Judean Cultural Resistance to the Persian and Hellenistic States: The Beginnings of a Jewish Kingdom

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Delecki, Abram

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 02/10/2021 21:50:54

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632545 JUDEAN CULTURAL RESISTANCE TO THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC STATES: THE BEGINNINGS OF A JEWISH KINGDOM

by

Abram Delecki

______Copyright © Abram Delecki 2019

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2019

1

Acknowledgments Thank you to my family who have supported me in this project. Thank you to the faculty and Department of History personnel who have been great help with this project.

3 Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...5

Chapter 1 – The Persian Period………………………………………………………..6

Chapter 2 – Alexander the Great and the Early Hellenistic Period…………………....28

Chapter 3 – The Maccabees and a new Jewish Kingdom……………………………...48

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...... 64

Works Cited……….…………………………………………………………………....68

4 Abstract The date of 539 B.C.E. was significant for the people of ancient Judea for two reasons. First, it marked the rediscovery of and the rebuilding process for their sacred Temple in Jerusalem.

Secondly it was the start of the inclusion of Judea into a large, cosmopolitan Persian Empire and then into the newer Hellenistic Kingdoms of the late 4th century B.C.E. As a result of this inclusion the Jews would be presented with a number of difficulties. A major one would be the cultural conflicts that would plague Judean society for centuries, mostly connected with marriages to non-Jews and various degrees of religious and cultural syncretism with (mostly)

Greek neighbors. The other would be the questions of how Judea should function within the broader kingdom in which it was located, what kind of autonomy the Jews should receive and how this autonomy should be maintained. These questions would lead to disputes and, by the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E., outright revolt.

5 CHAPTER 1 – The Persian Period Introduction For a race or culture to write its own collective history is an impressive task. Their closeness and access to sources allow them to create a fuller history than would be possible for an outside observer, far removed from the events and sources. As a rule, scholars give more weight to and put more focus on contemporary authors or even witnesses to the events they write about than works created centuries after the events described. Yet, even though we acknowledge the significance of first-hand observer accounts of historical events, it is important not to wholly rely on one author’s or collective’s view of affairs. Indeed, one must carefully scrutinize the origins of such written sources. Are the versions that survive intact the same as the originals they are based on? What events or periods affected the writer’s tone or view of the narrative? Can we use other documentation to elaborate on or refute a claim? These and other questions all modern historians must consider when looking at sources, especially those that demonstrate little agreement with other sources. In the ancient world, the Jews were a people who were very concerned about the maintenance of both their cultural and political identity. This cultural identity was heavily connected to their religious devotion, or, to be exact, their covenant with their God. According to

Webster’s dictionary, this covenant was “the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.” Judging from this, the Jews lived at the whim of their God. When he was benevolent and kind, the Jews prospered and grew; when he was angry, those who angered him were diminished or even destroyed. The covenant was maintained by the Jews following cultural practices, traditional religious laws and interpretations of prophetic omens. Yet though their covenant with God did not change, the circumstances of the Jews often did. One thing that repeatedly changed for Judea over the centuries was its connection to other

6 terrestrial kingdoms. The period from 539 B.C.E. to 160 B.C.E. represented a unique time for

Jews in the ancient world, a new beginning of sorts. To have a beginning, of course, something must end. This ending occurred in 587 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was destroyed by

Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 B.C.E.). The devastation was thorough: All the vessels of the house of God, large and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king and of his officials, all these he brought to Babylon. They burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its precious vessels. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia…1

As the Jews were only in exile for a few decades, there were among them members of older generations who were familiar with the old ways, but also those from newer generations growing up under foreign customs. Judea in the past had always served as something of a crossroads of cultures and ideas, but that was when it had been controlled by a strong central power—the priests or the kings. Now there were no surviving institutions to enforce customs and traditions.

The issue for the Jews in resettling their old state was to decide how accepting they would be of foreign customs and influence. The fall of Jerusalem also highlights one of the more troubling issues for the Jews: their proximity to major Near Eastern and later Hellenistic powers. The Jews had had the practical experience of losing Judea once and they were determined not to suffer the same fate again. As we shall see, future resistance would not be violent, at least not initially. Instead, it would be through maintaining religious and moral traditions, with violence as a last resort. However, no amount of resistance or patriotism would bring stability and coordination; for that there would have to be a stable secular authority working with God’s covenant. Fittingly, the end of the period under consideration here coincided with another beginning: the beginning of Jewish sovereignty with the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 B.C.E.).

1 2 Chronicles, 36.18-20 (NRSV).

7 The focus of this project is not the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem or of the entire

Jewish exile itself, but rather the Jewish resettlement of Jerusalem and Judea, first under Persian masters and then under Hellenistic monarchs. I will analyze how the Jews viewed themselves in relation to these different empires and the question of whether they were able to maintain their cultural independence while not sacrificing their political independence. I will also consider what the responsibility of these different empires was to Judea and its peoples. Finally, in regards to the Revolt of the Maccabees, I will examine whether it was driven by dutiful Jews oppressed by apostate Hellenistic customs imposed by deceitful leaders, or opportunists striking at a decaying

Seleucid Empire.

Issues with the Sources The Biblical Narratives Any study of Jewish history or culture must include the Bible and all its different versions.2 Yet the data from this collection—not to mention the various pieces of the collection itself—are problematic for a variety of reasons. The first issue to be addressed is whether an accurate chronology of events exists in the biblical texts. Ultimately, accurate and reliable historical narratives cannot be created from this source.3 Readers must instead focus on what topics or ideas a chronicler or author highlights in his sections. This raises another concern:

When were the Bible and its related texts actually conceived and written? Much recent scholarship acknowledges that the Second Temple Period (540 B.C.E.–70 C.E.) marks the beginning of systematic attempts to organize the biblical manuscripts.4 What this means for our

2 For the purpose of this project the Septuagint will provide the primary biblical narrative. The reason for this is because the Septuagint was produced during the Hellenistic Era (323–30 B.C.E.) and reflects elements of the Jewish experience at the time. In addition, it is possibly mentioned in The Letter of Aristeas (2nd Century B.C.E). Any discrepancies between the biblical texts used here will be noted.

3 Ackroyd,136.

4 Noll 216, Mroczek 33, Morton Smith 244. Noll differs from Mroczek and Smith in his chronology, placing the origins near the Hasmonean Period (140–116 B.C.E.). Mroczek believes that other texts and interpretations coexisted alongside earlier biblical versions. Smith dates many of the original works to the

8 project is that a high degree of accuracy in the biblical accounts of events contemporary with our period cannot be expected. Fortunately, other contemporary documentation such as the

Elephantine Papyri elaborate on, and in some instances even refute, the preserved biblical narratives. A third conundrum is the relative mix of genres that exists in the biblical narratives: autobiography (Nehemiah), prophecy (Haggai) and Hellenistic novel (Esther).5 These narratives also contain subgenres within them, such as genealogies and family records, that break up the main narratives and cause confusion about the subject material. There are also long gaps between texts that are not explained, and information or events described in one book may not be not mentioned or explained in the previous one. This has led scholars to look to archaeological data and contemporary pagan documentation for corroborating evidence.6 The issue with this approach is that the biblical books are so insular, and limited to events in Judea or Jerusalem, that it is impossible to date or even connect them to other sources. Yet though the biblical texts were written by different authors, were composed in different languages7 and were possibly even written centuries after the events they describe, they are nevertheless important because they served as the cultural history of the Jews and reestablished and elaborated on the Jewish covenant with their God. In addition, for the period to be examined here, the biblical accounts also elaborate upon Jewish political beliefs.

Josephus Titus Flavius Josephus (previously Yosef ben Matityahu) lived from 37 to 100 C.E. under the Roman Empire. A Judean Jew by birth, Josephus was initially an antagonist of the Romans, Persian Period (6th–5th centuries B.C.E.).

5 Smith, 243-244.

6 Betlyon, 637. He uses the coinage found in Judea to elaborate on or refute developments in Judea by highlighting new iconography, techniques or language.

7 Smith 250. In the Hebrew versions of Ezra Book 4.6 to Book 5.16, Aramaic is employed when referencing Persian activities and investigations. According to Smith this change was made so that it would demonstrate to gentile readers the broad support of the Persian Empire for the Second Temple.

9 and then a welcomed guest. His close connection to Rome and important Romans exposed him to Greco-Roman culture.8 Perhaps surprisingly, however, as a source he is not always reliable and unbiased.9 Josephus lived in a strange time. The famous Second Temple, which is the focus of so many biblical narratives, had been burned (70 C.E.) and left in ruins by the Romans.

Josephus’s own people were either scattered, enslaved or barely living in a ravaged country. He willingly served the Flavian court in his residencey at Rome (71–100 C.E.) to aid the same men who helped destroy his country, even taking up a Romanized name. He wrote many works intended to defend and glorify the Jewish people, one such work being the Antiquities of the

Jews (Antiquitates Judaicae) (93 or 94 C.E.), an account of the origins of the Jews and his contribution to the Hellenistic historical tradition.10 What was Josephus defending his people from? Most likely the anti-Jewish bias that existed in many Greek works of his day. Any why the defense? Because in Josephus’s mind, Greek Gentiles were unfamiliar with the true laws and texts of the Jews.11

8 Feldman, 314.

9 Feldman, 315. His previous experiences in Judea and connections to Rome led Josephus to pick his words carefully. He is especially careful to not insult his patrons.

10 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX.12: “I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books” (λέγω δὴὴ θαρσήσας ἤ δὴ διαὴ τὴὴν τ ῶ ν προτεθέντων συντέλειαν, ὅ τι μὴδειὴς ἂ ν ἕ τερος ἠδυνήθὴ θελήσας μήτε Ἰ ουδα ῖ ος μήτε ἀ λλόφυλος τὴὴν πραγματείαν ταύτὴν ο ὕ τως ἀ κριβ ῶ ς ε ἰ ς Ἕ λλὴνας ἐξενεγκε ῖ ν). He implies here that his account is the most accurate ever written by either Jew or, more importantly, Greek.

11 As Josephus tells us (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX.11), although the Jews themselves do not willingly seek out Greek knowledge, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations” (ἔ χω γαὴ ρ ὁ μολογούμενον παραὴ τ ῶ ν ὁμοεθν ῶ ν πλε ῖ στον α ὐ τ ῶ ν καταὴ τὴὴν ἐ πιχώριον παιδείαν διαφέρειν καιὴ τ ῶ ν Ἑ λλὴνικ ῶ ν δεὴ γραμμάτων ἐσπούδασα μετασχε ῖ ν τὴὴν γραμματικὴὴν ἐ μπειρίαν ἀ ναλαβών, τὴὴν δεὴ περιὴ τὴὴν προφοραὴ ν ἀ κρίβειαν πάτριος ἐ κώλυσεν συνήθεια) (Antiquitates Judaicae)

10 The Antiquities of the Jews is a valuable source because it extends beyond the biblical sources and covers later events, although there are problems with it.12 When Josephus’ sources can be corroborated by others, it is easy to distinguish his own unique takes on the material. It is when he uses unnamed sources or takes snippets from whole texts unavailable to us that uncertainty arises. Was Josephus using suspicious accounts or attempting to misuse earlier sources to better fit his historical narrative? His stated audience is the larger Greco-Roman world,13 and so, while he was trying to be accurate, he also had to accommodate the tastes of his readers. In addition, Josephus leaves gaps in his narrative that he never addresses. This creates more questions. Still, as a writer focusing on Jewish culture and politics with access to sources that modern scholars are lacking, Josephus is a very valuable source. He is also important because he reflects Jewish attitudes about the validity of the biblical narratives, and the fact that he employs them proves that these works were valued by (at least some) Jews as historical documents. There is real value in in learning what the Jews believed had happened, even if their beliefs did not always align with the truth.

The Return In 539 B.C.E., after being freed from their Babylonian captivity, a large group of Jews began their journey to resettle a devastated Jerusalem. According to Ezra,14 The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred sixty,15 besides their male and female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three

12 For certain events Josephus provides full details and accounts, while for others he barely mentions any facts. In some cases he does not provide any details at all, but instead just skips from date to date. In those sections where there is no interconnected contemporary documentation, I will note the discrepancies and even possible motivations of Josephus.

13 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, preface 2.

14 πᾶ σα δεὴ ἡ ἐ κκλὴσία ὡ ς ε ἷ ς τέσσαρες μυριάδες δισχίλιοι τριακόσιοι ἑ ξήκοντα χωριὴς δούλων α ὐ τ ῶ ν καιὴ παιδισκῶ ν α ὐ τ ῶ ν ο ὗ τοι ἑ πτακισχίλιοι τριακόσιοι τριάκοντα ἑ πτά καιὴ ο ὗ τοι ᾄ δοντες καιὴ ᾄ δουσαι διακόσιοι ἵπποι α ὐ τ ῶ ν ἑ πτακόσιοι τριάκοντα ἕ ξ ἡ μίονοι α ὐ τ ῶ ν διακόσιοι τεσσαράκοντα πέντε κάμὴλοι α ὐ τ ῶ ν τετρακόσιοι τριάκοντα πέντε ὄ νοι α ὐ τ ῶ ν ἑ ξακισχίλιοι ἑ πτακόσιοι ε ἴ κοσι (Ezra, 2.64–2.67).

15 Josephus states that the number was forty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.1).

11 hundred thirty-seven; and they had two hundred male and female singers. They had seven hundred thirty-six horses, two hundred forty-five mules, four hundred thirty-five camels, and six thousand seven hundred twenty donkeys.16

This marked the beginning of the resettlement process, but not a complete and total resettlement of the dispersed Jewish population. Indeed, earlier in Ezra, the author notes, “Now these were the people of the province who came from those captive exiles whom King Nebuchadnezzar of

Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia.”17 So only a select group of Jews returned to

Jerusalem. No mention is made of Jews coming from the other parts of the Persian Empire.18 The author of Ezra also makes a distinction between these Jews and any other previous Jewish settlers already living in Judea before the return.19 One of the likely reasons for creating this distinction was that, as Judea and Jerusalem developed, questions arose about what qualified one to be a Jew. As a result, prominent Jewish authorities created their own definitions that only took specific criteria into account. While the first group in Ezra can be considered the original provincials, it is difficult to pin down when the resettlement process actually began. Ezra himself first appears as a second major Jewish group comes from Babylon, dating around the reign of Artaxerxes I (465–424

B.C.E.) or Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.E.). This group is referred to as “those who had come from captivity, the sons of foreign residence.”20 Even using the earliest possible date range, i.e. between the original fall of Babylon (539 B.C.E.) and the seventh year of Artaxerxes’s rule (458

B.C.E.?),21 a gap of 81 years is represented, a significant time span that cannot be easily

16 Ezra, Book 2 (NRSV).

17 Ibid.

18 Nodet, 125.

19 Smith, 219.

20 οἱ ἐλθόντες ἀποὴ τῆ ς αἰ χμαλωσίας υἱ οι ὴ τῆ ς παροικίας (Ezra Book 8.35 [NRSV]).

21 Ezra Book 7.7 (NRSV).

12 explained. It is also not mentioned in the sources. A possible solution may be found in Josephus, however: when he describes the first exile group he adds the detail that “many stayed in

Babylon, not willing to abandon their property.”22 Could this explain why there was still a sizeable Jewish population in Babylon? Regardless, this group is never referenced in the sources unless via connection to specific people, in this case Ezra.23 Josephus attempts to correct the time gap between the two groups of exiles by locating Ezra in the time of Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.E.).

Such placement would yield a smaller gap and situate Ezra closer to the completion of the

Second Temple (519 B.C.E.). Unfortunately, there is not enough agreement between the author of Ezra and Josephus to correctly date the resettlement or authenticate the claims made by either author. The biblical narratives and Josephus, though providing contradictory details, are united in their portrayal of a permanent territory with a significant population that was the religious center of the Jews. This was Judea, created after the fall of Babylon. Yet in spite of the agreement between the biblical sources and Josephus about the nature of Jerusalem, other evidence suggests that perhaps the Judea presented in the main Jewish sources is not a reflection of reality. For instance, the earliest external date for a Jerusalem that was legally recognized by the Persians is around 407 B.C.E., and that is based on a papyrus petition to authorize reconstruction of a Jewish temple in Elephantine,24 in which there is reference made to religious authorities in Jerusalem. In addition, other archaeological evidence suggests that the emergence of Jerusalem as a major center occurred a few hundred years later:

22 πολλοιὴ γαὴ ρ κατέμειναν ἐ ν τ ῇ Βαβυλ ῶ νι ταὴ κτήματα καταλιπε ῖ ν ο ὐ θέλοντες (Josephus, Antiquites of the Jews, Book XI.1.3). There is no discussion, but the passage seems to imply that there were Jews in Babylon with what could be considered wealth and riches.

23 In his description of Ezra (Esdras), Josephus calls him the principal priest (πρῶ τος ἱ ερεύς) of the people (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.5.1).

24 http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html

13 Jerusalem… and the area of the province of Yehud immediately surrounding it do not seem to have recovered during the entire course of the Persian period, until the beginning of the 2nd century BCE. For nearly four centuries, Jerusalem lay unreconstructed, with a small surviving population that is estimated at between 400 and 1000 people at most.25

This timeline of events would align just before the Maccabean revolt and explain possible incongruities within the later Letter of Aristeas. This also helps explain gaps in the records which range from a few decades to centuries. More important is that the texts about the return from exile are focused on individuals who are credited with contributing either some building, law or political development to Jewish society. A focus on one individual, instead of a larger group, as responsible for a societal change was easier for an author than an analysis of every long-term development and complex point of data. The other issue is motivation. The texts are very adamant about a large Jewish focus on rebuilding Jeruslaem immediately. As will be seen below, in general the Jewish sources tend to be very firm in two respects: on the need to demonstrate

Jewish religious fervor and to describe important religious buildings and customs. Any disturbances or delays are typically explained away by an “other” that threatens the Jewish state

(i.e. the covenant).26 The Second Temple was the crowning achievement for those returning from exile. These Jews would not appear in a good light if the sources depicted a delay in construction, or, more seriously, no attempt to rebuild the Second Temple immediately. The texts therefore assign blame to events and figures outside of Judea that influenced the development of

Jerusalem and the Second Temple. In the case of the exiles, the Jewish authors were less concerned with the makeup of the group than the fact that there was a group that came to bless and fulfill the covenant with God early in the Persian Period.

The Letter of Cyrus

25 Thompson, 80.

26 “Others” might be Samaritans or other neighboring groups. We will return to this subject below.

