Simon and the Coming of a “Prophet” The first decision of the assembly listed in 1 Macc 14:41 was that “the Jews and the priests consented/approved (εὐδόκησαν) that Simon be their leader and high priest (ἡγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιερέα) forever, until a faithful prophet should arise.”122 The original decree probably contained the title .as it appears on later Hasmonean coinage ,הכהן ]הגדל] Uriel Rappaport plausibly suggests that the mention of prophet “seems to be a kind of compromise” reached with the opposition parties.123 According to the new Schürer, “[t]he implication of this formula was that the people’s decree was to remain valid until God decreed otherwise.”124 Gregg Gardner in fact observes that such language “is unattested in other honorary decrees.”125 The coming of a prophet was mentioned also in 1 Macc 4:46 in relation to the old altar of the temple (cf. 9:27). Much later, m. Midd. 1:6 records the stones of the altar defiled by the Hellenistic kings, which the Hasmoneans

121 Zadok’s Heirs, 297. 122 On the ἐπεί clause in the Hellenistic decrees, see Welles, RC, xliii. 123 “1 Maccabees,” 731. 124 SVM, I, 193. 125 “Leadership,” 337. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 257 deposited in the north-eastern room of the “Chamber of the Hearth.”126 These stones—so it seems—continued to be preserved even in the Herodian temple. Before proceeding, one must also take into account the expression εἰς .לעולם τὸν αἰῶνα in 1 Macc 14:41, which probably translates the Hebrew The decree in 1 Macc 14 was issued while Simon was alive and was rewritten some three decades later. Paolo Garuti plausibly suggests that the Greek wording points that the high priesthood is “transmissible aus descendants.”127 In fact, in texts like Ezek 37:25, 1 Chr 28:4 or 2 Chr 13:5 one reads that YHWH chose David to rule over Israel “forever.” However, as several texts attest, this kingship was believed to have extended to his descendants.128 Various proposals have also been made with regard to the identity of the alluded “prophet” in 1 Macc 14:41. Wolf Wirgin claims that it regards a prophet like Samuel.129 For Marc Philonenko it regards a new Moses.130 Both these authors brought biblical and extra-biblical examples as evidence to support their theories. Adalberto Sisti also discusses at length several other suggestions, showing how the expectance of a prophet is attested in several later Jewish writings.131 Also Hyrcanus I in War 1.68//Ant. 13.299 is said to have possessed three gifts: the rule (τὴν ἀρχὴν) of the ethnos, the high priesthood (τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην), and also “prophecy” (προφητείαν).132 Unfortunately, one cannot establish how far back this tradition goes and its origin. Conse- quently, one does not know whether Hyrcanus himself ever claimed to be the implied prophet of 1 Macc 14:41.133 What matters more here is that the events surrounding the murder of Simon in 134 (16:16) appear to have seriously undermined the decisions of the assembly from 140. In fact, in order to secure for himself succession in his father’s high priestly office, Hyrcanus I soon had recourse to military power (cf. 1 Macc 16:21–22; War

126 In Ant. 12.318//1 Macc 4:44–46 Josephus does not mention the stones. 127 Avant que se lève l’ètoile, 95. 128 1 Sam 13:13; 2 Sam 7:13, 16; 1 Kgs 2:45; 1 Chr 17:12; 22:10; 28:7, passim. 129 “Simon,” 35–41. 130 “Prophète,” 95–98. 131 “L’attesa,” 47–82. 132 Josephus reports a revelation in Ant. 13.282–283, which Hyrcanus I received in the temple. In Ant. 13.300 this story is cited as evidence that Hyrcanus could foresee the future. A version of this tradition is preserved in b. Soṭah 33b. 133 There is, for example, evidence that Josephus considered himself to have the gift of prophecy. See further Gray, Prophetic Figures, 16–23, 35–79. 258 chapter nine

1.54–60//Ant. 13.228–235). His use of troops against the Jewish opposition is reported also in War 1.67 (cf. Ant. 13.288) and in War 1.68//Ant. 13.299. Jonathan and/or his sons are not mentioned in 1 Macc 14:41. Felix-Marie Abel, followed by Joseph Sievers, claimed that the apparent limitation in 1 Macc 14:41 regarded only Simon, and did not necessarily mean the institution of a new high priestly dynasty as claimed by certain other scholars.134 One also notes that Simon’s “sons” are not listed in 14:41. Their mention in 1 Macc 14:25 and in 14:49 was probably inserted by the author of First Mac- cabees. The honors paid to Simon could be interpreted later by Hyrcanus I as extending to his father’s “sons/descendants.” This would have served him well to claim legitimacy of his high priesthood. On the one hand, it is clear that it is Simon alone who is honored. On the other hand, after his appointment as military leader (ἡγούμενος) of the Hasmonean forces in Gazara (13:53), Hyrcanus may have already been an important person in order that his presence be taken into consideration by the assembly. The wording in 1 Macc 14:41, therefore, remains ambiguous. It does not explicitly limit the high priesthood exclusively to Simon. He is legitimized not only to act as high priest, but also—it seems—to be co-responsible for the further fate of the high priestly office. But the decree does not explicitly extend this office to Simon’s descendants “forever” either. Nor does it allude to the fulfillment of God’s commandments by Simon on which his high priesthood would further depend. All depended upon when the implied “prophet” would come and communicate God’s will. Until then, neither the Seleucid king nor any Jewish institution—including the temple priesthood—had authority to change the assembly’s decisions. The fate of the high priesthood of Simon is thus left to the will of God. It sounds as if the assembly believed that in order that the high priesthood of Simon be “fully legitimate,” it would need God’s sanction which could arrive by way of a “trustful” prophet. This element, again, points to the controversial nature of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood, which had to do with its Hellenization.

11. The archiereus Simon and the Question of His Powers

It is necessary to look more closely at the way the Hellenistic type of the high priesthood of Simon appears to have been accepted by the assembly,

134 Abel, Maccabées, 260–61; Sievers, Hasmoneans, 126–27. For other views, see Arenho evel, Theokratie, 68–69; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 508. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 259 in light of its earlier confirmation by King Demetrius II. The relation of the civil offices of Simon to his high priesthood must also be analyzed. In what way was Simon’s high priesthood related to the administration of the temple affairs before the assembly? First Maccabees 14:42 affirms that the Jews and the priests consented that Simon be their strategos.135 Unlike in the case of the titles of leader and high priest in 14:41, this one carries with it no restrictions. The high priest is also commissioned to take care of the sanctuary, and appoint officials over its works/tasks, over the country, over the weapons, and over the fortresses (14:42).136 It sounds as if heretofore there was some serious difficulty with exercising these powers by Simon. To be sure, this right was confirmed on Simon by Demetrius II (13:38–39; cf. 14:17), who also confirmed him as high priest (cf. 14:38). According to 1 Macc 14:43 Simon was to be obeyed “by all,” and all the documents (συγγραφαὶ) had to be written in his name, i.e., specify his name and year of his high priesthood.137 Dispositions similar to this exist, for example, in SEG 37.1010 ll. 44–46 and IGLS III/2 992 ll. 31–33. In both cases the object is clearly an appointment of a high priest. King Seleucus IV too instructed Heliodorus with the words: “you will do well [taking care to enter him in] the contracts” (SEG 57.1838 frg. E ll. 10–12).138 As a rule, such instruction was connected with an official appointment to a religious and/or civil office. Hence, it would mean that the statement in 1 Macc 13:42 that “the people began to write in the documents and contracts” Simon’s name, was not universally observed in Judea. Thus, under Jonathan for example, certain official documents may have contained the name and the year of the ruling Seleucid king instead.139 The assembly further agreed that Simon should be clothed in purple and wear a golden buckle (1 Macc 14:44). Both these elements reflected the dress of a Hellenistic ruler (cf. 11:58; cf. 10:20; 10:89). Hence, the priests and non-priests were no longer permitted to recognize the Seleucid royal authority over Judea and its Jerusalem temple. In this way, the assembly

135 On the use of this title in the LXX, see Grabbe, “Terminology,” 226–27. 136 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 508, believes that the dittography at the beginning of 1 Macc 14:43 (cf. 14:42) was purposely done to have Simon “attending to the service of the sanctu ary.” Such inference is baseless since the same phrase occurs twice without variation. 137 On such procedures, see Boffo, Re, 233; Dignas, Economy, 46–52. 138 So Gera, “Olympiodoros,” 138. The implied person is Olympiodorus. 139 For several examples of how the names of the Seleucid kings were used in Judean documents, see Edwards, “Kings,” 285–88. 260 chapter nine apparently reserved for itself the right to issue decisions that were in the royal competence. By implication, the assembly event was to a certain extent an act of declaration of independence. By the same token the assembly implicitly reserved for itself the right to assign authority to Simon—including administration of the temple. This power is expressed in 1 Macc 14:42 by way of the subjunctive verb μέλῃ.140 This seemingly included full authority over the temple officials and its priesthood, and over the temple cult, as well as control over its economy. This likely implies that before this event, Simon encountered difficulties in fully exercising these powers.

12. The archiereus Simon and the Temple Cultic Life

In dealing with the high priesthood of Jonathan it was pointed out that the Jerusalem temple was never explicitly presented as part of the activity of Jonathan. Its first (indirect) mention occurs instead in 1 Macc 13:3–6 in the context of the arrest of Jonathan when Simon was being elected as military leader. The temple is next referred to in the context of the fortification project in 13:52 (cf. 10:11). How was the Hellenistic model of the high priesthood of Simon related to the temple cult? Did Simon perform cultic activity peculiar of the Jewish high priest? A first direct connection between Simon and the temple is made by the author of the eulogy of Simon in 1 Macc 14:4–15. After having enumer- ated the political, military and economic accomplishments of Simon, it ends with the report that “he honored (ἐδόξασε) the sanctuary and mul- tiplied the sacred vessels” (14:15). This form of euergetism was reportedly expressed also by the Seleucid kings (2 Macc 3:2–3; 1 Macc 10:41–42). Also Judas Maccabeus is said to have chosen “blameless priests,” who purified the sanctuary, made new cultic utensils and a new altar (1 Macc 4:42–51; 2 Macc 10:1–3).

140 Earlier, Olympiodorus was supposed to take care (see ἐπιμελεία) of the temples of Koile-Syria (SEG 57.1838 l. 25). On epimeleia and its cognates, see Dmitriev, City, 119–21. The expression μέλω + περὶ τῶν ἁγίων does not appear elsewhere in the LXX. On the use of this verb with the Genitive, see Abel, Grammaire, 184–85. In cultic contexts one meets to which a cultic object ,שמר משמרת φυλάσσω + ἡ φυλακή, which translates the Hebrew is added (the temple, the altar, the sacrifices, or the sacred vessels); e.g. Num 3:8, 32, 38; 31:30, 47; Ezek 40:45–46; 44:8, 15–16; 48:11; 1 Chr 23:32. In Sir 45:24 (Ms B) one reads that The .(לכלכל המקדש) ”God conferred the right on Phinehas “to provide for the sanctuary Greek I reads: προστατεῖν ἁγίων (καὶ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ). the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 261

No reference to the cultic activity of Simon is made in the assembly’s decree either. The first Hasmonean high priest about whom there is a record of performing a cultic action is Hyrcanus I, soon after he occupied the high priestly office (War 1.56//Ant. 13.230). Josephus also narrates that once while the high priest was in the temple offering incense, Hyrcanus heard God’s voice that foretold the victory of his sons in the battle against the Seleucids (Ant. 13.282–283). The lack of a reference to any cultic activity of Simon cannot be simply explained away as having played a minor role of importance for the pro-Hasmonean author, and therefore was not significant enough to be recorded. One thinks of Sirach 50. The high priest Simon (II) is credited with a series of administrative and especially cultic activities all related to the temple. Also Onias III is credited with several moral virtues and cultic acts in 2 Macc 3–4, which made him an ideological high priest (cf. 15:12). After all, as posited here, First Maccabees is primarily about the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Just as in the case of Jonathan, there is strong reason to believe that prior to the assembly in 140 Simon also had difficult access to the cultic activities at the temple. First, such limits were imposed by the issues related to the question of ritual impurity due to his military and perhaps other aspects. Second, as has been argued, except for the Day of Atone- ment ritual there was no other cultic service that would necessarily require the presence of the high priest. There was, however, a third aspect that complicated both Jonathan and Simon’s access to the temple affairs: the active opposition which both Hasmonean high priests had to face. This opposition was due to their Hel- lenistic model of high priesthood.141 It is this third aspect that must still be considered.

13. The Opposition to the Hellenistic High Priesthood of Simon

Of significant importance for the present study is the warning in the final part of the decree. According to 1 Macc 14:44 nobody from among “the people or the priests” was (permitted) to:

141 According to Baumgartern, Jewish Sects, 88, “sectarianism became fully mature” in the early Hasmonean period. The complex history of the Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes in relation to the Hasmonean high priests is, however, beyond the present purpose. 262 chapter nine a) Declare invalid or contradict these decisions, i.e. those of the great assembly contained in 1 Macc 14:41–43. This included, among others, the assembly’s confirmation of the high priesthood of Simon. b) Contradict any of Simon’s proclamations/laws. Christiane Saulnier asserts that contrary to kings or magistrates in the Greek world, in the Jewish tradition a high priest was not empowered to issue laws.142 As argued here, Simon was confirmed to act as Hellenistic archiereus. In addition, in 141 he obtained a relative independence from the Seleucid king. Indeed, Simon was assigned certain royal prerogatives. c) Summon an assembly without the consent of Simon (14:42–43). d) Be clothed in purple or wear the golden buckle (14:43).

First Maccabees 14:45 concludes that whoever will act contrary to these decisions “shall be liable to punishment.” The admonition regarded thus both the decisions of the assembly as well as those to be taken in the future by the high priest Simon. The warning appears to be addressed to both Jewish priests and non-priests. A similar admonition is found in 1 Macc 1:43. The context there is the edict of Antiochus IV from 167. But why would Simon have needed such an official warning to be issued by the popular assembly?

13.1. The archiereus Simon and the anti-Hasmonean Groups As can be grasped from the little evidence provided in First Maccabees, Simon had enemies both inside and outside his controlled territory.143 Information about such opposition exists in the above mentioned letter of the Roman Senate to Ptolemy VIII reproduced in 1 Macc 15:16–21. It ends with a requirement that the king should hand over “scoundrels” (λοιμοὶ) that have escaped into Egypt to the archiereus Simon, so that Simon may punish them according to their law.144 The term λοιμοὶ appears also in 1 Macc 10:61 where it refers to those who went to Ptolemais to accuse Jonathan before Alexander I in 150. At least some of them were identified here with representatives of the pre-Hasmonean ruling class. The same adjective is used in the letter of

142 “Cadre politico-religieux,” 211. 143 On the opposition to Simon, see Sievers, Hasmoneans, 124–27, 133–34. 144 Sievers, Hasmoneans, 118, stresses the letter’s “evidence of the Hasmoneans’ con cerns.” This requirement is not found in Ant. 14.145–148 which parallels 1 Macc 15:16–20. Josephus did not paraphrase most of Simon’s story. Therefore, his version here might be based on a different source. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 263

Antiochus VII to Simon in 1 Macc 15:3 to define those who seized the kingdom, i.e. militants of Tryphon. Here too, the term appears to denote those who plotted against the high priest Simon. Uriel Rappaport thinks these were “Jews persecuted on political grounds.”145 Their exact identity or that of the faction(s) they belonged to is not specified. But the threat they represented for Simon’s position is suggested by the fact that the Hasmonean high priest appears to have asked Rome for help.146 Earlier, also Gideon Bohak claimed that Heliopolis—among other regions—was “a safe haven for the many refu- gees from Judea.”147 Livia Capponi brought more evidence, which seems to confirm that the early Hasmonean high priests persecuted the opposition groups outside Judea.148 In connection to this, Paolo Garuti made the attractive hypothesis that the aim of the composition (or re-edition) of Psalm 110 was “réaffirmer les droits de la dynastie hasmonéenne contre les Oniades survivants à Léontopolis. . . .”149 This view, however, would deserve separate treatment. Nevertheless, the most dangerous opposition to Simon came from inside Judea. First Maccabees 16:11–22 refers to an event that occurred some six years after the decree and confirms the real concerns of Simon. It reports that Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who was strategos over the plain of Jericho, killed Simon, his wife, and his two sons. Ptolemy also sent his men to kill John (Hyrcanus I), who was in Gazara (16:19). Fuller independent versions of this event that took place during a banquet in a stronghold called Dok is found in Josephus’ War 1.54–60//Ant. 13.228–235, and in the high priestly list in Ant. 20.240. Zeʾev Meshel identifies Dok with Ras Quarantal. In fact, Meshel believes that the building of this “luxurious” fortress is an expression of the insecurity felt by the Hasmonean high priest.150 Ptolemy reportedly had much silver and gold “for he was son in law of the high priest” (1 Macc 16:11–12). First Maccabees 16:13 relates that Ptolemy

145 “Extradition,” 273. Rappaport cites a similar extradition clause in War 1.474, refer ring to the events at the time of Herod the Great. However, Seeman, Rome and Judea, 180, judges the extradition clause as “unhistorical.” 146 Rappaport, “Extradition,” 280, plausibly argues against Abel, Maccabées, 280, that behind the phrase in 1 Macc 15:21 there is no hint at jurisdiction over Jews outside Judea. What the high priest Simon wanted was their arrest. 147 Joseph and Aseneth, 27. The other such place in Egypt was Alexandria. 148 Tempio, 103–8. 149 Avant que se lève l’étoile, 157–58. 150 “Nabataean ‘Rock’,” 110–12. Israel Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 53–54, seems to suggest that Jericho and Ein-Gedi were not under the control of Jonathan and Simon, since no seal impressions of the Types 16–17 were found there. 264 chapter nine wanted “to seize” the country. Ptolemy wrote to King Antiochus VII asking him to send forces so he could hand over the towns and the country to him (1 Macc 16:18). This meant—contrary to this decree—placing Judea back under the Seleucid throne. Ptolemy eventually succeeded in having the king march against Hyrcanus I in 134/3. Antiochus tore down the city walls and took much booty and hostages (Diod. 34/35.1.1–2, 4–5; Jos., War 1.61; Ant. 13.236–249).151 Ptolemy probably did not act alone in his plot. This is suggested by 1 Macc 16:20. It reports that John (Hyrcanus I) sent troops to take possession of “Jerusalem and the temple hill.” The distinction between Jerusalem as a city and the temple hill is revealing. The latter was controlled by the temple authorities. According to War 1.55//Ant. 13.229 Ptolemy tried to occupy Jerusalem but was repelled by the “multitude” (πλήθος).152 Jose- phus too, says nothing of the priests in this connection. In fact, the most dangerous internal opposition Simon had to face was coming from certain temple officials and other temple priests. Indeed, the priesthood as a whole played a crucial role in society along with the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. No wonder then that the decree in favor of Simon refers three times to priests (1 Macc 14:28, 41, 44). In fact, not all of them appear to have applauded this process of institutionalization. Three aspects appear with regard to the role of the priests participating in the assembly that issued the decree in 1 Macc 14:27b–49:

1. These priests emerge as authoritative representatives of the Jewish society and, therefore, influential both among the priesthood and among the populace in general. 2. These priests appear to have enjoyed certain control of the temple’s cultic and economic affairs. Some of them must have acted as officials of the temple. This is suggested by the fact that in 1 Macc 14:42 the priests give their consent that Simon should exercise administrative power over the temple.

151 This siege is attested by many Hellenistic war items found along the wall founda tion; see Mazar and Eshel, “First Wall,” 265–66; Geva, “Summary,” 533. See also Sivan and Solar, “Excavations,” 173–74. 152 War 1.60//Ant. 13.235 has Ptolemy escaping to a certain Zeno, a “tyrant” of the Ammo nite city of Philadelphia. On the possible Ammonite support of Ptolemy, see Hübner, Ammoniter, 226–28. the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 265

3. These priests—or rather the circles they represented—appear to have acted down to 140—to a certain extent and on certain issues—auton- omously of the Hasmonean high priests. It would follow that only in 140 did they subject themselves or were subjected to the full authority of Simon.

The last question, then, is how much freedom did these priests have in issuing the decree in “honor” of the Hasmonean high priest, Simon?

13.2. A (Priestly) Decree to “Honor” Simon? One wonders whether all the participating groups in the popular assembly in 140 b.c.e. were willing “to honor” Simon. The present study made it clear that both Jonathan and Simon faced strong opposition due primarily to their monopolization of both civil and religious powers. Many priests especially saw in the Hasmonean high priesthood a threat to their own positions. In the analysis of the decree it has been stressed that, unlike the high priesthood, the strategia of Simon is left unrestricted in 1 Macc 14:42. Some of the prominent groups in Judea were—so it seems—less concerned about the civil powers of Simon. Various Jewish groups, in fact, were looking for a reason, religious or political, to accuse the early Hasmonean high priests, and eventually obtain their removal from the office. Such anti-Hasmonean opposition seems to lay at the basis of the ideologies found in the so-called Enochic or Melchizedek (high) priestly traditions. They likely contain polemical elements which tend to claim superiority over against the institution of the (Hasmonean) high priesthood.153 Several other DSS have also been pointed out, which contain ideological ruling models aimed at criticizing the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. More explicit and detailed evidence about the opposition to Hasmonean high priesthood comes from Josephus’ works. These illustrate how certain protests against the high priests Hyrcanus I and later Alexan- der Janneus turned into violence (War 1.67–68; Ant. 13.288–299, 372–373; b. Qidd. 66a).

153 A proper discussion of relevant texts is beyond the present purpose. For a recent survey of these traditions, see Arcari, “Autodefinizione,” 101–21. Part of these texts was conceived as criticism against certain pre-Hasmonean high priests. During the early Has monean rule, however, they have been re-interpreted in light of new socio-political and religious situations. 266 chapter nine

In fact, already by 140 b.c.e. Simon significantly strengthened his civil powers. Any peaceful requests or protests against him had little effect. Priestly and non-priestly opposition groups could recognize a gradual decrease of their influence, helped by a decline of the Seleucid control of the Hasmonean high priests. They appear to have found themselves in a situation in which they had to give up part of their privileges and perhaps even some rights and accept Simon’s authority. These considerations urge one to reconsider to what extent the opposition groups were represented at the gathering promoted by Simon’s own militants. Consequently, this aspect calls for a re-evaluation of the degree of the legitimacy of the decisions in favor of Simon. There is, in fact, reason to assume that after this public event some priests joined the community of the Teacher of Righteousness.