14 The Jewish sources are very detailed when it comes to religious matters, but their authors were not able to completely separate religion and politics when it came to the connections between the Jews and their Persian rulers. In both the Bible and Josephus, the creation and maintenance of the Jewish state is attributed to Cyrus the Great (559–530 B.C.E.). Since the surviving archaeological and textual evidence “proves Cyrus to have been an active supporter, even promoter, of local cults,”27 it is not difficult to imagine that Cyrus was a great benefactor to the Jewish state. The chief piece of literary evidence for this benevolence is the so-called Letter of Cyrus. Josephus and the author of Ezra present different versions of the Letter. Josephus notes that “Cyrus… sent an epistle to the governors that were in Syria.”28 The author of Ezra, on the other hand, adds further details: “he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict, declared”29 the following: Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are of his people—May their God be with them!—are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem; and let all survivors, in whatever place they reside, be assisted by the people of their place with silver and gold, with goods and with animals, besides freewill offerings for the house of God in Jerusalem.30

In each version there is an acknowledgement by Cyrus of the different Jewish communities throughout the Empire. In Ezra it is as follows: “Any of those among you who are of his people

27 Kuhrt, 171.

28 πέμπει δεὴ καιὴ ἐ πιστολὴὴν προὴς τουὴς ἐ ν Συρί ᾳ σατράπας (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.1.3).

29 παρήγγειλεν φωνὴὴν ἐ ν πάσ ῃ βασιλεί ᾳ α ὐ το ῦ καί γε ἐ ν γραπτ ῷ λέγων (Ezra, Book 1.1 [NRSV]).

30 οὕ τως ε ἶ πε Κ ῦ ρος βασιλευὴς Περσ ῶ ν· πάσας ταὴς βασιλείας τ ῆ ς γ ῆ ς ἔ δωκέ μοι Κύριος ὁ Θεοὴς το ῦ οὐῦ ρανο , καιὴ α ὐἐ τοὴς πεσκέψατο ἐ᾿ἐῦἰ π μεὴ το ο κοδομ ῆἶ σαι ο κον α ὐῷἐ῾ τ ν Ιερουσαλὴὴμ τ ῇἐῇ ν τ ᾿Ιουδαί ᾳἐὑῖἀ . τίς ν μ ν ποὴ παντοὴς το ῦῦὐῦἔὁ λαο α το ; καιὴ σται Θεοὴς α ὐῦ᾿ὐῦἀ το μετ α το , καιὴ ναβήσεται εἰ῾ ς Ιερουσαλὴὴμ τὴὴν ἐῇ᾿ᾳἰ ν τ Ιουδαί , καιὴ ο κοδομὴσάτω τοὴν ο ἶ κον Θεο ῦ᾿ Ισραὴὴλ (α ὐὁὁἐ τοὴς Θεοὴς ν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ). καιὴ π ᾶ ς ὁ καταλιπόμενος ἀ ποὴ πάντων τ ῶ ν τόπων, ο ὗ α ὐ τοὴς παροικε ῖ ἐ κε ῖ , καιὴ λήψονται αὐἄ τοὴν νδρες το ῦ τόπου α ὐῦἐἀῳ το ν ργυρί καιὴ χρυσί ῳἀῇ καιὴ ποσκευ καιὴ κτήνεσι μεταὴ το ῦἑ κουσίου ε ἰ ς οἶ κον το ῦ Θεο ῦ το ῦ ἐ ν ῾ Ιερουσαλήμ.

15 —may their God be with them.”31 In Josephus we see this: “I have given leave to as many of the

Jews that dwell in my country as please to return to their own country.”32 While in each case the letter is allegedly written by Cyrus, the intended audience is different. The audience in Ezra is implied to be residents of the whole kingdom.33 In the Josephus version, the intended readers are more clearly defined as Satraps.34 In each case a letter from Cyrus the Great gives broad support to the Jews who are returning, and also to the rebuilding of the Temple. However, there is no reference to a royal decree in the sources, only a written letter. So while Cyrus I honored the Jews, he provided no legal documentation on which they could rely for their claims. The Letter was perhaps a way for

Josephus and the author of Ezra to explain away the delay between the reign of Cyrus I and the eventual building of the Second Temple. In Ezra, the letter is not characterized as a permanent declaration of Cyrus, and in Josephus’s version it is presented as a letter given to Persian officials.35 Both Josephus and the author of Ezra agree, however, that a second letter appeared in

Ecbatana, one of the four main Persian imperial capitals, during the reign of Darius I (522–486

B.C.E.). According to the sources, the document was only recovered after an extensive search of

31 Ezra, Book 1.3 (NRSV): τίς ἐὑῖἀ ν μ ν ποὴ παντοὴς το ῦῦὐῦ λαο α το ; καιὴ ἔὁ σται Θεοὴς α ὐῦ᾿ὐῦ το μετ α το .

32 ουδαίων τῶἐῇἐῇᾳ ν ν τ μ χώρ κατοικούντων ἐ πέτρεψα το ῖ ς βουλομένοις ε ἰἰἀῦ ς τὴὴν δίαν πελθο σι πατρίδα (Josephus, Antiquites of the Jews, Book XI.1.3). The implication here is that Cyrus recognizes Judea as belonging particularly to the Jews. We see additional evidence for this further on in the Letter: “I dispatched my treasurer Mithradates and Zerubbabel, governor of the Jews” (κατέπεμψα δέ μου καιὴ τοὴν γαζοφύλακα Μιθριδάτὴν καιὴ Ζοροβάβὴλον τοὴν ἄ ρχοντα τ ῶ ν Ἰ ουδαίων). There is no mention of what official responsibilities or authority is granted to Zerubbabel or even the length of his term. The author of Ezra also refers to the same situation with Mithradates and Zerubbabel. In Haggai 1.2 there is specific mention of God making Zerubbabel his official in charge of affairs in Judea: “I will make you my signet ring” (καιὴ θήσομαί σε ὡ ς σφραγ ῖ δα), perhaps implying some form of recognized political dynasty in Judea (Ackroyd, 136). However, his reign—and even activity—is barely mentioned in the sources unless it relates to the founding of the Second Temple. 33 Ezra, Book 1.4 (NRSV). See above.

34 πέμπει δεὴ και ὴ ἐπιστολὴὴν προὴς τουὴς ἐν Συρίᾳ σατράπας Κῦρος τάδε λέγουσαν (“And also Cyrus sends a letter to the Satraps in Syria which says the following”). Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.1.3.

35 It begins as follows: βασιλευὴς Κῦ ρος Σισίν ῃ καιὴ Σαραβασάν ῃ χαίρειν (“King Cyrus sends greeting to Sisinnes and Sathrabuzanes”). Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.1.3.

16 archives.36 In both accounts the letter is employed to convince Darius I to allow the rebuilding of

Jerusalem to continue. Again, no mention of a permanent official declaration is made. Given the lack of corroborating evidence, as well as discrepancies in its different versions, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Letter of Cyrus was a literary tool for

Josephus and the author of Ezra. It established what would become one of the defining aspects of

Judea during the Persian Period, the separation of Judea from the Persian Empire. It also clarified what was expected of the Jews’ foreign rulers in regard to Jewish religious practices. Finally, it suggested royal backing for perhaps the most important Jewish objective during this period, the rebuilding of the Second Temple.

The Jewish Relationship with Persia The basic relationship between Judea and Persia is best described as that between a vassal state and a dominant one. Governors were appointed by Persian kings to strengthen a Jerusalem that had been depleted.37 One trait all the Judean governors had is that none of them was born in

Judea. Some were connected to Babylon38 or Susa39 and were prominent members of Persian society. One such man was Ezra, described by Josephus (according to Whiston) as “a righteous man, and one that enjoyed a great reputation among the multitude. He was the principal priest of the people.”40 Another, Nehemiah, is described by Josephus as οἰ νοχόος (“cup-bearer”) to the

36 Ezra calls it a βιβλιοθήκὴ (“record office” or “archive”) and Josephus describes the location as a βᾶ ριϛ, which Whiston (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.4.6) defines as a “tower”. Ezra also refers to the second letter as a γνώμὴ (“decree”). On Darius I’s reign see A. Shapur Shahbazi, The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 BCE) in The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History.

37 Ezra 7 (NRSV), Nehemiah 2 (NRSV).

38 Such as Ezra and Zerubbabel (or Sheshbazzar, his Babylonian name).

39 Such as Nehemiah.

40 ὑ π ῆ ρχεν δεὴ καιὴ ἐ ν Βαβυλ ῶ νι δίκαιος ἀ νὴὴρ καιὴ δόξὴς ἀ πολαύων ἀ γαθ ῆ ς παραὴ τ ῷ πλήθει πρ ῶ τος ἱερευὴς το ῦ θεο ῦ καλούμενος Ἔ ζδρας (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.5.1). πρῶ τος ἱ ερευὴς το ῦ θεοῦ (“first priest of God”): by comparison the prominent priest in Jerusalem was called ἀ ρχιερεύς (“chief priest”). The priest in Jerusalem would become a more dynamic and politically important figure than any other Jewish priest.

17 king.41 Even Zerubbabel is connected to Darius because of his role as a σωματοφύλαξ

(“bodyguard”) of the king.42 All of these titles and connections demonstrate the individual importance of each of these men, each of whom came to Jerusalem to address a specific issue.

Zerubbabel perhaps founds the Second Temple, Ezra becomes a great opponent of foreign and

Gentile influence on the Second Temple,43 and Nehemiah, following in Ezra’s wake, proposes to fortify Jerusalem with strong walls. These figures serve the purpose of addressing issues in

Jerusalem post-exile and help Josephus (and other Jewish nationals) establish that the Jews were a sovereign people recognized by the Persian kings. One of the more pressing cultural issues that presents itself in both Ezra and Nehemiah is the debasement of Jewish culture by foreign marriages. In addition, there is some evidence that during this period there was some adoption of pagan names by Jews44 and even acknowledgement of foreign gods.45 Zerubbabel had a Babylonian name (Sheshbazzar), for instance, and Ezra and Nehemiah were involved in important Persian cultural centers, Ezra in

Babylon and Nehemiah with the Persian royal court. While Ezra and Nehemiah had had experience with Persian culture they were bound by religious edicts and tradition to prevent the debasement of their culture through the practice of foreign marriage. As the author of Ezra points out, The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for

41 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.5.6; Nehemiah, Book I.11 (Septuagint).

42 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.5.6.

43 Smith, 245.

44 P. 13493. The Aramaic Papyri of Elephantine in English. Grabbe, 196.

45 Smith, 220. Neither the use of the names of pagan gods for birth names nor associating pagan aspects to the Jewish God implied the direct conversion of those who did these things. They were merely invoking a potentially helpful force. Nevertheless, these practices reinforce the claims of conservatives about Jews abandoning their customs.

18 themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and in this faithlessness the officials and leaders have led the way.46

The author of Nehemiah takes a similar stance: In those days47 also I saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod,48 and they could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke the language of various peoples. And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.”49

In addition to the negative effect they had on Jewish culture, there were also perceived political implications of such marriages. Ezra does not provide details about how these came about and what earlier authorities did in response, but states that they failed in their moral duty to uphold tradition. Nehemiah, following Ezra, is more dire: he suggests that by taking up foreign marriages and customs the social cohesion of Judea and especially the Jewish relationship with

God was threatened. Though the problems caused by foreign marriages and the resultant contamination of Jewish culture are protrtayed in the sources as having been resolved in the time of both Ezra and Nehmeiah, the concern (according to the Jewish authors) about the dilution of

46 Ezra 9 (NRSV): οὐἐ κ χωρίσθὴ ὁ λαοὴς ᾿ Ισραὴὴλ καιὴ ο ἱἱῖ ερε ς καιὴ ο ἱῖἀῶῶῶἐ Λευ ται ποὴ λα ν τ ν γαι ν ν μακρύμμασιν αὐῶῷ τ ν, τ Χανανί, ὁ᾿ὁ Εθί, Φερεζί, ὁ᾿ Ιεβουσί, ὁ᾿ Αμμωνί, ὁ Μωαβιὴ καιὴ ὁ Μοσεριὴ καιὴ ὁ ᾿Αμορί, ὅἐ τι λάβοσαν ἀ ποὴ θυγατέρων α ὐῶἑῖ τ ν αυτο ς καιὴ το ῖἱῖὐῶ ς υ ο ς α τ ν, καιὴ παρήχθὴ σπέρμα τοὴ ἅἐγιον ν λαο ῖῶῶ ς τ ν γαι ν, καιὴ χειὴρ τ ῶἀ ν ρχόντων ἐῇἀ ν τ συνθεσί ᾳῃἐἀῇὡἤ ταύτ ν ρχ καιὴ ς κουσα τοὴν λόγον τοῦ τον, διέρρὴξα ταὴ ἱ μάτιά μου καιὴ ἐ παλλόμὴν καιὴ ἔ τιλλον ἀ ποὴ τ ῶ ν τριχ ῶ ν τ ῆ ς κεφαλ ῆ ς μου καιὴ ἀποὴ το ῦ πώγωνός μου καιὴ ἐ καθήμὴν ἠ ρεμάζων.

47 A reference to the period before Nehemiah’s cultural reforms.

48 Ashdod was one of the Philistine cities. The issue of Jews speaking many tongues, but not knowing their own, does not seem to have been significant in the early Hellenistic Era, when Greek (especially) was a prominent language used by Jews in written texts (both biblical and not). Admittedly, in Maccabees this issue would be brought up again, but with the added context of Greek imperialism.

49 Nehemiah 13 (NRSV). καιὴ ἐ ν τα ῖ ς ἡ μέραις ἐ κείναις ε ἶ δον τουὴς ᾿ Ιουδαίους, ο ἳ ἐ κάθισαν γυνα ῖ κας ᾿᾿Αζωτίας, Αμμανίτιδας, Μωαβίτιδας καιὴ ο ἱἱὐῶἥ υ οιὴ α τ ν μισυ λαλο ῦ᾿ ντες Αζωτιστιὴ καιὴ ο ὐἰ κ ε σιὴν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλε ῖ ν ᾿ Ιουδαϊστί, καιὴ ἐ μαχεσάμὴν μετ’ α ὐ τ ῶ ν καιὴ κατὴρασάμὴν α ὐ τουὴς καιὴ ἐ πάταξα ἐ ν αὐῖἄ το ς νδρας καιὴ ἐ μαδάρωσα α ὐ τουὴς καιὴ ὥ ρκισα α ὐἐῷῷἐῶ τουὴς ν τ Θε · αὴ ν δ τε ταὴς θυγατέρας ὑῶ μ ν τοῖἱῖὐῶ ς υ ο ς α τ ν, καιὴ ἐ αὴν λάβὴτε ἀῶ ποὴ τ ν θυγατέρων α ὐῶῖἱῖὑῶ τ ν το ς υ ο ς μ ν. 19 Jewish culture was a specter that would always be present as long as the Jews themselves were not able to exercise their own political will. A second issue was the direct connections Jewish leaders had to the Persian kings. For instance, Ezra is not actually given authority over Judea initially through Jewish cultural means, but instead via the terrestrial authority of the Persian king.50 Such connections continued into the

Hellenistic period. We often see such non-Jewish monarchs characterized in the Jewish sources as ignorant but amiable foreigners. Indeed, the geniality of these kings is standard: other than

Cambyses II, no Persian king is depicted as having been outright hostile to Judea.51 The ignorance trope manifests itself when a king, even though he has Jewish subjects with him, is generally ignorant about the function or activity of Jerusalem. He relies on others, usually the local officials, to explain to him what the Jews are up to. In their descriptions of the Persian period, the Jewish authors employ the ignorance of the monarchs to explain issues such as the delay in the rebuilding or to emphasize Jewish importance. Though the Jewish authors might themselves have wanted to emphasize Judea’s importance because of religious customs, instead what is highlighted is the fact that Judea was important due to geography, as it was a land bridge between Egypt and Asia Minor.52 During the Persian Empire, there were many revolts by cities and provinces, but for the most part these were crushed. In the case of Judea, no mention is ever made of a potential revolt,

50 Ezra 7.25–7.26 (NRSV): “And you, Ezra, according to the God-given wisdom you possess, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River who know the laws of your God; and you shall teach those who do not know them. All who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of their goods or for imprisonment.” (καιὴ συὴ Ἔσδρα ὡ ς ἡ σοφία το ῦ θεο ῦ ἐν χειρί σου κατάστὴσον γραμματε ῖ ς καιὴ κριταὴς ἵ να ὦ σιν κρίνοντες παντιὴ τ ῷ λα ῷ τ ῷ ἐ ν πέρ ᾷ το ῦ ποταμοῦᾶῖἰ π σιν το ς ε δόσιν νόμον το ῦῦ θεο σου καιὴ τ ῷἰ μὴὴ ε δότι γνωριε ῖ τε καιὴ π ᾶὃἂᾖῶ ς ς ν μὴὴ ποι ν νόμον τοῦ θεο ῦ καιὴ νόμον το ῦ βασιλέως ἑ τοίμως τοὴ κρίμα ἔ σται γιγνόμενον ἐ ξ α ὐ το ῦ ἐ άν τε ε ἰ ς θάνατον ἐάν τε ε ἰ ς παιδείαν ἐ άν τε ε ἰ ς ζὴμίαν το ῦ βίου ἐ άν τε ε ἰ ς δεσμά.)

51 Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.2, notes that Cambyses was “naturally wicked” (φύσει πονὴρός). This is the only mention of a Persian king being inherently evil.

52 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.1; Ezra 4 (NRSV).

20 let alone how it would be carried out, who the leaders would be and what the goals would be. If it is correct that the biblical works were compiled after the Maccabean revolt (167 B.C.E.), then it is safe to speculate that this event had an impact upon the authors and their texts, at least in terms of the notion that God would protect his people during a conflict. A letter in Jospehus from the governors in Syria and Phoenicia and the area around Samaria to Cambyses II connects both past and future in describing how powerful Judea was and could be again. The first issue described by this letter is how the Samarians or other pagan locals viewed the returning Jews: they (the Jews) were founding a “horrible and grievous city.”53 The Jews are seen here as foreign invaders. By completing not only the city but the Second Temple, they would “somehow” overthrow Cambyses, as well as every other local power.54 The Persian officials ask that

Cambyses II search the “the books of his fathers”55 in order to find out how troublesome the Jews have been in the past. The overall implication of the officials’ letter is that the Jews will never coexist peacefully as a dependent province of an empire. We see here Josephus highlighting the power of Jerusalem via non-Jews, the neighbors of the Jews who recognize their alleged potential for wrongdoing. The letter also establishes that the Jews do not recognize terrestrial kings or powers. The Jewish writers knew that a revolt would happen, so they highlighted its seeds in their works.56 The eventual failure of the government in Jerusalem was attributed to

53 τήν τε πόλιν τὴὴν ἀ ποστάτιν καιὴ πονὴραὴ ν ο ἰ κοδομο ῦ σιν. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.1.

54 “You should know however that once all these things are built that they will not be willing to fulfill your tribute, nor will they obey your commands, but will oppose kings and will wish to rule over others rather than be ruled themselves.” (ἴ σθι μέντοι γε τούτων γενομένων ο ὔ τε φόρους α ὐ τουὴς τελε ῖ ν ὑ πομενο ῦ ντας οὔ τε δεὴ ὑ πακούειν ἐ θελήσοντας, ἀ λλαὴ καιὴ βασιλε ῦ σιν ἀ ντιστήσονται καιὴ ἄ ρχειν μ ᾶ λλον ἢ ὑ πακούειν ἐθελήσουσιν.) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.1.