Conclusion

The present chapter has dealt with the way Simon succeeded as high priest to his brother Jonathan, after the latter’s arrest by Tryphon. The period under discussion was between late 143 and September of 140. Three important stages in the institutionalization of Simon as high priest have been traced: First phase: Following the capture of the high priest Jonathan in Ptole- mais, probably late in 143, his army still hoped for Jonathan’s return. In the meantime, however, it elected Simon as military leader (1 Macc 13:8). But in the winter of 143/2 Jonathan was put to death (13:23). Following this event Simon conquered Gazara. Early in 142, the representatives of the Hasmonean army and some other groups—priests included—“appointed” Simon as high priest. Second phase: Simon then sent envoys to Demetrius II to get royal validation of his supporters’ decision. The king implicitly “confirmed” (ἔστησεν) Simon in the high priesthood (cf. 1 Macc 14:38) sometime after March of 142. On the one hand, Simon’s request to the king meant that politically the high priest still felt dependent on the Seleucid throne. This is corroborated by his being addressed in reply as Friend of the king (13:36; cf. 14:39). Simon was thus confirmed to act as a Hellenistic archiereus of the Jewish ethnos. On the other hand, the royal legitimization of the process accomplished by the Hasmonean militants demonstrates further weakening of the Seleucid dominion in Judea. The king also granted remission of royal taxes for Judea. In the same year, Simon sent envoys to Rome and the high priesthood of simon (142–140 b.c.e.) 267

Sparta to renew diplomatic relations, bypassing the Seleucid royal authority. Here too, Simon acted as a Hellenistic high priestly ruler. Third phase: In June of 141 Simon conquered the Akra and took residence there. On a temporary scale, this event signified the end of the Hel- lenistic/Seleucid rule in Jerusalem. To justify Simon’s moving therein the author of First Maccabees claims that Simon purified it; the same action is reported after the conquest of Gazara. On the 14th of September of 140 the ardent supporters of Simon promoted the organization of the “great assembly” composed of the representatives of both priests and non-priests. This event was made possible as a result of: 1) the weakening of the Seleucid dominion, 2) the military suc- cesses of Simon, and 3) Simon’s diplomatic achievements with Demetrius II, Rome, Sparta, and other. The militants of Simon made known to the assembly his achievements, mostly military (1 Macc 14:29–40). The assembly publicly consented that Simon should act as Hellenistic archiereus, and also be its leader and strategos (14:41–45). In this way, it ratified the earlier decision of the Has- monean militants to appoint Simon as high priest, and confirmed the validity of his confirmation by King Demetrius II. The gathering of the popular assembly was an expression of a compromise reached by the Hasmonean high priest with certain opposition parties against the weakening Seleucid kingship. On the one hand, the assembly availed itself of certain royal prerogatives. On the other hand, Simon got himself accepted as Hellenistic archiereus by the participating parties, especially by part of the temple authorities. The broader significance of this assembly for the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood will be assessed in the final conclusions. It is still necessary to discuss the priestly descent of the Hasmoneans.

chapter ten

the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent

Introduction

The strong Hellenistic aspects of the high priesthood of both Jonathan and Simon have been discussed. Attention was paid to the supporters of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood as well as to those who opposed its realization. Hence, much space has been dedicated to the way the Hasmoneans defended the institutionalization of their high priesthood. They did it by using all available means: diplomatic, political, socio-economic, military, propagandistic, and more. But how did the Hasmonean high priests justify their high priesthood in religious/biblical terms? In this last chapter it is necessary to investigate the priestly descent of the Hasmoneans. The specific question that must be addressed is, why, according to 1 Macc 2:54, did the Hasmonean high priests claim Phinehas as their “father.” Why not Aaron or Zadok? Or, for example, why not an Israelite/Judean king? The present analysis is important for at least three reasons. First, it will help shape a deeper understanding of the relation of the Hasmonean (high) priestly family to other priestly families. Second, it will shed light on the literary (and ideological) traditions with regard to who could or could not occupy the high priestly office in Jerusalem in particular in the Hellenistic period. Third, it will help clarify further issues related to the Jewish groups who actively opposed the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

1. The Jehoiarib Priests in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Sources

According to 1 Macc 2:1, Mattathias—father of Jonathan—was [son] of John, [son] of Simeon “a priest of the sons of Joarib” (cf. 14:29). Morton Smith, among others, claimed the Hasmoneans were priests but probably not of “Aaronide family.” He further argued that the prominence of the J(eh)o(i)arib priestly course is a Hasmonean product.1 In the opinion of

1 “Maccabees,” 321–24. 270 chapter ten

Lawrence H. Schiffman, the “Zadokite priests, tracing their ancestry to Zadok, high priest in the time of Solomon, had occupied the high priesthood virtually without interruption up to the Maccabean revolt.” Jonathan, however, was “not of Zadokite line.”2 The author further asserts that Ben Sira “champions the priestly House of Zadok and its exclusive rights to the high priesthood.”3 For Deborah W. Rooke, it is Mattathias and his sons who were “of the line of Aaron in post-exilic terms, although they were not of the line of Zadok which had been the traditional line of descent for the high priests,” whose last representative was the Oniad Jason.4 A similar opinion was expressed by Hanan Eshel. The scholar added that Mene- laus was the first not from the Zadokite house to have assumed the high priesthood. Instead, the Teacher of Righteousness, who allegedly served as high priest between 159 and 152, was of Zadokite dynasty.5 Furthermore, in the view of Othmar Keel, the Hasmonean high priests appealed to Phinehas as their father because they were “Nicht-Zadokiden.”6 Yet Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam claim that the Hasmoneans were Zadokites and that “they probably were part of the considerable family that traced its heredity to Zadok.”7 This view had been earlier expressed also by Luc Dequeker.8 Therefore, it is necessary to examine to what extent one can affirm that the Hasmoneans were or were not Zadokites or Aaronides. Such assump- tions are often at the basis of another assumption; namely, that because of their descent the Hasmoneans encountered difficulties in being accepted as “legitimate” high priests. Therefore, one must first briefly investigate the origin of J(eh)o(i)arib in extant sources. :in Ezra 8:16 (LXX יויריב Jehoiarib appears in the Hebrew Bible as in 1 Chr 9:10 יהויריב Ιωαρίβ); Neh 11:10 (᾿Ιωαρίμ); 12:6, 19 (᾿Ιαρὶμ[?]), and as᾿ (//Neh 11:10); 24:7 (᾿Ιωαρίμ/᾿Ιαρὶβ). J(eh)o(i)arib is mentioned once in a story referring to the time of Ezra’s mission in Ezra 8:15–20.9 He appears

2 Reclaiming, 71. 3 Reclaiming, 75, 88, 95, 201; idem, Qumran, 82, 101–3. 4 Zadok’s Heirs, 281 and 275, 311. 5 Dead Sea Scrolls, 33, 55, 60. 6 “1 Makk 2,” 128. 7 “Hasmoneans,” 80. 8 “1 Chronicles XXIV,” 103. 9 Jehoiarib is not provided with any further genealogical note (“son of ”) in Ezra 8:16, which speaks in favour of him being inserted here; cf. Ezra 8:2–14, 18–19. The use of “and” in Neh 12:6, 9 was interpreted by some scholars to mean that Jehoiarib was added here. A similar problem is found in 1 Chr 9:10//Neh 11:10. See Gunneweg, Esra, 149; Böhler, Heilige Stadt, 358–59. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 271 five times in the so-called priestly lists, which are grouped by scholars as: the short ones—Neh 7:39–42//Ezr 2:36–39 and Neh 11:10–14//1 Chr 9:10–12, and the long ones—Neh 10:3–9 (is itself a list of signatories), Neh 12:1–7, 12–21 and 1 Chr 24:7–18. Both these groups contain several identical names. Among these are Jedaiah, Immer, Pashhur and Harim. These names represent the four priestly courses recorded in Ezra 2:36–39//Neh 7:39–42, which are given as lists of those who returned with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and others (Ezra 2:2// Neh 7:7).10 Most scholars agree that these four names (cf. Neh 11:10–14) represent the priestly courses as the most influential in the period following the exile.11 Often these shorter lists are taken as a basis for the reconstruction and dating of the longer ones, especially when it comes to names of the priestly clans.12 However, Jehoiarib does not appear in Ezra 2//Neh 7.13 Nor is he mentioned in the list of those who repaired the wall which is considered, for the most part, to be based on a temple archive.14 According to Neh 3:1, the work was commenced by the high priest Eliashib. This note induced many scholars to regard the high priesthood as responsible for the first redaction of the account.15 Jehoiarib’s name is also missing in the list of signatories in Neh 10:1–40. It records twenty-one names of priests (10:3–9) apparently from the time of the governor Nehemiah. Nor does Mattenai, listed in Neh 12:19, who reportedly descended from Jehoiarib, appear in any of these older lists. Further, 1 Chr 24:1–19 purports to provide a record of eponyms of priestly families that were to serve in the temple, as partitioned allegedly by David and Zadok after casting lots. They were divided into twenty-four priestly

10 Many authors regard Ezra 2 as being dependent upon Neh 7. But see Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 83. See further Williamson, Ezra, 29–31. 11 See Cody, History, 168–69; Gunneweg, Esra, 56–57; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 424; Schaper, Priester, 223. 12 See, for instance, Clines, Ezra, 223; Williamson, Ezra, 359–60; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 154; Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 156. 13 Basing his analysis roughly on the finds of the stamp impressions, Israel Finkelstein, “Territorial Extent,” 53, dates the list(s) of the returnees in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 to the Has monean period. However, the lack of Jehoiarib in these two lists does not lend support to such hypothesis. 14 So, among others, Mowinckel, Studien, I, 115–16. Clines, Ezra, 149, regards Nehemiah, “as the original ‘author’ of the list,” though other scholars point how this list interrupts the first-person narrative typical of the so-called “Nehemiah’s Memoirs”; see Williamson, Ezra, 201–202; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 75–76. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 231, argues that “[t]opographically, it covers the entire perimeter” of the 5th c. Jerusalem. 15 See Mowinckel, Studien, I, 115; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 124. 272 chapter ten courses: sixteen priestly heads were assigned to the line of Eleazar, and eight to Ithamar, as “sons of Aaron” (1 Chr 24:3–5). Most commentators believe that 1 Chr 24:7–18 reflects the final stage in the complex development of the Jerusalem priesthood.16 Jehoiarib is listed first. His presence here as the designated ancestor of the Hasmoneans led certain scholars to regard this list as originating from the Hasmonean times.17 Gary N. Knoppers aptly notes that since the Hasmoneans referred to Jehoiarib as their ancestor in 1 Macc 2:1 (cf. 14:29) the latter already must have been known to the audience of First Maccabees.18 Furthermore, the author of First Maccabees was able to list at least two generations before Mattathias.19 This would suggest an early 3d c. b.c.e. origin for the list of 1 Chr 24:7–18, at the latest. This date had been postulated also by Hugh G. M. Williamson, who reached it by way of his source-critical analysis of 1 Chr 23–27.20 The names of the twenty-four priestly courses reappear in the Calendri- cal texts concerned with Mishmarot, i.e. priestly watches (4Q320–330).21 The text of 4Q320 has been dated to late 2d c. b.c.e.22 In these calendars, however, Gamul heads the lists.23 Speculation has been made that the yaḥad used the spring New Year cycle (Nisan) to calculate the holidays and other religious issues, while it used the autumn New Year (Tishri) for priestly rotation which started with Jehoiarib.24 This would explain the reason that every seventh year the Day of Atonement (10th of Tishri) fell in the lot of Jehoiarib.25 It should be noted that these lists were used, copied and perhaps compiled by the yaḥad, even though it expressed certain opposition to the Hasmonean high priests. Reference to priestly courses is

16 So, for instance, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 163; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 424–25; Knoppers, 1 Chronicles, 841–42. Of the twenty-two names in Neh 12, only nine are found in 1 Chr 24. 17 Thus Meyer, Entstehung, 174; Dahm, Opferkult, 31; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 307–9. 18 1 Chronicles, 837. 19 The number of generations depends on whether the list is complete, and on the meaning of the term ὑὶος (son/descendant?). 20 “Origins,” 268. Earlier, Stern, “Aspects,” 587, concluded that this division was com pleted by the end of the Persian period. 21 For the edition, see Talmon et al., Qumran Cave 4, 21. Jehoiarib is attested clearly as .in 4Q321 i 5; ii 7; iv 3, vi 2, vi 9; 4Q329 ii 2, ii 4 יןיריב in 4Q320 1 ii 3, 4 iii 7, and as ייריב He may be attested also in other texts. 22 See Talmon et al., DJD, 41. 23 See Talmon et al., DJD, 8. 24 See Talmon, World of Qumran, 157 n 23, 161; VanderKam, Calendars, 86. 25 See Talmon et al., DJD 21, 17–28. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 273 found also in Josephus’ Ant. 7.365, Life 2, as well as in m. Ta‘an. 4:2 and m. Sukkah 5:6. In Jos., Life 2 Jehoiarib is mentioned first (cf. m. B. Qam. 9:12). These elements undermine the view of those scholars who argue that Jehoiarib was important in the early restoration or even in the pre-exilic period.26 Nor is he provided with a genealogical origin in the biblical texts. Besides, in the lists which contain his name, Jehoiarib is never listed first. In addition, there is no solid basis for arguing that someone from the Jehoiarib family served as high priest before the Hasmoneans. Rather, it seems that Jehoiarib was added to the older priestly lists (under the influence [?] of Mattenai) probably in the late 4th c. b.c.e.

2. The Second Temple High Priests: Zadokites or Aaronides?

Many scholars follow Josephus (Ant. 11.347) in that Onias I, the founder of the Oniad dynasty, was a son of the high priest Jaddua at the time of Alexander the Great.27 Jaddua appears in the genealogical list of Neh 12:11, while Onias I may be mentioned in 1 Macc 12:6–23 as the addressee of the letter of the Spartan King Areius I (?). As far as the pre-exilic chief priests in Jerusalem are concerned, John R. Bartlett pointed to how difficult it is to view their succession as based exclusively on the alleged Zadokite genealogical principle.28 Lester L. Grabbe, in his article on the pre-Hasmonean high priests, further showed that it is problematic to assert that “the high priestly line was the exclusive Zadokite line.”29 This notwithstanding, Grabbe believes the high priests “in the Second Temple period [were] thought of as descendants of Zadok.” In his view, in fact, “all altar priests were regarded as “sons of Zadok” by some Jews, if not by most.”30 Doubts concerning the hereditary succession of Jewish high priests in the Ptolemaic period have been expressed also by Maria Brutti.31 And Étienne Nodet even suggested that the Oniads had their origins in Egypt, where they later founded the temple in Leontopolis.32

26 See Clines, Ezra, 224; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 430; Schofield and VanderKam, “Hasmoneans,” 80. 27 See, among many others, Vanderkam, From Joshua, 124. 28 “Zadok,” 1–18. 29 For details, see “Pre-Maccabean High Priests,” 205–14. 30 “Pre-Maccabean High Priests,” 213–14. 31 Development, 115–16, 258. 32 For arguments and further details, see Crise, 272–89. 274 chapter ten

2.1. Aaron, Alcimus, and the Second Temple High Priests What was the claim made by those who occupied the high priestly office in the post-exilic period? From Ezra 7:2–5 it emerges that the concern of Ezra, the priest, was to trace his genealogy back to Aaron, the “chief priest.”33 In fact, it is, rather, in late texts that Zadok’s descent is linked for the first time to Aaron (e.g. 1 Chr 5:29–41; 6:35–38; 24:3–6 [MT]). The role of these so-called genealogical lists appears to have been the result of negotiations between various priestly groups.34 In fact, one is faced with dealing with high priestly succession rather than with hereditary high priesthood in the line of Zadok or Aaron. However, one notes certain confusion in modern scholarship as to the use of designations like “Aaronide,” “Zadokite,” “sons of Aaron” and “sons of Zadok.” An examination of the case of the high priest Alcimus may help clarify the matter. Some scholars in fact believe that the note ἱερεὺς ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ααρων in 1 Macc 7:14 has no significant meaning since “all priests were Aaronides.”35 The exact wording as given here is found nowhere in the זרע) ”biblical texts or in the DSS. But the expression “line/seed of Aaron is found only four times in the biblical texts and twice in the DSS.36 (אהרן To be sure, it would be natural for anyone claiming legitimacy in the Sec- ond Temple high priestly office to state that he belonged to the “line of Aaron” rather than to that of “Zadok.”37 Indeed, in all the above mentioned priestly lists, the (high) priestly descent is ultimately traced not to Zadok but to Aaron. Most of today’s scholars agree that Aaron owes his image as high priest to the authors responsible for the Priestly sections of the Torah.38 But

33 See further Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 136. On the problem of identifying the Zadok of Ezra 7:2 with the priest of David’s time, see Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 151–52, who regards this list as the more original. On the possible function of this list, see Hunt, Miss ing Priests, 98–103. 34 On this aspect, see especially Knoppers, “Relationship,” 109–29. 35 So, for instance, Bunge, “Geschichte,” 12; Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 255 n 36; Brutti, Devel opment, 235. but בן־אהרן הכהן Lev 21:17, 21; 22:4; Num 17:5; 4Q265 vii 3; 4Q419 i 5. Neh 10:39 reads 36 .איש and זרע lacks both appears only in Ezek 43:19 to designate the Levitical priest מזרע צדוק The expression 37 a peculiarity of Ezek 40–48. Here, however, the figure of the high priest ,(בני צדוק) hood is not evidenced. See Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 104–19. 38 On Aaron as prototype of the post-exilic high priests, see Zenger, Einleitung, 172–73; Schaper, Priester, 269–79. For a different approach and a rather late date for the construc tion of Aaron as high priest, see Dahm, Opferkult, 10–33. On some problems of the Priestly texts, see Ska, Introduction, 146–61. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 275 even there, Aaron is often secondary.39 Therefore, one has to deal with the office of Aaron before even dealing with genealogical issues. Only one person at a time could occupy this office, which distinguished itself from that of the “sons of Aaron,” which regarded the priests in general (cf. Exod 29–30; Lev 8–10).40 In the case of Alcimus there was hardly any need to add that he was “of the line of Aaron” unless this expression had a specific meaning. The usual expression “of the sons of Aaron” would have suited better the propagandistic interests of the pro-Hasmonean author. Indeed, no priestly course is provided for Alcimus. Even more striking in this respect is the silence in Second Maccabees, which is careful to state that Jason was brother of Onias III (4:7), or that Menelaus was the brother of Simon, who was of the priestly course of Bilgah (4:4). That the wording in 1 Macc 7:14 has a specific meaning is corroborated by yet another statement. In 2 Macc 14:7 Alcimus complains about having been deprived of the ancestral glory (τὴν προγονικὴν δόξαν), that is, the high priesthood. This complaint has been interpreted by some scholars to mean that Alcimus belonged to the Oniad high priestly family.41 Perhaps, someone of the lineage of Alcimus acted earlier as high priest. The peculiar descent of Alcimus is attested also in Josephus’ Ant. 12.383b–385, independently from Second Maccabees. This source is inter- rupted by a brief paraphrase of 1 Macc 6:63//Ant. 12.386, and is then resumed in Ant. 12.387–388. The latter depicts Onias (IV) who, at realizing that his “uncle” Menelaus was slain and the high priesthood given to Alcimus, fled to King Ptolemy (VI Philometor). There in the district of Heliopolis he built a temple similar to that in Jerusalem. Both Ant. 12.383b-385 and Ant. 12.387–388 find brief parallels in Ant. 20.235–237. The latter is part of “the record (τὴν ἀναγραφήν) of the high priests” (20.261), reported in Ant. 20.224–251.42 Alcimus is mentioned three times in Ant. .In Ant .(יויקים/יקים) but by his Hebrew variant name ᾿Ιάκιμος ,237–20.235 12.385 the historian explains that “Jacimus was also called Alcimus.” The Hebrew variant name is found neither in First nor in Second Maccabees. The name Ἄλκιμος instead is likely drawn from Josephus’ Greek version of First Maccabees.

39 On the secondary role of Aaron, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 133–45, esp. 135 n 1; Vorländer, Entstehungzeit, 256–58. 40 See Budd, Leviticus, 129–57; Smith, “Maccabees” 324. 41 So Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 228; Scolnic, Alcimus, 149. 42 For an analysis of this list of high priests, see Gussman, Priesterverständnis, 273–87, who underlines its independent historical value and function. 276 chapter ten

According to Ant. 12.387, Alcimus was not of the family of the (last) high priests, because King Antiochus V was persuaded by Lysias to transfer the high priesthood from one house to another. It is difficult to say whether Josephus is quoting from his source, or interprets it in order to explain the reason for the escape of Onias IV. However, in Ant. 20.235 affirmation is made that “Jacimus” was of the line of Aaron but not of the same family as Onias (III). Here, Josephus employs the same term γένος to refer to the lineage of Aaron as in Ant. 20.225–226, where he exposed the tradition pertained to him with regard to who could be or not be a high priest.43 It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish Aaron as the prototype of the post-exilic high priest from the “sons of Aaron.” Another instructive example is the encomium of the Fathers in Sir 44–50.44 There is no sure reference to Zadok in Ben Sira.45 Instead, it praises Aaron in Sir 45:6–22 as it praises Phinehas in Sir 45:23–25. Sirach 45:25 specifies that Aaron’s heritage is for his descendants alone “from son to son,” like that of David.46 Further clarification comes from Sir 50, where Simon (II) is depicted serving as high priest in the temple surrounded by “sons of Aaron” (50:12–16), i.e. regular priests. The latter’s duties are clearly distinct from those of Simon. There seems to be sufficient evidence that by the Hasmonean times the priests would regard themselves as “sons of Aaron” rather than “sons of Zadok.” The latter reference is found for the first time in the visionary language of Ezek 40–48. According to Alice Hunt, “Ezra–Nehemiah does not demonstrate that Zadokite priests returned from exile or even that there was Zadokite priesthood.”47 Reference to the “sons of Zadok” is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The appellation “sons of Zadok” reappears instead in several DSS.48

43 On genealogical aspect, see Gussman, Priesterverständnis, 278–80. 44 For an introduction into the textual versions and development of the text(s) of Ben Sira, see Gilbert, “Siracide,” cols. 1390–1401, 1407–12. On the structure, heroes, and the main themes of Sir 44–50, see Mack, Wisdom, 11–65. 45 Sirach 51:12i which mentions the “sons of Zadok” is not attested in any ancient Ben Sira versions. Nevertheless, some scholars think it originates from the 2d or early 1st c. b.c.e. For the view that Sir 51:12a–o (Hebrew Ms B) is part of the original (Hebrew) Ben Sira, see Mies, “Psaume,” 498–504. On Sir 51:12a–o, thought to be patterned after Psalm 136, see further Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 568–71; Hunt, Missing Priests, 155–57. 46 On Ben Sira as pro-Aaronide, see Olyan, “Ben Sira,” 261–86; Wright, Praise Israel, 100–104; cf. Fabry, “Zadokiden,” 205–6. 47 Missing Priests, 143. 48 For an overview, see Missing Priests, 157–64. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 277

Was there a historical or literary connection between the two alleged categories of groups, or both.49 Several authors have argued on the basis of literary studies that the “sons of Zadok” were “inserted” in the DSS where the “sons of Aaron” had already stood.50 Some scholars even claim that it was done at the time when the “sons of Zadok” became a prominent group within the yaḥad.51 For the present purpose, it is important to note that such compositions as the Temple Scroll, 4QMMT, or the War Scroll, which deal with the temple and its (high) priesthood, refer to priests only as “sons of Aaron.”52 With regard to 4QMMT, it clearly refers to the temple priests in Jerusalem as “sons of Aaron” (MMT B 17, 79, 82). The “sons of Aaron” designation is attested in the same sense, for example, also in 1–2 Chronicles, Sir 50, and Tob 1:7.

2.2. Aaron, the Hasmoneans, and the High Priestly Descent Issue The question is how much did the issue of priestly descent really matter in the case of the Hasmoneans. An analysis in Chapter III shows that Jason, who was the brother of Onias III, was accused of having obtained the high priesthood “by corruption” (2 Macc 4:7) and for his Hellenizing policy. When Menelaus of the Bilgah course (cf. 3:4; 4:23) succeeded Jason, he was accused on the same bases. The question of their descent is not given as the main issue. It is necessary to look in Josephus’ texts to get further understanding as to what extent the issue of priestly descent could really matter in the case of the Hasmoneans. First, in Ant. 13.288–298 the historian preserved

49 For an analysis of the evidence of the “sons of Aaron” and “sons of Zadok” in biblical and Judean Desert scrolls, see Fabry, “Zadokiden,” 201–17. Liver, “‘Sons of Zadok’,” 3–30, and more recently, Hempel, “Sons of Aaron,” 207–24, noted how the “sons of Aaron” are assigned cultic functions, whereas “sons of Zadok” are given more didactic roles in the DSS. 50 So Kugler, “Priesthood,” 97–103; Werman, “Sons of Zadok,” 628; Bockmuehl, “Redac tion,” 541–57; Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant, 316–17, 531–34. For a different view, see Schofield, From Qumran, 147–52. 51 For a historical interpretation of the evidence, see Baumgarten, “Zadokite Priests,” 137–156; Hempel, “Rivalry,” 135–53. On the question of priestly authority in the yaḥad texts, see Himmelfarb, Kingdom of Priests, 124–28. Hunt, Missing Priests, 190, argues that the Zadokites developed as a prominent group under Janneus. For an objection, see Otto, “Zadokiden,” 271–76. 52 Contrary to Schiffman, Reclaiming, 88. García Martínez, “Temple Scroll,” 445, claims that 11QT “was redacted sometime before 4QMMT,” both of which he dates towards the mid-2d c. See further here p. 128. 278 chapter ten a banquet story at which the high priest Hyrcanus I participated.53 He is said to have faced opposition from the Pharisees. Josephus tells that they had a substantial following among the populace (Ant. 13.298). Hyrcanus is asked by a certain Eleazar, a Pharisee, to give up the high priesthood on the pretext that his mother (i.e. the wife of the high priest Simon) was a captive under Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes, and instead content himself with the rule of the people (13.291–292). The outcome of this banquet was Hyrcanus’ break with the Pharisees, and his attachment to the Saddu- cees (13.293–296). This change reportedly caused much hatred among the masses (13.296–298), to the point that Hyrcanus even had to quiet a revolt (cf. Ant. 13.299//War 1.68). A mention of a revolt against Hyrcanus I one finds also in War 1.67.54 In addition, in both Ant. 13.288//War 1.67 Josephus speaks of envy against Hyrcanus and his sons. This story, however, makes no clear reference to the priestly descent issue. A similar story appears in b. Qidd. 66a, in which the Pharisees ask Yannai (Alexander Janneus) to give up the [high] priesthood “to the seed of Aaron” and keep to himself the royal crown.55 Here instead, the (לזרע) question of priestly descent plays an important role. Further, in Ant. 13.372–373 Josephus reports a story of Janneus’ sacrifice on the Feast of Tabernacles during which people, in protest, began throw- ing citrons at him for they considered Janneus to have no such dignity. The sedition was punished and ended with the slaying of about 6,000 of the protesters, while the inner temple area reserved for the priests was encircled with a wooden wall. Here there seems to be no reference made to a descent issue but rather to moral aspects, although descent may have played an important role too. Peace with the Pharisees arrived after Janneus died. This occurred when his widow wife Shalomzion Alexandra assumed the royal power (War 1.107//Ant. 13.407), whereas she reserved herself the right to appoint as high priest her elder son, Hyrcanus II (76–67, 63–40; War 1.109//Ant. 13.408).56 As in the pre-Hasmonean period, the high priest Hyrcanus II

53 For a discussion of the historicity of this story, see Mason, Pharisees, 213–45. Antiqui ties 13.288–298 together with Ant. 13.171–173 is considered by Main, “Sadducéens” 161–206, and Sievers, “Josephus,” 241–51, as later insertions. 54 For Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicolaus,” 169, in War, Josephus “suppressed Nicolaus’ account of Pharisaic leadership of the revolt against Hyrcanus I.” 55 Stemberger, Pharisäer, 100–2, and Main, “Sadducéens,” 199–201, claim that Josephus’ and Talmudic stories refer to Janneus. Other scholars, think they refer to Hyrcanus I; so VanderKam, From Joshua, 299–300 (with bibliography). The identity of Yannai, however, is still debated in b. Ber. 29a. 56 See further VanderKam, From Joshua, 337–39. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 279 was no more in command of an army. After the death of Shalomzion the royal title was assumed by Aristobulus II. According to Diodorus 40.2, probably in 63 b.c.e., a Jewish embassy went to Pompey who was in Damascus. There they blamed the two brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristo- bulus II, who were at odds with one another, for having overthrown “the ancestral laws.” The accusation regarded the assumption of the kingship by the Hasmoneans. Here, patrioi nomoi apparently implies also the high priestly rule. This aspect is more evident in Josephus’ parallel version in Ant. 14.41.57 It sounds as if the accusatory party is implicitly praising the high priestly rule exercised by Jonathan, Simon, and Hyrcanus I. It was the assumption of kingship that bothered them most and not the high priesthood. The establishment by the Hasmoneans of a non-Davidic monarchy is denounced also in Pss. Sol. 17.58 Instead, in As. Mos. 8:1 the Hasmonean kings seem to be criticized for proclaiming themselves priests of the Most High God.59 It could be also that Philo’s praising of Moses in his Virt. 53–54 is an indirect criticism of the assumption of the kingship by the Hasmoneans. As Joseph Geiger well demonstrated, by this time, the Hasmoneans strongly conformed to a number of traditions peculiar to the Hellenistic dynasties.60 Thus the question of priestly descent played a secondary role for the Hasmoneans. In the eyes of their adversaries instead, it played a primary role only now and then. They were much more interested in issues pertinent to justice and morality. The issue of belonging to the Aar- onide line/seed began to be concerned more and more with the claim to the high priestly office of Aaron. How then did the Hasmoneans justify their holding of the high priestly office of Aaron?