55 ἐπισκέψ ῃ ταὴ τ ῶ ν πατέρων σου βιβλία (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.1). The “fathers” mentioned here must be the rulers of Assyria and other Bronze Age civilizations contemporary with Jerusalem. This can be inferred from two facts: first, that Media had never controlled Judea, and second, that Cyrus I took up various regional royal titles after his conquest of Babylonia (Kuhrt, 182), which implies continuity between his dynasty and the former rulers of those subjects.

21 foreign influence and depravity due to contact with foreigners. This serves to explain why the initially resettled Jews did not rebel immediately. They would have to bide their time.

The Second Temple According to the Jewish sources, the act of building the Temple, though delayed, was never actually prevented and was even sponsored by the Persian government.57 The chief evidence comes from the Letter of Cyrus and other documentation from the Persian kings, which highlight their favorability to traditional religious centers.58 Now, while the construction is sponsored by the Persian kings, the Jewish sources make it a point to never have the kings directly involved with the actual building. For instance, nowhere in the texts is a Persian king invited to visit Jerusalem to view the Second Temple. They may send gifts, and the king may order punishment for those who disobey his orders about the city—as Cyrus I is alleged by

Josephus to have done59—but nowhere does a king grant Jerusalem the special status of a

“Temple City.” A Temple City was a city granted a special religious status and imperial importance by a Persian king. The Jews never claim this title for Jerusalem although they imply their religious importance to the Perisan kings and their continutity.

56 Cambyses II himself notes the potential for trouble in his response to the officials: “we’ve known that their kings have been powerful and violent, and have levied ransom from Syria and Phoenecia” (καιὴ βασιλεῖ ς α ὐ τ ῶ ν ἔ γνωμεν δυνατουὴς καιὴ βιαίους φορολογήσαντας κοίλὴν Συρίαν καιὴ Φοινίκὴν). Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XI.2.2.

57 Hornblower, 249.

58 Kuhrt, 183. The Cyrus Cylinder—a document dating to 539 B.C.E., after Cyrus’s capture of Babylon— describes how Cyrus I was tasked by the major gods of Babylon with freeing not only them, but their subjects as well from the native Babylonian king. Afterwards Cyrus states that he restored all the former cults throughout his new empire. It is very important to note that although neither Jerusalem nor Yahweh is mentioned in the Cylinder, the Jews would likely have understood the religious freedom implied here as applying to their own religious beliefs, as well.

59 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.1.3: “But my will is, that those who disobey these injunctions, and make them void, shall be hung upon a cross, and their substance brought into the king's treasury” (τουὴς δεὴ παρακούσαντας τούτων καιὴ ἀ κυρώσαντας ἀ νασταυρωθ ῆ ναι βούλομαι καιὴ ταὴς ο ὐ σίας αὐ τ ῶ ν ε ἶ ναι βασιλικάς).

22 It perhaps will not surprise that there is confusion about the founding of the Second

Temple, as well. The first date that can be connected to the construction is 535 B.C.E. (around 7 months after the fall of Babylon), which is when Zerubbabel laid the first foundation for the

Second Temple.60 It was finally completed in 516 B.C.E.,61 almost 20 years after Zerubbabel and his exiles first returned. At that time, the most common explanation for the delay was the devious machinations of the Samaritans, who initially wanted in on the building of the Second Temple: When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel, they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of families and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of King Esar-haddon of Assyria who brought us here.” But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of families in Israel said to them, “You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of Persia has commanded us.”62

One aspect worthy of mention here is that the Jews deny the Samaritans by noting that the God the Jews worship (τῷ θεῷ ἡ μ ῶ ν, “the god of ours”) is not that of the Samaritans. This distinction between the Samaritans and Jews in the Jewish sources will become more prominent as the transition to the Hellenistic Age begins. In addition, the only mention of Persian association with the Second Temple here is that the construction is being undertaken under the authority of Cyrus. This is significant: the Jews are using the legal authority of the Persian king to create a distinction between themselves and the Samaritans. If the Samaritans were recognized by Cyrus, then there would not be an issue; but since they are not, it is fine to exclude them from the construction of the Temple. One Greek word that is used by the Jewish sources very often in reference to the Second

Temple is “house” (οἶ κος).63 The notion is that Jerusalem is not complete until the Second

60 Ezra 3 (NRSV).

61 Ezra 6 (NRSV). This is the sixth year of King Darius I.

62 Ezra 4 (NRSV).

23 Temple, the “house” of God, is ready.64 Evidence exists of other Jewish Temples throughout the

Empire, but there is always tacit acknowledgement of the primacy of the one in Jerusalem.65

Still, even though the Temple was clearly very important to the Jews, there is very little information about it from the Persian period. We know the names of some of the important individuals who helped with the Temple, but little else. As a result, the Second Temple, one of the most important elements of Jewish culture, is shrouded in mystery. Its importance would grow over the centuries, but it is hard to discern if it was, in fact, actually built or used until much later than the Persian period. What is certain is that the Jews needed to establish the

Temple early, or at least create a tradition that they had done so, because they needed to demonstrate their piety to God and their uniqueness to other cultures.

The Last Years of Persian Judea Once the Second Temple was built there were no other direct interventions in Judea by

Persian officials except for a prominent Persian politician, Bagoses. This man is mentioned not only by Josephus but in other documentary evidence. He is identified as a στρατηγός

(“governor”),66 carries out a desecration of the Second Temple and even imposes heavy retribution (taxes) on the Jews. In the brief description given by Josephus, he is clearly a villain and, more importantly, an outsider and meddler in Jewish affairs. Bagoses seems to have been involved with a plot to establish Jesus (the brother of the high priest) as a new high priest. As a

63 Unlike a Greek “temple” (ναός) or a Roman one (templum), in which a graven image of the god was kept, and where a god might be considered present from time to time, the Jewish “house” implied permanent residence as well as direct ownership. Jerusalem did not own the Second Temple; God did. The priests and worshippers were meant to maintain it.

64 Haggai 1. Haggai is a 6th century B.C.E. Jewish prophet named in his own biblical book and other Jewish texts. He is the one who orders Zerubbabel to start the Second Temple. He and his contemporary Zechariah are the last prophets to appear in biblical texts for the next few centuries.

65 See (e.g.) http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html. Even though the petitioners seek the approval of the local Persian governor they also reference approval to rebuild their temple in Elephantine from Jerusalem.

66 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.7.

24 result of this plan being found out John slew his brother in the Temple and forced Bagoses to come to Jerusalem to exact revenge for the act. On the other hand, in TAD A4.7, a letter from

Elephantine, Egypt, dating to 407 B.C.E.,67 Bagoses is a very different figure: he is still identified as governor of Judea, but here he is asked to approve the right of the Jews in Elephantine to rebuild their destroyed Temple. The petitioners had already received permission to rebuild from

Jerusalem, but there is no evidence that they had been given the green light by the king. Instead, a lower official had direct authority to intervene in Jewish affairs. When the Jewish high priest kills his brother, who was associated with Bagoses, Bagoses personally interferes and storms the Temple. His justification is the murder, but the additional penalty he imposes—a seven-year indemnity and other harsh penalties—seems too severe for the murder of a single man in Jerusalem, unless, perhaps, Bagoses was attempting a coup with the intention of supplanting the current high priest with a puppet.68 Bagoses, according to Josephus, wanted Jesus as high priest. But for what reason? What political power did the high priest wield at this time?69 Though it is never stated, in Josephus’ account the onset of corruption and pollution is connected with Bagoses. True, the high priest committed a crime, but there would not have been one if Bagoses had not intended to interfere. The letter from Elephantine, on the other hand, demonstrates that while Jerusalem wielded religious power it did not have political power. Jerusalem could approve and sponsor temples, but ultimate authority belonged to local officials, meaning that the Jews outside of Judea were controlled by leaders with whom

Jerusalem could only negotiate.

67 Translation, metadata and publication info can be found at http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html.

68 Betlyon, 637–638, implies that a possible revolt was crushed by Bagoses. He cites as evidence a unique Jewish coin bearing the likeness of an unknown high priest (John?) who was serving as a Persian governor at the time. This coinage only appears briefly and this type of coinage would have been irreligious because of the graven image.

69 We will return to this question in the next chapter.

25 Conclusion The Jewish sources present a particular view of how Persian Judea functioned: there were

Jewish governors assigned by Persian kings to enforce Jewish laws and customs. These governors, despite their close associations with pagan cities and courts, never abandoned their faith and devotion. Through their own piety, and perhaps divine assistance, they helped establish

Jerusalem as a major city in Persia. As a result, the city grew and the covenant with God was not only reestablished but even strengthened. Jerusalem went from ruins to prosperity and peace. While these sources are valuable in describing Jerusalem’s relationship to Persia, they also present a problem in that Jerusalem is their main focus rather than the other Jewish communities throughout Persia. Even though there are occasional references to other Jewish communities, these are usually brought up only to reinforce the greatness of Jerusalem. This heavy focus on the Second Temple and Jerusalem is a major problem for those who study

Second Temple-era documents. Josephus tells us that he wants to clarify to Gentiles who the

Jews truly are but fails to mention the service of the Jews to the Empire. Instead, he portrays what the Empire and its kings do in relation to Jerusalem. As the kings are blessed by God in their success or in the maintenance of their Empire, it is only right that they acknowledge, but never interfere with, his Temple or, worse yet, try to get inside. The focus on Jerusalem, however, is a detriment as the Jewish communities outside of Judea are almost treated as estranged groups only worthy of being brought in when they can be connected to Jerusalem in some fashion. When the Persian period began, a great conqueror—Cyrus—received a prophecy from the Jews detailing his Empire’s future greatness. When the Persian period ended, the Jews again presented a great conqueror with prophecies of his future glory. This man, Alexander the Great, would begin a new era in the Near East, one in which Greek culture combined with cultures

26 many hundreds of years older to create something new and unique. This era would present roadblocks to Jerusalem’s rise as a major city, as it would become a bone of contention between kings and the people of God. Revolt by and independence for the Jews would follow.

27 Chapter 2 – Alexander the Great and the Early Hellenistic Period The Transition from the Persian Era to the Hellenistic Era In the biblical sources, there are no texts that bridge the gap between Nehemiah (445

B.C.E.) and the beginning of the conquests of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.E.). There might be references, but there is no full book devoted to discussing events or developments. This lack of sources is responsible for the difficulty of assessing the political landscape of Jerusalem during this time. At some point, possibly right after Nehemiah, the position of “governor” of the Jews disappears from the texts. In its place comes a more pronounced role for the high priest,70 who, when originally introduced in the post-exile return,71 is portrayed as a figure in need of spiritual cleansing (just as Jerusalem and the Second Temple), but is also intended as a reminder to future readers that it is easy even for a high priest to become corrupted:72

Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.73 And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch.74

70 ἀ ρχιερεύς is the term used to describe the hereditary priesthood at Jerusalem. It is not used to indicate other Jewish priests throughout the Hellenistic kingdoms.

71 In this case the figure is Joshua, the first head priest during the reconstruction of the Second Temple.

72 In Haggai the high priest is only mentioned when following Zerubbabel’s name. Zerubbabel is the one that will carry out the will of God. It is important to note that religious prophecy might be hyperbolic, but the symbolism is very dynamic.

73 The “he” mentioned here is the angel of God. The first person account is from the prohpeh Zechariah.

28 It is important to note that religious prophecy might be hyperbolic, but the symbolism is very dynamic. Before they can acutally begin building the Second Temple they need to make sure that the high priesthood is clean and by doing this then God can bless the Jews again. How this corruption started is not clear in this text though the point is that it is finished by this time. It is only in the post-Nehemiah period that high priests are given broader political power.

The first mention of interference by outside forces in the religious functions of the high priest occurs in Book XI.7 of the Antiquities of the Jews.75 Such interference became more common, especially in the 2nd century B.C.E. as portrayed in Maccabees 1. Nevertheless, the texts of the early Hellenistic era portray a stable high priest office. According to Josephus, in his first official dealing with Judea, Alexander dispatched a letter to the high priest alone,76 which suggests that the high priest served as the political representative of his people. Along with the high priesthood came a very successful Jerusalem. According to the texts, in the Persian period there was much focus on both the physical and spiritual rebuilding of the city, but the texts also seem to describe a complete and strong Jerusalem, a city worthy of respect but also fear. Initially the arrival of Alexander bought chaos and destruction to parts of the

Persian Empire not willing to give way to him, but Jerusalem and Judea were spared. In fact, the

Judeans initially benefitted greatly from the arrival of Hellenism. While other rival cities such as

Tyre,77 Gaza78 and even Samaria79 burned, Jerusalem was spared the wrath of the conquering

Macedonian.

74 Zechariah 3 (NRSV), Malachi 1 (NRSV). Malachi, another prophet from the Persian Period (6th century B.C.E.), begins his work by noting the corruption prevalent among the Jewish priests around the time of the re-established covenant after the completion of the Second Temple.

75 In this case, the interference is from Bagoses and his plan to approve Jesus as the new high priest.

76 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.3.

77 Siege of Tyre: January 332 B.C.E.

78 Siege of Gaza: October 332 B.C.E.

79 Establishment of a Macedonian military colony after the failed Samarian revolt: Spring 330 B.C.E.

29 Alexander the Great and the Arrival of Hellenism At the end of Book XI, Josephus describes the arrival of Alexander the Great (332

B.C.E.) into the area of modern-day Syria/Palestine and his eventual contact with Jerusalem.

Contemporaries of Josephus such as Arrian (92–175 C.E.) discuss the expedition into Syria as well, though not in as detailed a manner as Josephus.80 Josephus’s description of Alexander the

Great is very positive: he notes that after his visit to Judea and the continuation of his campaign to Egypt, “Alexander had so greatly honored the Jews” by showing respect for the Temple and high priest as well as granting privileges to the Jews.81 Josephus used the arrival of Alexander to emphasize not only historical events, but also issues affecting Jerusalem in his own day. His purpose was to demonstrate to his reader that the Jews, in comparison to their neighbors, were the correct worshipers of God. In contrast, Maccabees 1 presents a far more sinister picture of

Alexander and his future scions: He fought many battles, conquered strongholds, and put to death the kings of the earth. He advanced to the ends of the earth, and plundered many nations. When the earth became quiet before him, he was exalted, and his heart was lifted up. He gathered a very strong army and ruled over countries, nations, and princes, and they became tributary to him…. Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their descendants after them for many years; and they caused many evils on the earth.82

80 In fact, this is the sum total of Arrian’s comments on the expedition: “All the other parts of what was called Syria-Palestine had already yielded to him” (καιὴ ἦ ν α ὐ τ ῷ ταὴ μεὴν ἄ λλα τ ῆ ς Παλαιστίνὴς καλουμένὴς Συρίας προσκεχωρὴκότα ἤ δὴ). The Anabasis of Alexander, Book II.XXV.

81 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.5. “…whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired.” (τοῦ δ ᾽ ἀ ρχιερέως α ἰ τὴσαμένου χρήσασθαι τοῖ ς πατρίοις νόμοις καιὴ τοὴ ἕ βδομον ἔ τος ἀ νείσφορον ε ἶ ναι, συνεχώρὴσεν πάντα. παρακαλεσάντων δ᾽ὐἵ α τόν, να καιὴ τουὴς ἐ ν Βαβυλ ῶ νι καιὴ Μὴδί ᾳἸ ουδαίους το ῖἰἐῃ ς δίοις πιτρέψ νόμοις χρῆ σθαι, ἀ σμένως ὑ πέσχετο ποιήσειν ἅ περ ἀ ξιο ῦ σιν.) The “fathers’ laws” (πατρίοις νόμοις) mentioned here may imply a form of religious and possibly cultural independence, but how this would have functioned in Babylon or Media is never explained.

82 Maccabees 1 (NRSV): συνεστήσατο πολέμους πολλουὴς καιὴ ἐ κράτὴσεν ὀ χυρωμάτων καιὴ ἔ σφαξεν βασιλεῖῆῆ ς τ ς γ ς καιὴ δι ῆἕἄ λθεν ως κρων τ ῆῆἔ ς γ ς καιὴ λαβεν σκ ῦ λα πλήθους ἐῶἡ θν ν καιὴ σύχασεν ἡῆ γ ἐὐῦὑνώπιον α το καιὴ ψώθὴ καιὴ ἐἡὐῦῆ πήρθὴ καρδία α το καιὴ συν ξεν δύναμιν ἰ σχυραὴ ν σφόδρα καιὴ ἦ ρξεν χωρῶἐῶ ν θν ν καιὴ τυράννων καιὴ ἐ γένοντο α ὐῷἰ τ ε ς φόρον… καιὴ ἐ πεκράτὴσαν ο ἱῖὐῦἕ πα δες α το καστος 30 This is the beginning of the book which readers will find presents an intial negative view of

Greek leaders, not every aspect of the Greek world, only those leaders near to Judea and their machinations. As the story of Alexander the Great and his visit to Judea in Josephus is very compact, some context concerning the major players, places and events is necessary. One major point of contention in his account is the Mt. Gerizim temple set up by the Samaritans for their god during the reign of Darius III (336–330 B.C.E.).83 This temple would be responsible for conflicts well into the Roman period, Josephus’s own time. Even Jesus of Nazareth weighed in on the issue when a Samaritan woman questioned him: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”84

By minimizing or even disparaging the Mt. Gerizim temple in his history, Josephus underlines the importance of the Second Temple, perhaps as the only true place of worship. Josephus also adds some grime to the origins of the Mt. Gerizim temple to again make the Second Temple seem more holy. This is done through the figure of Sanballat, a fictional

Persian governor,85 who interestingly knows about the potential of the Jews from their own

ἐῷῳὐῦἐν τ τόπ α το καιὴ πέθεντο πάντες διαδήματα μεταὴ τοὴ ἀ ποθανε ῖὐ ν α τοὴν καιὴ ο ἱἱὐῶὀ υ οιὴ α τ ν πίσω αὐ τ ῶ ν ἔ τὴ πολλαὴ καιὴ ἐ πλήθυναν κακαὴ ἐ ν τ ῇ γ ῇ . After this introduction the text goes straight into the events leading up to the revolt. The author appears to be connecting the violence and destruction of Alexander’s initial campaign to the future destruction wrought by those trying to reclaim his empire.

83 It was clearly a goal of Josephus to date this temple to the period after the construction of the Second Temple. Recent archaeological evidence, however, dates the temple to well within the Persian Period (5th century B.C.E.): Nodet, 122.

84 Gospel of John 4.20–22 (NRSV): οἱ πατέρες ἡ μ ῶ ν ἐ ν τ ῷ ὄ ρει τούτ ῳ προσεκύνὴσαν καιὴ ὑ με ῖ ς λέγετε ὅἐἹτι ν εροσολύμοις ἐὁὅ στιὴν τόπος που προσκυνε ῖῖὐῇὁἸῦ ν δε λέγει α τ ὴσο ς πίστευέ μοι γύναι ὅ τι ἔὥὅὔἐῷὄρχεται ρα τε ο τε ν τ ρει τούτ ῳὔἐἹ ο τε ν εροσολύμοις προσκυνήσετε τ ῷὑῖ πατρί με ς προσκυνε ῖ τε ὃὐἴἡῖ ο κ ο δατε με ς προσκυνο ῦὃἴ μεν ο δαμεν ὅἡ τι σωτὴρία ἐῶἸ κ τ ν ουδαίων ἐ στίν.

85 Sanballat is a villain from Nehemiah who seems to be reused here by Josephus.

31 history.86 As we are told, Sanballat’s own daughter, a foreigner, marries into the high priest’s family. Specifically, she marries Manasseh, the brother of the high priest, Jaddua. As we saw above in Ezra and Nehemiah, marriages between foreigners and Jews were considered problematic and were dissolved, and there were no major quarrels afterwards. Now, however, there is a major hubbub.87 In addition, there is confusion in the progression of events in

Josephus’s account and the motives behind them. At first there seems to be a huge popular swell of support for kicking Manasseh out of Jerusalem for not dissolving his marriage.88 Right after this, however, a sizeable group of Jews joins up with Manasseh, although Josephus notably does not call them Jews, but instead reclassifies them as people of Manasseh, citing their political affiliation rather than their cultural heritage.89 Finally, the temple on Mt. Gerizim is not begun in a good light because of its association with the blasphemous figure of Sanballat.90

86 As Josephus notes, he sought “to have the strength of the Jews divided into two parts, lest when the nation is of one mind, and united, upon any attempt for innovation, it prove troublesome to kings, as it had formerly proved to the kings of Assyria.” (εἰ ς δύο δι ῃ ρ ῆ σθαι τὴὴν Ἰ ουδαίων δύναμιν, ἵ να μὴὴ ὁ μογνωμονο ῦ ν τοὴ ἔ θνος μὴδεὴ συνεστός, ε ἰ νεωτερίσειέν ποτε, χαλεποὴν ᾖ το ῖ ς βασιλε ῦ σιν, καθωὴ ς καιὴ πρότερον το ῖ ς Ἀσσυρίων ἄ ρξασιν ἐ γένετο.) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.4. (Antiquitates Judaica)

87 “But there was now a great disturbance among the people of Jerusalem, because many of those priests and Levites were entangled in such matches.” (πολλῶ ν δεὴ ἱ ερέων καιὴ Ἰ σραὴλιτ ῶ ν τοιούτοις γάμοις ἐπιπεπλεγμένων κατε ῖ χεν ο ὐ μικραὴ ταραχὴὴ τουὴς Ἱ εροσολυμίτας.) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.2 Josephus offers no explanation for why such marriages were allowed to continue post-Nehemiah or post-Ezra.

88 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.8.2.

89 The term he uses is ὁμοεθνής (“of the same race“). The implication here is that these people were no longer Jews.

90 “And then Sanballat promised him (i.e., Manasseh) not only to retain to him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest and that he (Snaballat) would make him governor of all the places he himself now ruled, if he would keep his daughter for his wife. He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizim, which is the highest of all the mountains that are in Samaria.” (τοῦ δεὴ Σαναβαλλέτου μὴὴ μόνον τὴρήσειν α ὐ τ ῷ τὴὴν ἱ ερωσύνὴν, ἀ λλαὴ καιὴ τὴὴν ἀ ρχιερατικὴὴν παρέξειν δύναμιν καιὴ τιμὴὴν ὑ πισχνουμένου καιὴ πάντων ἀποδείξειν ὧ ν α ὐ τοὴς ἐ π ῆ ρχεν τόπων ἡ γεμόνα βουλόμενον συνοικε ῖ ν α ὐ το ῦ τ ῇ θυγατρί, καιὴ λέγοντος οἰ κοδομήσειν ναοὴν ὅὄῷἐῖἹ μοιον ντα τ ν το ς εροσολύμοις ἐῦ πιὴ το Γαριζειὴν ὄὃῶ ρους, τ ν καταὴ τὴὴν Σαμάρειαν ὀ ρ ῶ ν ἐ στιν ὑ ψὴλότατον.) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.8.2.

32 The principles of the Samaritans (via Sanballat) and the Jews (via Jaddua) are laid out clearly by Josephus in this section. Sanballat, although himself a Persian official with substantial authority, seeks out Darius III and then Alexander the Great to destroy the Jews. The suggestion here seems to be that the Samaritans abandon their leaders when adversity is present, in spite of prior professions of loyalty. On the other hand, the Jews did not abandon Darius III for

Alexander even though he conspired against them.91 Further notable is the fact that Alexander’s final act in Judea is to recognize the Jews, not the Samaritans, as the legal worshippers of God.

Admittedly, there are two points that the author does not seem to address directly. The first is the split of Manasseh and his people from Jerusalem in a violent social conflict, and the second is

Manasseh’s denial of their Jewish heritage by making their actions appear to be those of foreigners. Yet Josephus’s silence on these points is perhaps not so difficult to understand. That certain Jewish groups associated with foreigners, especially for political power, is never characterized by Josephus as a fault of the Jews themselves, but instead as a result of encroaching foreign influence. A final consideration is what the Gentile sources say happened in Samaria under

Alexander: a governor was appointed over the area who was killed by the Samaritans.92 There is no mention of such an event in Josephus, perhaps because it would imply that Alexander had not given Judea as much independence if another neighboring governor was appointed. This prompts a question: Was Josephus rearranging historical events to fit his agenda? This is hard to say.

Josephus needed Alexander to bless the Jews in order to point out to the Gentiles how important the Jews had always been. Even though it might have been fiction, Josephus still needed a terrestrial power to defend God’s plans. 91 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.8.3.

92 According to Quintus Curtius Rufus (1st century C.E.), a man named Andromachus was appointed governor by Alexander (History of Alexander, Book IV.VIII). If there was a governor of Samaria, was there a similar position for Judea or some type of garrison in Jerusalem?

33 From this brief summary a few important observations can be made. The first is that

Josephus stresses the importance of foreign influence—and marriage with foreigners, in particular—in this section. In fact, Josephus is quite clear about the negative effects of “a mutual society with foreigners, although the offense of some about marriages, and their having married wives that were not of their own country, had been an occasion of their former captivity, and of the miseries they then underwent” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.2).93 In this passage, Josephus at first reaffirms the notions of the authors of Nehemiah and Ezra about the corroding influences of foreigners and mixed offspring. Yet Josephus also notes that these marriages were more common during the captivity of the 6th century B.C.E. This is done to demonstrate that while the Jews did marry foreigners, it was in connection with destitution and because of an inability to be free from foreign pressures. In this case, high-level corruption from contact with foreign elements leads to prominent figures abandoning their people. As a result of abandoning their fellow Jews they are denied recognition for their new temple. Yet it is still completed. Thus Josephus has to acknowledge them, but he assigns to them lesser importance. In addition, we see that Alexander was used as a tool for Josephus to demonstrate to his readers the development and importance of the Jews. For instance, their military capability is highlighted by the fact that, according to Josephus, they supplied auxiliaries and troops for

Alexander’s future campaigns.94 In Nehemiah, Book 4, the Jews are portrayed more as sympathetic figures: trying to rebuild Jerusalem, being besieged by their neighbors and having to be on guard against plots. Yet as Josephus tells us, at this stage (4th century B.C.E.) not only had the Jewish population become stable, it had also attained the means to provide troops for a

93 περιὴ ταὴς τῶ ν γυναικ ῶ ν συνοικήσεις βουλὴσομένοις γενέσθαι καιὴ τ ῆ ς προὴς τουὴς ἀ λλοφύλους α ὐ το ῖ ς κοινωνίας ἀ ρχὴὴν το ῦ το ἔ σεσθαι. ὑ πάρξαι μέντοι καιὴ τ ῆ ς προτέρας α ἰ χμαλωσίας α ὐ το ῖ ς καιὴ τ ῶ ν κακ ῶ ν αἴ τιον τοὴ περιὴ τουὴς γάμους πλὴμμελ ῆ σαί τινας καιὴ ἀ γαγέσθαι γυνα ῖ κας ο ὐ κ ἐ πιχωρίας. (Antiquitates Judaica)

94 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.8.3.

34 foreign king.95 At this stage the Jews were able to be decisive actors in the new Greek cultural period. The most important role Alexander plays in Josephus is as a legitimizing force for both the Second Temple and the Jewish people. In the Persian period, the kings displayed their gratitude to the Jews through gifts or official decrees. They would also acknowledge or at least mention the Jewish God, but always with the caveat that while they could reference the God in the Jewish texts, they were not allowed to actually participate in Jewish religious ceremonies.

Alexander, on the other hand, was the first foreign king allowed to participate in a Jewish religious ceremony: “When he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests.”96 To strengthen Alexander’s connection with God, the Book of Daniel is brought out by the religious leaders to be shown to Alexander. In this text, a major political and cultural change brought about by a Gentile leader is blessed by God: it is stated that “one of the Greeks will destroy the Persian

Empire.”97 This passage characterizes Alexander and his mission in an extremely positive light, as it seems that God has granted him the privilege of his conquest of Persia. Like Cyrus before him, the prophecy acknowledges the participant, but gives God the right to order events, so any

95 Josephus does not actually number these troops or classify the roles they would have performed, but simply refers to them as “auxiliaries” (συμμαχία); Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.8.3. There is no mention in any of the sources of Jews serving in an important capacity in the military campaigns of the Persians. Granted, Jews could have served in those armies in the mass of bulk conscripts, but again the sources do not distinguish any major Jewish generals or groups in important battles. The garrison at Elephantine (Egypt), though primarily made up of Jews, also included large groups of other foreigners serving under the Persian Empire. These men were not conquerors, but settlers. 96 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.5: καιὴ ἀ νελθωὴ ν ἐ πιὴ τοὴ ἱ εροὴν θύει μεὴν τ ῷ θε ῷ καταὴ τὴὴν τοῦ ἀ ρχιερέως ὑ φήγὴσιν, α ὐ τοὴν δεὴ τοὴν ἀ ρχιερέα καιὴ τουὴς ἱ ερε ῖ ς ἀ ξιοπρεπ ῶ ς ἐ τίμὴσεν. (Antiquitates Judaica)

97 τινα τῶ ν Ἑ λλήνων καταλύσειν τὴὴν Περσ ῶ ν ἀ ρχὴὴν. (Antiquitates Judaica) According to Josephus, Alexander assumed that the prophecy was referring to him: νομίσας αὐ τοὴς ε ἶ ναι ὁ σὴμαινόμενος τότε (“he was supposing himself to be the one indicated then”). In the text no one offers clarification, so it is just assumed by Alexander that it was he. Incidentally, this is the first mention of a prophecy stating that a Greek would conquer the Persian world.

35 major changes would be part of God’s will. Still, it was indisputably an honor for a Gentile to be involved in God’s plan—and not just a Gentile, but a Macedonian Greek. The Jews, described by Josephus as being the only properly pious people, acknowledged that Greeks were going to be a new presence in their world. Though they came as conquerors, they never burned Jewish property—surely a good sign. However, even though it was to be a primarily Greek world, it was not to be a united one. Once Alexander leaves Jerusalem Book XI ends, and Book XII concerns a recently created Ptolemaic state. In what follows, as empires both grow and decay, the Jews find themselves positioned in a critical place, both geographically and culturally, to be friends to their new rulers but also possible antagonists when their own needs are not being met.

The Founding of Alexandria The period from the death of Alexander the Great (323 B.C.E.) to the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II (285 B.C.E.) must have been a very contentious time in Judea. In two texts,

Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and the Letter of Aristeas (2nd century B.C.E.), the initial occupation of Syria and Judea by Ptolemy I (318 B.C.E.) is briefly described.98 In both texts, the king’s actions are viewed negatively.99 In the Letter we find the following description: “when by a combination of good fortune and courage he had brought his attack on the whole district of

Coele-Syria and Phoenicia to a successful issue, in the process of terrorizing the country into subjection, he transported some of his foes and others he reduced to captivity.”100 Josephus adds further that while these princes ambitiously strove one against another,101 every one for his own principality, it came to pass that there were continual wars, and those lasting

98 The author of the Letter of Aristeas claims to be a Greek official in the Ptolemaic court, but this seems to be a fabrication. Scholars agree that the text was most likely written by an Alexandrian Jew and possibly dates to a century after the events it claims to describe. Bagnall, pg. 349.

99 The Letter of Aristeas, 13; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.1.1.

100 ἐ κε ῖ νος γαὴρ ἐ πελθωὴ ν ταὴ καταὴ κοίλὴν Συρίαν καιὴ Φοινίκὴν ἅ παντα, συγχρώμενος ε ὐ ὴμερί ᾳ μεταὴ ἀνδρείας, τουὴς μεὴν μετ ῴ κιζεν, ο ὓ ς δεὴ ᾐ χμαλώτιζε. The Letter of Aristeas, 13 36 wars too; and the cities were sufferers, and lost a great many of their inhabitants in these times of distress, insomuch that all Syria, by the means of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, underwent the reverse of that denomination of Savior, which he then had.102

Unfortunately, neither of these texts answers the question of what Judea’s role was in these conflicts. The war for Syria consumed Judea, but where did the Jews place their loyalties? One thing is clear, however, and in Josephus especially: Ptolemy I betrayed his Jewish subjects by allegedly taking 100,000 Jewish captives into Egypt.103 Josephus states that Ptolemy I exploited the Jews’ inactivity on the Sabbath to take Jerusalem.104 Did he bring his army inside the city as well? How large was his army? Was there any eventual resistance to Ptolemy I? Again, there is a lack of information, though Josephus turns the negative into something of a positive by noting that the captive Jews were so honorable and devoted that Ptolemy stationed some in garrisons: about 30,000 young men, in fact.105 In the Letter the author describes how these soldiers were

101 With “these princes,” Josephus refers to the immediate successors of Alexander.

102 στασιαζόντων δεὴ τούτων καιὴ προὴς ἀ λλήλους φιλοτιμουμένων ὑ πεὴρ τ ῆ ς ἰ δίας ἀ ρχ ῆ ς πολέμους τε συνεχεῖ ς καιὴ μακρουὴς συνέβὴ γίγνεσθαι καιὴ ταὴς πόλεις κακοπαθε ῖ ν καιὴ πολλουὴς ἐ ν το ῖ ς ἀ γ ῶ σιν ἀποβάλλειν τ ῶ ν ο ἰ κὴτόρων, ὡ ς καιὴ τὴὴν Συρίαν ἅ πασαν ὑ ποὴ Πτολεμαίου το ῦ Λάγου τότε Σωτ ῆ ρος χρὴματίζοντος τἀ ναντία παθε ῖ ν α ὐ το ῦ τ ῇ ἐ πικλήσει. (Antiquitates Judaica)

103 The author of the Letter states that these were from Judea, but Josephus clarifies that there were also included some Samaritans. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.1.1.

104 “He also seized upon Jerusalem, and for that end made use of deceit and treachery; for as he came into the city on a Sabbath day, as if he would offer sacrifices he, without any trouble, gained the city, while the Jews did not oppose him, for they did not suspect him to be their enemy; and he gained it thus, because they were free from suspicion of him, and because on that day they were at rest and quietness; and when he had gained it, he ruled over it in a cruel manner.” (κατέσχε δεὴ οὗ τος καιὴ ταὴ Ἱ εροσόλυμα δόλ ῳ καιὴ ἀ πάτ ῃ χρὴσάμενος: ἐ λθωὴ ν γαὴ ρ σαββάτοις ε ἰ ς τὴὴν πόλιν ὡ ς θύσων, μήτε τ ῶ ν Ἰ ουδαίων α ὐ τοὴν ἀμυνομένων, ο ὐ δεὴν γαὴ ρ ὑ πενόουν πολέμιον, καιὴ διαὴ τοὴ ἀ νύποπτον καιὴ τὴὴν ἡ μέραν ἐ ν ἀ ργί ᾳ καιὴ ῥ αθυμί ᾳ τυγχανόντων, ἀ πόνως ἐ γκρατὴὴς γίγνεται τ ῆ ς πόλεως καιὴ πικρ ῶ ς ἦ ρχεν α ὐ τ ῆ ς.) (Antiquitates Judaica) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.1.

105 The Letter of Aristeas, 13. The author of the Letter does mention that previously there had been Jews serving in Egyptian garrisons under foreign kings, though these earlier populations had been much smaller: “And even before this time large numbers of Jews had come into Egypt with the Persian, and in an earlier period still others had been sent to Egypt to help Psammetichus in his campaign against the king of the Ethiopians. But these were nothing like so numerous as the captives whom Ptolemy the son of Lagus transported.” (ἤ δὴ μεὴν καιὴ πρότερον ἱ καν ῶ ν ε ἰ σελὴλυθότων συὴν τ ῷ Πέρσ ῃ , καιὴ προὴ τούτων ἑτέρων συμμαχι ῶ ν ἐ ξαπεσταλμένων προὴς τοὴν τ ῶ ν Α ἰ θιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι συὴν Ψαμμιτίχ ῳ ἀ λλ ᾽ ο ὐ 37 treated and what their role was in Egypt initially: “large numbers of these [Ptolemy] placed in the army and paid them higher wages than usual, and when he had proved the loyalty of their leaders he built fortresses and placed them in their charge that the native Egyptians might be intimidated by them.”106 Even though Josephus states that they were in the army, the implication is that they were stationed as non-native troops to control native Egyptians in the country. What is strange is that the author of the Letter clarifies that it was the soldiers themselves and not the king who wanted the other 70,000 Judean men, women and children to serve as slaves. Also strange is the fact that there is no mention of a revolt or mass escape, which implies that the Jews, even though ensnared in another country, were so loyal and devoted that Ptolemy did not have any concerns about security or Jewish movements within Egypt. The impact on Judea of losing 100,000 Jews is difficult to gauge, as no mention is made in the texts of the devastation caused in the region both by the loss of these people and the prior destruction by Ptolemy I. Regardless, this large number does serve two clear purposes: to explain the rapid rise of the Jewish population of Alexandria and to explain why such a large group of

Jews existed outside of Judea proper. These Jews are initially described as slaves and captives, people unwilling to abandon their homes. Post-Nehemiah the assumption is that Judea and especially Jerusalem are complete. The Second Temple is built, the Laws and practices are carefully dictated, and the walls of Jerusalem are finished. So why would devoted Jews not want to live in their nation? By defining them first as captives, the clear implication is that they were forced to leave it. But what made them want to stay in Egypt? The author of the Letter states that

Ptolemy II freed them, while Josephus even goes so far as to state that they were given citizen

τοσοῦ τοι τ ῷ πλήθει παρεγενήθὴσαν, ὅ σους Πτολεμα ῖ ος ὁ το ῦ Λάγου μετήγαγε.)

106 ἀ φ ᾽ ὧ ν πλείονας ε ἰ ς τοὴ στρατιωτικοὴν σύνταγμα κατεχώρισεν ἐ πιὴ μείζοσι μισθοφορίαις, ὁ μοίως δεὴ καιὴ τουὴς προόντας κρίνας πιστουὴς φρούρια κτίσας ἀ πέδωκεν α ὐ το ῖ ς, ὅ πως τοὴ τ ῶ ν Α ἰ γυπτίων ἔ θνος φόβος [μὴὴ] ἔ χ ῃ διαὴ τούτων. The Letter of Aristeas, 36. 38 status equal to the Macedonians in Egypt.107 The latter is a controversial statement because documents contemporary to Josephus suggest that this citizenship was limited and that Egyptian

Jews fought for more legal powers for generations. The famous letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians of 41 C.E., in particular, makes this clear: Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented)…108

Also worth considering is the possibility that migration into Ptolemaic Egypt might have provided the Jews with good land.109 There may also have been no impediment to Jews serving in some minor political offices in Egpyt.110 As soon as Ptolemy II appears in the narrative, the focus of the Letter shifts away from the Egyptian Jews, and toward the king’s main role as both devotee of and benefactor to the

Jewish state. The large number of Jewish captives is transformed by the author of the Letter into a demonstration of the latter king’s generosity and how beneficial the Jews were to his kingdom.