3. Phinehas and the High Priesthood of the Hasmoneans

In 1 Macc 2:52–60, Mattathias, the father of the five Hasmonean brothers (cf. 2:1–5), praises eleven biblical figures for their deeds and achievements.61 The ultimate aim of this eulogy of the Fathers was to

57 On how Josephus defended the high priestly rule, see here pp. 32–33. 58 See further Atkinson, ‘I Cried to the Lord’, 130–79. 59 Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 198–99. 60 See further “Hasmoneans,” 4–17. 61 See Hieke, “Role,” 61–74; Reiterer, “Vergangenheit,” 75–100. 280 chapter ten

“insert” the Hasmoneans in the line of great biblical figures. Aaron is not in this eulogy; nor is David. The importance of Phinehas is evident since he alone is referred to as “our father” (πατὴρ ἡμῶν) in 1 Macc 2:54. Phine- has is introduced in relation to his “covenant of eternal priesthood” (cf. Num 25:10–13).62 ;ברית כהנת עולם It will be useful then to look briefly at the importance of the Phinehas tradition for the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood in Judea with occasional references to the Samaritan high priesthood.

3.1. Phinehas and the Pre-Hasmonean High Priests The author of the above mentioned Phinehas episode implicitly legiti- mizes the claim of the “descendants” of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron to the high priestly office (see Num 25:7; cf. Exod 6:25).63 These descendants are listed in 1 Chr 5:27–41 [MT]. This claim to the high priesthood is reasserted in the eulogy to the Fathers in Sir 44–50, composed probably around 180.64 After the eulogy of Aaron in Sir 45:6–22 comes that of Phinehas, son of Eleazar. Sirach 45:23–24 states that because of his zeal in the fear of the Lord, there was established with him a covenant of peace so that Phinehas and his descen- כהונה גדולה :dants might have “the high priesthood in perpetuity” (Ms B .(Greek I: ἱερωσύνη μεγαλεῖον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) (cf. Num 25:11–13 /עד עולם This reclaiming of eternal high priesthood in the Aaron–Phinehas line implicitly served the interests of the high priest Simon II (Sir 50:1), a contemporary of Mattathias.65 This aspect is evident in Sir 51:24 (Ms B), which 66.(ברית פינחס) ”depicts Simon as the heir of the “covenant of Phinehas

62 The LXXNum 25:13 reads διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία. Numbers 25:9–15 has been lost in 4QNumb (4Q27), considered the best preserved scroll of the book; see Jastram, DJD 12, 205, 209. Seebass, “Case,” 45, made a strong point by suggesting that in Num 25 “Phinehas acted as Aaron should have acted in Ex 32” in the golden calf incident. According to Roetman and Visser’t Hooft, “Nm 25,” 66, Phinehas “représente à la suite de Moïse” the new genera tions living in the late 5th c. Moses is “dépassé par Pinhas” (47), because Phinehas acted against the Madianite woman (cf. Exod 2). For Fistill, Israel, 211–12 “die Figur des Pinhas den nachexilischen Hohenpriester darstellt [. . .] in seiner Idealgestalt, der geistliche und politische Führer einer idealen, JHWH-orientierten Gemeinschaft.” 63 See also Fistill, Israel, 209–10. 64 So, for instance, Mack, Wisdom, 1. For the date of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, as a whole, see Gilbert, “Siracide,” cols. 1403–4. 65 On this aspect, see Mulder, Simon, 337–40; Pomykala, “Covenant,” 18–29. Most schol ars believe the high priest in question is Simon II. VanderKam, From Joshua, 137–57, argued for Simon I. See, however, Mulder, 344–54. 66 See Mulder, Simon, 216–18, 303–4. Because of the similarity with the language in 2 Sam 7 with reference to the kingship of David, van der Kooij, “Greek Bible,” 259–60, sees the priesthood of Phinehas as a “royal priesthood.” the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 281

This text is not in the DSS and in the Greek versions of Ben Sira.67 Claude Tassin connects this aspect with the opposition to the Hasmonean high priesthood.68 Benjamin G. Wright further notes how Aaron, Phinehas and Simon II are ascribed certain royal prerogatives in Ben Sira.69 The Samaritan high priests also appear to have been interested in the Phinehas tradition. However, most of the Samaritan chronicles which deal with the high priests date from the medieval period onward. Hence, it is difficult to assess their historical reliability.70 One of them is the so-called Tūlīda (Chron. 3; 12th c.), a title deriving from its emphasis on the genealogical lists. It begins with the introduction of a cultic calendar originated reportedly from the patriarchs and completed on Mt. Gerizim by “Phine- has son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest.” Phinehas is referred to here as “our father, whose covenant of the high priesthood remained in his family in perpetuity.”71 Phinehas is also said to have examined the length and the width of the “holy Mountain of Gerizim.” The connection of Phinehas with the cultic calendar and Mt. Gerizim is asserted several times in the chronicle. The association of the temple and its high priesthood with Phinehas is evident also in other Samaritan chronicles such as the Šalšāla (Chron. 5),72 and the so-called Adler chronicle (Chron. 7).73 The tradition about the Phinehan high priesthood must be rooted in the (Samaritan) Torah, where Phinehas is presented as the only grandson of Aaron via Eleazar (see Exod 6:23–26; Num 25:10–13).74 According

67 According to Mulder, Simon, 344, for the grandson of Ben Sira such “argumentation” was “no longer relevant.” Instead, van der Kooij, “Claim,” 36, thinks the Hebrew text was reformulated “for the sake of the Hasmonean claims.” Jesus Ben Sira wrote between 132–115 b.c.e.; see Gilbert, “Siracide,” col. 1413. 68 “Grand prêtre,” 8, 19. For an attempt to show why Phinehas began to be regarded as an “ideal high priest,” see Tassin, 6–22. 69 “Ben Sira,” 86–88. 70 On dating and historical reliability, see Crown, Samaritan Scribes, 27–39; Kartveit, Origins, 22–43. 71 See Neubauer, “Chronique,” 390 ll. 6–7 (text), 422 (tr.). The hereditary aspect of the high priesthood in the line of Phinehas is again stressed on p. 391 ll. 12–13. The rest of the chronicle, in fact, claims to contain the list—albeit incomplete—of the descendants of Phinehas who acted as high priests down to 1149 c.e. Many of these individuals carry the names of Aaron, Eleazar or Phinehas. 72 See Gaster, Studies, I: 493–502 (tr.); III: 131–38 (text). It claims to contain the “chain” of high priests from Aaron down to 1325 c.e. 73 See Adler and Séligsohn, “Nouvelle chronique,” 188–222, passim. It too includes the names of high priests down to almost 1900. 74 Many exegetes date the final (?) redaction of Num 25 to the late 5th c. In light of new excavations and a re-evaluation of literary sources, some scholars believe the Samaritan 282 chapter ten to Josh 24:33 both Eleazar and Phinehas were buried in Gibeah, identified by Samaritan sources with ‘Awarta. Phinehas is a “typical priestly name among the Samaritans to the present,” and was found on a number of priestly inscriptions from the Hellenistic period.75 Phinehas with the title “[high] priest” may be attested on one such “Neo-Hebrew” inscription at the end [?הכהן] הגדל No. 384), which contains his name together with) on the remaining top left corner.76 Referring to Tūlīda, Otto Mulder plausibly affirms that the issue of the eulogy in Sir 44–50 is the legitimacy of Jerusalem, of its temple, and of its high priesthood in the person of Simon II vis-à-vis the Samaritan temple and its Phinehan high priesthood.77 The claim of eternal priesthood seems to have been later asserted also by Onias III as implicitly suggested by Sir 45:23–24 and 50:24 (Ms B).78 These few examples are enough evidence to show how the high priests both on Mt. Zion and on Mt. Gerizim claimed to be the true heirs of the Aaronide high priesthood via Phinehas. What specific significance did Phinehas and his (high) priesthood have then for the Hasmonean high priests?

3.2. Phinehas and the Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood Among the recent scholarly views one finds that the message of 1 Macc 2:52–60 is that the Hasmoneans, like Phinehas, “were rewarded by God with the high priesthood because of their zeal for the Law.”79 Or, that the author aimed to legitimize the Hasmonean revolt.80 Other scholars argue that by appealing to Phinehas, the Hasmoneans claimed Zadokite descent.81 It is beyond the present goal to discuss in detail these proposals, which certainly have their own merits. It should be noted that there are four heroes who are referred to as priests in Sir 44–50: Aaron, Phinehas, Samuel, and Simon. According to

temple was founded about the same time. See Magen et al., Mount Gerizim, I, 3, 6, 10; Tal, “Cult,” 168. 75 See Magen et al., Mount Gerizim, I, 26, 29, 34, 255. 76 This possibility has been recently suggested also by Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions, 83. 77 Simon, 344. On Ben Sira and the Samaritans, see Mulder, 354–59. 78 On how the Greek version reformulated its conception of the eternal priesthood of Phinehas, see Pomykala, “Covenant,” 32–34. 79 So, for instance, Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 282. 80 On this aspect, see Collins, “Zeal,” 3–21; Batsch, Guerre, 143–45. 81 So, for example, Schofield and VanderKam, “Hasmoneans,” 74–75. the hasmonean high priests and their priestly descent 283

Burton L. Mack, “Ben Sira saw the performance of sacrifice as definitive for the priestly office.” However, Phinehas’ act of “‘sacrifice’ is the slaying of the Israelite with the Midianite woman, that is a curious combination of priestly and warrior functions.”82 Mack’s observation takes on a new dimension in relation to the Hasmoneans and their high priesthood, especially considering the absence in First Maccabees of a cultic sacrifice performed by the Hasmonean high priests. In light of this observation several deductions ought to be made before concluding:

1. As this study has showed, the early Hasmonean revolt was directed against both the Hellenizing government of the high priest Menelaus and against the Seleucids. There were socio-economic, political, religious and other reasons for this revolt. However, once most of these goals had been reached, in time, the target of the Hasmonean policy and their military actions was control of the high priestly office. 2. Various passages, in particular those mentioning Phinehas in First Mac- cabees, must be looked at from the point of view of the time of their writing, namely the last years of Hyrcanus I as high priest. The zeal of Phinehas had a particular significance for Hyrcanus. Although Phine- has is introduced in Num 25 as grandson of “the priest” Aaron, he was given perpetual priesthood “anew” directly from God. This institution was rooted in the concern which Phinehas had for the cult of YHWH and for the Law. The question of descent played apparently a secondary role. Concern for the cult and for the Law emerges with clarity also from the eulogy in honor of Simon in 1 Macc 14:4–15. In fact, Simon, father of Hyrcanus, also claimed perpetual high priesthood (ἀρχιερέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; 1 Macc 14:41).83 3. In the year 128, Hyrcanus I conquered Shekhem, while in about 111–110 he destroyed the Samaritan temple at the hands of his two sons (War 1.64–66//Ant. 13.275–283).84 As Richard A. Horsley asserts, Hyrcanus “apparently intended to rule . . . up to Schythopolis and Mt Carmel.”85 These events aggravated in a dramatic way the relationship between

82 Wisdom, 28. 83 For an interpretation of this expression, see here pp. 257–58. 84 For a historical discussion based on an evaluation of the archaeological evidence, see Magen, Mount Gerizim, II, 167–80. According to Abū l-Fath Hyrcanus I destroyed Samaria but not Shekhem with its temple on Mt. Gerizim, which instead he honored for some time; see Stenhouse, Kitāb al-Tarīkh, 142. 85 “Expansion,” 148. 284 chapter ten

the two high priestly institutions. Hyrcanus I could apparently claim to be the only legitimate high priest of the only legitimate temple, the one in Jerusalem (see Deut 12:5; 27:4 [MT cf. SP]). 4. The issue of “descent,” however, was far from being unimportant even for the Hasmoneans. Phinehas was at the same time (the only) grandson of Aaron. By referring to Phinehas as their father, the Hasmoneans ideologically inserted themselves into the tradition of Aaronide high priests. Like their many predecessors, so also the Hasmonean high priests backed their right to the high priestly office by implicitly claiming descent from Aaron, but via Phinehas. 5. More important, unlike Aaron, Phinehas acted violently. The priestly model of Phinehas suited best the Hasmonean claims of both religious and civil powers. Phinehas was pointed out as a biblical precedent and, therefore, a “valid” model on which to legitimize the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. Whether it was Hyrcanus I, Simon, or Jonathan who first claimed to be the “legitimate” heir of the (high) priestly covenant of Phinehas, is not clear.

Conclusion

In the previous chapters it has been shown that the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood was not looked at with favor by many priests. The present chapter made it clearer that the main reason for this was not connected primarily with the priestly descent. The Hasmoneans were priests of the “sons of Aaron” as all the other priests were. It is also necessary to distinguish Aaron as the prototype of the post-exilic high priest from the “sons of Aaron,” i.e. regular priests. Furthermore, the hereditary line of succession in the high priesthood was broken long before even Jonathan became high priest. As the priestly and other opponents continued to persist, the Has- monean high priests pointed to the grandson of Aaron, Phinehas, as a convenient biblical model in order to claim legitimacy for their militarized high priesthood, which included both religious and civil offices. This claim acquired a new significance at the time of Hyrcanus I who destroyed the temple on Mt. Gerizim and brought to an end the Samaritan high priesthood, which too claimed descent from Phinehas. The final conclusions that follow will connect the present chapter’s conclusions with those reached in the previous chapters. Final Conclusions

As stated in the Introduction, the general aim of the present research is the study of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The proposed task was to investigate on various aspects of this historical process with the result of understanding the nature of this institution. It was deemed necessary to look at this phenomenon in its cultural, socio-religious, economic, political and other contexts, in which the Hasmoneans acted first as warrior priests and later as high priests. Such a task necessitated a perception of the Seleucid affairs both on internal and external levels, in particular in relation to the Roman Senate and the Ptolemaic kingdom. Therefore, an attempt has been made to understand the significance and the role of the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood in the Seleucid Judea in light of these interrelations. Notwith- standing the tradition that the Jewish high priesthood was regarded as a hereditary office, it was in the sole competence of the Seleucid king to confirm or appoint a high priest in Jerusalem. Consequently, this approach made it possible to look at the Hasmonean revolt from the point of view of these internal and external affairs. Thanks to this revolt the policy of the Hasmoneans began to intersect with that of the Jerusalem high priesthood. Moreover, the actions of this family of the Jehoiarib priestly course began to gradually influence the decisions of the pre-Hasmonean high priests, and vice-versa. The fundamental task then was to try to understand why, at some point, the Hasmonean priests decided to take control first of the temple, and later of the high priestly office. A study was therefore made of the importance of the temple and the significance and the role of the high priesthood in Judea and within the Jewish society as a whole. The results on which the conclusions of this research are based are inevitably conditioned, among others, by: a) the complex issue of sources and their various characteristics; b) the methodology followed in the study and the capability of working with historical probabilities; c) the kind of questions addressed in the introduction and in each chapter in particular. With an awareness of the significance and weight of these and other aspects, the conclusions reached with regard to the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood are as follows: 286 final conclusions

1. Many scholars have assumed that the Hasmoneans through their revolt put an end to the “Zadokite” line of high priests. This assumption was rejected here, among others, for three primary reasons: First, the traditional Oniad high priesthood ended its rule in Jerusalem before the Hasmonean revolt. The intense conflicts among Hellenizing Jews both priests and non-priests, and the Seleucid king’s interest in the control of Jerusalem high priestly office, led first to the removal by King Antiochus IV of the last traditional high priest, Onias III in 175, and the removal of his brother Jason in 172.1 Second, it was shown that the priestly Hasmonean revolt, which originated in 166 in Modein, outside Judea, was neither the first nor the only one in its time. The Jewish rebels first obtained temporary control of the temple in the December of 164, and then early in 162, the arrest and execution of the high priest Menelaus, who was not of the Oniad family. Moreover, in 157 Jonathan came to terms with the Seleucid official Bacchides, adopting thus a new strategy in the Hasmonean policy. Third, the post-exilic Jerusalem high priests claimed to occupy the office of Aaron rather than that of Zadok. This way of claiming legitimacy was, first of all, a matter of ideology based on the Priestly sections of the Torah and other relevant traditions. This belief is reasserted in Sir 50, in 1 Macc 7:14, and in other texts.

2. Another question concerned who the first Hasmonean high priest was: Judas or Jonathan? It has been shown that the assumption on which Josephus in Ant. 12.414, 419 and 434 based his triple claim about Judas’ high priesthood was connected with the report in 1 Macc 8 with regard to his embassy to Rome. After a critical evaluation of various aspects that characterized this event and of Judas’ leadership during the years 166–160, the latter’s role emerged as primarily that of a rebellious leader. If the present interpretation of the term διάδοχος in 2 Macc 14:26 as “deputy” is correct, this would mean that in the winter of 161/0 Judas himself implicitly accepted Alcimus as high priest, who was from “the line of Aaron” (1 Macc 7:14). Nevertheless, one is justified in stating that Judas, just as Jonathan later, probably intended to become high priest with the help of his militants among whom there were priests.

1 See also §3. final conclusions 287

3. For a further understanding of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood, it was necessary to deal in Chapters IV–VI with the issue of whether there was a high priest after the death of Alcimus in 159, whom Jonathan could later remove. First, this study has shown that the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood was neither a substitution for nor a continuation of the pre- Hasmonean high priesthood. On the one hand, it materialized partly as a result of the decline of the pre-Hasmonean high priesthood. This decline ended in the failure to appoint a high priest after Alcimus. The service on the Day of Atonement is not enough reason to argue for the presence of a high priest. There were other such occasions when there was no high priest. As to the texts of 1 Macc 10:32, 37, which mention an archiereus, they are part of a forged letter. Hence, neither of these texts can be taken as referring to the “high priest” Jonathan. On the other hand, the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood succeeded to a certain extent thanks to a gradual decline of the Seleucid control of the Jerusalem high priestly office. Thus, internal and external factors favored the increase of the military power of both Jonathan and Simon. They were able to negotiate both religious and civil offices by switching their loyalties from one king to another. Second, from the analysis of 4QMMT, of 1QpesherHabakkuk and of other Dead Sea Scrolls, it became evident that the primary concern of their authors was not the high priesthood of Jonathan, as claimed by some scholars. Separation from the temple priests—who are referred to as “sons of Aaron” (MMT B 17, 79, 82)—began before the Hasmonean revolt. This was a reaction against the Hellenization of the cult by the temple officials.2 However, later, the policy of the high priest Jonathan and his violent actions led the community behind these scrolls to refer to him as the Wicked Priest and led also to the rise of the community’s Teacher of Also, this study does not support the view .(מורה הצדק) Righteousness that the latter was ever officially high priest in Jerusalem.

4. Another question this study had to cope with in Chapters VI–IX was the question of offices and various powers the high priests Jonathan and Simon held. Some scholars have uncritically assumed that once Jonathan had been appointed high priest, a) he took control of the temple, and b) became independent from the Seleucid throne.

2 For a brief definition of the term “Hellenization,” see p. 48. 288 final conclusions

To begin with, First Maccabees never explicitly connects the Has- monean high priesthood with the temple or its holy altar, at least not until 140 b.c.e. The control of the temple affairs, at least partial, by the Hellenized temple officials during the tenure of Jonathan as high priest has been argued here. The study of the relationship of Jonathan with the temple officials and other priests, as well as the analysis of the decree in honor of Simon in 1 Macc 14:27-49, led to the consideration that if Jonathan—and Simon prior to 140—performed any cultic activity at the temple, there is reason to believe that such acts would have been secured by the (priestly) militants of the Hasmoneans. Second, both Jonathan and Simon had to get royal appointment and/ or confirmation in order to occupy the high priestly office. Hence, constant attention was paid to the role played by the Seleucid Akra, which controlled the City of David and other territories from 167 until 141, when Simon settled in it. The Akra was a daily expression of the royal dominion over Judea, over the temple and its high priest. Based on literary and archaeological evidence, the argument was made that the City of David housed both Hellenized Jews and colonists. The whole activity of Jona- than as high priest, who settled on the south-western hill of Jerusalem, co-existed with that of the royal Akra.

5. The specific and fundamental question of this study with regard to the nature of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood has been introduced in Chapter VI. It was deemed necessary to proceed by also looking at this institution in its Hellenistic/Seleucid context, of which Judea was an integral part for many decades. This required checking the extent to which the so-called Hellenization process might have influenced one of the most important and most durable Jewish/biblical institutions: the high priesthood. The present analysis of the policy, offices and powers of the pre- Hasmonean high priesthood has shown that, while this institution continued to preserve evident ancient biblical/Jewish characteristics, it also underwent significant Hellenistic transformations. The question that this study raises is what kind of institution was the Hasmonean high priesthood. Was it initially conceived as a biblical/Jewish or more as a Hellenis- tic/Seleucid institution? In an attempt to provide an exhaustive answer the present research has proceeded on three different levels: The first level concerned the detailed analysis of the activity of both Jonathan and Simon from the time they became leaders of the rebels, and then as high priests down to the year 140. This has been done through a final conclusions 289 systematic study of the political, military, administrative, socio-economic, religious and other aspects of their daily policy. The second level consisted of looking at this institution in its biblical/ Jewish setting. Further, a comparative study was made of the offices and powers of both Jonathan and Simon with that of the pre-Hasmonean high priests of the Seleucid period: Simon II, Onias III, Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus. These high priests exercised religious, administrative and often political powers. At times they were even associated with military power. These and other elements have shown the extent to which the Hellenization process penetrated the Jewish high priesthood before the Hasmoneans. Nevertheless, unlike the Hasmoneans, none of them appear to have been at the same time a royal military commander, to have built fortresses, or have fought on the battle field. These were for a long time the prerogatives of the king and his officials. Furthermore, these powers would have gone against the Jewish halakhah regarding the high priest in the office of Aaron. The third level consisted of looking at the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood in its Hellenistic/Seleucid context. It was characterized by a comparative study of the offices and powers of the Hasmonean high priests with various Hellenistic (high) priests (archiereis). This approach uncovered new and significant aspects on the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood. The end result of the research allows it to be argued that the Helleniza- tion process of the office of the high priesthood in Jerusalem culminated under the Hasmoneans. This does not mean that they rejected their tradition, but only altered it. Thus Jonathan was appointed as archiereus by King Alexander I Balas in the Hellenistic/Seleucid sense rather, and not strictly in the biblical/Jewish sense. On the one hand, the Hasmoneans struggled to fit in the pre-existing biblical/Jewish tradition. On the other hand, they incorporated some pre-existing Hellenistic elements to which they added new ones.3 In fact, Jonathan became a royal military commander before he was appointed a high priest. The same was true for his brother, Simon. Both Jonathan and Simon were accepted and even elected as high priests first by their militants, who would continue to make their office secure. By holding the titles of royal Friend and/or First Friend, both high priests entered the circle of Seleucid royal Friends. The other Hellenistic titles,

3 On the use here of the terms “Hellenization,” “Hellenistic,” etc., see Ch. II.6. 290 final conclusions such as strategos, made Jonathan and Simon high officials of the Seleu- cid hierarchy. Even their dress was typical of the Hellenistic/Seleucid archiereis and/or other Hellenistic rulers. Both Hasmonean high priests behaved within their surrounding society as Hellenistic high priestly rulers. In the same way they acted in their diplomatic relations with Rome, Sparta and other political subjects. That the early Hasmoneans perceived themselves as a (new) Hellenistic high priestly dynasty is enforced by the military architectural elements of the family tomb built by Simon in Modein—their hometown (1 Macc 13:27–30), by Hyrcanus I’s coins, and more. Both Jonathan and Simon acted like Hellenistic archiereis also when they participated in the battles. Military activity was not in the standards of the Aaronide Jewish high priesthood. Pertinent halakhic concerns are in fact found in several Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been interpreted here as an implicit criticism against the Hellenistic model of high priesthood introduced by the Hasmoneans. As this study made clear, both Jonathan and Simon (at least at the beginning) were subject to the Seleucid kings, who instead acted as sacral monarchs. The latter had ultimate authority over the Jerusalem temple and over the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. However, in time both Jonathan and Simon began to absorb and share certain powers peculiar of the Seleucid kings and their high officials, namely political and military control of Judea and of the temple. The policy of Jonathan and Simon was aimed at a systematic achievement of independence of their high priesthood from the royal throne. This attempt had generated conflicts with the rival Seleucid institutions. Relative independence was achieved under Simon only after March of 142, while full independence only later under Hyrcanus I’s rule.4

6. Another crucial question was related to the significance of the assembly of 140 for the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood. The need for and the lateness of this public event were connected with a) the Hellenistic aspect of the Hasmonean high priesthood; and b) the absence of a (legitimate) Seleucid king capable to control Judea. Through the decree that the assembly issued, temple priests and other groups gave

4 Hyrcanus I was not the specific concern of this study. Nevertheless, his high priesthood has often been referred to. He too acted as a Hellenistic high priest, at least in the early part of his rule. The institution of the independent Hasmonean high priestly kingdom took place under Aristobulus I and especially under Alexander Janneus. final conclusions 291

Simon official consent to act as a Hellenistic archiereus. He could also dress in purple, wear gold, and—when necessary—act as a military strat egos. The institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood was finally legitimized and sealed by the assembly’s decree. Some priestly and non-priestly groups perceived the Hasmoneans as rulers capable of restoring independence to Judea. Other groups instead, regarded the Hasmonean Hellenistic high priestly model as unfit for “Israel,” and a threat to their own positions. Separation of offices is echoed in several Dead Sea Scrolls, whose proposed governmental models reflect circulating opinions in the early Hasmonean period. This phenomenon prompted one to question to what degree the various groups were represented in the assembly, whether everybody present there applauded its final decisions, and the consequences of this event.