107 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII.1.

108 Hunt and Edgar, Letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians. διόπερ ἔ τι καιὴ ν ῦ ν διαμαρτύρομε εἵ να Ἀ λεξανδρε ῖ ς μεὴν πραέως καιὴ φιλανθρόπως προσφέροντε Ἰ ουδαίος το ῖ ς τὴὴν α ὐ τὴὴν πόλειν ἐ κ πολλ ῶ ν χρόνων ο ἰ κο ῦ σει καιὴ μὴδεὴν τ ῶ ν προὴς θρὴσκείαν α ὐ το ῖ ς νενομισμένων το ῦ θεο ῦ λοιμένωνται ἀ λλαὴ ἐῶ σιν α ὐ τουὴς το ῖ ς ἔ θεσιν χρ ῆ σθαι ὗ ς καιὴ ἐ πιὴ το ῦ θεο ῦ Σεβαστο ῦ , ἅ περ καιὴ ἐ γωὴ ι διακούσας ἀ μφοτέρων ἐ βεβαίωσα· καιὴ Ἰ ουδέοις δεὴ ἄ ντικρυς κελεύωι μὴδεὴν πλήωι ὧ ν πρότερον ἔ σχον περιεργάζεσθαι μὴδεὴ ὥ σπερ ἐ ν δυσειὴ πόλεσειν κατοικο ῦ ντας δύο πρεσβείας ἐ κπέμπειν το ῦ λοιπο ῦ , ὣ μὴὴ πρότερόν ποτε ἐ πράκθὴ.

109 As suggested by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII.1.1: “Nay, there were not a few other Jews who, of their own accord, went into Egypt, as invited by the goodness of the soil, and by the liberality of Ptolemy.” (οὐὀ᾽ὐῶἄἸ κ λίγοι δ ο δεὴ τ ν λλων ουδαίων ε ἰἴ ς τὴὴν Α γυπτον παρεγίγνοντο τ ῆἀῆῶ ς τε ρετ ς τ ν τόπων αὐ τουὴς καιὴ τ ῆ ς το ῦ Πτολεμαίου φιλοτιμίας προκαλουμένὴς.) (Antiquitates Judaica)

110 Collins pp. 66-68. The Jews were allowed some upward movement and involvement in Ptolemaic offices reserved for Hellenes in some cases.

39 The author states that the sum used to pay these men amounted to around 660 talents.111 The

Egyptian Jews are not mentioned again until the very end of the Letter. This suggests that the author believed that while they were important, of even greater importance were the men who, selected by the highest Jewish religious authority and with deep family connections to Jewish antiquity, would be drafted to do the actual work of translating the Hebrew laws into Greek.

Judean Sovereignty and Statecraft As the author of the Letter makes clear, he is writing to his brother about his experiences with Eleazer, the current high priest in Jerusalem. Certain elements of the Letter suggest that the high priest was a semi-independent ruler within the Ptolemaic kingdom. The first is that Ptolemy

II asks Eleazer to not only bless the endeavor, but even coordinate the actual arrangements, including determining which translators were appropriate. In addition, no mention is made of cooperation between Eleazer and any Ptolemaic officials. The king instead will dispatch two officials, Andreas, a part of the bodyguard, and Aristeas, a court official and the author of the text. It is their task not only to ask the high priest to bless the endeavor, but to work with him in the actual supervision of the translators. The author of the Letter also includes letters from both Ptolemy II and Eleazer in his account. There are two levels of political power that can be demonstrated in these letters. The first is the equal or at least elevated status that Eleazer enjoys vis-à-vis the pharaoh. The second is the relative sovereign status the high priest enjoys overall. In his letter to Ptolemy, Eleazer refers to the pharaoh as “true friend,”112 but nowhere does he refer to him as master, lord or pharaoh in a subservient tone. The phrase he uses that comes closest to demonstrating deference is “righteous king,”113 but this is used by Eleazer more as a compliment in the final section of his

111 To compare, the Carthaginians, after the First Punic War (264-241 B.C.E.), paid to Rome about 2,200 talents of silver (Polyibus, The Histories, 1.62-63).

112 φίλῳ γνὴσί ῳ , Letter of Aristeas, 41.

113 βασιλεῦ δίκαιε, Letter of Aristeas, 46.

40 letter to the Ptolemaic king, in regard to his assurance of safe passage for the translators back to

Judea. In his description of the Jewish priests and their ministrations, Aristeas details the dress of Eleazar quite spectacularly: We were greatly astonished, when we saw Eleazar engaged in the ministration, at the mode of his dress, and the majesty of his appearance, which was revealed in the robe which he wore and the precious stones upon his person. There were golden bells upon the garment which reached down to his feet, giving forth a peculiar kind of melody, and on both sides of them there were pomegranates with variegated flowers of a wonderful hue. He was girded with a girdle of conspicuous beauty, woven in the most beautiful colours. On his breast he wore the oracle of God, as it is called, on which twelve stones, of different kinds, were inset, fastened together with gold, containing the names of the leaders of the tribes, according to their original order, each one flashing forth in an indescribable way its own particular colour. On his head he wore a tiara, as it is called, and upon this in the middle of his forehead an inimitable turban, the royal diadem full of glory with the name of God inscribed in sacred letters on a plate of gold . . . having been judged worthy to wear these emblems in the ministrations.114 Wearing a tiara often implies royal status115—indeed, this item is often employed on Hellenistic coins to represent kingship—and it is in fact later clarified that the tiara worn by Eleazar was a

“royal” item.116 Here, the tiara perhaps indicates the superior status of the high priest. This is likely, as invocations of royalty or divine nature are used elsewhere to describe the high priest.117

114 The Letter of Aristeas 96-98: μεγάλὴν δεὴ ἔ κπλὴξιν ἡ μ ῖ ν παρέσχεν, ὡ ς ἐ θεασάμεθα τοὴν Ἐ λεάζαρον ἐῇᾳῦν τ λειτουργί , τά τε το στολισμο ῦῆἣ καιὴ τ ς δόξὴς, συνίσταται διαὴ τὴὴν ἔὗῖῶ νδυσιν ο φορε χιτ νος καιὴ τῶ ν περιὴ α ὐ τοὴν λίθων· χρυσο ῖ γαὴ ρ κώδωνες περιὴ τοὴν ποδήρὴ ε ἰ σιὴν α ὐ το ῦ , μέλους ἦ χον ἀ νιέντες ἰδιάζοντα· παρ ᾽ ἑ κάτερον δεὴ τούτων ἄ νθεσι πεποικιλμένοι ῥ οΐσκοι, τ ῇ χρό ᾳ θαυμασίως ἔ χοντες. κατέζωστο δεὴ διαφόρῳ ζών ῃ διαπρεπε ῖ , διυφασμέν ῃ καλλίστοις χρώμασιν. ἐ πιὴ δεὴ το ῦ στήθους φορε ῖ τοὴ λεγόμενον λόγιον, ἐ ν ᾧ συνεσφιγμένοι λίθοι δεκαδύο, διαλλάσσοντες το ῖ ς γένεσι, χρυσ ῷ κεκολλὴμένοι, ταὴ τῶ ν φυλάρχων ὀ νόματα καταὴ τὴὴν ἐ ξ ἀ ρχ ῆ ς διάταξιν γενὴθε ῖ σαν, ἀ παυγάζοντες ἕ καστος ἀ νεξήγὴτον τ ῆ ς ἰδιότὴτος τὴὴν φυσικὴὴν χρόαν. ἐ πιὴ δεὴ τ ῆ ς κεφαλ ῆ ς ἔ χει τὴὴν λεγομένὴν κίδαριν, ἐ πιὴ δεὴ ταύτὴς τὴὴν ἀ μίμὴτον μίτραν, τοὴ καθὴγιασμένον βασίλειον ἐ κτυπο ῦ ν ἐ πιὴ πετάλ ῳ χρυσ ῷ γράμμασιν ἁ γίοις ὄ νομα το ῦ θεο ῦ , καταὴ μέσον τῶ ν ὀ φρύων, δόξ ῃ πεπλὴρωμένον… ὁ κριθειὴς ἄ ξιος τούτων ἐ ν τα ῖ ς λειτουργίαις.

115 The term used in the Letter for “tiara” is κίδαριϛ, which denotes a type of Persian royal tiara or diadem.

116 βασίλειον, “kingly, royal.” The Letter of Aristeas, 98.

117 The Letter of Aristeas, 98. To be fair, the term could also reflect the limitation of Greek vocabulary when used to describe dress and customs non-native to Greeks.

41 Coin of Ptolemy II. Note the headband worn by the king (the figure in front).118 It is unclear to what degree the high priest had real political power. There are references to a

βουλή (city council) over which he had sway, but there are no details about its composition or actual operation.119 In the passage in question, the high priest is described as calling for and approving the translation in front of some people who approve of his decision. Did this council function like that of a classical Greek city-state? This is not clear. The sovereignty of Judea is demonstrated by possessive pronouns and adjectives that distinguish between Ptolemy II’s domains and those of the high priest. The most prominent of these is “our” (ἡμ ῶ ν). Eleazar uses the word when describing the benefits Ptolemy II had given to “our citizens.”120 Here the word can be understood in at least two different ways: it either refers to the people of Jerusalem or to the Alexandrian Jews. Since the phrase follows the high priest’s acknowledgment of the gifts and money given by the king to Jerusalem, it may more reasonably be understood as a reference to Jerusalem’s citizens. “Your” (σός) is also frequently

118 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1691336. The employment of a diadem was prominent in Eastern and Hellenistic royal custom. Did the Jews adopt a similar custom in parallel to other Near Eastern states or did they adopt it in response to contact with these states?

119 The Letter of Aristeas, 42. Although the origin of said group is never explained, the high priest seems to function as sole authority in Judea at this time.

120 τουὴς πολίτας ἡ μ ῶ ν, The Letter of Aristeas, 44.

42 used by both Ptolemy and Eleazar. When writing to Eleazar, Ptolemy refers to the captured Jews as “your citizens,”121 and in response, Eleazar refers to the kingdom of Egypt being exclusively

Ptolemy’s with Judea almost like a vassal state.122 In the end, the letters between these two men portray a friendly rather than servant/master relationship even though Judea would have been under Ptolemaic control at the time. One last piece of evidence for the sovereignty of Jerusalem and Judea appears in the

Letter when Aristeas describes the martial strength of Jerusalem imparted by its most loyal defenders: But in order that we might gain complete information, we ascended to the summit of the neighbouring citadel and looked around us. It is situated in a very lofty spot, and is fortified with many towers, which have been built up to the very top of immense stones, with the object, as we were informed, of guarding the temple precincts, so that if there were an attack, or an insurrection or an onslaught of the enemy, no one would be able to force an entrance within the walls that surround the temple. On the towers of the citadel engines of war were placed and different kinds of machines, and the position was much higher than the circle of walls which I have mentioned. The towers were guarded too by most trusty men who had given the utmost proof of their loyalty to their country. These men were never allowed to leave the citadel, except on feast days and then only in detachments. Nor did they permit any stranger to enter it. They were also very careful when any command came from the chief officer to admit any visitors to inspect the place, as our own experience taught us. They were very reluctant to admit us—though we were but two unarmed men—to view the offering of the sacrifices. And they asserted that they were bound by an oath when the trust was committed to them, for they had all sworn and were bound to carry out the oath sacredly to the letter, that though they were five hundred in number they would not permit more than five men to enter at one time. The citadel was the special protection of the temple and its founder had fortified it so strongly that it might efficiently protect it.123

121 τοῖ ς σο ῖ ς πολίταις. The Letter of Aristeas, 36.

122 The Letter of Aristeas 44-45: “For you have bestowed upon our citizens great and never to be forgotten benefits in many ways. Immediately therefore I offered sacrifices on behalf of you, your sister, your children, and your friends, and all the people prayed that your plans might prosper continually, and that Almighty God might preserve your kingdom in peace with honour.” (μεγάλα γαὴ ρ καιὴ συὴ καιὴ ἀνεπίλὴστα τουὴς πολίτας ἡ μ ῶ ν καταὴ πολλουὴς τρόπους ε ὐ ὴργέτὴκας. ε ὐ θέως ο ὖ ν προσὴγάγομεν ὑ πεὴρ σοῦ θυσίας καιὴ τ ῆ ς ἀ δελφ ῆ ς καιὴ τ ῶ ν τέκνων καιὴ τ ῶ ν φίλων· καιὴ ὴ ὔ ξατο π ᾶ ν τοὴ πλ ῆ θος, ἵ να σοι γένὴται καθωὴ ς προαιρῇ διαὴ παντός, καιὴ διασώζ ῃ σοι τὴὴν βασιλείαν ἐ ν ε ἰ ρήν ῃ μεταὴ δόξὴς ὁ κυριεύων ἁ πάντων θεός.)

123 The Letter of Aristeas, 100-104: προὴς γαὴρ τὴὴν ἐ πίγνωσιν ἁ πάντων ἐ πιὴ τὴὴν παρακειμένὴν ἄ κραν τ ῆ ς πόλεως ἀ ναβάντες ἐ θεωρο ῦ μεν· ἣ κε ῖ ται μεὴν ἐ ν ὑ ψὴλοτάτ ῳ τόπ ῳ , πύργοις ἐ ξὴσφαλισμένὴ πλείοσι, μέχρι κορυφῆ ς ε ὐ μήκεσι λίθοις ἀ ν ῳ κοδομὴμένων α ὐ τ ῶ ν, ὡ ς μεταλαμβάνομεν, προὴς φυλακὴὴν τ ῶ ν περιὴ 43 This citadel is not mentioned in any other source. It does not appear to have been present when

Ptolemy I took Jerusalem, which is odd, given that it seems to have been a prominent defensive feature of the Temple. Further, the group of men inhabiting the fortress is identified as being sworn to their fatherland, and not to the Ptolemaic dynasty. So why bring this up?

An Attempt at Syncretism? The author of the Letter of Aristeas is very hopeful about the blending of Jewish and

Greek customs. And why not? Ptolemy II had asked that Jewish translators be approved by the highest Jewish religious authority to perform a task not yet done by the Jews: translating the laws of the Jews from Hebrew into Greek. The translators named by the author of the Letter are described as elders and were clearly meant to be representatives of their respective tribes. Many of the names are intriguing: Of the first tribe, Joseph, Ezekiah, Zachariah, John, Ezekiah, Elisha. Of the second tribe, Judas, Simon, Samuel, Adaeus, Mattathias, Eschlemias. Of the third tribe, Nehemiah, Joseph, Theodosius, Baseas, Ornias, Dakis. Of the fourth tribe, Jonathan, Abraeus, Elisha, Ananias, Chabrias (Χελκίας?) Of the fifth tribe, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, Sabbataeus, Simon, Levi. Of the sixth tribe, Judas, Joseph, Simon, Zacharias, Samuel, Selemias. Of the seventh tribe, Sabbataeus, Zedekiah, Jacob, Isaac, Jesias, Natthaeus. Of the eighth tribe Theodosius, Jason, Jesus, Theodotus, John, Jonathan. Of the ninth tribe, Theophilus, Abraham, Arsamos, Jason, Endemias, Daniel. Of the tenth tribe, Jeremiah, Eleazar, Zachariah, Baneas, Elisha, Dathaeus. Of the eleventh tribe, Samuel, Joseph, Judas, Jonathes, Chabu, Dositheus. Of the twelfth tribe, Isaelus, John, Theodosius, Arsamos, Abietes, Ezekiel.124

τοὴ ἱ εροὴν τόπων· ἵ να, ἐ αὴ ν ἐ πίθεσίς τις ἢ νεωτερισμοὴς ἢ πολεμίων ἔ φοδος γένὴται, μὴθειὴς δύνὴται ὁ δοὴν ε ἰ ς τουὴς περιβόλους ποιήσασθαι τουὴς περιὴ τοὴν οἶ κον· ἐ πικειμένων καιὴ ὀ ξυβελ ῶ ν ἐ πιὴ τ ῶ ν πύργων τ ῆ ς ἄ κρας καιὴ ὀ ργάνων ποικίλων, καιὴ το ῦ τόπου καταὴ κορυφὴὴν ὄ ντος τ ῶ ν προειρὴμένων περιβόλων, ὡ σανειὴ φυλασσομένων τῶ ν πύργων ὑ ποὴ τ ῶ ν πιστοτάτων ἀ νδρ ῶ ν καιὴ τ ῇ πατρίδι μεγάλας ἀ ποδείξεις δεδωκότων· οἵὐἶἐ τινες ο κ ε χον ξουσίαν ἐ ξιέναι τ ῆἄ ς κρας, ε ἰῖἑῖ μὴὴ τα ς ορτα ς, καιὴ το ῦἐ το κ μέρους, ο ὐ δεὴ εἰ σοδεύειν ε ἴ ων ο ὐ δένα. μεταὴ ἀ κριβείας δεὴ πολλ ῆ ς ε ἶ χον, ε ἰ καί τις ἐ πιταγὴὴ γένοιτο διαὴ το ῦ προκαθὴγουμένου προὴς θεωρίαν εἰ σδέξασθαί τινας· ο ἷ ον καιὴ καθ ᾽ ἡ μ ᾶ ς ἐ γεγόνει. μόλις γαὴ ρ ἀ νόπλους ὄντας ἡ μ ᾶ ς δύο παρεδέξαντο προὴς τοὴ κατανο ῆ σαι ταὴ τ ῶ ν θυσι ῶ ν. ἔ λεγον δεὴ καιὴ δι ᾽ ὅ ρκων πεπιστ ῶ σθαι τοὴ τοιοῦ τον· τουὴς γαὴ ρ πάντας ὀ μωμοκέναι, κατ ᾽ ἀ νάγκὴν { ἐ πιτελουμένους} θείως τοὴ καταὴ τοὴν ὁ ρισμοὴν πρᾶ γμα, ὄ ντας πεντακοσίους μὴὴ παραδέξασθαι πλε ῖ ον ἀ νθρώπων πέντε καταὴ τοὴ α ὐ τό· το ῦ γαὴ ρ ἱ ερο ῦ τὴὴν πᾶ σαν ε ἶ ναι φυλακὴὴν τὴὴν ἄ κραν· καιὴ τοὴν καταβαλλόμενον α ὐ τὴὴν τὴὴν προφυλακὴὴν τ ῶ ν ε ἰ ὴμένων οὕ τως ἠ σφαλίσθαι.

124 Εἰ σιὴ δεὴ πρώτὴς φυλ ῆ ς· Ἰ ώσὴφος, Ἐ ζεκίας, Ζαχαρίας, Ἰ ωάννὴς, Ἐ ζεκίας, Ἐ λισσα ῖ ος. δευτέρας· Ἰούδας, Σίμων, Σομόὴλος, Ἀ δα ῖ ος, Ματταθίας, Ἐ σχλεμίας. τρίτὴς· Νεεμίας, Ἰ ώσὴφος, Θεοδόσιος, Βασέας,

44 Among these names are a handful of Greek ones: Theodotus, Theodosius and Theophilus. Yet the men in the list were Jews from Jerusalem and likely very prominent members of society. In addition, they were elders or at least men of some years. The adoption of Greek names by Jews in Jerusalem would lead to the conclusion that Greek culture had been accepted to some degree by the Jews in Judea.125 Yet the author of the Letter also reveals that only two Ptolemaic officials are allowed into the city, and only as guests of the high priest. There is no foreign garrison within the city of

Jerusalem proper, and no pagan religious buildings, either communal or religious, are mentioned as being within the city walls. The Jewish God is recognized by the Greeks as being similar in some respects to members of their pantheon,126 yet the Jews never describe their God as similar to Olympian Zeus. In fact, their God went so far as to punish Greek authors who dared to attempt to translate Jewish laws into Greek. Their ignorance caused God’s wrath: the authors were not appropriate for the task.127 While the Letter would seem to demonstrate the blending of Jewish and Greek customs, as seen in the symposium scene where the Jewish elders demonstrate their

Ὀρνίας, Δάκις. τετάρτὴς· Ἰ ωνάθας, Ἀ βα ῖ ος, Ἐ λισσα ῖ ος, Ἁ νανίας, Χαβρίας, [Χελκίας? – name not included in referenced English translation source]. πέμπτὴς· Ἴ σακος, Ἰ άκωβος, Ἰ ὴσο ῦ ς, Σαββατα ῖ ος, Σίμων, Λευίς. ἕκτὴς· Ἰ ούδας, Ἰ ώσὴφος, Σίμων, Ζαχαρίας, Σομόὴλος, Σελεμίας. ἑ βδόμὴς· Σαββατα ῖ ος, Σεδεκίας, Ἰάκωβος, Ἴ σαχος, Ἰ ὴσίας, Νατθα ῖ ος. ὀ γδόὴς· Θεοδόσιος, Ἰ άσων, Ἰ ὴσο ῦ ς, Θεόδοτος, Ἰ ωάννὴς, Ἰ ωνάθας. ἐνάτὴς· Θεόφιλος, Ἄ βραμος, Ἄ ρσαμος, Ἰ άσων, Ἐ νδεμίας, Δανίὴλος. δεκάτὴς· Ἰ ερεμίας, Ἐ λεάζαρος, Ζαχαρίας, Βανέας, Ἐ λισσα ῖ ος, Δαθα ῖ ος. ἑ νδεκάτὴς· Σαμούὴλος, Ἰ ώσὴφος, Ἰ ούδας, Ἰ ωνάθὴς. Χαβε ῦ , Δοσίθεος. δωδεκάτὴς· Ἰ σάὴλος, Ἰ ωάννὴς, Θεοδόσιος, Ἄ ρσαμος, Ἀ βιήτὴς, Ἐ ζεκ ῆ λος. ο ἱ πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. The Letter of Aristeas, 47-50. The emphasis is mine.

125 Adoption of Greek names sometimes occurred among Alexandrian Jews in the early Ptolemaic period: Horbury and Noy, 12.

126 The Letter of Aristeas, 16. “They worship the same God - the Lord and Creator of the Universe, as all other men, as we ourselves, O king, though we call him by different names, such as Zeus or Dis.” (τοὴν γαὴ ρ πάντων ἐ πόπτὴν καιὴ κτίστὴν θεοὴν ο ὗ τοι σέβοντα, ὃ ν καιὴ πάντες, ἡ με ῖ ς δέ, βασιλε ῦ , προσονομάζοντες ἑ τέρως Ζ ῆ να καιὴ Δία.)

127 The authors named are Theopompus (380-315 B.C.E.), a historian, and Theodektes, a tragic poet. The Letter of Aristeas, 314-316.

45 wisdom to the inquisitive king,128 the author of the Letter is very clear in pointing out that the

Greeks are ignorant and that it is up to the Jews to educate them. In Josephus, as well, there is a similar criticism of Greek authors for their misunderstanding of or ignorance about the Jews, which makes clear that this bias lasted for several centuries, at least. On the other hand, the piety and customs of the Jews tend to be labeled as archaic and bizarre by those Greek authors who wrote descriptions of the Jews.129 In the Letter the Greeks are more welcoming, however, and even astonished at the character and wisdom of the Jews. Greek officials are respectful of Jewish religious practices.130 Even truly great Greeks, like Ptolemy himself, are open to Jewish customs. The Jews in the early Hellenistic period viewed themselves as an independent people with their own separate leaders. If they asked their God to help the rulers of Ptolemaic Egypt, in

128 The Letter of Aristeas, 182-294. At one point, the king has some fond words for the Jews (200): “When all had signified by their applause their agreement with the answer, the king said to the philosophers (for not a few of them were present), 'It is my opinion that these men excel in virtue and possess extraordinary knowledge, since on the spur of the moment they have given fitting answers to these questions which I have put to them, and have all made God the starting-point of their words.’” (ἐπιφωνὴσάντων δεὴ πάντων καιὴ κρότῳ σὴμὴναμένων προὴς τουὴς φιλοσόφους ε ἶ πεν ὁ βασιλευὴς (ο ὐ κ ὀλίγοι γαὴρ παρ ῆ σαν τούτοις) Ο ἴ ομαι διαφέρειν τουὴς ἄ νδρας ἀ ρετ ῇ καιὴ συνιέναι πλε ῖ ον, ο ἵ τινες ἐ κ το ῦ καιροῦ τοιαύτας ἐ ρωτήσεις λαμβάνοντες, ὡ ς δέον ἐ στιὴν ἀ ποκέκρινται, πάντες ἀ ποὴ θεο ῦ το ῦ λόγου τὴὴν καταρχὴὴν ποιούμενοι.)

129 See, for instance, Josephus, Antiquitites of the Jews, XII.1.1: “Nay Agatharchides of Cnidus, who wrote the acts of Alexander’s successors, reproaches us with superstition; as if we, by it, had lost our liberty: where he says thus: ‘There is a nation called the nation of the Jews; who inhabit a city strong and great, named Jerusalem. These men took no care, but let it come into the hands of Ptolemy, as not willing to take arms, and thereby they submitted to be under a hard master, by reason of their unseasonable superstition.’ This is what Agatharchides relates of our nation.” (μαρτυρεῖ δεὴ τ ῷ λόγ ῳ τούτ ῳ καιὴ Ἀγαθαρχίδὴς ὁ Κνίδιος ὁ ταὴς τ ῶ ν διαδόχων πράξεις συγγραψάμενος, ὀ νειδίζων ἡ μ ῖ ν δεισιδαιμονίαν ὡ ς δι᾽ὐἀῦἐ α τὴὴν ποβαλο σι τὴὴν λευθερίαν, λέγων ο ὕἔἔἸ τως: ‘ στιν θνος ουδαίων λεγόμενον, ο ἳὀ πόλιν χυραὴ ν καιὴ μεγάλὴν ἔ χοντες Ἱ εροσόλυμα ταύτὴν ὑ περε ῖ δον ὑ ποὴ Πτολεμαί ῳ γενομένὴν ὅ πλα λαβε ῖ ν ο ὐ θελήσαντες, ἀ λλαὴ διαὴ τὴὴν ἄ καιρον δεισιδαιμονίαν χαλεποὴν ὑ πέμειναν ἔ χειν δεσπότὴν.’ Ἀ γαθαρχίδὴς μεὴν οὖ ν τα ῦ τα περιὴ το ῦ ἔ θνους ἡ μ ῶ ν ἀ πεφήνατο.) (Antiquitates Judaica)

130 The Letter of Aristeas 184: “When they had taken their seats he [Ptolemy II] instructed Dorotheus to carry out everything in accordance with the customs which were in use amongst his Jewish guests. Therefore he dispensed with the services of the sacred heralds and the sacrificing priests and the others who were accustomed to offer the prayers, and called upon one of our number, Eleazar, the oldest of the Jewish priests, to offer prayer instead.” (ὡς δεὴ κατεκλίθὴσαν, ἐ κέλευσε τ ῷ Δωροθέ ῳ το ῖ ς ἐ θισμο ῖ ς ο ἷ ς χρῶ νται πάντες ο ἱ παραγινόμενοι προὴς α ὐ τοὴν ἀ ποὴ τ ῆ ς Ἰ ουδαίας, ο ὕ τως ἐ πιτελε ῖ ν. διοὴ τουὴς ἱ εροκήρυκας καιὴ θύτας καιὴ τουὴς ἄ λλους, ο ἷ ς ἔ θος ἦ ν ταὴς κατευχαὴς ποιε ῖ σθαι, παρ ῃ τήσατο· τ ῶ ν δεὴ παραγεγονότων συὴν ἡμ ῖ ν Ἐ λισσα ῖ ον ὄ ντα τ ῶ ν ἱ ερ ῶ ν πρεσβύτερον ποιήσασθαι κατευχήν.)

46 response they expected the Egyptian king to treat them respectfully and offer goods and praise to

God for his glory. Yet in the second century B.C.E. Jewish attitudes towards the Greeks changed as the Greek empires expanded and contracted. God was evidently only good to the Greeks as long as his people were untroubled. When Jerusalem was disturbed Judea would revolt.

47 Chapter 3 – The Maccabees and a New Jewish Kingdom The Gathering Storm The second century B.C.E. marked a major turning point for Judea. In 190 B.C.E., the ascending Roman Republic defeated the forces of Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire at

Magnesia. This would start a chain of events that would see the Seleucid Empire crumble from both foreign interference and inner turmoil. In 168 B.C.E. the arrival of Gaius Popilius Laenas, a

Roman delegate, not only stopped the expansion of Antiochus IV (175–164 B.C.E.) into Egypt, but also brought stability to a ravaged Ptolemaic court.131 At this point Judea was part of the

Seleucid Empire, but revolt and warfare were not far off. The main sources that cover this period are Maccabees 1, 2 and 4 and Josephus.

Josephus, as elsewhere, uses the biblical sources in an edited form. For their part, the books of

Maccabees are quite variegated. Book 1 describes the entire Jewish revolt from the Seleucids whereas Book 2 focuses mostly on the initial stages of the revolt under the Maccabees and Book

4 is a philosophical discussion about events described in the previous books.132 The authors are all different and they cover different topics in different genres, yet they all have in common a desire to glorify the Jewish revolt from the Seleucids. This is done by demonizing not only the

Seleucid officials, but also the Jews who chose Hellenization over their traditions. The latter brings into question the origins of the revolt. Some scholars have claimed that the Maccabeean revolt was not initially a war for independence, but a civil war between Hellenized Jews in power and those striving to return to tradition.133 It only became a war for independence once

Antiochus IV stepped in to help his Hellenized supporters. In earlier contact with the Hellenized

131 Polybius, The Histories, Book 29.27. The Ptolemaic empire had already by this time begun its descent to the status of vassal state because of its overreliance on Roman power (Polybius, The Histories, Book 29.2).

132 In 2 Maccabees Book 2, a writer named Jason of Cyrene is listed as the author of a five-volume history of the revolt. The author of 2 Maccabees claims he is writing a truncated version of events covered in that work.

133 Give citations for some of these scholars here.

48 empires, the Jews had actually been treated very well, for the most part. For instance, in the

Letter of Aristeas, the Jews taken as captives into Egypt were given their freedom and good citizenship status.134 As a result of their military service under Selucus Nicator (305–281 B.C.E.),

Jews were granted citizenship status throughout his kingdom, even in the main capital at

Antioch.135 Josephus even has Antiochus III (222–187 B.C.E.) describe the Jews in glowing terms to the Ptolemaic court in what is allegedly an official letter from the king: Since the Jews, upon our first entrance on their country, demonstrated their friendship towards us, and when we came to their city, received us in a splendid manner, and came to meet us with their senate, and gave an abundance of provisions to our soldiers, and to the elephants, and joined with us in ejecting the garrison of the Egyptians that were in the citadel, we have thought fit to reward them, and to retrieve the condition of their city, which has been greatly depopulated by such accidents as have befallen its inhabitants, and to bring those that have been scattered abroad back to the city.136

Based on this passage, Jerusalem (“their city”) could be described as existing in a quantum state.

On the one hand, it was an organized state with its own independent system of government ready to offer any service. On the other, it was a state ravaged by foreign invasion and a sizable

(though never counted) part of the population had been devastated. The devastations of Jerusalem and Judea during the Hellenistic Period—the “accidents” alluded to above—are never fully explained. In some accounts, data and numbers are provided, but others are vague either by accident or choice. For instance, when was the garrison of

Egyptians referenced above brought into Jerusalem? In the Letter of Aristeas, there is mention of

134 Letter of Aristeas 44.

135 Jospehus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.3.1.

136 Jospehus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.3.3: τῶ ν Ἰ ουδαίων καιὴ παραυτίκα μέν, ἡ νίκα τ ῆ ς χώρας ἐπέβὴμεν α ὐ τ ῶ ν, ἐ πιδειξαμένων τοὴ προὴς ἡ μ ᾶ ς φιλότιμον καιὴ παραγενομένους δ ᾽ ε ἰ ς τὴὴν πόλιν λαμπρ ῶ ς ἐκδεξαμένων καιὴ μεταὴ τ ῆ ς γερουσίας ἀ παντὴσάντων, ἄ φθονον δεὴ τὴὴν χορὴγίαν το ῖ ς στρατιώταις καιὴ το ῖ ς ἐλέφασι παρεσχὴμένων, συνεξελόντων δεὴ καιὴ τουὴς ἐ ν τ ῇ ἄ κρ ᾳ φρουρουὴς τ ῶ ν Α ἰ γυπτίων, ἠ ξιώσαμεν καιὴ αὐ τοιὴ τούτων α ὐ τουὴς ἀ μείψασθαι καιὴ τὴὴν πόλιν α ὐ τ ῶ ν ἀ ναλαβε ῖ ν κατεφθαρμένὴν ὑ ποὴ τ ῶ ν περιὴ τουὴς πολέμους συμπεσόντων καιὴ συνοικίσαι τῶ ν διεσπαρμένων ε ἰ ς α ὐ τὴὴν πάλιν συνελθόντων. (Antiquitates Judaica)

49 a citadel, though it is garrisoned by loyal Jews.137 Were these Egyptians by ethnicity or by political identification with the Ptolemaic court? What was their size and organization? These questions are never really answered in the passage. In addition, the “accidents” mentioned above could have been the result of revolts, civil wars or even planned state actions. Ultimately, these

“accidents” seem to be used by Josephus as a means of allowing the Jews to degrade one group and support another. A king honoring the Jews is more beneficial if he is restoring or supporting a beleaguered Jewish state. In his letter, Antiochus III refers to Judea as the country of the Jews, but he does not distinguish any other group such as the Samaritans as being present in it. Again, as in the Letter of Aristeas, the writer makes reference to a governing body. In Aristeas, the word was boulê

(βουλή), “council”; here, the term is gerousia (γερουσία), “council of elders.”138 Both terms imply that the Jews had political bodies. In Aristeas, the council relied on the high priest not only to call upon it, but to carry out its decisions. In Josephus, no mention is made of the high priest’s involvement. In neither case is there mention of elections, offices or even the identities of actual members of these groups. This raises a question: Were these terms simply a means for Jewish authors writing in Greek to explain to their Greek audiences a function of some part of Jewish society? Or were the authors deliberately attempting, in describing Jewish political life with these terms, to assign more autonomy to the Jews than they actually possessed? Regardless, the

Jewish governing bodies described here were ultimately not very significant to the development of Jewish affairs. The Maccabees, and the later Hasmoneans, saw dynastic legitimacy as stemming not from a political office, but rather from the role of the high priest as the highest authority in Judea.

137 Letter of Aristeas 102.

138 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XII.3.3. (Antiquitates Judaica)

50 Politics In Book XII.4 of Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus describes how the high priest functioned as a representative of the Jewish state. In this section, Josephus reveals the growing tension between the miserly high priest Onias and Ptolemy III (246–222 B.C.E.), to whom Onias refused to pay taxes. The nephew of the high priest, a man named Joseph, takes the initiative to confront his uncle about the issue: Hereupon he came to the city [Jerusalem], and reproved Onias for not taking care of the preservation of his countrymen, but bringing the nation into dangers, by not paying this money. For which preservation of them, he told him he had received the authority over them, and had been made high priest; but that, in case he was so great a lover of money, as to endure to see his country in danger on that account, and his countrymen suffer the greatest damages, he advised him to go to the king, and petition him to remit either the whole or a part of the sum demanded. Onias's answer was this: That he did not care for his authority, and that he was ready, if the thing were practicable, to lay down his high priesthood; and that he would not go to the king, because he troubled not himself at all about such matters. Joseph then asked him if he would not give him leave to go as ambassador on behalf of the nation. He replied, that he would give him leave. Upon which Joseph went up into the temple, and called the multitude together to a congregation, and exhorted them not to be disturbed nor affrighted, because of his uncle Onias's carelessness, but desired them to be at rest, and not terrify themselves with fear about it; for he promised them that he would be their ambassador to the king, and persuade him that they had done him no wrong. And when the multitude heard this, they returned thanks to Joseph. So he went down from the temple, and treated Ptolemy's ambassador in a hospitable manner. He also presented him with rich gifts, and feasted him magnificently for many days, and then sent him to the king before him, and told him that he would soon follow him; for he was now more willing to go to the king, by the encouragement of the ambassador, who earnestly persuaded him to come into Egypt, and promised him that he would take care that he should obtain everything that he desired of Ptolemy; for he was highly pleased with his frank and liberal temper, and with the gravity of his deportment.139

139 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.2. ἐ λθωὴ ν ε ἰ ς τὴὴν πόλιν ἐ πέπλὴττε τ ῷ Ὀ νί ᾳ μὴὴ προνοουμένῳῆἀ τ ς σφαλείας τ ῶῶἀ᾽ἰ ν πολιτ ν, λλ ε ς κινδύνους τοὴ ἔ θνος βουλομέν ῳῆ περιστ σαι διαὴ τὴὴν τῶ ν χρὴμάτων ἀ ποστέρὴσιν, δι ᾽ ἃ καιὴ το ῦ λαο ῦ τὴὴν προστασίαν λαβε ῖ ν α ὐ τοὴν ἔ λεγεν καιὴ τ ῆ ς ἀρχιερατικ ῆῆἐ ς τιμ ς πιτυχε ῖἰ᾽ἐ ν. ε δ ρωτικ ῶὕἔῶ ς ο τως χοι τ ν χρὴμάτων, ὡ᾽ὐ ς δι α ταὴ καιὴ τὴὴν πατρίδα κινδυνεύουσαν ἰ δε ῖ ν ὑ πομε ῖ ναι καιὴ π ᾶ ν ὁ τιο ῦ ν παθόντας α ὐ το ῦ τουὴς πολίτας, συνεβούλευσεν ἀ πελθόντα προὴς τοὴν βασιλέα δεὴθῆὐῦἢ ναι α το πάντων α ὐῷ τ παραχωρ ῆῶ σαι τ ν χρὴμάτων ἢ μέρους. το ῦὈ δεὴ νίου μήτε ἄ ρχειν θέλειν ἀ ποκριναμένου καιὴ τὴὴν ἀ ρχιερωσύνὴν δ ᾽ ε ἰ δυνατόν ἐ στιν ἑ τοίμως ἔ χειν ἀ ποθέσθαι λέγοντος μήτε ἀ ναβήσεσθαι προὴς τοὴν βασιλέα, μέλειν γαὴ ρ α ὐ τ ῷ περιὴ τούτων ο ὐ δέν, ε ἰ πρεσβεύειν α ὐ τ ῷ συγχωρεῖ προὴς τοὴν Πτολεμα ῖ ον ὑ πεὴρ το ῦ ἔ θνους ἐ πὴρώτὴσεν. φήσαντος δεὴ ἐ πιτρέπειν ἀ ναβαὴ ς ε ἰ ς τοὴ ἱεροὴν ὁ Ἰ ώσὴπος καιὴ συγκαλέσας τοὴ πλ ῆ θος ε ἰ ς ἐ κκλὴσίαν μὴδεὴν ταράσσεσθαι μὴδεὴ φοβε ῖ σθαι παρ ῄ νει 51 Joseph initially approaches his uncle with concerns about the preservation of the Jews. In the context of the high priesthood, the term Josephus uses here, ἀ σφαλεία (“security, preservation”), is clearly meant to signify the maintenance of the covenant with God as well as enforcing other religious practices. In this case, “preservation” has the more terrestrial sense of preserving Judea and the Jews living in it. The taxes referenced here—twenty talents of silver—are not to be paid by the citizenry but by the high priest himself. Is the implication that the high priest is paying for the entire state as its representative, or is this another form of tribute paid directly to the king?