7. The present study of the opposition to the institution of the Has- monean high priesthood led also to a re-evaluation of the scholarly theories regarding the significance of Phinehas for the Hasmoneans. It is, in fact, Phinehas who is brought as a model to be followed in 1 Macc 2:54 and not Melchizedek, Aaron or Zadok, nor an Israelite (e.g. David; cf. 2:57) or a Judean (e.g. Hezekiah) king. The interest in the high priesthood by the Hasmoneans is indeed evident from the use of the high priestly terminology in First Maccabees, the report on the succession as high priest of John Hyrcanus I (16:23-24), from the latter’s coins on which he appears with the .and more ,הכהן [הגדל] title of It emerges that the assembly of the year 140 believed that in order that the high priesthood of Simon become “fully legitimate,” it would still need a sanction from God, perhaps through a prophetic oracle (cf. 1 Macc 14:41). The Hasmonean high priesthood was considered as a kind of new institution in the history of the Jewish high priesthood. On their part, the Hasmoneans found in Phinehas—who acted violently—a convenient and “valid” biblical precedent on which to legitimize their Hellenistic model of high priesthood. By referring to Phinehas as their “father,” the Hasmoneans implicitly inserted themselves into the line of the pre-Hasmonean high priests, who claimed “descent” from Aaron via Phinehas. The reference to “Phinehan” (high) priesthood later served for Hyrcanus I as a propagandistic claim after his destruction of the temple on Mt. Gerizim and the removal of the Samaritan high priesthood, which too claimed “descent” from Phinehas. The end of the Samaritan high priesthood was, in fact, one of several far reaching consequences of the institution of the Hasmonean high priesthood.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Sources

A. Biblical Maccabaeorum Liber I. Ed. by Werner Kappler. 2d ed. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 9/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Maccabaeorum Liber II copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler. Ed. by Robert Hanhart. 2d ed. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 9/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Les anciennes Traductions latines des Maccabées. Ed. by Donatien de Bruyne with the collaboration of Sodar de Bonaventure. Anecdota Maredsolana. Maredsous: Abbaye de Maredsous, 1932. Jastram, Nathan, ed. “27. 4QNumb (Pls. XXXVIII–XLIX).” Pages 205–267 in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 12. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

B. Non-Biblical Flavii Iosephi Opera. Ed. by Benedictus Niese. 6 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887–1895. Adler, Elkan N., and Max Séligsohn, eds. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine.” Revue des études juives 44 (1902): 188–222; 45 (1902): 70–98, 223–254; 46 (1903): 123–146. Alexander, Philip, and Geza Vermes, eds. “285. 4QSefer ha-Milḥa-mah.” Pages 228–244 in Qumran Cave 4, XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Allegro, John M. with the collaboration of Arnold A. Anderson, eds. Qumrân Cave 4, I: 4Q158–4Q186. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Appianus, Histoire romaine. Ed. and Translated by Danièle Gaillard, and Paul Goukowsky. 4 vols. Collection des universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1998–2007. Baillet, Maurice, ed. Qumrân grotte 4, III: 4Q482–4Q520. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. see Talmon, Shemaryahu. Broshi, Magen, and Esther Eshel, eds. “248. 4QHistorical Text A (Plate IX).” Pages 192–200 in Qumran Cave 4, XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Collins, John J., and Peter W. Flint, eds. “245. 4Qpseudo-Danielc ar.” Pages 153–164 in Qum ran Cave 4, XVII: Parabiblical Texts. Partially Based on Earlier Transcriptions by Józef T. Milik and John Strugnell, Part 3. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Cotton, Hannah M., and Michael Wörrle, eds. “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros. A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159 (2007): 191–205. Danby, Herbert, ed. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Del Monte, Giuseppe F. Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica: Testi Cronografici. Vol. 1. Studi ellenistici 9. Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 1997. Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather et al. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952–1984. Doudna, Gregory L. 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 38/Copenhagen International Series 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. 294 bibliography

Duhaime, Jean. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. Companion to Qumran Scrolls 6. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Eshel, Esther. see Broshi, Magen. Eshel, Esther, Hanan Eshel, and Ada Yardeni in consultation with James C. VanderKam, and Monica Brady, eds. “4Q448. 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer. Plate XXXII.” Pages 403–425 in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 11. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Eshel, Hanan. see Eshel, Esther. Flint, Peter W. see Collins, John J. Frey, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Corpvs Inscriptionvm Jvdaicarvm: Recueil des inscriptions Juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. Vol. 2. Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane 3. Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1952. Fuks, Alexander. see Tcherikover, Victor A. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave 11, II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Incorporating Earlier Editions by Johannes P.M. van der Ploeg, with a Contribution by Edward Herbert. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discover- ies in the Judaean Desert 23. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Gardner, Percy, ed. Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Seleucid Kings of Syria. London: The Trustees, 1878. Repr. New York: Samuel J. Durst, 1983 (= BMC Seleucid). Gera, Dov, ed. “Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koilê Syria and Phoinikê.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 169 (2009): 125–155. Glessmer, Uwe. see Talmon, Shemaryahu. Goren, Yuval, “Scientific Examination of a Seleucid Limestone Stele.” Zeitschrift für Papy rologie und Epigraphik 159 (2007): 206–216. Grandjean, Yves, and Georges Rougemont. “Collection de l’École française d’Athènes: inscriptions.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 96 (1972): 100–115. Horbury, William, and David Noy, eds. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1992. Hunger, Hermann. see Sachs, Abraham. Ibba, Giovanni. Il “Rotolo della Guerra”: Edizione Critica. Quaderni di Henoch 5. Torino: Zamorani, 1998. Isaac, Benjamin, ed. “A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea: Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians.” Israel Exploration Journal 41 (1991): 132–144. Jacoby, Felix, ed. Zeitgeschichte: Universalgeschichte und Hellenika. Spezialgeschichten, Autobiographien und Memoiren. Zeittafeln. Vol. 2.A–B of Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Zweiter Teil. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926–1929. Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde, eds. Région de l’Amanus: Antioche. Antiochene. Index des tomes I–III. Vol. 3/1–2 of Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Ed. by Louis Jalab- ert, René Mouterde et al. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 46, 51. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1950, 1953. John of Antioch. Fragmenta ex Historia chronica: Introduzione, edizione critica e traduzione. Ed. by Umberto Roberto. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 154. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. M. Justin Junianus. Epitoma historiarvm philippicarvm Pompei Trogi. Accedvnt prologi in Pompeivm Trogvm. Ed. by Otto Seel. Bibliotheca Scriptorvm Graecorvm et Romanorvm Tevbneriana. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. Kindler, Arie. Coins of the Land of Israel: Collection of the Bank of Israel. A Catalogue. Ed. by Gabriel Sivan. Translated by R. Grafman. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1974. Landau, Y. H., ed. “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah.” Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 54–70. bibliography 295

Laumonier, Alfred, ed. “Inscriptions de Carie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 58 (1934): 291–380. Le Rider, Georges. De Séleucos I à Antiochos V c. 300–161. Vol. 1 of Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides: Corpus des monnaies d’or et d’argent. Mémoires de l’Accadémie des Inscrip- tiones et Belles-Lettres. Nouvelle Série 19. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1999. Lewis David M. see Tcherikover, Victor A. Livius Titus. Ab urbe condita. 5 vols. Ed. by Thomas Alan Dorey et al. Bibliotheca Scrip- torvm Graecorvm et Romanorvm Tevbneriana. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesell- schaft, 1971–1991. Malay, Hasan, ed. “Letter of Antiochos III to Zeuxis with Two Covering Letters.” Epigraph ica Anatolica 10 (1987): 7–15. Meshorer, Ya’akov. “The Coins of Masada.” Pages 69–132 in Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. The Masada Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. ——. A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2001. Milik, Józef T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clar- endon Press, 1976. Mitford, T.B., ed. “Helenos, Governor of Cyprus.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 79 (1959): 94–131. Mouterde, René. see Jalabert, Louis. Neubauer, Adolf, ed. “Chronique samaritaine; suivie d’un appendice contenant de courtes notices sur quelques autres ouvrages samaritains.” Journal Asiatique 14 (1869): 385–470. Noy, David. see Horbury, William. Obbink, Dirk. see Parker, Robert. Parker, Robert, and Dirk Obbink, eds. “Aus der Arbeit der « Inscriptiones Graece » VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I.” Chiron 30 (2000): 415–449. ——. ed. “Aus der Arbeit der « Inscriptiones Graece » VII. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II.” Chiron 31 (2001): 229–252. Plinius, Secundus Gaius. Natural History. 10 vols. Translated by H. Rackham et al. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969–1986. Polybius. The Histories. 6 vols. Translated by William R. Paton. Loeb Classical Library. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972–1980. Puech, Émile, ed. “523. 4QJonathan (Planche VI).” Pages 75–83 in Qumrân grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Volume editor James C. VanderKam. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. ——, ed. “524. 4QRouleau du Temple (Planches VII–VIII; Figures 1–2).” Pages 85–114 in Qumrân grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Volume editor James VanderKam. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell in consultation with Y. Sussmann and with contributions by Y. Sussmann and A. Yardeni, eds. Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśeh Ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Robert, Louis, ed. “Inscriptions d’Érythrai (Pl. xxvii, xxvii, xxix).” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 57 (1933): 467–484. ——, ed. Recueil d’épigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques: Volumes XI–XII. Hellenica. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1960. Rougemont, Georges. see Grandjean, Yves. Sachs, Abraham J., and Hermann Hunger, eds. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Vol. 2. Österreichische Akademie der Wis- senschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 210. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akade-mie der Wissenschaften, 1989. 296 bibliography

——, eds. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Vol. 3. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 247. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. Stenhouse, Paul, ed. The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ‘l-Fatḥ: Translated with Notes. Studies in Judaica 1. Sydney: University of Sydney, 1985. Stern, Menahem. see Tcherikover, Victor A. Strabo of Amaseia. The Geography of Strabo. 8 vols. Translated by Horace L. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960–1961. Strugnell, John. see Qimron, Elisha. Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica. Ed. by Alden A. Mosshammer. Bibliotheca Scriptorvm Graecorvm et Romanorvm Tevbneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1984. Tacitus Cornelius. The Histories and the Annals. Translated by C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Talmon, Shemaryahu, Jonathan Ben-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer, eds. Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 21. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Tcherikover, Victor A., Alexander Fuks, Menahem Stern, and David M. Lewis, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. see García Martínez, Florentino. Tromp, Johannes, ed. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 10. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Vermes Geza. see Alexander, Philip. Welles, Charles B. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press, 1934. Wörrle, Michael. see Cotton, Hannah M. Woude, Adam S. van der. see García Martínez, Florentino. Yadin, Yigael, ed. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness: Edited with Commentary and Introduction. Translated by B. & Ch. Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. ——, ed. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. & Supplement. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Soci- ety, 1977–1983. Yardeni, Ada. see Eshel, Esther.

2. Studies

Abel, Felix-Marie, Grammaire du grec biblique: Suivie d’un choix de papyrus. Étude bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1927. Abel, Felix-Marie. Les Livres des Maccabées. Étude bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1949. ——. Géographie de la Palestine. 2 vols. Étude bibliques. 3d ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1967. Aharoni, Yohanan, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze‘ev Safrai, The Macmillan Bible Atlas. 3d ed. New York, NY: 1993. Amir, Yehoshua. “Θεοκρατία as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation of Moses’ Politeia.” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–1988): 83–105. Annandale-Potgieter, Joan. “The High Priests in 1 Maccabees and in the Writings of Jose- phus.” Pages 393–429 in VII Congress of the International Organization for the Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Ed. by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Aperghis, Gerassimos G. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Adminis tration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Arcari, Luca. “Autodefinizione sacerdotale e polemica contro i detentori del culto templare nel giudaismo del Secondo Tempio (enochismo e Qumran) e nel protocristianesimo (Ap).” Ricerche storico bibliche 21/2 (2009): 83–125. Arenhoevel, Diego. Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch. Walberberger Stu- dien der Albertus-Magnus-Akademie 3. Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1967. bibliography 297

Ariel, Donald T. “A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (Until the End of the Byzantine Period).” Liber annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 32 (1982): 273–326. ——, ed. Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass. With Stratigraphical Introduction by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 2 of Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990. ——. “Imported Greek Stamped Amphora Handles.” Pages 267–283 in Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 1 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusa- lem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ——. “Imported Amphora Fragments from Area A.” Pages 224–230 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- tion Society, 2003. Ariel, Donald T., and Gerald Finkielsztejn. “Amphora Stamps and Imported Amphoras.” Pages 137–151 in Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. Ed. by Amos Kloner. Vol. 1 of Maresha Excavations Final Report. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 17. Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority, 2003. Ariel, Donald T., and Yair Shoham. “Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Frag- ments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 137–171 in Inscriptions. Ed. by Ariel T. Donald. Vol. 6 of Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000. Arubas, Benny, and Gideon Foerster, Yoram Tsafrir. “Beth-Shean.” Pages 1616–1641 in vol. 5 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Supplementary Volume. Ed. by Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2008. Assefa, Daniel. L’Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85–90) une propagande militaire? Approches narratives, historico-critique, perspectives théologiques. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 120. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Atkinson, Kenneth. ‘I Cried to the Lord’: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Back ground and Social Setting. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 84. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Attridge, Harold W. “Historiography.” Pages 157–184 in Jewish Writings of the Second Tem ple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, and Josephus. Ed. by Michael E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum II/2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Austin, Michel M. ed. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Madaba Mosaic Map: With Introduction and Commentary. Jerusa- lem: The Israel Exploration Scoiety, 1954. Avigad, Nahman. Discovering Jerusalem. Translated by ha-‘Ir ha-‘elyonah shel Yerushalyim. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1983. ——. see Geva, Hillel. ——. see Geva, Hillel. Bagnall, Roger S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 4. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. “Hellenistic Warfare in Jonathan’s Campaign Near Azotos.” Scripta Classica Israelica 2 (1975): 83–96. ——. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press, 1989. ——. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period. Hellenistic Culture and Society 51. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010. Barag, Dan. “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I.” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992–1993): 1–12. 298 bibliography

——. “The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies.” Israel Numismatic Journal 13 (1994–1999): 27–37. ——. “The Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. Numismatic Evidence on the Prelude to the Maccabean Revolt.” Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000–2002): 59–77. ——. “The 2000–2001 Exploration of the Tombs of Benei Hezir and Zecharia.” Israel Explo ration Journal 53 (2003): 78–110. Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion. Vol. 10 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Ed. by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Barish, David A. “The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition of His Antiquities.” Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978): 61–75. Bartlett, John R. “Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem.” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 1–19. Batsch, Christophe. La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 93. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpreta tion. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration.” Dead Sea Discoveries 4/2 (1997): 137–156. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Yom Kippur in the Qumran Scrolls and Second Temple Sources.” Dead Sea Discoveries 6/2 (1999): 184–191. Beek, Dionysia van. see Llewelyn, Stephen R. Begg, Christopher T. Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185). Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 145. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. ——. Judean Antiquities 5–7. Vol. 4 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Ed. by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Begg, Christopher T., and Paul Spilsbury. Judean Antiquities 8–10. Vol. 5 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Ed. by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ben-David, Arye. “When did the Maccabees begin to strike their first coins?” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 104 (1972): 93–103. Bencivenni, Alice. “‘Massima considerazione.’ Forma dell’ordine e immagini del potere nella corrispondenza di Seleuco IV.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 176 (2011): 139–153. Bengtson, Hermann. Die Strategie in der Hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. 3 vols. Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsge- schichte 26, 32, 36. Munich: Beck, 1937–1952. Bengtsson, Håkan. “Three Sobriquets, Their Meaning and Function: The Wicked Priest, Synagogue of Satan, and the Woman Jezebel.” Pages 183–208 in Scripture and the Scrolls. The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Vol. 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. by James H. Charlesworth. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Bergsma, John S. “Qumran Self-Identity: “Israel” or “Judah?” Dead Sea Discoveries 15/1 (2008): 172–189. Berlin, Andrea M. see Herbert, Sharon C. Bertrand, Jean-Marie. “Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 46 (1982): 167–174. Bevan, Edwyn R. Jerusalem under the High-Priests: Five Lectures on the Period between Nehe miah and the New Testament. London: 1904. Repr. London: Arnold & Co., 1948. ——, The House of Seleucus: A History of the Hellenistic Near East under the Seleucid Dynasty. London: 1902. Repr. Chicago: ARES Publishers, 1985. Bi(c)kerman(n), Elias J. Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der Makkabäischen Erhebung. Berlin: Schocken, 1937. ——. Institutions des Séleucides: Service des Antiquités. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 26. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1938. bibliography 299

——. “La charte séleucide de Jerusalem.” 44–85 in Studies in Jewish and Christian His tory. Vol. 2. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Repr. from Revue des Études Juives C (1935). ——. “Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Epi-phane.” Pages 105–135 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Vol. 2. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Repr. from Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 115 (1937). ——. “Les Maccabées de Malalas.” Pages 192–209 in Studies in Jewish and Christian His tory. Vol. 2. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Repr. from Byzantion 21 (1951). ——. “The Warning Inscriptions of Herod’s Temple.” Pages 210–224 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Vol. 2. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Repr. from Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1947). Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their Importance. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. ——. “The Geographical Excursuses in Josephus.” Pages 247–262 in Josephus and the His tory of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Biscardi, Arnaldo. “Polis, Politeia, Politeuma.” Pages 1201–1215 in Atti del XVII congresso internazionale di papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983). Vol. 3. Ed. by Centro Inter- nazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi. Naples: 1984. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1988. Blum, Hartmut. Purpur als Statussymbol in der Griechischen Welt. Antiquitas 1/Abhandlungen zu alten Geschichte 47. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qum ran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS).” Revue de Qûmran 18/4 (1998): 541–557. Boffo, Laura. I re ellenistici e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore. Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 37. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1985. ——. Iscrizioni Greche e Latine per lo studio della Bibbia. Biblioteca di storia e storiografia dei tempi biblici 9. Brescia: Paideia, 1994. Bohak, Gideon. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis. Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature 10. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Bond, Helen K. Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Botha, Phil. “‘No King like Him . . .’; Royal Etiquette according to the Deuteronomistic His- torian.” Pages 36–49 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Proph ets. Ed. by Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy. Oudtestamentische Studiën 44. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Bowersock, Glen W. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Böhler, Dieter. Die heilige Stadt in Esdras [alpha] und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 158. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1997. Bringmann, Klaus. Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa. Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Broshi, Magen. “The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy.” Journal of Jewish Stud ies 38 (1987): 31–37. Broshi, Magen, and Shimon Gibson. “Excavations along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.” Pages 147–155 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. 300 bibliography

Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Society of Biblical Literature Mono- graph Series 24. Ann Arbor, MI: Scholars Press, 1979. Bruneau, Paul, “‘Les Israélites de Delos’ et la Juiverie Délienne.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 106 (1982): 465–504. Brunt, Peter A. “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes.” The Classical Quarterly 30/2 (1980): 477–494. Brutti, Maria. The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 108. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bruyne, Donatien de. “Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées”, RB 31 (1922): 31–54. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary 5. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984. ——. Leviticus. Based on the New Revised Standard Version. The New Century Bible Com- mentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996. Bunge, Jochen G. “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 6 (1975): 1–46. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Greeks and Greek Civilization. Ed. with an Introduction by Oswyn Murray. Translated by Sheila Stern. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Burgmann, Hans. “Das umstrittene Intersacerdotium in Jerusalem 159–152 V. Chr.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 11/3 (1980): 135–176. Busink, Theodor A. Von Ezechiel bis Middot. Vol. 2 of Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Von Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäeologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemi tischen Tempelbaus. Mit 155 Textabbildungen und XIX Tafeln. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Büchler, Adolf. “The Sources of Josephus for the History of Syria (In “Antiquities,” XII, 3-XIII, 14).” Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897): 311–49. ——. Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im II. Makkabäerbuche und in der verwandten jüdisch- hellenistischen Litteratur: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Juden von 220–160 und zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur. Vienna: 1899. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975. Cahill, Jane M., and David Tarler, “Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985.” Pages 31–45 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Jerusa- lem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Callaway, Philip R. The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Capdetrey, Laurent. “Le basilikon et les cités grecques dans le royaume séleucide: modali- tés de redistribution de la richesse royale et formes de dépendance des cités.” Pages 105–129 in Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille (23 juin 2003) et d’Orléans (23–30 janvier 2004). Ed. by Véronique Chankowski and Frédérique Duyrat. Topoi Supplement 6. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 2004. ——. Le pouvoir séleucide: territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume helleénistique (312–129 avant J.-C.). Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2007. Capponi, Livia. Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C.–73 d.C.). Publicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 118. Pisa: ETS, 2007. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: University Press, 2005. Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1971. ——. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Castelli, Silvia. “Antiquities 3–4 and Against Apion 2:145ff.: Different Approaches to the Law.” Pages 151–169 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000. Ed. by Jürgen U. Kalms. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 10. Münster: LIT, 2001. Charles-Picard, Gilbert. Les trophées Romains. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1957. bibliography 301

Charlesworth, James H. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? With Appendixes by Lidija Novakovic. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. Charlesworth, James H., and Andrew de la Ronde Van Kirk. “Temple Scroll Source or Earlier Edition (4Q524 [4QTb; 4QRT]).” Pages 247–265 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Temple Scroll and Related Documents. Ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Henry W. Morisada Rietz and Loren L. Johns. Vol. 7. The Princ- eton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2011. ——. see Hengel, Martin. Charlesworth, James H. see Schiffman, Lawrence H. Clines, David J. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rap- ids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1984. Cody, Aelred. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. Analecta biblica 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Coggins, Richard J. “The Samaritans in Josephus.” Pages 257–273 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Cohen, Getzel M. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organiza tion. Historia. Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978. ——. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Hellenistic Culture and Society 17. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ——. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, John J. Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees. With an Excursus on the Apoca lyptic Genre. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1981. ——, Daniel: A Commentary of the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. ——. “The Zeal of Phinehas; the Bible and the Legitimation of Violence.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122/1 (2003): 3–21. ——. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. Coloru, Omar. Da Alessandro a Menandro: Il regno greco di Battriana. Studi ellenistici 21. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra, 2009. Connelly, Joan B. Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Corradi, Giuseppe. Studi Ellenistici. Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1929. Cowey, James M. S. “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—neue Erkenntnisse aus jüngst veröffentlichten Papyri.” Pages 24–43 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Stu dien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. Vol. 2. Ed. by Siegfried Kreu- zer and Jürgen P. Lesch. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 161. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2004. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008. Crown, Alan D. Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. Texte und Studien zum antiken Juden- tum 80. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001. Dahm, Ulrike. Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel. Ein kultur- und religionswissenschaftli cher Beitrag. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 327. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. D’Amore, L. “Ginnasio e difesa civica nelle poleis d’Asia Minore (IV-I sec. A.C.” REA 109 (2007): 147–173. Dancy, John C. A Commentary on I Maccabees. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Biblica et orientalia 32. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977. De Filippis Cappai, Chiara. Ivdaea: Roma e la Giudea dal II secolo a.C. al II secolo d.C. Cul- ture antiche, studi e testi 22. Alessandria, IT: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2008. 302 bibliography