This question is never answered. The main point is that the high priest is unwilling to pay the tax.

He is not lacking the funds to do so. Because of this non-payment, the Egyptian king threatens to seize their land, and send soldiers to live upon it.140 This was a serious threat because at no other point had a foreign king directly threatened Judea with colonization.141 Typically, threats centered around stopping the construction of Jerusalem. Clearly, this was enough of a threat to force

Joseph to confront his uncle and urge him to placate the Egyptian king. One of Joseph’s suggestions for Onias is especially unusual: that he personally go to the king.142 At no time previously had the high priest ever traveled outside Judea, or even Jerusalem,

διαὴ τὴὴν Ὀ νίου το ῦ θείου περιὴ α ὐῶἀ τ ν μέλειαν, ἀ᾽ἐἀᾳῶἀῆ λλ ν δεί τ ν ποὴ τ ς σκυθρωποτέρας ἐ λπίδος τὴὴν διάνοιαν αὐ τουὴς ἔ χειν ἠ ξίου· πρεσβεύσειν γαὴ ρ α ὐ τοὴς ἐ πὴγγέλλετο προὴς τοὴν βασιλέα καιὴ πείσειν α ὐ τόν, ὅτι μὴδεὴν ἀῦ δικο σιν. καιὴ τοὴ μεὴν πλ ῆ θος τούτων ἀῦὐῖῷἸῳ κο σαν ε χαριστε τ ωσήπ , καταβαὴ ς δ ᾽ὐἐ α τοὴς κ τοῦ ἱ ερο ῦ ξενί ᾳ τε ὑ ποδέχεται τοὴν παραὴ το ῦ Πτολεμαίου πεπρεσβευκότα καιὴ δωρὴσάμενος α ὐ τοὴν πολυτελέσι δωρεαῖ ς καιὴ ἐ πιὴ πολλαὴς ἑ στιάσας φιλοτίμως ἡ μέρας προέπεμψε προὴς τοὴν βασιλέα, φράσας αὐ τ ῷ καιὴ α ὐ τοὴς ἀ κολουθήσειν· καιὴ γαὴρ ἔ τι μ ᾶ λλον γεγόνει πρόθυμος προὴς τὴὴν ἄ φιξιν τὴὴν παραὴ τοὴν βασιλέα τοῦ πρεσβευτο ῦ προτρεψαμένου καιὴ παρορμήσαντος ε ἰ ς Α ἴ γυπτον ἐ λθε ῖ ν καιὴ πάντων ὧ ν ἂ ν δέὴται παραὴ Πτολεμαίου τυχεῖ ν α ὐ τοὴν ποιήσειν ὑ ποσχομένου· τοὴ γαὴ ρ ἐ λευθέριον α ὐ το ῦ καιὴ τοὴ σεμνοὴν το ῦ ἤθους λίαν ἠ γάπὴσεν. (Antiquitates Judaica)

140 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.1. “He threatened to divide up their land if they did not take him in and to dispatch soldiers as new tenants.” (ἠ πείλει κλὴρουχήσειν α ὐ τ ῶ ν τὴὴν γ ῆ ν ο ὐ κ ἀπολαβωὴ ν καιὴ πέμψειν τουὴς ἐ νοικήσοντας στρατιώτας.) (Antiquitates Judaica)

141 This could also be a reference to the Egyptian garrison removed by Antiochus III, but there is no corroborating evidence. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.3.3.

142 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.2.

52 for that matter. In the time of Alexander the Great, the high priest Jaddua never traveled far outside Jerusalem itself, only reaching as far as a point called Sapha,143 which was in view of both the Second Temple and Jerusalem. Yet here the suggestion offered is for the high priest to travel to personally meet with the king. Was the high priest to go as far as Alexandria? This is unclear. Also unclear is how this meeting would have been conducted. Of course, this is moot, because Onias offers to instead lay down his high priesthood, a statement meant to reflect the character of Onias and then to demonstrate Joseph’s integrity. Again, no explanation is offered for how this would be accomplished. As a result of his uncle’s unwillingness, Joseph asks to serve as ambassador of the Jewish state to Ptolemy. Joseph is not actually granted a title or position, but is given the clear approval of his uncle the high priest. When Joseph actually talks to the crowd it is not to have them confirm his position, but to reassure them that he will be able to settle the issues with Ptolemy. The confrontation between Onias and Joseph demonstrates very clearly how political business was transacted in Jerusalem. First Joseph goes to the Temple to have a discussion with

Onias. After the preliminaries, Joseph gathers a crowd.144 Based on this passage, the Temple at this stage would seem to have functioned similarly to a Greek agora or Roman forum. Is

Josephus being anachronistic here in describing a more Hellenized/Romanized Jerusalem, or is he simply invoking the concept of the Temple as the central cultural point of city? It is worth noting that, at least according to Josephus, there was no actual voting in the Temple unlike in a

Greek or Roman city. Instead, the multitude just cheered for the decision that had already been made. The Temple was also not able to serve a diplomatic function, as it was forbidden for

Gentiles and other non-believers to be within its confines. This is demonstrated by Joseph’s

143 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI.8.5.

144 Were these people at the Temple or were they just inhabitants of the city? All that clear is that there was a significant number of people called to some sort of meeting.

53 actions immediately after convening the multitude: he went down from the Temple to entertain and convince the foreign ambassador, as the ambassador was not allowed to be present in the

Temple or among the multitude. After returning to Egypt, the ambassador spoke with Ptolemy: “he told the king of the thoughtless temper of Onias; and informed him of the goodness of the disposition of Joseph; and that he was coming to him to excuse the multitude, as not having done him any harm, for that he was their patron.”145 This statement implies that the Ptolemaic kings were the patrons of Judea in some fashion, which likely also explains the necessity of the Jews paying taxes. It also clarifies that Onias was the one to blame for the dispute and that Joseph had come in defense of the multitude, and not necessarily on behalf of his uncle. This did not completely satisfy Ptolemy, however, and he began to complain about Onias. To this, Joseph replied as follows: "Forgive him, on account of his age; for you cannot certainly be unacquainted with this, that old men and infants have their minds exactly alike; but you shall have from us, who are young men, everything you desire and shall have no cause to complain."146 From this statement it can be assumed, or at least inferred, that according to Josephus, at least, the high priest was recognized by the Ptolemaic kings as a governor of some sort. In this case he clearly had some jurisdiction over tax collection, though how much authority he was granted is never established. Finally, how Joseph responds to the king reveals his own views about the actions the high priest took: they were not malicious but a factor of old age. Of course, earlier in this passage he disparages his uncle for his greed and laziness, but the king and other Ptolemaic officials are not privy to this knowledge. That he asks the king for pardon for his uncle is due less to his desire to

145 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.3: ἀ πήγγειλεν τ ῷ βασιλε ῖ τὴὴν το ῦ Ὀ νίου ἀ γνωμοσύνὴν καιὴ περιὴ τῆ ς το ῦ Ἰ ωσήπου χρὴστότὴτος ἐ δήλου, καιὴ ὅ τι μέλλοι προὴς α ὐ τοὴν ἥ ξειν παραιτὴσόμενος τ ῶ ν ἁμαρτὴμάτων τοὴ πλ ῆ θος: ε ἶ ναι γαὴ ρ α ὐ το ῦ προστάτὴν. (Antiquitates Judaica)

146 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.3: ὁ δέ ‘συγγίνωσκε, φὴσίν, α ὐ τ ῷ διαὴ τοὴ γ ῆ ρας· ο ὐ γαὴ ρ λανθάνει σε πάντως, ὅ τι καιὴ τουὴς πρεσβύτας καιὴ ταὴ νήπια τὴὴν α ὐ τὴὴν διάνοιαν ἔ χειν συμβέβὴκεν. παραὴ δ ᾽ ἡμ ῶ ν ἔ σται σοι τ ῶ ν νέων ἅ παντα, ὥ στε μὴδεὴν α ἰ τι ᾶ σθαι.’ (Antiquitates Judaica) 54 defend his uncle than to his own devotion to the king. The implication that the high priest is aged carries with it the implication that he will have very few years left to serve in the position. So why would the king bother to directly interfere with an old man? A third implication is that

Joseph and especially other young Jewish men (among them perhaps the next high priest?) are more than willing to serve the king, and that the king can expect from them good work because of their relative youth and fervor. Here, once again, a potential catastrophe for the Jews is turned into an example of their devotion to their king, as well as their drive to maintain their own religious morals.

The Maccabees and Hellenism It is difficult to gather from the Jewish sources just when the decades of peaceful coexistence between Jews and Greeks in the Hellenistic world began to come to an end. There had never been total acceptance of one group by the other, and vice versa, but there had never been open warfare either. The Letter of Aristeas and the first half of Book XII of the Antiquities of the Jews provide a somewhat positive picture of the relationships between the successor states and the Jews. Yet in Macabees 1 the author describes the Greeks under Alexander the Great and the later successor states very negatively. The negative aspects of these peoples—primarily their desire for conquest and disregard of morality—initially appear to be epitomized for the author of

Maccabees 1 in Antiochus IV, whom he calls “a sinful root.”147 As it turns out, however,

Antiochus IV was not the instigator of the events to be described by the author. Rather, a certain mischievous group of Jews was: In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and

147 Maccabees 1.1 (NRSV): ῥ ίζα ἁ μαρτωλός.

55 abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.148

Similarly, one of the most important episodes in Maccabees 4.8 is the promise from “the tyrant”

(ό τύραννος, i.e. Antiochus IV) to the Jewish youths about the benefits available to them for joining up with him: “Trust me, then, and you will have positions of authority in my government if you will renounce the ancestral tradition of your national life. Enjoy your youth by adopting the Greek way of life and by changing your manner of living.”149 In both books there is a notion that Greek and Jewish customs and traditions are irreconcilable, and that one could not function in Greek society without the total abandonment of Jewish life. Initially in each case there is an offer or at least the opportunity for the Jews to willingly abandon their customs. In Maccabees

4.8–12 the Jewish youth actually reject the Greeks and, though suffering and eventually dying, in their martyrdom they do receive the celestial benefits offered by the original covenant with

God.150 By contrast, in Maccabees 1 the author presents the renegade Jews as very committed to the act of abandoning the holy covenant, even referring to their compact with the Greek king in almost the same terms.151 It is important to remember that both of these texts may have been written after the revolt of the Maccabees (around 135 B.C.E.), so the clear distinction between the Maccabean supporters and those initially hostile to them may be a result of the winners

148 Maccabees 1.1 (NRSV): ἐ ν τα ῖ ς ἡ μέραις ἐ κείναις ἐ ξ ῆ λθον ἐ ξ Ισραὴλ υ ἱ οιὴ παράνομοι καιὴ ἀ νέπεισαν πολλουὴς λέγοντες πορευθῶ μεν καιὴ διαθώμεθα διαθήκὴν μεταὴ τ ῶἐῶῶῳἡῶὅἀἧ ν θν ν τ ν κύκλ μ ν τι φ’ ς ἐχωρίσθὴμεν ἀὐῶὗἡᾶ π’ α τ ν ε ρεν μ ς κακαὴ πολλά καιὴ ἠ γαθύνθὴ ὁ λόγος ἐὀ ν φθαλμο ῖὐῶ ς α τ ν καιὴ προεθυμήθὴσάν τινες ἀ ποὴ το ῦ λαο ῦ καιὴ ἐ πορεύθὴσαν προὴς τοὴν βασιλέα καιὴ ἔ δωκεν α ὐ το ῖ ς ἐ ξουσίαν ποιῆ σαι ταὴ δικαιώματα τ ῶ ν ἐ θν ῶ ν καιὴ ᾠ κοδόμὴσαν γυμνάσιον ἐ ν Ιεροσολύμοις καταὴ ταὴ νόμιμα τ ῶ ν ἐῶἐἑῖἀθν ν καιὴ ποίὴσαν αυτο ς κροβυστίας καιὴ ἀ πέστὴσαν ἀ ποὴ διαθήκὴς ἁἐ γίας καιὴ ζευγίσθὴσαν το ῖ ς ἔθνεσιν καιὴ ἐ πράθὴσαν το ῦ ποι ῆ σαι τοὴ πονὴρόν.

149 Maccabees 4.8 (NRSV): πιστεύσατε οὖ ν καιὴ ἀ ρχαὴς ἐ πιὴ τ ῶ ν ἐ μ ῶ ν πραγμάτων ἡ γεμονικαὴς λήμψεσθε ἀρνὴσάμενοι τοὴν πάτριον ὑ μ ῶ ν τ ῆ ς πολιτείας θεσμόν καιὴ μεταλαβόντες Ἑ λλὴνικο ῦ βίου καιὴ μεταδιαιτὴθέντες ἐ ντρυφήσατε τα ῖ ς νεότὴσιν ὑ μ ῶ ν.

150 Macabees 4.13 (NRSV).

151 Maccabees 1.1 (NRSV) (see above).

56 writing the history books, so to speak. Yet we should also keep in mind that Hellenism itself was not actually rejected or denied by the Maccabees and later Hasmoneans. They accepted its trappings when it benefitted their dynasty.

Good Gentiles In their struggle against Antiochus IV and his supporters, the Maccabees sought out assistance from many groups, including ethnically Greek states. Even before the conflict they made contact with the first of these, the Spartans, who had allegedly made a surprising discovery that is related in an official letter: We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just therefore that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.152

Though it of course provided no benefits to the Jews in their conflict with Antiochus IV, this letter does demonstrate that the Jews saw the value of connecting their state with a traditional

Greek polis, even if it was not the Jews themselves who were asserting the shared kinship.153

Sparta was a city-state well known for being not only religiously devout but also tough. Why would the Jews not want to associate themselves with such people? The Jews also received support from a more critical player: Rome. This support was divided into two parts. First, there

152 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.4.10: ἐ ντυχόντες γραφ ῇ τινι ε ὕ ρομεν, ὡ ς ἐ ξ ἑ νοὴς ε ἶ εν γένους Ἰ ουδα ῖ οι καιὴ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καιὴ ἐ κ τ ῆ ς προὴς Ἄ βραμον ο ἰ κειότὴτος. δίκαιον ο ὖ ν ἐ στιν ἀ δελφουὴς ὑμ ᾶ ς ὄ ντας διαπέμπεσθαι προὴς ἡ μ ᾶ ς περιὴ ὧ ν ἂ ν βούλὴσθε. ποιήσομεν δεὴ καιὴ ἡ με ῖ ς το ῦ το, καιὴ τά τε ὑμέτερα ἴ δια νομιο ῦ μεν καιὴ ταὴ α ὑ τ ῶ ν κοιναὴ προὴς ὑ μ ᾶ ς ἕ ξομεν. Δὴμοτέλὴς ὁ φέρων ταὴ γράμματα διαπέμπει ταὴς ἐ πιστολάς. ταὴ γεγραμμένα ἐ στιὴν τετράγωνα· ἡ σφραγίς ἐ στιν ἀ ετοὴς δράκοντος ἐπειλὴμμένος. (Antiquitates Judaica)

153 Similarly, many of the Hellenistic kingdoms had close ties with the ancient poleis of the Greek mainland. The Ptolemies, for instance, were great benefactors of the city of Athens. Habicht, Athens and the Ptolemies, pg. 81-82.

57 was official recognition of Judea as a friend of Rome.154 Second, and more important, were the official actions taken by Rome, including threatening many of the regional powers (including the

Ptolemaic kingdom) that viewed Judea as an easy target.155 This recognition came at a crucial point in the long Maccabean conflict that, for a while, at least, allowed Judea to breathe and regroup. In both of the cases above, the Gentiles, though recognizing the Jews, never actually engaged in their wars directly. Instead, letters of support or the threat of force were used to accomplish Jewish goals. Gentiles could recognize and support the Jews, but it was generally better for them to remain outside of Jewish affairs.

Advancing the high priesthood One event that led to the revolt of the Maccabees was the removal by a foreign king of an established high priest from his office. In this instance it was Jason, the chosen high priest, who was replaced by his brother Menelaus, the candidate of Antiochus IV.156 As a result of this action,

Menelaus (high priest 171–161 B.C.E.) and his supporters were able to bring to Jerusalem some of the worst aspects of Greek culture. This is epitomized in the texts by the building of a gymnasium.157 Evidently, the importation of Greek culture into Judaea by Menelaus and his supporters continued for four long years before the Macabeean revolt (167–160 B.C.E.). How exactly this would have been possible is unclear. Ultimately Menelaus was killed by Antiochus V of the Seleucid Empire because he viewed his actions as the cause of the revolt.158 After his death, the further marginalization of the

154 Maccabees 1.8 (NRSV).

155 Maccabees 1.15 (NRSV).

156 It is never explained why both figures took Greek names. Josephus mentions their original names— Jason was also known as Jesus, Menelaus as Onias—yet never offers a reason for the change. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.5.1.

157 Maccabees 1.14 (NRSV). Mørkholm suggests that it is not likely that Antiochus IV had any further plans for spreading Greek culture in Judea. Mørkholm, pg. 280.