De Silva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2002. Debord, Pierre. Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie Gréco- Romaine. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Delcor, Mathias. “Réflexions sur l’investiture sacerdotale sans onction à la fête du nouvel an d’après Le Rouleau du Temple de Qumrân (XIV,1–17).” Pages 155–164 in Hellenica et -Ed. by André Caquot, Mireille Hadas .זייל Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky Lebel and Jean Riaud. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Dequeker, Luc. “1 Chronicles XXIV and the Royal Priesthood of the Hasmoneans.” Pages 94–106 in Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature. Ed. by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën 24. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ——. “Jason’s Gymnasium in Jerusalem (2 Mac. 4:7–17): The Failure of a Cultural Experi- ment.” Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor philosophie en theologie 54 (1993): 371–391. Derrenbacker Jr., R. A. Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem. Biblioth- eca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 186. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Destinon, Justus von. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. Buch XII–XVII = Jüd. Krieg Buch I. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer, 1882. Di Lella, Alexander A. see Hartman, Louis F. ——. see Skehan, Patrick W. Di Segni, Leah. “The ‘Onomasticon’ of Eusebius and the Madaba Map.” Pages 115–120 The Madaba Map Centenary 1897–1997: Travelling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997. Ed. by Michelle Piccirillo and Eugenio Alli- ata. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior 40. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1999. ——. see Tsafrir, Yoram. Dignas, Beate. Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: University Press, 2002. Dmitriev, Sviatoslav. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Dobbeler, Stephanie von. Die Bücher 1/2 Makkabäer. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 11. Stuttgart: Katholischer Bibelwerk, 1997. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 12. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Associa- tion of America, 1981. ——. “Jason’s Gymnasium.” Pages 99–109 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins. Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. ——. “The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 3–178 in General Articles & Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections for Each Book of the Bible Including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books in Twelve Volumes. New Inter- preter’s Bible 4. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. ——. “The Second Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 181–299 in General Articles & Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections for Each Book of the Bible Including The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books in Twelve Volumes. New Interpreter’s Bible 4. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. ——. “The High Cost of a Good Education.” Pages 94–115 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Ed. by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princ- eton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. Dubberstein, Waldo H. see Parker, Richard A. bibliography 303

Dušek, Jan, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Anti ochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 54. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Edwards, D. “Constructing Kings—from the Ptolemies to the Herodians. The Archaeologi- cal Evidence.” Pages 283–293 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Culture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. Efron, Joshua. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 39. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Egger, Rita. Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner. Novum testamentům et orbis antiquus 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Ehling, Kay. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.): Vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius. Historia. Einzelschriften 196. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2008. Ehrmann, Michael. Klagephänomene in zwischentestamentlicher Literatur. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum 41. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Eilers, Claude. “Forgery, Dishonesty, and Incompetence in Josephus’ Acta: The Decree of Athens (AJ 14. 149–155).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 166 (2008): 211–217. Eisenman, Robert H. Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins. Studia post-biblica 34. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Elledge, Casey D. The Statutes of the King: The Temple’s Scroll’s Legislation on Kingship (11Q19 LVI–LIX 21). Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 56. Paris: Gabalda, 2004. ——. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Society of Biblical Literature 14. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Enermalm-Ogawa, Agneta. Un langage de prière juif en grec: Le témoignage des deux pre miers livres des Maccabées. Coniectanea Biblica. New Testament Series 17. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987. Ep‘al, Israel. The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 36. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Errington, Malcom R. “König und Stadt im hellenistischen Makedonien: die Rolle des Epistates.” Chiron 32 (2002): 51–63. Eshel, Esther. “The Onomasticon of Mareshah in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 145–156 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century b.c.e. Ed. by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. “Recensions of the War Scroll.” Pages 351–363 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Ed. by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; executive editor Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Eshel, Hanan. “The Meaning and Significance of CD 20:13–15.” Pages 330–336 in The Provo International Conferenceon the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Ed. by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ch. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.” Pages 29–44 in Historical Per spectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kochba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceed ings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999. Ed. by David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick and Daniel R. Schwartz. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 37. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008. ——. see Eshel, Esther. ——. see Mazar, Benjamin. 304 bibliography

Exler, Francis X. J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c. B.C.– 3rd c. A.D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography. Chicago: 1923. Repr. Chicago: Ares Publish- ers Inc., 1976. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Zadokiden und Aaroniden in Qumran.” Pages 201–217 in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Esrten Testa ments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger. Ed. by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Ludger Schwienhorst- Schönberger. Herders Biblische Studien/Herders Biblical Studies 44. Freiburger im Breisgau: Herder, 2004. Faust, Avraham. “The Settlement of Jerusalem’s Western Hill and the City’s Status in Iron Age II Revisited.” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 121/2 (2005): 97–118. Fedak, Janos. Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era. Phoenix. Supplementary Volume 27. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees.” Pages 41–68 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ——. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. ——. Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Trans lation and Commentary. Ed. by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Figueras, Paul. From Gaza to Pelusium: Materials for the Historical Geography of North Sinai and Southwestern Palestine (332 BCE–640 CE). Beer-Sheva 14. Beer-Sheva: The Negev Press, 2000. Fine, Steven. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods.” Revue biblique 117/1 (2010): 39–54. Finkielsztejn, Gérald. “More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 16 (1998): 33–63. ——. “Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps.” Pages 21*– 36* in New Studies on Jerusalem. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference, December 23rd 1999. Ed. by Avraham Faust and Eyal Baruch. Ramat Gan: 1999. ——. “L’économie et le roi au Levant Sud d’après les sources archéologiques et textu- elles.” Pages 241–265 in Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille (23 juin 2003) et d’Orléans (23–30 janvier 2004). Ed. by Véronique Chankowski and Frédérique Duyrat. Topoi Sup- plement 6. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 2004. Finkielsztejn, Gerald. see Ariel, Donald T. Fischer, Moshe, Benjamin Isaac, and Israel Roll. Roman Roads in Judaea: The Jaffa–Jerusalem Roads. Vol. 2. Biblical Archaeology Review 628. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996. Fischer, Moshe, Israel Roll, and Oren Tal. “Persian and Hellenistic Remains at Tel Yaoz.” Tel Aviv 35/1 (2008): 123–163. Fischer, Thomas. Seleukiden und Makkabäer: Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte und zu den politischen Ereignissen in Judäa während der 1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Bochum: Norbert Brockmeyer, 1980. ——. “First and Second Maccabees.” Pages 439–450 in vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. by David Noel Freedman. Translated by Frederick Cryer. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992. Fistill, Ulrich. Israel und das Ostjordanland: Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,21–36,13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des Buches Numeri. Österreichische biblische Studien 30. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007. Fleischer, Robert. Herrscherbildnisse. Vol. 1 of Studien zur seleukidishen Kunst. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1991. bibliography 305

Flusser, David. “Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener im Pescher Nahum.” Pages 121–166 in Qumran. Ed. by Karl E. Grözinger, Norbert Ilg, Hermann Lichtenberger, Gerhard- Wilhelm Nebe, Hartmut Pabst. Wege der Forschung 410. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Fraser, Peter M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Foerster, Gideon. see Arubas, Benny. Frevel, Christian. “‘Separate Yourself from the Gentiles’ (Jubilees 22:16): Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 220–250 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Iden tity in the Second Temple Period. Ed. by Christian Frevel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2011. Fried, Lisbeth S. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. Biblical and Judaic Studies 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Fuks, Gideon. “Josephus and the Hasmoneans.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 166– 176. Funk, Robert W. “The History of Beth-Zur with Reference to Its Defences.” Pages 4–17 in The 1957 Excavation at Beth-Zur. Conducted by McCormick Theological Seminary and the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Ed. by Paul W. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Ori- ental Research, 1968. Gądecki, Stanislaw, Grecko-łacińsko-polska synopsa do pierwszej I drugiej księgi machabe jskiej. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio”, 2002. Gafni, Isaiah M. “Josephus and I Maccabees.” Pages 116–131 in Josephus, the Bible, and His tory. Ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem.” Pages 431–460 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. Ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigche- laar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino, and Adam S. van der Woude. “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” Revue de Qûmran 14/4 (1990): 521–541. Gardner, Gregg. “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Cen- tury b.c.e.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126/2 (2007): 327–343. Garuti, Paolo. Avant que se lève l’étoile du matin: L’imaginaire dynastique du Psaume 110 entre judaïsme, hellénisme et culture romaine. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 73. Pendé: Gabalda, 2010. Gaster, Moses. Studies and Texts: In Folklore, Magic, Mediaevel Romance, Hebrew Apocry pha and Samaritan Archæology with 14 Plates and 5 Illustrations. 3 vols. New York, NY: 1928. Repr. Ktav, 1971. Gauger, Jörg-Dieter. Beiträge zur jüdischen Apologetik: Untersuchungen zur Authentizität von Urkunden bei Flavius Josephus und im I. Makkabäerbuch. Bonner biblische Beiträge 49. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1977. ——. “Antiochos III. und Artaxerses: Der Fremdherrscher als Wohltäter.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38/2 (2007): 196–225. Gauthier, Philippe. “Les cités hellénistiques.” Pages 211–231 in The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sci ences and Letters, July, 1–4 1992. Ed. by Mogens H. Hansen. Historisk-filosofiske Med- delelser. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1993. ——. “Notes sur le rôle du gymnase dans les cités hellénistiques.” Pages 1–11 in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, Munich, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993. Ed. by Michael Wörrle and Paul Zanker. Vestigia 47. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, 1995. 306 bibliography

Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums. 2d ed. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Madda, 1928. Geiger, Joseph. “The Hasmoneans and Hellenistic Succession.” Journal of Jewish Studies 53 (2002): 1–17. Gera, Dov. Judaea and Mediterranean Politics: 219 to 161 B.C.E. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gera, Dov, and Wayne Horowitz. “Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997): 240–252. Gerber, Christine. Ein Bild des Judentums für nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchun gen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 90. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Geva, Hillel. “General Introduction to the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter.” Pages 1–31 in Architecture and Stratigraphy—Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 1 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ——. “Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2.” Pages 113–154 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- tion Society, 2003. ——. “Summary and Discussion of Findings from Areas A, W and X-2.” Pages 501–552 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. Geva, Hillel, and Nahman Avigad. “Area W—Stratigraphy and Architecture.” Pages 131–197 in Architecture and Stratigraphy—Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 1 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ——. “Area X-2—Stratigraphy and Architecture.” Pages 199–242 in Architecture and Stra tigraphy—Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 1 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusa- lem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Gibson, Shimon. see Broshi, Magen. Gilbert, Maurice. “Siracide.” Cols. 1389–1437 in vol. 12 of Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplé ment. Ed. by L. Pirot and A. Robert. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1996. Gitler, Haim. “The Coins.” Pages 453–492 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Con ducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. Gmirkin, Russel. “The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the Maccabean Conflict.” Pages 486– 496 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Ed. by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; executive editor Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. ——. II Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Goodblatt, David. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 38. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1994. ——. “‘The Israelites Who Reside in Judah” (Judith 4:1): On the Conflicted Identities of the Hasmonean State.” Pages 74–86 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Ed. by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 130. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009. Goodenough, Erwin R. “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship.” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): 55–102. bibliography 307

Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66–70. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ——. “Josephus as Roman Citizen.” Pages 329–338 in Josephus and the History of the Greco- Roman period. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Gotter, Ulrich. “Priests—Dynasts—Kings. Temples and Secular Rule in Asia Minor.” Pages 89–103 in Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Ed. by Beate Dignas and Kai Trampedach. Hellenic Studies 30. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Grabbe, Lester L. “Maccabean Chronology: 167–164 or 168–165 BCE.” Journal of Biblical Lit erature 110/1 (1991): 59–74. ——. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. ——. Ezra–Nehemiah. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1998. ——. “Were the Pre-Maccabean High Priests ‘Zadokites’?” Pages 205–215 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of D.J.A. Clines. Ed. by Cheryl J. Exum and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 373. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. ——. The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 b.c.e.). Vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Juda ism in the Second Temple Period. Library of Second Temple Studies 68. London: T & T Clark International, 2008. ——. “The Terminology of Government in the Septuagint—in Comparison with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Other Languages.” Pages 225–237 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rul ers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Cul- ture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. ——. “Hyparchs, Oikonomoi and Mafiosi: The Governance of Judah in the Ptolemaic Period.” Pages 70–90 in Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE). Ed. by Lester L. Grabbe and Oded Lipschits. Library of Second Temple Studies 75. London: T & T Clark International, 2011. Grainger, John D. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. ——. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Grainger, John D. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Mnemosyne Supplements 172. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. The Syrian Wars. Mnemosyne Supplements 320. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993. Green, Peter. From Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Hel- lenistic Culture and Society 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990. Green, Judith. see Tsafrir, Yoram. Greenhut, Zvi. see Reich, Ronny. Griffith, Guy T. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. Cambridge, UK: The Univesrity Press, 1935. Greenhut, Zvi. see Reich, Ronny. Grimm, Carl L. W. Das erste Buch der Maccabäer. Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches handbuch zu den Apocryphen des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1853. ——, Das zweite, dritte und vierte Buch der Maccabäer. Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches handbuch zu den Apocryphen des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1857. Gross, Andrew D. see Schiffman, Lawrence H. Gruen, Eric S. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ——. “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews.” Pages 238–264 in Hellenistic History and Culture. Ed. by Peter Green. Hellenistic Culture and Society 9. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993. ——. “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple.” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997): 47–70. 308 bibliography

——. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Hellenistic Culture and Society 30. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Esra. Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19/1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1985. ——. Nehemia. Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen und einem Exkurs zur Topographie und Archäologie Jerusalems von Manfred Oeming Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19/2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1987. Gunneweg, Jan, and Joseph Yellin. “The Origin of Hellenistic and Roman Stamped Handles from the City of David.” Pages 89–93 in Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass. With Stratigraphical Introduction by Yigal Shiloh. Ed. by Donald T. Ariel. Vol. 2 of Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990. Gussman, Oliver. Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 124. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2008. Haag, Ernst. “Die Theokratie und der Antijahwe. Zur Intention und Funktion von 1 Makk 1–2.” Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 109 (2000): 24–37. ——. Daniel. Die Neue Echter Bibel 30. Stuttgart: Echter Verlag, 1993. Habicht, Christian. 2. Makkabäerbuch. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 1.3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976. ——. The Hellenistic Monarchies. Selected Papers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Hachlili, Rachel. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 94. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Haggai, Misgav. see Magen, Yitzhak. Hammond, Nicholas G. L. The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Han, Jin H. Daniel’s Spiel: Apocalyptic Literacy in the Book of Daniel. Lanham, MD: Univer- sity Press of America, 2008. Hansen, Mogens H. Polis and City-State: An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent. Symposium, January 9, 1998. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre Vol. 5. Historisk- filosofiske Meddelelser 76. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1998. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblicul Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: 1978. Repr. Win- ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harrington, Daniel J. The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution. Old Testa- ment Studies 1. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Harrington, Hannah. “Intermarriage in Qumran Texts: The Legacy of Ezra–Nehemiah.” Pages 251–279 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Tem ple Period. Ed. by Christian Frevel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2011. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978. Hata, Gohei. “Is the Greek Version of Josephus’ ‘Jewish War’ a Translation or Rewriting of the First Version.” Jewish Quarterly Review 66 (1975): 89–108. ——. “Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus’ Life.” Pages 309–328 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman period. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ——. “Where Is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” Pages 177–191 in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Ed. by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern and Menahem Mor. Supple- ments to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Hauben, Hans. “Aspects du culte des souverains a l’epoque des lagides” Pages 441–467 in Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba: Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del col loquio internazionale, Bologna, 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987. Ed. by Lucia Criscuolo and Giovanni Geraci. Bologna: CLUEB, 1989. bibliography 309

Heger, Paul. Cult as the Catalyst for Division: Cult Disputes as the Motive for Schism in the Pre-70 Pluralistic Environment. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 65. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT.” Pages 69–84 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third Interna tional Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998. Ed. by Joseph M. Baumgartern, Esther G. Chazon and Avital Pinnick. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——. “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 207–224 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Ed. by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ——. “Do the Scrolls Suggest Rivarly Between the Sons of Aaron and the Sons of Zadok and If So Was It Mutual?” Revue de Qûmran 24/1 (2009): 135–153. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974. ——. “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (338– 187 b.c.e.).” Pages 35–78 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Juda ism. Ed. by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1989. Hengel, Martin, James H. Charlesworth, and Doron Mendels. “The Polemical Character of ‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37/1 (1986): 28–38. Henten, Jan W. van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. “The Honorary Decree for Simon the Maccabee (1 Macc 14:25–49) in Its Hellenistic Context.” Pages 116–145 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Ed. by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. ——. “Royal Ideology: 1 and 2 Maccabees and Egypt.” Pages 265–282 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Culture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. Herbert, Sharon C., and Andrea M. Berlin. “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Min- nesota Excavations at Kedesh.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 239 (2003): 13–59. Herr, Bertram. “Der Standpunkt des Epitomators. Perspektivenwechsel in der Forschung am Zweiten Makkabäerbuch.” Biblica 90/1 (2009): 1–31. Hieke, Thomas. “The Role of ‘Scripture’ in the Last Words of Mattathias (1 Macc 2:49–70).” Pages 61–74 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Sec ond International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Ed. by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 118. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Phila- delphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Hin, S. “Class and Society in the Cities of the Greek East: Education during the Ephebeia.” AncSoc 37 (2007): 141–166. Hjelm, Ingrid. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 303. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Holladay, Carl R. Historians. Vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 20/Patrologia Syriaca 10. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 310 bibliography

——. Aristobulus. Vol. 3 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 39/Patrologia Syriaca 13. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Honigman, Sylvie. “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 251–266. ——. “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt: Different Responses to Different Environ- ments.” Pages 117–135 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Ed. by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 130. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009. ——. “La description de Jérusalem et de la Judée dans la Lettre d’Aristée.” Athenaeum 92/1 (2004): 73–101. Hoover, Oliver D. “Ceci n’est pas l’autonomie: The Coinage of Seleucid Phoenicia as Royal and Civic Power Discourse.” Pages 485–501 in Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille (23 juin 2003) et d’Orléans (23–30 janvier 2004). Ed. by Véronique Chankowski and Fré- dérique Duyrat. Topoi Supplement 6. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 2004. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 8. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horowitz, Wayne. see Gera, Dov. Horsley, Richard A. “The Expansion of Hasmonean Rule in Idumea and Galilee: Toward a Historical Sociology.” Pages 134–165 in Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture. Ed. by Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 340. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ——. Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea. Louisville, KY: Westmin- ster John Knox, 2007. Houghton, Arthur. “The Accession of Antiochus VI at Apamea: the Numismatic Evidence.” Pages 277–279 in Monnaies grecques et grecques d’époque impériale. Vol. 1 of Actes du XIe Congrès International de Numismatique. Organisé à l’occasion du 150e anniversaire de la Société Royale de Numismatique de Belgique, Bruxelles, 8–13 septembre 1991. Ed. by Séminaire de Numismatique Marcel Hoc. Louvain-la-Neuve: 1993. Hölbl, Günther. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994. Hölscher, Gustav. “Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie.” Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 30/3 (1940): 1–33. Hultgren, Stephen. From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Liter ary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hunt, Alice. Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 452. New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2006. Huß, Werner. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. Munich: Beck, 2001. Hübner, Ulrich. Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines Transjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Paläs- tinavereins 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992. ——. “Tradition und Innovation: Die Münzprägungen der Hasmonäer des 2. und 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. als Massenmedien.” Pages 171–187 in Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie. Ed. by Christian Frevel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 10. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005. Inowlocki, Sabrina. “‘Neither Adding nor Omitting Anything’”: Josephus’ Promise not to Modify the Scriptures in Greek and Latin Context.” Journal of Jewish Studies 56/1 (2005): 48–65. Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule. Selected Papers. Mnemosyne Supple- ments 177. Leiden: Brill, 1998. bibliography 311

——. see Fischer, Moshe. Japhet, Sarah. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1993. ——. “The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts According to a Document of the Second Tem- ple Period.” Pages 3–20 in Texts, Temples and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Ed. by Michael V. Fox, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Jeremias, Gert. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. Translated from German by F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1982. Johnsson, H. “The Export of Koan Wine to the Sout-eastern Mediterranean Area during the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 133–151 in The Hellenistic Polis of Kos: State, Economy and Cul ture. Proceedings of an International Seminar organized by the Department of Archaeol ogy and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 11–13 May, 2000. Ed. by Kerstin Höghammar. BOREAS 28. Uppsala: Universitet, 2004. Jones, Arnold H. M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: 1940. Repr. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Jones, Christopher P. “Toward a Chronology of Josephus.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 113–121. ——. “The Inscription from Tel Maresha for Olympiodoros.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 171 (2009): 100–104. Johnson, Aubrey R. Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967. Joüon, Paul. “Quelques hébraïsme de syntaxe dans le première livre des Maccabées.” Bib lica 3 (1922): 204–206. .Tel Aviv: 1937. Repr. Jerusalem: 1970 .הספרים החיצונים .Kahana, Abraham Kahrstedt, Ulrich. Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit. Abhandlungen der (K.) Gesell- schaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 19/2. Berlin: Weidemann, 1926. Kallai, Zecharia. Biblical Historiography and Historical Geography. Collection of Studies. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum 44. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998. Kampen, John I. The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 24. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origins of the Samaritans. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kasher, Aryeh. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs. Texte und Studien zum antiken Juden- tum 18. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988. ——. “The Changes in Manpower and Ethnic Composition of the Hasmonean Army (167– 63 b.c.e.).” Jewish Quarterly Review 81/3–4 (1991): 325–352. ——. “The Civic Status of the Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 100–121 in Ethnicity in Hel lenistic Egypt. Ed. by Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Lise Hannestad and Jan Zahle. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Kaufman, David J. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Prietshood.” Qumran Chron icle 7/1–2 (1997): 51–63. Keel, Othmar. “1 Makk 2—Rechtfertigung, Programm und Denkmal für die Erhebung der Hasmonäer.” Pages 123–133 in Hellenismus und Judentum: Vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV. Ed. by Othmar Keel and Urs Staub. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 178. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 2000. Keil, C. F. Commentar über die Bücher der Makkabäer. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1875. Kennell, Nigel M. “New Light on 2 Maccabees 4:7–15.” Journal of Jewish Studies 56/1 (2005): 10–24. 312 bibliography

——. Ephebeia: A Register of Greek Cities with Citizen Training Systems in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 2006. Kenyon, Kathleen M. Digging Up Jerusalem. New York, NY: 1974. Kerkeslager, Allen. “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt.” Pages 99–225 in Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Ed. by David Frankfurter. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 134. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kleijwegt, Marc. Ancient Youth: The Ambiguity of Youth and the Absence of Adolescence in Greco-Roman Society. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 8. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1991. Kloner, Amos, ed. Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. Vol. 1 of Maresha Excavations Final Report. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2003. Knoppers, Gary N. “The Relationship of the Priestly Genealogies to the History of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem.” Pages 109–133 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Ed. by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. ——. 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 12A. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Concept of Covenant (Berît) in the Book of Daniel.” Pages 495– 501 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Ed. by Adam S. van der Woude. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 106. Leuven: University Press, 1993. ——. “The Greek Bible and Jewish Concepts of Royal Priesthood and Priestly Monarchy.” Pages 255–264 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Culture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. ——. “The Claim of Maccabean Leadership and the Use of Scripture.” Pages 29–49 in Jew ish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 155; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Krentz, Edgar. “The Honorary Decree for Simon the Maccabee.” Pages 146–153 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Ed. by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Juda- ism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Kreutz, N. Zeus und die griechischen Poleis: Topographische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen von archaischer bis in hellenistiche Zeit. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2007. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. “War Flavius Josephus ein Verwandter des hasmonaïschen König- shauses?” Biblische Notizen 73 (1994): 58–65. ——. “Eine Überlegung zur Datierung der Vita.” Pages 189–208 in Internationales Josephus- Kolloquium Brüssel 1998. Ed. by Jürgen U. Kalms and Folker Siegert. Münsteraner Judais- tische Studien 4. Münster: LIT, 1999. Kugler, Robert A. “Priesthood at Qumran.” Pages 93–116 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Kuhnen, Hans-Peter. Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie Vorderasien II/2. Munich: Beck, 1990. Kuhrt, Amélie. see Sherwin-White, Susan. Lange, Armin. “Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Religious Reforms.” Pages 205–219 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Ed. by Christian Frevel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2011. Laqueur, Richard. Kritische Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Makkabäerbuch. Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1904. ——. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellen kritischer Grundlage. Giessen: Münchow, 1920. bibliography 313

Larché, François. see Will, Ernest. Launey, Marcel. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. 2 vols. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1949– 1950. Le Bohec, Sylvie. “Les philoi des rois antigonides.” Revue des études grecques 98 (1985): 93–124. Le Rider, Georges. “La politique monétaire des séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200: Réflexions sur les monnaies d’argent lagides et sur les monnaies d’argent séleucides à l’aigle.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119 (1995): 391–404. Leibner, Uzi. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 127. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009. Lemaire, André. “Le roi Jonathan à Qoumrân (4Q 448, B–C).” Pages 57–70 in Qoumrân et les manuscrits de la mer Morte. Un cinquantenaire. Ed. by Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz. Paris: Cerf, 1997. Levana, Tsfania. see Magen, Yitzhak. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichts-erzählung im 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch.” Pages 197–212 in Die Antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christ lichen Geschichts-schreibung. Ed. by Eve-Marie Becker. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 129. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Lim, Timothy H. “The Wicked Priest or the Liar?” Pages 45–51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Ed. by Timothy H. Lim, Larry W. Hurtado, Graeme A. Auld, and Alison Jack. Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2000. ——. Pesharim. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Linssen, M. J. H. The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices. Cuneiform Monographs 25. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Lipschits, Oded. “The Origins of the Jewish Population of Modi’in and Its Vicinity.” Cathe dra 85 (1997): 7–32 [Hebrew]. ——. “Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 163–175 in Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE). Ed. by Lester L. Grabbe and Oded Lipschits. Library of Second Temple Studies 75. London: T & T Clark International, 2011. Lipschits, Oded. see Vanderhooft, David. Liver, Jacob. “The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 173–198. ——. “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priests’ in the Dead Sea Sect.” Revue de Qûmran 6/1 (1967): 3–30. Llewelyn, Stephen R., and Dionysia van Beek, “Reading the Temple Warning as a Greek Visitor.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 42/1 (2011): 1–22. Lowery, Richard H. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 120. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Lupu, Eran. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL). Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 152. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Lust, J. “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel. The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation.” Pages 283–299 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991. Ed. by Jan Quaegebeur. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55. Leuven: Peeters, 1993. Lüderitz, Gert. “What is the Politeuma?” Pages 183–225 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Ed. by Jan W. van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 21. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ——. “Seleukids and Speech-Acts: Performative Utterances, Legitimacy and Negotiation in the World of the Maccabees.” Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (2000): 71–112. 314 bibliography

Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chi- cago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985. MacKay, Theodora S. “The Major Sanctuaries of Pamphylia and Cilicia.” Pages 2045–2129 in Religion (Heidentum: Die Religiösen Verhältnisse in den Provinzen). Vol. 18.3 of Part II: Principat. Ed. by Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Maehler, Herwig. “Die griechische Schule im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” Pages 191–203 in Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24–26 May 1982. Ed. by Edmond van‘t Dack, Peter van Dessel and Willem van Gucht. Studia Hellenistica 27. Leuven: 1983. Magen, Yitzhak. A Temple City. Vol. 2 of Mount Gerizim Excavations. Translated from Hebrew by Edward Levin and Carl Ebert. Judea & Samaria Publications 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. Magen, Yitzhak, Misgav Haggai, and Tsfania Levana. The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Vol. 1 of Mount Gerizim Excavations. Translated from Hebrew by Edward Levin and Michael Guggenheimer. Judea & Samaria Publications 2. Jerusalem: Israel Anti-quities Authority, 2004. Magness, Jodi. “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects.” Pages 47–77 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ——. “The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Peri- ods.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 157–177. ——. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. Maier, Johann. Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das «Neue Jerusalem »: 11Q19 und 11Q20; 1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554–555, 5Q15 und 11Q18. Übersetzung und Erläuterung. Mit Grundrissen der Tempelhofanlage und Skizzen zur Stadtplannung. 3d ed. Uni-Taschenbücher 829. Munich: Ernst Reinhardt, 1997. Main, Emmanuelle. “Les Sadducéens vus par Flavius Josèphe.” Revue biblique 97/2 (1990): 161–206. ——. “For King Jonathan or Against? The Use of the Bible in 4Q448.” Pages 113–135 in Bibli cal Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. Ed. by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Mandell, Sara R. “Did the Maccabees Believe that They Had a Valid Treaty with Rome?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53/2 (1991): 202–220. ——. “Rome, Syria and the Jerusalem High Priest: The International Bases of the High Priest’s Rule of the Jerusalem City-State (175–63 BCE).” Pages 80–96 in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition. Ed. by Thomas L. Thompson with the collaboration of Salma Kh. Jayyusi. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 381/ Copenhagen International Series 13. London: T & T Clark International, 2003. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité. Vol. I. Paris: Seuil, 1948. Martinez-Sève, Laurianne. “La fiscalité séleucide. Bilan et perspectives de recherche.” Pages 81–104 in Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille (23 juin 2003) et d’Orléans (23–30 janvier 2004). Ed. by Véronique Chankowski and Frédérique Duyrat. Topoi Supplement 6. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 2004. Martola, Nils. Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Mac cabees. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A Humaniora 63/1. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1984. Mason, Steve N. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Studia post-biblica 39. Leiden: Brill, 1991. bibliography 315

——. “Should Anyone Wish to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life.” Pages 64–103 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Per spectives. Ed. by Steve Mason. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ——. Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 9 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Ed. by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38/4–5 (2007): 457–512. Mazar, Benjamin. “The Temple Mount.” Pages 463–468 in Biblical Archaeology Today. Pro ceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem, April 1984. Ed. by Janet Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. Mazar, Benjamin, and Hanan Eshel. “Who Built the First Wall of Jerusalem?” Israel Explo ration Journal 48/3–4 (1998): 265–268. McEwan, Gilbert J. P. Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 4. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1981. McNicoll, Anthony W. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. With Revi sions and an Additional Chapter by N.P. Milner. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archae- ology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Melamed, E. Z. “Josephus and Maccabees I: A Comparison.” Eretz-Israel 1 (1951): 122–130 [Hebrew]. Mendels, Doron. Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the Graeco-Roman World: Fragmented Memory—Comprehensive Memory—Collective Memory. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series/Library of Second Temple Studies 48. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. ——. “The Formation of an Historical Canon of the Greco-Roman Period: From the Beginnings to Josephus.” Pages 3–19 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Ed. by Gaia Lembi and Joseph Sievers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “Memory and Memories: The Attitude of 1–2 Maccabees toward Hellenization and Hellenism.” Pages 41–54 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Ed. by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 130. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009. ——. see Hengel, Martin. Meshel, Ze’ev. “The Nabataean ‘Rock’ and the Judaean Desert Fortresses.” Israel Explora tion Journal 50/1–2 (2000): 109–115. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Meyer, Eduard. Die Entstehung des Judentums: Eine historische Untersuchung. Halle: Veb Max Niemeyer, 1896. Metzner, Rainer. Kaiphas—der Hohepriester jenes Jahres: Ge-schichte und Deutung. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 75. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Mies, François. “Le Psaume de Ben Sira 51,12a–o Hébreu. Le Hymne aux Noms divins (Deuxième partie).” Revue biblique 160/4 (2009): 481–504. Milgrom, Jacob. “Studies in the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97/4 (1978): 501–523. ——. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991. ——. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Milikowsky, Chayim. “La literature tannaïtique comme source historique pour l’étude du Judaïsme du deuxième temple.” Revue des études juives 166/1–2 (2007): 1–15. ——. “Justus of Tiberias and the Synchronistic Chronology of Israel.” Pages 103–126 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume. 316 bibliography

Ed. by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Mittag, Peter F. Antiochos IV. Epiphanes: Eine politische Biographie. Klio 11. Berlin: Akad- emie Verlag GmbH, 2006. Mitwoch, A. “Tribute and Land-Tax in Seleucid Judea.” Biblica 36/3 (1955): 352–361. Momigliano, Arnaldo D. Prime linee di storia della tradizione macca-baica. Roma: Società Editrice del “Foro Italico”, 1930. ——. Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Vol. 2. Storia e letteratura 150. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Roma: 1980. Mooren, Leon. La hiérarchie de cour Ptolémaïque: Contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l’époque hellénistique. Studia Hellenistica 23. Leuven: 1977. ——. “Ptolemaic and Hellenistic Institutions in Literary Sources.” Pages 573–581 in Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba: Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del colloquio internazionale. Bologna, 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987. Ed. by Lucia Criscuolo and Giovanni Geraci. Bologna: CLUEB, 1989. Mor, Menahem. “The Samaritan History. The Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period.” Pages 1–18 in The Samaritans. Ed. by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1989. Mowinckel, Sigmund O. P. Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia. 3 vols. Oslo: Universitets- forlaget, 1964–1965. Mørkholm, Otto. Antiochus IV of Syria. Classica et mediaevalia dissertationes 8. Køben- havn: Gyldendalske, 1966. Mölleken, Wolfgang. “Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus Hoherpriester?).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 65 (1953): 205–228. Muccioli, Federicomaria. “Crisi e trasformazione del Regno Seleucida tra il secondo e il primo secolo avanti Cristo: Titolatura, Ruolo e Competenze dei συγγενεις”, Pages 251– 274 in Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Ed. by Leon Mooren. Studia Hellenistica 36. Leuven: 2000. Mulder, Otto. 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: Brill, 2003. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness (I Macc., x, 25–45).” Revue biblique 83 (1976): 400–420. Murray, Oswyn. “Philosophy and Monarchy in the Hellenistic World.” Pages 13–28 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Culture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. Müller, Helmut. “Der Hellenistische Archiereus”, Chiron 30 (2000): 519–542. Netzer, Ehud. Stratigraphy and Architecture. Vol. 1 of Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001. Neuhaus, Günter O. Studien zu den poetischen Stücken im 1. Makkabäerbuch. Forschung zur Bibel 12. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974. ——. “Quellen im 1. Makkabäerbuch? Eine Entgegung auf die Analyse von K.-D. Schunck.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 5/2 (1974): 162–175. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36, 81–108. Ed. by Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001. Niese, Benedictus. Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher: Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen Erhebung. Berlin: Weidmann, 1900. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Le sabbat et les armes dans l’histoire ancienne d’Israël.” Revue des études juives 159/1 (2000): 1–17. bibliography 317

Nitzan, Bilhah. Pesher Habakkuk—A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab): Text, Introduction and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1986. Nodet, Étienne. Flavius Josèphe. 5 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1990–2010. ——. La crise maccabéenne: Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques. Josèphe et son temps 5. Paris: Cerf, 2005. ——. “Asidaioi and Essenes.” Pages 63–87 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Ed. by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Oliver, James H. “Gerusiae and Augustales.” Historia 7/4 (1958): 472–496. Olshausen, Erik. “Der König und die Priester. Die Mithradatiden im Kampf um die Anerkennung ihrer Herrschaft im Pontos.” Pages 187–212 in Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums I. Ed. by Erik Olshausen and Holger Sonnabend. Geographica Historica 4. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1987. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” Harvard Theological Review 80/3 (1987): 261–286. Orrieux, Claude. see Will, Édouard. Otto, Eckart. “Die Zadokiden—eine Sekte aus hasmonäischer Zeit? Zu einem Buch von Alice Hunt.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13 (2007): 271–276. Otto, W. “Kauf und Verkauf von Priestertümern bei den Griechen.” Hermes 44 (1909): 594–599. Owens, Eddie J. The City in the Greek and Roman World. London: Routledge, 1991. Parente, Fausto. “Onias III’[s] Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis.” Pages 69–98 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ——. “ΤΟΥΣ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΟΙΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΣ ΑΝΑΓΡΑΨΑΙ (II Macc. IV,9): Gerusalemme è mai stata una πολις?” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 300/1 (1994): 3–38. Parker, Richard A., and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956. Parker, Victor L. “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflexions on the Book’s Composition”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 119/3 (2007): 386–401. ——. “Historische Studien zu den Hohen Priestern der frühen Makkabäerzeit.” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 124/2 (2008): 143–170. Pastor, Jack. “The Famine in 1 Maccabees: History or Apology?” Pages 31–43 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Ed. by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 118. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Pelletier, André. Flavius Josèphe adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée: Une réaction atticisante contre la koinè. Paris: Klincksieck, 1962. ——. “Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Septuagint.” Pages 97–115 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Ed. by Louis H. Feldman, and Gohei Hata. Translated by Katharine W. Carson. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Perry, Lior. see Zissu, Boaz. Piejko, Francis. “Antiochus III and Ptolemy son of Thraseas. The Inscription of Hefzibah Reconsidered.” Antiquité classique 60 (1991): 243–259. Philonenko, Marc. “Jusqu’a ce que se lève un prophète digne de confiance (1 Macc 14,41).” Pages 95–98 in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Pre- sented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Ed. by Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked and Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 32. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992. Pomykala, Kenneth E. “The Covenant with Phinehas in Ben Sira (Sirach 45:23–26; 50:22– 24).” Pages 17–36 in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in 318 bibliography

Jewish and Christian Traditions. Ed. by Kenneth E. Pomykala. Themes in Biblical Narra- tive 10. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Potts, Daniel T. “Five Episodes in the History of Elymais, 145–124 B.C.: New Data from the Asronomical Diaries.” Pages 349–362 in Mesopotamia, Iran and Arabia from the Seleu cids to the Sasanians. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010. Repr. from Cahiers de Studia Iranica 25 (2002). Prag, Kay, ed. Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem. Centenary Volume, Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978. Vol. 5 of Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008. Prag, Kay. see Snow, Deborah. Préaux, Claire. Le monde hellénistique: La Grèce et l’Orient (323–146 av. J.-C.). 2 vols. Nou- velle Clio 6. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1978. Primo, Andrea. La storiografia sui seleucidi: da Megastene a Eusebio di Cesarea. Studi ellenistici 10. Pisa: Serra, 2009. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. “Greek and Roman Documents from Republican Times in the Antiquities: What Was Josephus’ Source?” Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994): 46–59. ——. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 74. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998. Puech, Émile. “Jonathan le prêtre impie et les débuts de la communauté de Qumrân. 4QJonathan (4Q523) et 4QPs Ap (4Q448).” Revue de Qûmran 17/1–4 (1996): 241–270. ——. “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” Pages 137–158 in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by Bernd Kollmann, Wolfgang Reinbold and Annette Steudel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Quaegebeur, Jan. “Documents égyptiens et rôle économique du clergé en Égypte hellé- nistique.” Pages 707–730 in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. Rahmani, Levy Y. “Jason’s Tomb.” Israel Exploration Journal 17 (1967): 61–100. Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelpia: Fortress Press, 1984. ——. “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias.” Pages 81–94 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Ed. by Louis H. Feldman, and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. ——. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 48. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Rankin, Oliver S. The Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah: The Jewish New-Age Festival. Edin- burgh: T & T Clark International, 1930. Rappaport, Uriel. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times. Historical and Archaeological Essays. Studies in Judaism and Late Antiquity 40. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ——. “The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans.” Studies in Jewish Civilization 2 (1992): 1–13 [Hebrew]. ——. “Akko-Ptolemais and the Jews in Hellenistic Period.” Cathedra 50 (1988) 31–48 [Hebrew]. ——. “The Extradition Clause in 1 Maccabees, XV, 21.” Pages 271–283 in Immigration and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński Ed. by Karel van Lerber- ghe and Anthony Schoors. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. ——. “1 Maccabees.” Pages 711–734 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Ed. by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ——. “The Connection between Hasmonean Judaea and the Diaspora.” Pages 90–100 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Ed. by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 130. Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 2009. ——. “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob the Treasures of the Jerusalem Temple? Date and Prob- ability of the Stories of 2 Maccabees, 3.” Revue des études juives 170/1–2 (2011): 3–19. bibliography 319

Regev, Eyal. “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10/2 (2003): 242–278. ——. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Religion and Society 45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. ——. “Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 15/2 (2008): 87–114. ——. “Royal Ideology in the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 363 (2011): 45–72. ——. “Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer.” Israel Exploration Journal 31/1 (1981): 48–52. Reich, Ronny. “Area A: Hellenistic to Medieval Strata 6–1.” Pages 83–110 in Architecture and Stratigraphy—Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 1 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ——. “Local Seal Impressions of the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 256–262 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. ——. “Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments.” Pages 263–291 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Exca vations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. Reich, Ronny, and Zvi Greenhut. “Another ‘Boundary of Gezer’ Inscription Found Recently.” Israel Exploration Journal 52/1 (2002): 58–63. Reinhartz, Adele. Caiaphas the High Priest. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament 9. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2011. Reiterer, Fridrich V. “Die Vergangenheit als Basis für die Zukunft Mattatias’ Lehre für seine Söhne aus der Geschichte in 1 Makk 2:52–60.” Pages 75–100 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Ed. by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 118. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Retsö, J. The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London: Routledge, 2003. Rigsby, Kent J. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996. Riska, Magnus. The House of the Lord: A Study of the Temple Scroll Columns 29:3b–47:18. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 93. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Robert, Louis. Noms indigenes dans l’Asie-Mineure gréco-romaine. Part 1. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie d’Istanbul 13. Paris: Librairie Adrien Maisonneuve, 1963. Roetman, Jan A., and Gaspard Visser’t Hooft. “Nm 25 et la formation du Pentateuque à la croisée des enjeux post-exiliques.” Transeuphratène 27 (2004): 37–67. Rofé, Alexander. “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985): 23–44. Roll, Israel. see Fischer, Moshe. ——. see Fischer, Moshe. Ronde Van Kirk, Andrew de la. see Charlesworth, James H. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. “The Day of Atonement as a Ritual of Validation for the High Priest.” Pages 342–364 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Sem inar. Ed. by John Day. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422. London: T & T Clark International, 2005. 320 bibliography

Rosenberg, Silvia. “Wall Painting Fragments From Area A.” Pages 302–328 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. “Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Wares and Lamps from Area A.” Pages 192–223 in Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass. With Stratigraphical Introduction by Yigal Shiloh. Ed. by Ariel T. Donald. Vol. 2 of Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990. Rostovtzeff, Mikhail I. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941. Roth, Otto. Rom und die Hasmonäer: Untersuchungen zu den Jüdisch-Römischen Urkunden im ersten Makkabäerbuche und in Josephus’ Jüdischen Altertümern XIV. Beiträge zur Wis- senschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 17. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Brown Judaic Studies 302. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Rudhardt, Jean. “The Greek Attitude to Foreign Religions.” Pages 172–185 in Greeks and Barbarians. Ed. by Thomas Harrison. Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World. Edin- burgh: University Press, 2002. Sachs, Abraham J., and Donald J. Wiseman. “A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period.” Iraq 16 (1954): 202–212. Safrai, Shmuel. Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. Translated by D. Mach. Forschungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. ——. “Jerusalem in the Halacha of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 94–113 in The Cen trality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Ed. by Marcel Poorthuis and Chana Safrai. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Sartré, Maurice. L’Anatolie hellénistique de l’Égée au Caucase (334–31 av. J.-C.). Paris: Armand Colin, 2003. Saulnier, Christiane. “Le cadre politico-religieux en Palestine de la révolte des Maccabées à l’intervention romaine.” Pages 199–211 in Il giudaismo palestinese: dal I secolo a.C. al I secolo d.C. Atti dell’VIII congresso internazionale dell’AISG San Miniato 5–6–7 novembre 1990. Ed. by Paolo Sacchi. Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo 8. Bologna: AISG, 1993. Schaper, Joachim. “The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration.” Vetus Testamentum 45/4 (1995): 528–539. ——. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 31. Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 2000. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. 2d ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Schenker, Adrian. “Die zweimalige Einsetzung Simons des Makkabäers zum Hohen- priester. Die Neuordnung des Hohepriestertums unter dem Hasmonäer Simon (1 Makk 14,25–49).” Pages 158–169 in Recht und Kult im Alten Testament. Achtzehn Studien. Ed. by Adrian Schenker. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 172. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 2000. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 239–255 in Temple Scroll Studies. Papers Presented at the Inter national Symposium on the Temple Scroll—Manchester, December 1987. Ed. by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ——. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christian ity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994. ——. “Priestly and Levitical Gifts.” Pages 480–496 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Ed. bibliography 321

by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ch. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll. Ed. by Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ——. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. Schiffman, Lawrence H., James H. Charlesworth and Andrew D. Gross. “Temple Scroll 11Q19 (11QTa): Introduction.” Pages 1–11 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Temple Scroll and Related Documents. Vol. 7. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Henry W. Morisada Rietz and Loren L. Johns. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2011. Schmidt, Francis. How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism. Translated by Edward J. Crowley. The Biblical Seminar 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Schmidt-Dounas, B. “Statuen hellenistischer Konige als synnaoi theoi.” Egnatia 4 (1993– 1994): 71–141. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schofield, Alison, and James C. VanderKam. “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005): 73–87. Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schunck, Klaus-Dietrich. Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches. Halle: Veb Max Nie- meyer, 1954. ——. I Makkabäerbuch. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römi-scher Zeit I/4. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980. ——. “Hoherpriester und Politiker? Die Stellung der Hohenpriester von Jaddua bis Jona- tan zur jüdischen Gemeinde und zum hellenis-tischen Staat.” Vetus Testamentum 44/4 (1994): 498–512. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). 3 vols. Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees.” Journal for the Study of Juda ism 14/2 (1983): 157–171. ——. “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community.” Scripta Classica Israelica 7 (1983/84): 30–52. ——. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 60. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992. ——. “MMT, Josephus and the Pharisees.” Pages 67–80 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspec- tives on Qumran Law and History. Ed. by John I. Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Soci- ety of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. ——. “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josephus?” Pages 3–27 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World/Jüdische Identität in der griechisch- römischen Welt. Ed. by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz and Stephanie Gripentrog. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ——. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Joshua, and Joseph Spanier. “On Mattathias and the Desert of Samaria.” Revue biblique 98/2 (1991): 252–271. Schwartz, Seth. “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’s Bellum Iudaicum Book 7.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 373–386. 322 bibliography

——. “Georgius Syncellus’s Account of Ancient Jewish History.” Pages 1–8 in The History of the Jewish People. Vol. 2 of Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, August 16–24, 1989. Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990. ——. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ——. “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion.” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 17–38. Schwentzel, Christian-Georges. “Images du pouvoir et functions des souverains has- monéens.” Revue biblique 163/3 (2009): 368–386. Scolnic, Benjamin E. Alcimus, the Enemy of the Maccabees. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005. Seebass, Horst. “The Case of Phinehas at Baal Peor in Num 25.” Biblische Notizen 117 (2003): 40–46. Seeligmann, Isac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. Ed. by Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann. 2d ed. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 40. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2004. Seeman, Chris. Rome and Judea in Transition: Hasmonean Relations with the Roman Repub lic and the Evolution of the High Priesthood. American University Studies 325. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2013. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Séligsohn, Max. see Adler, Elkan N. Sellers, Ovid R. “Objects.” Pages 80–87 in The 1957 Excavation at Beth-Zur. Conducted by McCormick Theological Seminary and the American School of Oriental Research in Jeru salem. Ed. by Paul W. Lapp. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968. Shachar, Ilan. “The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’s Later Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 136/1 (2004): 5–33. Sharon, Nadav. “The Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41/4–5 (2010): 472–493. Sharp, Carolyn J. “Phinehan Zeal and Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT.” Revue de Qûmran 18/2 (1997): 207–222. Shatzman, Israel. The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 25. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991. ——. “Jews and Gentiles from Judas Maccabaeus to John Hyrcanus According to Con- temporary Jewish Sources.” Pages 237–270 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume. Ed. by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Sherwin-White, Adrian N. Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London: Duck- worth, 1984. Sherwin-White, Susan, and Amélie Kuhrt. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1993. Shiloh, Yigal. Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Vol. 1 of Excavations at the City of David 1978–1982. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984. Shoham, Yair. see Ariel, Donald T. Sievers, Joseph. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 6. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. ——. “Jerusalem, the Akra and Josephus.” Pages 195–209 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. bibliography 323

Sievers, Joseph. Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14. Subsidia biblica 20. Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001. ——. “Josephus, First Maccabees, Sparta, the Three Haireseis—and Cicero.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 32/3 (2001): 241–251. Sinclair, Lawrence A. “Climate at Qumran during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” Revue de Qûmran 23/3 (2008): 415–427. Sisti, Adalberto. “Il Governo della Città Santa sotto i Seleucidi (nella testimonianza di 1–2 Macc).” Pages 153–162 in Gerusalemme. Atti della XXVI Settimana Biblica in onore di Carlo Maria Martini. Associazione biblica italiana 26. Brescia: Paideia, 1982. ——. “L’attesa del profeta fedele al tempo dei Maccabei.” Studii biblici Franciscani Liber annuus 44 (1994): 47–82. Sivan, Renée, and Giora Solar. “Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1988.” Pages 168–176 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Ed. by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Ska, Jean-Louis. Il libro sigillato e il libro aperto. Collana biblica. Bologna: EDB, 2005. ——. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Translated by D. Pascale. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. Anchor Bible 39. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1971. ——. “Were the Maccabees Priests?” Pages 320–325 in Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, and Ancient Judaism. Vol. 1 of Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. Ed. by Shaye J. D. Cohen. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 130/1. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Snow, Deborah, and Kay Prag with the collaboration of Andreas Dimoulinis, Carolyn G. Kohler, Philippa M. W. Matheson. “The Stamped Amphora Handles.” Pages 389–409 in Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem. Centenary Volume, Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978. Vol. 5 of Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Ed. by Kay Prag. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008. Solar, Giora & Sivan, Renée. Spanier, Joseph. see Schwartz, Joshua. Spek, Robartus J. van der. “The Babylonian Temple during the Macedonian and Parthian Domination.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985): 541–562. ——. “New Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries Concerning Seleucid and Arsacid History.” Archiv für Orientforschung 44–45 (1997–1998): 167–175. ——. “Ethnic Segregation in Hellenistic Babylon.” Pages 393–408 in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden 1–4 July 2002. Ed. by Wilfred H. van Soldt in cooperation with R. Kalvelagen and Dina Katz. Publications de l’Institut historique-archeologique neerlandais de Stamboul 102. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2005. Spilsbury, Paul. see Begg, Christopher T. Stahl, Rainer. “‘Eine Zeit, Zeiten und die Hälfte einer Zeit’: Die Versuche der Eingrenzung der bösen Macht im Danielbuch.” Pages 480–494 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Ed. by Adam S. van der Woude. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 106. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde. Bonn: [privately published], 1971. ——. “The Institutions of Israel in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 156–185 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research. Ed. by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Ein Sachbuch. Freiburg im Bre- isgau: Herder, 1994. Stemberger, Günter. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 144. Stuttgart: 1991. 324 bibliography

——. “The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 193–203 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Ed. by Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hilhorst and Caspar J. Labuschagne. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 49. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. Introduzione al Talmud et al. Midrash: Edizione italiana, riveduta e aggiornata dall’Autore. Translated by D. & L. Cattani. 9th ed. Tradizione d’Israele 10. Roma: Città Nuova, 1995. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Novum Testamentum Supplements 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “Explaining Defeat: Polybius and Josephus on the Wars with Rome.” Pages 135–151 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Aarhus 1999. Ed. by Jürgen U. Kalms. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 6. Münster: LIT, 2000. Stern, Menahem. “Die Urkunden.” Pages 181–199 in Literatur und Religion des Frühjuden tums: Eine Einfürung. Ed. by Johann Maier and Josef Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1973. ——. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984. ——. “Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes.” Pages 561–630 in Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Vol. 2 of The Jewish People in the First Century. Ed. by Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern in co-operation with David Flusser and Willem C. van Unnik. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Steudel, Annette. “4Q448—The Lost Beginning of MMT?” Pages 247–263 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection. Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Ed. by Florentino García-Martínez, Annette Steudel and Eibert E. J. Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Stevens, Marty E. Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atone ment from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun- gen zum Neuen Testament 163. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2003. Strugnell, John. “MMT: Second Thoughts on a Forthcoming Edition.” Pages 57–73 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. by Eugene Ch. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994. Sulimani, Iris. “Diodorus’ Source-Citations. A Turn in the Attitude of Ancient Authors Towards Their Predecessors?” Athenaeum 96/2 (2008): 535–567. Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tal, Oren. “Cult Transition from Achaemenid to Greek Rule: The Contribution of Achae- menid–Ptolemaic Temples of Palestine.” Transeuphratène 36 (2008): 165–183. ——. “Hellenism in Transition from Empire to Kingdom: Changes in the Material Culture of Hellenistic Palestine.” Pages 55–73 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Ed. by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 130. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009. ——. “‘Hellenistic Foundations’ in Palestine.” Pages 242–254 in Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE). Ed. by Lester L. Grabbe and Oded Lipschits. Library of Second Temple Studies 75. London: T & T Clark International, 2011. ——. see Fischer, Moshe. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Yom Hakkipurim in the Habakkuk Scroll.” Biblica 32/4 (1951): 549– 563. ——. The World of Qumran From Within. Collected Studies. Jerusalem: The Magness Press, 1989. bibliography 325

——. “Calendar controversy in ancient Judaism: the case of the ‘Community of the Renewed Covenant’.” Pages 379–395 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Ed. by Don- ald W. Parry and Eugene Ch. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tarler, David. see Cahill, Jane M. Tarn, William W. The Greeks in Bactria & India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1938. Tassin, Claude. “Un grand prêtre idéal? Traditions juives anciennes sur Pinhas.” Revue des études juives 167/1–2 (2008): 1–22. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated from Hebrew by S. Applebaum. 2d ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publications Society of America, 1966. Tedesche, Sydney, and Solomon Zeitlin. The First Book of Maccabees. Jewish Apocryphal Literature. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1950. Thackeray, Henry St. J. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. New York, NY: 1929. Thoma, Clemens. “The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus.” Pages 196–215 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989. ——. “John Hyrcanus I as seen by Josephus and Other Early Jewish Sources.” Pages 127–140 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Thompson, Dorothy J. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. see García Martínez, Florentino. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch. Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature 4. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. Torrey, Charles C. “Maccabees (First Book).” Cols. 2857–2869 in vol. 3 of Encyclopædia Biblica. A Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902. Török, László. Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300 BC–AD 250 and Its Egyptian Models: A Study in “Acculturation”. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 53. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Trampedach, K. “Tempel und Großmacht: Olbain hellenistischer Zeit.” Pages 269–288 in La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C.–4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999. Varia Anatolica XIII. Ed. by Éric Jean, Ali M. Dinçol and Serra Durugönül. Paris: E. de Boccard, 2001. Trapp, Michael. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Troiani, Lucio. “I Lettori delle Antichità Giudaiche di Giuseppe: Prospettive e Problemi.” Athenaeum 64/3–4 (1986): 343–353. ——. “The πολιτεια of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age.” Pages 11–22 in Josephus and the His tory of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Ed. by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Studia post-biblica 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ——. “Note storiografiche sopra 1 e 2 Maccabei.” Studi ellenistici 20 (2008): 347–370. Tsafrir, Yoram. “The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 120–145 in The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel. Ed. by Lee. I. Levine. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982. Tsafrir, Yoram, Leah Di Segni, and Judith Green with contributions by Israel Roll, and Tsvika Tsuk. Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea—Palestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Maps and Gazetteer. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Tsafrir, Yoram. see Arubas, Benny. Tushingham, Douglas A. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Vol. 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1985. 326 bibliography

Ulrichsen, Jarl H. Die Grundschrift der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen: Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprünglichen Schrift. Acta Universitatis Upsalien- sis. Historia Religionum 10. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991. Unnick, Willem. C. van. Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Schneider, 1978. Vanderhooft, David, and Oded Lipschits. “A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impres- sions.” Tel Aviv 34/1 (2007): 12–37. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977. ——. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Mono- graph Series 16. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. ——. “People and High Priesthood in Early Maccabean Times.” Pages 205–225 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Ed. by William H. Propp, Baruch Halpern and David N. Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California San Diego 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. ——. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. London: Routledge, 1998. ——. “Identity and History of the Community.” Pages 487–533 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Ed. by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004. ——. “The Wicked Priest Revisited.” Pages 350–367 in The “Other” in Second Temple Juda ism. Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Ed. by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011. ——. see Schofield, Alison. Vaux, Roland de G. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by J. McHugh. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. ——. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1959. London: British Academy, 1973. Vermes, Geza. Les manuscrits du désert de Juda. 2d ed. Paris: Desclée & CIE, 1954. ——. “The So-Called King Jonathan Fragment (4Q448).” Journal of Jewish Studies 44/2 (1993): 294–300. ——. “Historiographical Elements in the Qumran Writings: A Synopsis of the Textual Evi- dence.” Journal of Jewish Studies 58/1 (2007): 121–139. Virgilio, Biagio. Il « tempio stato » di Pessinunte fra Pergamo e Roma nel II–I secolo a.C. (C.B. Welles, RC 55–61). Pisa: Giardini, 1981. ——. “Anatolia Ellenistica, Romana, Cristiana.” Pages 223–244 in Studi ellenistici 8. Ed. by Biagio Virgilio. Biblioteca di studi antichi 78. Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Inter- nazionali, 1996. ——. “Epigrafia e culti dei re seleucidi.” Pages in Epigrafia e storia delle religioni. Dal docu mento epigrafico al problema storico-religioso. Ed. by Paolo Xella and Hosé-Ángel Zamora. Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 20. Verona: Essedue, 2003. Visser’t Hooft, Gaspard. see Roetman, Jan A. Volgger, David. “1 Makk 1: Der Konflikt zwischen Hellenen und Juden—Die Makk. Reich- spropaganda.” Antonianum 73 (1998): 459–481. Volkmann, H. “Der zweite nach dem König.” Philologus 92 (1937): 285–316. Vorländer, Hermann. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Ge-schichtswerkes. Europäis- che Hochschulschriften 23. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Vujçić, Nemanja. “Greek Popular Assemblies in the Imperial Period and the Discourses of Dio of Prusa.” Epigraphica Anatolica 42 (2009): 157–169. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Nicolaus of Damascus. University of California Publications in His- tory 75. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1962. ——. Eupolemus: A Stuty of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3. Cincinnati, OH: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. bibliography 327

——. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Mono- graphs of the Hebrew Union College 8. Cincinnati, OH: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1983. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia.” Pages 75–115 in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism. Ed. by Richard Elliott Friedman. Harvard Semitic Studies 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Weissenberg, Hanne von. 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 82. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Walbank, Frank W. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Weitzman, Steven. “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology.” Harvard Theological Review 92/1 (1999): 37–59. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Werman, Cana. “The Sons of Zadok.” Pages 623–630 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Ed. by Law- rence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; executive editor Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. White, John L. Light from Ancient Letters. Foundations and Facets 6. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1986. Whitters, Mark F. “Some New Observations about Jewish Festal Letters.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 32/3 (2001): 272–288. Wightman, Gregory J. The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Medi- terranean Archaeology Supplement 4. Sydney: Meditarch, 1993. Will, Ernest, and François Larché with the collaboration of Fawzi Zayadine, Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydy and François Queyrel. ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. 2 vols. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132. Paris: Geuthner, 1991. Will, Édouard. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.). 2 vols. Annales de l’est 30, 32. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1967–1982. Will, Édouard, and Claude Orrieux. Ioudaïsmos–Hellenismos: Essai sur le judaïsme judéen à l’époque hellénistique. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1986. Williams, David S. The Structure of 1 Maccabees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 31. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses. A Study of 1 Chronicles 23–27.” Pages 251–268 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ——. 1 and 2 Chronicles. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982. ——. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985. Willrich, Hugo. Urkundenfälschung in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 38. Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1924. Wirgin, Wolf. “Simon Macchabaeus and the PROPHETES PISTOS.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 103 (1971): 35–41. Wise, Michael O. “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdot- ium: Two Approaches.” Revue de Qûmran 14/4 (1990): 587–613. ——. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. ——. “4Q245 (PSDANc AR) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus.” Dead Sea Dis coveries 12/3 (2005): 313–362. Wiseman, Donald J. see Sachs, Abraham J. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identifica- tion of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38/2 (1982): 349–359. 328 bibliography

——. see García Martínez, Florentino. Wright, III, Benjamin G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ——. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” Pages 76–91 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Ed. by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, James Aitken and Jennifer Dines. Hellenistic Culture and Society 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. Wright, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 348. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Xeravits, Gèza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yellin, Joseph. see Gunneweg, Jan. Zahle, Jan. “Religious Motifs on Seleucid Coins.” Pages 125–139 in Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Ed. by Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Lise Han- nestad and Jan Zahle. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990. Zambelli, Marcello. “La composizione del secondo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova cronolo- gia di Antioco IV Epifane.” Miscellanea greca e romana 16 (1965): 195–299. Zayadine, Fawzi. “Les Tobiades en Transjordanie et a Jérusalem.” Pages 5–23 in vol. 1 of ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Ed. by Ernest Will et al. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132. Paris: Geuthner, 1991. Zeitlin, Solomon. The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962. ——. see Tedesche, Sydney. Zenger, Erich. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. 6th ed. Stut- tgart: Kohlhammer, 2006. Zervos, George T. “1 Makkabees.” Pages 478–502 in A New English Translation of the Sep tuagint and the other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Ed. by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Zissu, Boaz, and Lior Perry. “Identification of Ancient Modi‘in and Byzantine Moditha. Towards a Solution of a Geographical-Historical Issue.” Cathedra 125 (2007): 5–20 [Hebrew]. Zollschan, Linda T. “The Earliest Jewish Embassy to the Romans: 2 Macc. 4:11?” Journal of Jewish Studies 55/1 (2004): 37–44. ——. “Justinus 36.3.9 and Roman-Judaean Diplomatic Relations in 161 BCE.” Athenaeum 96/1 (2008): 153–171. Zsengellér, József. “Maccabees and the Temple Propaganda.” Pages 181–195 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Confer- ence on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Ed. by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 118. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

4. Consulted Sources/Works

Apocalypsis Henochi graece. Ed. by Matthew Black. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970: 1–44. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Syn opsis of All Extant Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Ed. by Pancratius C. Beentjes. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. by Elliger, Karl, Wilhelm Rudolph, et al. 4th ed. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1997. bibliography 329

The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Ed. by Eugene Ch. Ulrich. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Ed. by Magen Broshi. Jerusalem: The Israel Explo- ration Society, 1992. Baumgarten, Joseph M. with contributions by Stephen Pfann, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Qum ran Cave 4, XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). On the Basis of Transcriptions by Józef T. Milik. Editor-in-chief Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Eusebius of Caesarea. Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Including the Latin Edition of Jerome Translated into English and with Topographical Commentary. Ed. by Steven R. Notley and Ze‘ev Safrai. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 9. Leiden: Brill, 2005. -Jerusalem: Institute “Ha-Midrash ha .מדרש רבה המבואר: שמות רבה, א :Exodus Rabbah Mevoar”, 1990. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Ed. by August F. von Gall. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1918. The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary. Vol 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Ed. by Millar Burrows with the assistance of John C. Trever, and William H. Brownlee. New Haven, CT: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Jerusalem: Institute “Ha-Midrash .מדרש רבה המבואר: ספר בראשית, ד :Genesis Rabbah ha-Mevoar”, 1988. John Malalas. Chronographia. Ed. by I. Thurn. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 35. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Josippon [Josephus Gorionides]. 2 vols. Ed. by David Flusser. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1981 [Hebrew]. The Book of Jubilees. Ed. by James C. VanderKam. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511/Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Livius, Histoire romaine. 34 vols. Ed. and translated by Jean Bayet, Gaston Baillet et al. Collection des universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1940–2005. Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Supplement, Appendix, Indexes, Addenda, Corrigenda. 7 vols. 2d ed. Ed. by Philip Blackman. New York, NY: The Judaica State, 1963–1964. Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps. 2 vols. Ed. by Rivka Ulmer. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 155, 200. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997–1999. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Ed. by Joseph Ziegler. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Ed. by Alfred Rahlfs. 2 vols. 7th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Ed. by Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munich and Detlef Fraenkel. 2d ed. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 16/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Talmud Bavli: The Classic Vilna Edition, with an Annotated, Interpretive Elucidation, as an Aid to Talmud Study. The Schottenstein Edition. 73 vols. Ed. by Hersh Goldwurm et al. The Artscroll Series. New York, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1990–2004. Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections. Introduction by Yaacov Sussmann. Jerusalem: The Acad- emy of the Hebrew Language, 2001. The Targum of Canticles: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Ed. by Philipp S. Alexander. Aramaic Bible 17A. London: T & T Clark International, 2003. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions and Bibliography by Flo rentino García Martínez. Ed. by Elisha Qimron. Judean Desert Studies. Beer-Sheva: The Negev Press, 1996.

Index of Ancient People

Aaron 29–30, 34, 36, 41n33, 137, 160–61, Antiochus IX Eusebes 153 164, 185, 187, 269, 274–75, 276–87, 289, Antipater son of Jason 212, 248 291 Apollonius, son of Thraseas 46–47 Abraham 214–15 the “Mysarch” 57–58, 65, 68(?), 168, Absalom, Maccabean negotiator 74 179(?) Agrippa II, Herodian king 25n90, 29 “Taos” 182–84, 187, 196, 203 Appian of Alexandria 27 Areius I, king of Sparta 28, 214, 273 Archelaus, Herodian king 160n78 Ariarathes V, king of Capadocia 123 Alcimus (Jacimus), high priest 2, 6–7, Aristobulus, Jewish philosopher 16n40 14, 20, 30, 55n119, 86, 89–122, 127, 131–35, Aristobulus I, high priest 12, 279, 290n4 137–38, 144, 151, 163, 189–90, 197, 214, Aristobulus II, high priest 1n3, 279 216n66, 219, 242, 274–76, 286–87, 289 Aristobulus III, high priest 1n3, 30 Alexander, Seleucid high priest 183 Artaxias I, king of Armenia 69, 96n24 Alexander the Great 24, 35n2, 42n40, 273 Athenaeus of Naucratis 158 Alexander I Balas 5, 7, 123–25, 138, Attalus II, king of Pergamum 123, 155, 141–46, 148–55, 157–58, 162, 168–72, 182-83 174–84, 191–93, 195–97, 204–6, 221, 256, Attis, Pessinous high priest 155, 178, 200 262 Alexander Janneus, high priest 1n3, 12, Bacchides, Seleucid official 91, 93–96, 31, 122, 126, 129, 155, 165n106, 166, 168, 104–5, 111–12, 114–16, 118, 120–21, 126, 134, 201n17, 219n89, 265, 278, 289, 290n4 138, 153, 179, 198, 204n28, 210, 252, 286 Alexander Polyhistor 25, 214n60 Ben Sira 41, 270, 276, 280–82 Ananias, son of Nedebaeus 32 Berenice, Seleucid high priestess 158n64 Ananias, son of Onias (IV) 128 Bilgah, priestly course of 53, 127, 275, 277 Andriscus, claimer to the Seleucid throne 124 Caiaphas, high priest 2 Andronicus, epistates of Mt. Gerizim 56, Cendebeus, Seleucid official 23, 228 86, 157n62 Chelkias, son of Onias (IV) 128 Antigonus II, high priest 1, 24 Cleopatra III Euergetis 128 Antiochus III Theos 7, 36–37, 39–40, 44, Cleopatra Thea 171, 181, 192 62–64, 78, 107n62, 146–47, 149, 153–54, Darius I, Persian king 59 156, 163, 249 David, Israelite King 130, 257, 271, 276, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 10, 19, 24, 37, 280, 291 48–49, 54–60, 62n167, 63–65, 69–75, Demetrius I Soter 7, 19, 48n1, 77, 90–92, 77–78, 81, 85, 87, 95, 97, 123, 127, 135, 95–96, 98, 101–2, 104–5, 107–9, 112–13, 115, 146–47, 153, 157n62, 163, 177, 179, 183, 117, 119, 121, 123–26, 130–33, 138, 142–50, 200, 211n48, 227, 245, 262, 278, 286 152–53, 168–72, 182, 193, 197, 199, 214n56 Antiochus V Eupator 77–85, 87–88, 90, Demetrius II Nicator 7, 28, 107, 149, 92, 93n17, 99, 108, 117, 146, 153–54, 163, 152–53, 182–83, 191–92, 195–212, 214(?), 178, 183, 276 216, 221–22, 225, 229, 237–38, 240–45, Antiochus VI Epiphanes Dionysus 28, 247, 249–51, 256–59, 266–67 158n63, 195, 204–11, 217, 220, 222, 225, Diogenes, Epicurean philosopher 158 227, 238, 241–43, 249, 251 Diophanes, official in Maresha 44, 153, 179 Antiochus VII Sidetes 11, 25, 59, 148, Diotogenes, Pythagorean philosopher 39 203n24, 226, 235, 243n75, 245n85, 246, Diodorus Siculus 25n89, 62n167, 124n17, 251n103, 252, 264 192, 203, 213, 214n56 332 index of ancient people

Domitian, Roman emperor 31 John, father of Eupolemus 39, 50, 107n62 Dorion, Memphis priest 178 John (Joseph), Hasmonean brother Dorymenes, strategos (?) 44–45, 54(?), 19n55, 70, 114–15, 118 69(?), 153 John, Maccabean negotiator 74 Johnathan, son of Absalom 232 Eleazar son of Aaron 272, 280–82 Josephus, Flavius 20–34, 39–41, 49–50, Eleazar, Hasmonean brother 70, 82 55, 60–61, 69n10, 80, 84–86, 106–12, Eleazar, the Pharisee 278 117, 120–21, 124, 127, 129–30, 142n2, 144, Eumenes II, king of Pergamum 155, 183, 150, 156n50, 159–61, 169, 174–75, 181-82, 200n11 191–92, 195, 205, 209–14, 219–20, 228, Eupolemus, Jewish historian 25, 39, 231–41, 246, 248, 257n132–33, 262n144, 50(?), 214n60 265, 275–79, 286 Eupolemus, son of Hakkos 107 Judas Maccabeus 6, 10, 12–24, 30, 67–86, Eusebius, Christian writer 9, 234 89–90, 93, 95–117, 119, 122, 129, 137, 177, Euthydemus, cis-Tauric high priest 156 190, 213–214, 216n66, 232, 255, 260, 286 Justus of Tiberias 25 Gorgias, Seleucid official 70–71, 153 Lasthenes, Seleucid official 182–83, 199, Hammonius, Seleucid official 181, 191 201, 293 Hecateus of Abdera 214n60 Livy, Titus 25n89 Hegemonides, strategos 83, 93n16 Lysias, Seleucid official 69, 71, 73–75, Helenos, Cyprus high priest 178 77–78, 80–85, 87–88, 90–92, 99–100, 108, Heliodorus, chief-minister 17, 44–45, 117, 153, 183, 217, 276 47–48, 153, 200n11, 259 Lysimachus, deputy high priest 54, 100, Herod the Great 1, 22, 24, 160n78, 190, 137, 172 263n45 Hezekiah, Judean king 125n24, 130, 291 Mathias, high priest 137 Hyrcanus I (John), high priest 1n3, 2, Mattathias, the Hasmonean 10, 22, 24, 31, 10–15, 18, 22–25, 29, 33, 44n57, 61, 126, 38, 68, 105n55, 184n54, 231n29, 270, 272, 160n78, 173n7, 184n54, 188, 201n17, 279–80 202n19, 211n48, 212n52, 214n58, 216, 219, Mattathias Antigonus 235n45, 255, 269 230, 232–36, 240n64, 245n82, 246–48n, Mattathias, negotiator of Nicanor 97 251n104, 252, 257–58, 263–65, 278–79, Mattenai, priest 271, 273 283–84, 290–91 Melchizedek 265, 291 Hyrcanus II, high priest 1n3, 167n115, 168, Menelaus, high priest 6, 17, 20, 47, 49, 227n9, 248n, 278–79, 283 53–57, 63–65, 67, 70–75, 77, 79–82, Hyrcanus, the Tobiad 46–47, 55n114, 80 84–91, 95, 99–100, 112, 116–19, 127, 131, 132n65, 135, 137, 144, 147, 151, 163, 172–75, Imalkue, “the Arab” 205 200, 202n24, 215, 219, 270, 275, 277, 283, Ithamar, son of Aaron 272 286, 289 Mithradates I, Parthian king 249 Jaddua, high priest 42n40, 273 Moses 32, 160–61, 257, 279 Jason, high priest 20, 48–57, 64–65, 73, 75, 79, 81, 85, 115, 118–19, 127, 131, 135, 151, Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian king 59 163, 172, 175, 202n24, 214n58, 219, 270, Nehemiah, Judean governor 271 275, 277, 286, 289 Nicanor, Seleucid official 60(?), 70–71, 153 Jason of Cyrene 12, 16–19, 47 Nicanor, strategos of Judea 96–107, 112–14, Jason son of Eleazar 107 117, 137, 153, 154n36, 156, 177–78 J(eh)o(i)arib, priestly course of 10, 38, Nicanor, cis-Tauric high priest 153, 156 152, 240, 269–73, 285 Nicolaus of Damascus 22–25, 28–29, Jeroboam, Israelite king 29 246n84 Jerome 9, 234 Numenius, son of Antiochus 212, 248 index of ancient people 333

Olympiodorus, Seleucid high priest Samuel, Israelite prophet 257, 282 44–47, 54, 64, 72, 154–56, 177, 179, 260n140 Scopas, Ptolemaic official 36 Onias I, Jerusalem high priest 14n34, 41, Seleucus IV Philopator 37, 44–48, 64, 77, 214–15(?), 273 135, 153–54, 156, 177, 179, 200n11, 251, 259 Onias II, Jerusalem high priest 14n34, 28(?) Seron, Seleucid official 68 Onias III, Jerusalem high priest 2, 20, Shalomzion (Alexandra) 168, 278–79 23, 46–49, 53, 55–57, 64–66, 72, 85–86, Simon II, Oniad high priest 2, 41–43, 46, 87n61, 103n42, 132, 135, 147, 185, 261, 49, 55, 64, 129, 131, 185, 276, 280–82, 289 275–77, 282, 286, 289 Simon, Hasmonean high priest 1n3, 2, Onias IV, Leontopolis high priest 49, 53, 4–5, 7, 10, 12–15, 17, 20, 23, 28–31, 35, 55, 86–87, 91, 127, 174–75, 275–76 70–71, 97, 100, 105, 111–12, 114–15, 118–20, Origen 9 126, 131, 141, 144, 148, 157, 166, 169, 173, Orophernes, claimer to the Seleucid 175, 179–80, 190, 195, 203n24, 207–12, throne 123 216, 219, 222–23, 225–67, 269, 278–79, 283–84, 287–91 Phannias, high priest 3, 30 Simon, prostates of the temple 47, 53, Philip, pretender to the Seleucid 127, 132n66, 275 throne 77, 82 Solomon, Israelite king 39, 130, 228, 270 Philip, epistates of Jerusalem 56, 64, 69, 97 Strabo of Amaseia 25, 156n50 Philo of Alexandria 236, 279 Phinehas son of Eleazar 7, 260n, 269–70, Teucer, Olbian (high) priest 154 276, 280–84, 291 Theodoros, high priest 183 Polybius of Megalopolis 25n89, 26–27, Theodotus, Nicanor’s negotiator 97 62n167, 75n27, 92, 124, 178 Timarchus, king of Media 92, 96, 104n48, Polycrates of Argos, high priest 178 109, 123 Pompeius Trogus 107 Tryphon Diodotus 7, 28, 148n17, 192, Pompey, Roman general 12, 122, 189n82, 205–206, 208, 209–11, 220, 222, 225, 279 assume 231–34, 236, 238, 241–42, 244, 251, 263, Poseidonius of Apameia 192n87, 203 266 Poseidonoius, Nicanor’s negotiator 97 Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes 54, 69, 153 Vespasian, Roman emperor 22 Ptolemy, son of Thraseas (?) 40, 178 Vitellius, Roman governor 160n78 Ptolemy VI Philometor 86, 123, 171–72, 174, 181–82, 191–93, 205, 211n51, 275 Zabdiel, Arabian chieftain 192, 205n30 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 249, 262 Zadok 135, 269–71, 274, 276, 286, 291 Ptolemy X Lathyros 153 Zenas, Cilician high priest 153 Ptolemy, son of Abubus 255, 263–64 Zenophanes, Olbian (high) priest 155

Index of Ancient Sources

1. Hebrew Bible

Genesis 22:4 274n36 1 24 23:26–32 159n71 23:34 160 Exodus 23:34–36 159n72 2 280n62 6:23–26 281 Numbers 6:25 280 3:8 260n140 23:17 159n73 5:1–3 184 25:9 159n71 14:5 274n36 28 158 19:11–22 184 28:2 137n82, 158n66 25 280n62, 281n74 28:4 158n66 25:7 280 29–30 275 25:9–15 280n62 29:4–7 158 25:10–13 280, 281 29:7 161 25:11–13 280 29:10 161 29:7–11 159n71 29:12 161 31:19 184 29:29 158n66 31:19–24 187n64 29:35 160 31:25–31 187n64 30:10 159n71 31:10 158n66 Deuteronomy 34:23 159n73 12 187n64 39:1 158n66 20 187n64 39:1–32 158 16:13–15 159n72 39:27–29 187 16:16 159n73 40:1 160 17:14–20 128 40:12–13 160 20 232

Leviticus Joshua 4:23 253n111 6 232 4:28 253n111 8 232 8–10 275 10 232 8:7–9 158 24:33 282 8:14–15 161 8:23–24 161 Judges 8:33–36 160 20 232 16 159n71 16:4 136, 137n82, 158n66, 160, 1 Samuel 187 1:40 232 16:23 160 8:5–20 128 16:32 136, 137n82, 138n, 160, 161 13:13 257n128 21 186 30:21 232 21:10 136 21:10–12 185 2 Samuel 21:17 274n36, 274n36 7 280n66 21:21 274n36 336 index of ancient sources

1 Kings 12:11 76n33 2:35 35 12:12 76n33 2:45 257n128 12:26–33 30 Ezra 2 271 2 Kings 2:2 271 20:20 130 2:36–39 271 25:18 137 4:12 254 4:23 254 Ezekiel 6:1-12 42n42 34:23–24 186n62 7:2 274n33 37:24–25 186n62 7:2–5 274 37:25 257 7:12–26 42n42 43:19 274n37 8:2–14 270n9 40–48 186, 274n37, 276 8:15–20 270 44–48 186n62 8:16 265, 270n9 8:18–19 270n9 Haggai 9:1–2 63 2:13 184 Nehemiah Psalms 2:16 254 98:2 253n110 3:1 271 103:7 253n110 3:16 211n48 110 263 3:34 254 136 276n45 4:4 254 7 271 Esther 7:7 271 1:11 255 7:39–42 271 8:12 253n110 Daniel 10:1–40 271 2:15 253n111 10:3–9 271 3:4-6 59 10:28–30 63 3:10–11 59 10:39 274n36 6:7–10 59 11:10 270 6:26–28 59 11:10–14 271 7–11 13 12 272n16 7–12 13n25 12:1–7 271 7:25 76n33 12:5 54 8–12 13n25 12:6 270 7:16 253n111 12:9 270n9 8:13–14 76n33 12:10–11 41 9:27 33 12:11 273 11:20 47 12:12–21 271 11:28 56 12:18 54 11:30 56, 58 12:19 270–271 11:30–31 57 13:4 63 11:31 57, 61, 168 11:32 58, 63, 68 1 Chronicles 11:32–33 63 5:27–41 280 11:35 63 5:29–41 274 11:36 63 6:35–38 274 11:37–39 62 9:10 270 11:39 58, 59 9:10–12 271 12:7 33 23–27 272 index of ancient sources 337

24 272n16 24:15 235n41 24:1–19 271 28–29 228 24:3–5 272 28:4 257 24:3–6 274 24:4 31n125 2 Chronicles 24:6 255 12 30 24:7 38, 270 13:5 257 24:7–18 159n73, 271–272 29:16 76n31 24:14 54 32:5 125n24

2. Septuaginta (LXX; 1–2 Maccabees not included)

Greek Esther 50 2, 41, 261, 276–277 1:11 255 50:1 46, 280 50:1–4 43, 129, 134, 185 Tobit 50:5–21 43, 185 1:7 277 50:12–16 276

Judith 3 Maccabees 4:8 215n62 1:8 215n62 15:8 215n62 1:9 163n89 11:14 215n62 1:13 163n89

Sirach 4 Maccabees 44–50 276, 280, 282(2x) 4:5 47n72 45:6–22 276, 280 45:7–12 158 Wisdom 45:23–24 280, 282 18:24 158 45:23–25 276 45:24 260n140 Greek Daniel 45:25 276 2:15 253n111 48:17 130

3. Pseudepigrapha

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) Letter of Aristeas 85–90 69n6 68 235n45 90:8 86 78 235n45 90:9 64 96–99 159 90:9b–10 69 100–104 246n83 90:12 70 104 246n83 90:12–16 69 115 230 90:13–15 69n6 90:19 69n6 Psalms of Solomon 90:31 69n6 17 186n62 17 279 Jubilees 3:31 51n97 Testament of Judah 7:20 51n97 21.1–4 236 30 63n169 30:16 63 Assumption of Moses 34:2–9 103 8:1 279 37:1–38:14 103 338 index of ancient sources

4. Dead Sea Scrolls

A. Cairo Genizah i 4–5 70 Sirach (Ben Sira Hebrew Ms B) ii 189 45:23–24 280 ii–ix 189 45:24 260n140 ii 1 137 50 185 ii 1–6 187 50:24 282 ii 6–7 187 51:12a–o 276n45 iii 13 232 51:12i 276n45 v 1–5 70 51:24 280 vii 2 70n15, 187 vii 9–11 187 CD – Cairo Damascus Document vii 12–ix 9 187 viii 3 221 vii 14 187 viii 11–12 221 ix 4–5 187n66 ix 7–8 187 B. Qumran ix 7–9 188 1QpHab – Pesher Habakkuk ix 8–9 187–188 i 13 121n5 x–xix 189 viii 8 121n5 xv 187 viii 8–9 122, 166 xv–xix 189 viii 10–11 167, 173 xv 4 188 viii 11 167n118, 173 xvi 13–14 188 viii 12 173, 187 xviii 5–6 188 viii 13 167 xix 11–13 188 viii 13–ix 2 221 //4QMa–f (4Q491–496) viii 16 121n5 4QMd l. 4 137 viii 16–17 167 4QMc ll. 4–6 188 ix 4–5 122 ix 6–7 122 1QHa – Hodayot ix 9 121n5 xii 5–12 176 ix 9–10 176 ix 9–12 220 4QpIsac (4Q163) – Pesher Isaiah ix 9–19 176 xxx 3 121n5 ix 16 121n5 xi 2–6 173 4QpHosb (4Q167) – Pesher Hosea xi 4 121n5 ii 3 122 xi 4–8 164, 176 xi 8–xii 3 221 4QpNah (4Q169) – Pesher Nahum xi 12 121n5 3–4 I 11 122n7 xi 12–14 167 xii 2 121n5 4QpPsa (4Q171) – Pesher Psalm xii 7–9 167–168, 173, 190 1, 3–4 iii 15 132 xii 7–10 167 3–10 iv 8 121n5 xii 8 121n5 3–10 iv 7–9 176 xii 9–10 173 3–10 iv 9–13 221

1QS – Serekh ha-Yaḥad/Rule of the 4Qpseudo-Danielc ar (4Q245) Community frg. 1 109 viii 13 165n101 1 i 10 166

1QM (1Q33) – Megillat ha-Milḥamah/War 4QHistorical Text A (4Q248) Scroll ll. 8–9 56 i–ix 189, 194 l. 6 56 i 2 68, 189n82 l. 9 57n134 index of ancient sources 339

4QMiscelaneous Rules (4Q265) 4QApocryphal Psalm and vii 3 274n36 Prayer (4Q448) ii 2 166 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah (4Q285) frg. 5 l. 5 186 4QJonathan (4Q523) //11Q14 1 i 14 186 l. 2 221 l. 3 221 4QMishmarot (4Q320–330) 4Q320 1 ii 3 272n21 11QTa (11Q19) – Temple Scroll 4 iii 7 272n21 ii–xiii 136 4Q321 i 5 272n21 xv–xvi 161, 188 ii 7 272n21 xv 15 137 iv 3 272n21 xv 15–16 161 vi 2 272n21 xv 18–xvi 3 161 vi 9 272n21 xvi 3 161 4Q329 ii 2 272n21 xvi 4 186 ii 4 272n21 xxiii 9 137 xxv 10–xxvii 10 136 4QMMT [4Q394–399] xxv 16 137 A 75–82 63 xxx–xlviii 136 B 1 164 xxxi 4 137 B 3–5 63 xxxv 1–9 136–137 B 8–9 162 xxxv 5–6 136 B 17 164, 277, 287 xxxv 6 136–137 B 29 164 xxxv 6–7 136, 161 B 29–30 164 lvi–lix 128 B 49 164 lvi 12–lvii 19 128 B 59–61 63 lvi 12–lix 21 186 B 60–62 164 lvii–lviii 186 B 63–64 164 lvii 3 187n66 B 68 63 lvii 5–11 221 B 79 164, 277, 287 lvii 6 187n66 B 82 164, 277, 287 lviii 5–16 232 C 7–10 164 lviii 11–15 70n15 C 18–26 163, 167 lviii 18 137 C 26–32 163, 167 lviii 18–21 159, 186 lxi 15 186n61 4QSapiential Work B (4Q419) lxvii–lxviii 39 i 5 274n36 //11QTb (11Q20) 161n82 4QTb (4Q524) 128

5. New Testament

John 7:2 159n72

6. Philo of Alexandria

Legatio ad Gaium De specialibus legibus 278 236 1.82–97 159 1.186–188 159n71 De vita Mosis 2.109–135 159 De virtutibus 53–54 279 340 index of ancient sources

7. Flavius Josephus

Jewish War Books 2–3 21 Book 1 22–23, 25, 29, 31 2.119–166 25 1.1–30 22 4.147–154 3n15 1.3 20–21 4.164 23 1.6 21 5.137 58 1.19 19 5.139 246 1.30 21 5.142–145 130 1.31–32 55 5.193–194 39 1.31–33 22, 86 5.230–235 159 1.31–46 19 5.419 31 1.31–2.227 22n69 6.125–126 39 1.32 76 1.36–37 22 Book 7 22 1.36–69 22 7.284–285 219 1.36–357 22 7.420–436 22, 86 1.37 22 7.423 132n66 1.38 110 7.427 127 1.38–47 22 7.431 55 1.39 58, 75 1.41 82 Jewish Antiquities 1.41–45 22, 24, 82 Books 1–9 27n98 1.45 83 Books 1–10 27n98 1.46 82–83, 142n1 Books 1–11 26, 33 1.48 212–213 1.5 22, 24, 26n96, 31 1.48–49 23, 205, 220 1.8–9 25 1.49 220, 233 1.17 26 1.50 25, 28, 245–246 3.84 32n128 1.51 28 3.159 158 1.51–53 228 3.191 161 1.53 23, 30, 244 3.192 29 1.54 23 3.240–243 159n71 1.54–60 258, 263 4.194–198 32n131 1.54–69 24 5.115 30 1.55 264 7.363 273 1.56 261 7.365 38n21 1.57–66 12 7.393 252n107 1.60 264n152 8.229–230 29 1.61 126, 264 10.218 26n96 1.62–63 44n57 Book 11 26 1.63 230n24 11.329–339 42n40 1.64–66 283 11.347 41, 273 1.67 258, 278 Books 12–13 25, 27–31, 33–34, 111, 117 1.67–68 265 Books 12–20 26, 33 1.68 12, 23, 257–258, 278 12.11–118 26 1.75 246 12.126–127 25 1.85 219n89 12.133–138 37 1.93 126 12.138 40–41, 50, 178 1.107 168, 278 12.138–144 39, 50, 78, 134, 146 1.109 168, 278 12.138–146 62, 64, 72, 149, 163 1.118 246 12.138–153 147 1.358–673 22 12.140–141 42 1.474 263n145 12.142 43, 50 index of ancient sources 341

12.145–146 39 12.409–412 112 12.148 153, 199 12.413 111–12, 116 12.156–159 49 12.413–414 112 12.160–236 47 12.414 6n20, 30, 89, 105–106, 12.224–225 49 109–110, 117, 286 12.225 46 12.414–418 110, 117 12.225–228 28, 147 12.414–419 112 12.226–227 214 12.415 50 12.228–229 47 12.415–418 105 12.228–234 47n74 12.419 6n20, 30, 89, 105, 117, 286 12.229 47 12.420 111 12.237 86 12.434 6n20, 30, 89, 111–12, 117, 12.237–238 49 286 12.237–239 48 Book 13 29 12.237–241 49 13.11 28n107 12.237–412 19 13.18–22 28n107 12.237–13.214 25, 27, 30 13.22 120 12.239 55 13.22–34 120n1 12.240 50, 55 13.25 120 12.241 50 13.31 120 12.246–247 55, 180 13.35 111, 124 12.247 56 13.36 124 12.248 55, 57 13.41 130 12.248–256 56 13.42 129, 144 12.251 57 13.43 142n2 12.252 58, 196 13.44 169 12.253–254 60 13.46 30, 111 12.258–263 60 13.48 150 12.258–264 61 13.51 150 12.261 60, 68n3, 179 13.54 28n109 12.263 60&n148 13.58 28n109 12.264 60, 179 13.58–61 169 12.293–297 69 13.61 28n107 12.316 75 13.62 132n66 12.318 30, 257n126 13.62–73 49n85, 86, 174 12.320–321 76n33 13.62–79 174 12.322 76n33 13.80 28n107, 174 12.362 80 13.80–85 172 12.373–374 22 13.83 172 12.378 83 13.84–85 175, 177 12.382 82-83 13.85 172 12.383 217 13.86 111, 182, 209 12.383a 83 13.87 182 12.383a–384 85 13.88 182 12.383b–385 49n85, 84–85, 133, 275 13.95 28n109 12.384–385 85 13.102 182, 184n53 12.385 89–90, 275 13.103–104 191 12.386 275 13.106–107 191 12.387 86, 132n66, 276 13.106–108 181 12.387–388 49n85, 86, 275 13.106–109 28n109 12.389 92 13.109–110 192 12.391 90 13.111–112 192 12.393–397 111 13.113 192 12.402 96n25 13.114 192 342 index of ancient sources

(cont. Ant.) 13.219–224 28 13.116 192 13.223–224 251n103 13.118 192 13.225 28 13.119 144, 192 13.225–227 228 13.120 196 13.226 23 13.121 196 13.227 29, 248 13.124 198 13.228 29, 112, 245 13.125 28 13.228–235 258, 263 13.126 147, 200 13.229 264 13.127 199n7 13.230 261 13.129–130 203–204 13.235 264 13.131 205&n30 13.236–248 11 13.134–142 203 13.236–249 264 13.135–136 28n109 13.244 252n107 13.145 208–9 13.246 125n23 13.145–147 207 13.246–247 245n82, 252 13.146 209 13.247 246 13.164–165 213 13.249 126 13.165 213 13.249–281 12 13.166 28n109, 216n67 13.250 25 13.171–173 25, 28&n110, 278n53 13.254–257 44n57 13.174 211 13.257–258 184n54, 230n24 13.175–179 211 13.275–283 257n132, 283 13.179 211 13.282–283 257n132, 261 13.180 28n111, 211n51 13.285–287 127 13.181 231 13.288 258, 278 13.181–182 217 13.288–298 25, 28n110, 278n53, 265, 13.184–186 28n109, 249 277, 278n53 13.187 28, 220 13.291–292 278 13.188 220n91 13.293–296 278 13.191 220 13.296–298 278 13.192 220 13.298 278 13.192–196 220 13.299 12, 257–58, 278 13.196b–228a 28 13.300 257n132 13.197 231 13.349–351 128 13.198–200 232 13.372–373 159n73, 265, 278 13.199 124n20 13.377 126 13.201 232, 239 13.407 168, 278 13.202 28n111 13.408 168, 278 13.204 28n107 14.41 279 13.207 233 14.41–45 107, 213 13.208–209 234 14.145–148 27, 29, 248, 262n144 13.210–212 234 14.147 249 13.211 236 14.150–155 248 13.212 30, 28n109, 111 14.233 107 13.212–213 239 14.247–255 214n58 13.213 31, 111, 239, 241, 244 14.490 1, 31n123 13.213–214 33 15.56 1n3 13.214 25, 29, 112, 239n59 15.403 246 13.215 25, 28&n111 15.409 246 13.215–216 246 15.417 39 13.215–217 28, 246&n84 16.184–186 24, 31n123 13.217 246 16.187 24, 29, 31 13.218–222 238, 241 17.163 31n123 index of ancient sources 343

17.165–167 137 Life 18.11 21, 22n68, 21 1 31 18.90–95 160n78, 190 1–2 31 18.91–95 160n78 1–6 34 18.94 160 2 273 20.224–251 26, 30, 34, 109, 117, 275 3 31 20.225 29 4 29–30 20.225–226 276 5 20–21 20.225–240 144 412 21–22 20.226 29 423 21 20.227 3n15, 3n15 430 25, 31 20.229 30 20.235 85–86, 89, 276 Against Apion 20.235–237 275 1.1 25 20.235–238 111 1.36 30 20.236 127n32, 132n66 1.37–43 33 20.237 30, 89, 109–111, 116, 144 1.47–49 22 20.237–238 111 1.50 21 20.238 30, 143-44 2.36 30 20.239 30, 239 2.43 38, 199 20.240 31, 245, 263 2.48–56 127 20.242 168 2.50 127 20.244–251 26 2.83–84 25 20.248 1 2.108 38n21 20.258 21, 22n67, 21 2.145–189 32–33 20.259–266 24 2.165 32 20.261 275 2.185 32 20.266 31 20.266–267 31 20.267 24n76, 24n76, 31

8. Rabbinic Literature

Mishnah m. Middot m. Yoma 1:6 256 1:1–2 137 1:5 161 Tosefta 3:9 137 t. Yoma 4:1 137 1:4 137 7 159n67 7:1 137 Talmud 7:5 158 b. Berakot m. Sukkah 29a 278n55 5:6 273 b. Yoma 5:7 159n73 12b 137 5:8 38n21 b. Sukkah m. Ta‘anit 56b 38n21 4:2 273 b. Megillah m. Baba Qamma 11a 105n55 9:12 273 b. Ta‘anit m. Horayot 18b 103n47 3:1–6 137n85 b. Soṭah m. Tamid 33b 257n132 5:1 38n21 344 index of ancient sources b. Qiddushin Sefer Ha-Qabbalah 66a 265, 278 2.57 105n55 70b 31n122 Josippon Targum Canticles 4:18 55n119 6.7 105n55

Pesiqta Rabbati 2.1 [§2] 105n55

9. Classical Authors

Appian Justinus Junianus Syrian Wars Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ Histories 45 48, 69 34.3.5–9 92 46 77–78 35.1.1–4 123 47 96, 123 35.1.1–5 124 66 69, 77 35.1.6–7 124n20 67 123n12, 192, 250 35.1.6–8 123 68 205&n32, 206n33, 238, 35.1.9 125, 143 251n103 35.1.9–11 169 35.2.1–2 182 Athenaeus 35.2.2 181 5.211a–b 158 35.2.3 192 10.440b 124 35.2.4 192n88 36.1.2–6 250 Diodorus Siculus 36.1.7 238 Library of History 36.3.9 107, 214n56 1.31.2 211 38.9.2–3 250 9d–10.1 192 41.6.6 249n94 28.22 56 30.70.2 86n58 Licinanus 31.16 62 28.7–9 77 31.17a 69 28.38–39 78 31.27a 96 31.32 123, 124n17 Livius Titus 31.32a 123, 155 Histories 31.40a 124 32.6 57 32.9c 181, 192, 205 42.6.6–12 49 32.9d–10.1 205n30 33 25n89 Periochae 33.3 181, 192, 205 5 192n88 33.4a 205&n33, 208 46 92 33.4.1 201, 203 50 123n12, 181 33.4.2–3 203 52 123n12, 169, 192, 205&n33, 33.7.9 203 209 33.28 238 55 205, 206n33, 238 33.28a 238n58 34/35.1.1–2 264 Oxyr. Periochae 34/35.1.3–4 58n137 22 249n92 34/35.1.4–5 264 40.2 107, 126n28, 213, 279 index of ancient sources 345

Plinius, the Elder 260 F 38 69 Natural History 260 F 53 69 6.136–139 69 260 F 56 69

Plutarch Stephanus of Byzantium Lycurgus FGH (Ed. by Jacoby) 20.3 214n60 273 F 120 214n60

Reg. imp. apophth. F 183 Stobaeus Anthology Polybius 4.7.61 39 Histories 3.5.2 123 Strabo 3.5.3 169 Geography 5.65 40 10.4.10 156n50 18.55.4–6 178 11.9.2 123 27.13 178 11.11.2 123 30.25 148 11.14.5 69 30.25–26 62 11.14.15 69 31.1.6 74n27 12.2.3 156&n48 31.2 178n28 12.2.6 156 31.2.1–14 78 12.3.32 156 31.8.6 78 12.3.33 156n50 31.9 58n136, 69 12.3.34 156n48 31.11–15 92 12.5.3 155 31.14.4 96n25 12.8.9 156n49 31.33.1–5 107 12.8.11 148n15 32.12 123 13.4.2 169 33.15 123, 142 14.5.10 154, 178 33.18 123, 142 16.2.2 231 33.18.14 123 16.2.8 124n20, 192 33.19 124 16.2.10 205&nn31–33 38.9–18 182n49 16.2.19 209n42 39.7.1 192 16.2.21 231 16.2.28 211, 230 Porphyrius of Tyre 16.2.29 230 FGH (Hrg. Jacoby) 260 F 32.13 77n36 Tacitus 260 F 32.14 92, 169 Histories 260 F 32.15 192 5.8 60n148 260 F 32.16 249

10. Christian Authors

Eusebius Caesariensis Georgius (Syncellus) Praeparatio Evangelica Chronicon 9.30.5 62n164 544 105n55 9:35 252n108 Jerome Onomasticon Prologus Scripturarum 132.16–17 234 PL 23.958 234n38 PL 28.602–603 9 History of the Church 6.25.2 9 346 index of ancient sources

John of Antioch John Malalas Historia chronica Chronographiae 132.1-2 86n58 8.263 55 8.264 60n147

11. Inscriptions and Papyri

Astronomical Diaries (Babylonia) Dušek, Inscriptions AO No. 1 60 17265 ´Rev.´ 26´–27´ 143 Jalabert and Mouterde, BibMes IGLS II/2 24 12 ´Rev.´ 15´ 143 No. 992 156n53 BM 992 ll. 31–33 259 35603 ´Rev.´ 10´–15´ 86n58 JIGRE AD 3 Nos. 29–104 86n60 -141 F ´Rev.´ 25´–26´ 249 Ma, Antiochos II -143 A No. 49 156n55 ´Rev.´ 18´–22´ 208 -144 Magen, Mount Gerizim Óbv. 14´–15´ 193 2.384 282 -144 Óbv. 34´–37´ 193 SEG -149 A 8.169 39 ´Rev.´ 1´–14´ 143, 169 20.194 178 -155 A 20.196 178 ´Rev.´ 8´–17´ 123 20.197 178 -156 A 26.1451 153, 155 ´Rev.´ 18´–20´ 123 26.1451–1453 155 -160 29.1613 40n29 A Óbv.´ 2´ 92 37.1010 -161 ll. 18–20 154 A Left Edge 92n12, 169 ll. 31–32 156 ll. 44–46 259 Boffo, Iscrizioni 41.1574 40, 47n72 No. 5 156n52 l. 2 226n6 No. 13 230n26 ll. 5–6 178 ll. 9–11 178 CII/P l. 13 200n11 No. 1 62n170 l. 19 178 No. 2 39 ll. 21–22 178 l. 29 178 CIJ 46.1519 156 2.1140 39 53.1852 62n170 2.1451–1530 86n60 57.1838 (Maresha) 2.1184 230n26 l. 1 179 l. 2 47 CPJ ll. 1–6 44 1.19 52n109 ll. 1–7 69 1.132 127 l. 7 54, 153 1.244–246 127n35 ll. 7–12 44 index of ancient sources 347 ll. 11–12 45 244 ll. 28–29 156 ll. 12–15 45 244 l. 24 154 l. 13 153 257 153 ll. 13–18 45 290 183 ll. 18–22 45 291–296 183 ll. 20–23 46 315 155 ll. 23–27 45 737 ll. 5–6 178 l. 25 260n140 l. 29 45 P.Polit.Iud. ll. 31–33 45 Nos. 1–20 43n53 ll. 32–33 154, 177 144/3–133/2 43n53 frg. E ll. 10–12 259 frg. E ll. 10–15 226n6 Stern, GLAJJ No. 1.64 107n65, 214n56 OGIS (ed. Dittenberger) No. 2.464a 76n33 104 183 105 183 Welles, RC 224 l. 14 158n64 Nos. 36/37 158n64 230 40 No. 44 154n37, 156n53 230 ll. 1–3 178 Nos. 55–61 155n46 244 ll. 21–24 156 No. 56 200n11

12. Samaritan Sources

A. Samaritan Pentateuch p. 390 ll. 6–7 281n71 (Ed. by von Gall) p. 391 ll. 12–13 281n71 Exod 6:23–26 281 Num 25:10–13 281 Šalšāla (chron. 5) Deut 12:5 284 (ed. Gaster) 281 Deut 27:4 284 Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ‘l-Fath B. Chronicles (ed. Stenhouse) Tūlīda (chron. 3) p. 142 283n84 (ed. Neubauer) 281