158 Maccabees 2.13.4-8 (NRSV).

58 high priesthood continued. Onias IV, the youngest heir, fled to Egypt and founded another temple.159 Alcimus (high priest 162–159 B.C.E.), the Seleucid puppet after Menelaus, ruled for only four unhappy years and died by God’s divine wrath.160 Judas Maccabeus (high priest? 165–

162 B.C.E. according to Josephus alone), the leader of the revolt, is assumed to have received the high priesthood, which would have marked its first transition into the Maccabee family.161 Judas would have been an obvious choice, first, because of his success at resisting the Seleucid army,162 and second, because of his religious devotion in purifying a defiled Second Temple.163 A major political figure, he was the one responsible for courting the Romans and approving the entourage that went to Rome.164 Although it would have made sense to assign the title of high priest to

Judas instead of Alcimus, there is no explicit mention of anyone serving as high priest until

Jonathan (according to Maccabees 1), the brother of Judas, is given the title by Greek rulers.165 It only with Johnathan that the stability and powers of the Hasmonean kings can be assured and quantified. It is ironic that Jonathan, one of the leading opponents of Greek influence and domination, would have readily accepted the title of high priest from Gentiles. In this case, the

Jews present the situation as having changed. The Seleucids and the Ptolemies were now far weaker than they were before. Jonathan, in an attempt to keep the Jews out of a larger Seleucid civil war, is granted the title of high priest by the two main contenders, first by Demetrius I

159 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.9.7.

160 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.10.6.

161 He positioned himself as the main adversary to Alcimus, but died before him in 160 B.C.E. Maccabees 1.9 (NRSV).

162 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII.7.4.

163 Maccabees 1.4.43 (NRSV).

164 Maccabees 1.8 (NRSV).

165 Maccabees 1.10.20 (NRSV).

59 (ruled 161–150 B.C.E.) and then Alexander Balas (the usurper; ruled 150–146 B.C.E.) . His reign began with his donning of the traditional priestly garments around 153 B.C.E.166 Jonathan’s rule saw a major increase in the power wielded by the high priest in Judea as he was granted the ability to raise armies.167 The sources suggest that while both Alexander Balas and Demetrius I were respected by the Jews, they also feared the power and organization of the Jews and were willing to cede some control in order to win support for their causes.168 Next, Jonathan willingly receives a purple cloak and a wreath of gold from the Greeks.169

Though the Greeks never offer actual political titles to him other than the high priesthood, they do grant him titles such as “friend of the king.”170 It would seem that Jonathan held a position somewhat akin to that of a king. Regardless, the author of Maccabees 1 does not want to imply that his authority was directly granted by the Greeks. By the time of the fall of Judas Maccabee,

Jonathan seems to have already been wielding some form of authority over Jews and Jewish affairs. He could dispatch ambassadors171 on behalf of the state and could even manage legal issues for the people.172 Jonathan is even so bold as to attempt to sever ties with the Hellenistic powers and establish an independent state under his authority and recognized by Rome.173 This recognition by foreigners of Jonathan’s authority is reinforced after the capture and death of

Jonathan and a few of his men. The enemy does not simply refer to him as the religious father of

166 Maccabees 1.10.21 (NRSV).

167 Maccabees 1.10.8 (NRSV).

168 Maccabees 1.10.4-6 (NRSV).

169 Maccabees 1.10.20 (NRSV).

170 Maccabees 1.11.57 (NRSV): τῶ ν φίλων το ῦ βασιλέως.

171 Maccabees 1.9.70 (NRSV).

172 Maccabees 1.9.73 (NRSV).

173 Habicht, The Seleucids and their Rivals pg. 366-367.

60 the country, but describe him as the “leader” (archôn), a term which implies that he had direct political authority.174 The next recipient of the high priesthood is the brother of Jonathan, a man named Simon.

At first Simon was granted his priesthood by the people,175 although later on he was confirmed by the authority of the Seleucid king, Demetrius II Nicator (ruled 146–139 B.C.E.).176 One of

Simon’s most defining legacies was his combination of the high priesthood with political powers and diplomatic connections—with the acceptance and even blessing of the Jewish population of

Judea—all of which served the goal of establishing an independent state of Judea.177 According to the author of Maccabees 1, the Jewish people commemorated his powers and status with the following decree: “The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise, and that he should be governor over them and that he should take charge of the sanctuary and appoint officials over its tasks and over the country and the weapons and the strongholds, and that he should take charge of the sanctuary, and that he should be obeyed by all, and that all contracts in the country should be written in his name, and that he should be clothed in purple and wear gold. None of the people or priests shall be permitted to nullify any of these decisions or to oppose what he says, or to convene an assembly in the country without his permission, or to be clothed in purple or put on a gold buckle. Whoever acts contrary to these decisions or rejects any of them shall be liable to punishment.”

All the people agreed to grant Simon the right to act in accordance with these decisions. So Simon accepted and agreed to be high priest, to be commander and ethnarch of the Jews and priests, and to be protector of them all. And they gave orders to inscribe this decree on bronze tablets, to put them up in a conspicuous

174 Maccabees 1.12.53 (NRSV): “All the nations around them tried to destroy them, for they said, ‘They have no leader or helper. Now therefore let us make war on them and blot out the memory of them from humankind.’” (καιὴ ἐ ζήτὴσαν πάντα ταὴ ἔ θνὴ ταὴ κύκλ ῳὐῶἐῖὐἶ α τ ν κτρ ψαι α τούς ε πον γάρ ο ὐἔ κ χουσιν ἄρχοντα καιὴ βοὴθο ῦ ντα ν ῦ ν ο ὖ ν πολεμήσωμεν α ὐ τουὴς καιὴ ἐ ξάρωμεν ἐ ξ ἀ νθρώπων τοὴ μνὴμόσυνον αὐ τ ῶ ν.) See also Maccabees 1.14.35 (NRSV).

175 Ibid.

176 Maccabees 1.14.38 (NRSV).

177 Habicht, The Seleucids and their Rivals. pg.368.

61 place in the precincts of the sanctuary, and to deposit copies of them in the treasury, so that Simon and his sons might have them.178

This statement about Simon’s powers and endowments reveals that his authority had a number of different aspects. The religious aspect is described in two forms: that the other priests could not act contrary to any of his decisions and that he would remain in office until the arrival of a new prophet. This secondary technicality is important, as at the time of the composition of this text, new prophets had not appeared since the Persian period a few centuries prior. The implication is that the high priest Simon (and his sons) would be granted an almost indefinite power with which no authority could interfere except God himself. The military aspect was a recent feature, one associated with Jonathan, but also a reflection of Simon’s relationship with the Seleucid Empire, which confirmed him in his position. Here it is implied that his broad powers not only included appointing officials to run government and religious affairs but also determining and approving wartime decisions, although he seems to have not been able to lead troops personally. A final aspect is how Simon and his descendants were to be perceived by the Jews from then on. The clothing of purple and gold was granted to Simon not by the Gentile kings, but by the people, who thereby willingly gave up their political power to one family. Maccabees 1 concludes not with the glorious triumph of Simon and the new Hasmonean dynasty, but, echoing how this book began, with treachery by a Jewish figure against the rightful

178 Maccabees 1.14.41-49: οἱ Ιουδα ῖ οι καιὴ ο ἱἱῖὐ ερε ς ε δόκὴσαν το ῦἶὐῶ ε ναι α τ ν Σιμωνα ἡ γούμενον καιὴ ἀρχιερέα ε ἰ ς τοὴν α ἰῶἕῦἀῆ να ως το ναστ ναι προφήτὴν πιστοὴν καιὴ το ῦἶἐὐῶ ε ναι π’ α τ ν στρατὴγόν καιὴ ὅπως μέλ ῃὐῷ α τ περιὴ τ ῶἁ ν γίων καθιστάναι δι’ α ὐῦἐῶἔ το πιὴ τ ν ργων α ὐῶἐῆ τ ν καιὴ πιὴ τ ς χώρας καιὴ ἐ πιὴ τῶὅ ν πλων καιὴ ἐῶὀ πιὴ τ ν χυρωμάτων καιὴ ὅ πως μέλ ῃὐῷῶἁ α τ περιὴ τ ν γίων καιὴ ὅἀ πως κούὴται ὑ ποὴ πάντων καιὴ ὅ πως γράφωνται ἐῷὀ πιὴ τ νόματι α ὐῦᾶ το π σαι συγγραφαιὴ ἐῇᾳὅ ν τ χώρ καιὴ πως περιβάλλὴται πορφύραν καιὴ χρυσοφορῇ καιὴ ο ὐ κ ἐ ξέσται ο ὐ θενιὴ το ῦ λαο ῦ καιὴ τ ῶ ν ἱ ερέων ἀ θετ ῆ σαί τι τούτων καιὴ ἀῖῖὑὐῦῥ ντειπε ν το ς π’ α το ὴθὴσομένοις καιὴ ἐ πισυστρέψαι συστροφὴὴν ἐῇᾳἄὐῦ ν τ χώρ νευ α το καιὴ περιβάλλεσθαι πορφύραν καιὴ ἐ μπορπο ῦ σθαι πόρπὴν χρυσ ῆ ν ὃ ς δ’ ἂ ν παραὴ τα ῦ τα ποιήσ ῃ ἢ ἀθετήσ ῃ τι τούτων ἔ νοχος ἔ σται καιὴ ε ὐ δόκὴσεν π ᾶ ς ὁ λαοὴς θέσθαι Σιμωνι ποι ῆ σαι καταὴ τουὴς λόγους τούτους καιὴ ἐ πεδέξατο Σιμων καιὴ ε ὐ δόκὴσεν ἀ ρχιερατεύειν καιὴ ε ἶ ναι στρατὴγοὴς καιὴ ἐ θνάρχὴς τ ῶ ν Ιουδαίων καιὴ ἱ ερέων καιὴ το ῦ προστατ ῆ σαι πάντων καιὴ τὴὴν γραφὴὴν ταύτὴν ε ἶ πον θέσθαι ἐ ν δέλτοις χαλκαῖ ς καιὴ στ ῆὐἐ σαι α ταὴς ν περιβόλ ῳῶἁἐῳἐῳἀ τ ν γίων ν τόπ πισήμ ταὴ δεὴ ντίγραφα α ὐῶ τ ν θέσθαι ἐ ν τῷ γαζοφυλακί ῳ ὅ πως ἔ χ ῃ Σιμων καιὴ ο ἱ υ ἱ οιὴ α ὐ το ῦ . 62 doer of God’s will in Judea. Simon Maccabee died in 135 B.C.E. at the hands of his son-in-law,

Ptolemy, son of Abubus. Simon’s son John would seek vengeance and initiate another cycle of

Jew on Jew violence. Thus Maccabees 1 ends with the transition into the Hasmonean dynasty.

There are no books about the Hasmoneans because the Maccabees were freedom fighters fighting for the independence of Jerusalem, and the Hasmoneans would not become, over time, great defenders of the city, but, like the Ptolemies to the west, would seek Roman intervention into state affairs and thus bring an end to their short independence.179 The result of the

Maccabean revolt was that while the Jews proclaimed their strength and independence, in truth they merely became a vassal state with ties to the declining Seleucid Empire and would eventually be absorbed by the growing Roman state. In time their Jewish kings would be of service first to Roman generals and statesmen and eventually to the Roman Emperors. Whatever spark of patriotism or religiosity had inspired the original Jewish kings would, over time, be consumed by the luxuries and security offered by vassalhood. If anything, this revolt and the new system it inaugurated merely delayed the cultural strife and war that Judea would face as the growing Roman Empire sought out new lands.

179 This occurred in 63 B.C.E. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIV.3.

63 CONCLUSION From the Persian period to the death of Simon Maccabeus, Judea was striving for independence. The biblical sources, although possibly edited centuries after the events they describe, always point to the inevitably of an independent state. The Haggai, written during the

Persian period, imagines a strong Jewish state in the future, withstanding all foreign enemies behind the strong walls of Jerusalem. This did not come to pass. Although the Temple would be complete, as well as the walls, there would be no strong Jerusalem protected by God. Judea would change hands from the Persians, to Alexander, to the Ptolemies and finally to the

Seleucids, and it existed in limbo between the last two for decades. The great revolt of the

Maccabees did not result in the removal of all foreign influence from Judea, but only in the destruction of Jews who were seen as having betrayed their culture. This struggle between “true” Jews and those deemed unworthy was connected with the political developments of the Second Temple era. The governors Ezra and Nehemiah, although

Persian officials with deep connections to the dominant foreign power, used their authority both politically and religiously to remove foreign elements that were seen as corrupting to the Jewish nobles and elders. Even though their authority derived from a Gentile source, they were very careful to highlight their connections to proper Jewish attitudes. The high priests who followed in their footsteps would see the same challenges to their status and authority from supposed foreign corruption. By categorizing their enemies as corrupted or—even worse—foreign, the priests transformed what could have been considered Jewish civil conflicts into conflicts between Jews and foreigners. True Jews would never fight amongst themselves, after all. What was the best way for Gentile powers to rule over Judea or incorporate it into their empires? The consensus among the Jews seems to have been that if Jews were given authority over their state then the status quo could continue. What was dangerous was the removal of respected leaders and the promotion of undesirables. In such situations the specter of corruption

64 could be invoked to smear politicians deemed unworthy. The logic was simple: God supported those leaders who were the correct ones, and those leaders who were correct were supported by

God. On the other hand, those promoted by a terrestrial king and deemed bad were just a larger reflection of the corrupting influence of that king’s foreign state. Of course, such logic overlooked the fact that when the dominant foreign state was a benefactor, cultural contact with it was not only encouraged but also promoted. Hellenized Jews were not only found in

Alexandria, but in Judea, as well. The abundance of Jews who adopted Greek names, especially among the priests, points to broad acceptance of some aspects of Hellenism. The early

Hasmonean kings adopted regalia and symbols borrowed from the Greeks, and these items are never attacked in the sources because the Hasmoneans were approved by God, as seen in their great victories over the Gentiles. Gentile kings were not only recognized by the Jews, but even honored, as long as they respected Jewish religious customs and were not great obstructionists when it came to state affairs. The collapse of states and the rise of new ones also, for the Jews, reflected the actions of God, not politics. Why implement a system of sole authority like a monarchy instead of the already present city council or elders? In the sources there are suggestions that different forms of government existed in Judea over time, but there are few clues about how they were organized or supported.

Initially governors appointed by the Persians held sway, but only a few were responsible for any direct benefits to the Jewish state. An initial high priest dynasty began in the Persian period and ended in the middle of the Hellenistic period. This could be considered an early form of a Jewish kingdom, but it did not last after approval of the high priests was transferred to foreign kings. At this stage it is possible that a Judean council of some sort existed, but even if it did, it would likely have been a rubber stamp for the high priest and his decisions. This was similar in a sense to the way in which the Jews viewed their God: only one authority was allowed to dominate

65 affairs and the best that one could hope for was that he was in a merciful mood. The Jewish kingdom described by the prophets—and even by the enemies of Judea, if we are to believe the

Jewish sources—was a state that would not only resist foreign occupation, but would even conquer the known world. The Jewish military in the sources, on the other hand, is never a great power.180 Instead, over time the Jews become strong, first because of the grace of God and then because of the decline of their enemies. They conquered a few neighboring areas, but they never became the conquerors they imagined; and in only a few centuries the great Second Temple and the walls of Jerusalem would be razed by pagan foreigners, a reminder that religious prophecies are never wrong, though their timing can be off. Given the lack of source material, it is worth considering that neither Jerusalem nor Judea was ever really all that important during most of the period surveyed in this thesis. In non-Jewish sources, Jerusalem and its people are rarely mentioned, though at some point the people and the city did become significant enough to merit treatments by Greek and Roman authors.181 At the beginning of the Hasmonean dynasty (140 B.C.E.), around the time when the office of high priest was combined with other powers to create a single state ruler, Judea was not a wholly independent state, but rather an area that had already been traded between empires several times.

Its location between Egypt and Asia Minor was perhaps the biggest reason for its importance: the

Jews could never escape contact with and influence from the major states of the region. This led to instability, an instability which caused different political parties to rise and fall depending on their connections with foreign powers. If the Seleucid and Ptolemaic states had managed to peacefully coexist in the second century B.C.E., then the Jewish revolts would have likely been less successful and the Hasmonean dynasty would probably never have existed. 180 Jewish military operations were generally ambushes or guerilla tactics, not large, organized operations like those of the Hellenistic kings or the Romans. (Peck - Hanukkah: A Jewish Festival of Guerrilla Warfare)

181 Tacitus, The Histories, Book V.8

66 In the end, it should come as no surprise that in Judea, from the Persian period onward, the concept of Jewish identity was always in flux. The Second Temple was not viewed as just the continuation of the previous Temple, but rather as a new beginning for the Jews. Over time they adapted and accepted new things into their belief system. They rejected or castigated some foreign aspects not simply because these elements violated their traditions, but because after a particular faction took over, they needed to justify their position and did so by identifying non-

Jewish “others.” God’s support was necessary, but continuity required careful manipulation of both the truth and what defined a proper Jew. God only supported those that he believed would best serve his people, but though these men may have fought to defend God’s law, they were not totally inoculated against foreign influence and culture. In the end, it was perhaps very fortunate for the prosperity of Judea that some of its inhabitants learned a foreign tongue—Greek—and used terrestrial arts—like writing—to spread their religion and traditions.

67 WORKS CITED 1 Maccabees 1 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the United States of America., n.d.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%2Bmaccabees%2B1&version=NRSV. 2 Chronicles 36 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the United States of America, n.d. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=2%2BChronicles%2B36&version=NRSV. 2 Maccabees 1 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the United States of America., n.d.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%2BMaccabees%2B1&version=NRSV. Ackroyd, Peter. “The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period.” In The Cambridge History

of Judaism, edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, 130–61. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984. Arrian. “Book II.XXV - The Offers of Darius Rejected. —Batis, Governor of Gaza, Refuses to Submit.”

In The Anabasis of Alexander; or, The History of the Wars and Conquests of Alexander the

Great., translated by E.J. Chinnock, 134–35. London, 1884: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander. Bagnell, Roger. “Alexandria: Library of Dreams.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society

146, no. 4 (December 2002): 348–62. https://www-jstor-

org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/1558311. Betlyon, John Wilson. “The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the Yehud Coins.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 4 (1986): 633–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3261210. Collins, John J. “Religion and Politics: The Ptolemaic Era.” In Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish

Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 64–112. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub.,

2000. Ezra 1 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches

of Christ in the United States of America., n.d. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Ezra%2B1&version=NRSV. Feldman, Louis H. “Jospehus.” In Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, 313–42. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

68 Grabbe, Lester L. “Society and Daily Life.” In A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple

Period. The Coming of the Greeks: the Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), 2:193–204. T &

T Clark Ltd, 2011. Habicht, Christian. “Athens and the Ptolemies.” Classical Antiquity 11, no. 1 (1992): 68–90.

https://doi.org/10.2307/25010963. –––. “The Seleucids and Their Rivals.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by A. E. Astin, F. W.

Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, and R. M. Ogilvie. 2nd ed. 8:324–87. The Cambridge Ancient

History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521234481.011. Hanson, K.C., trans. “Petition to Authorize Elephantine Temple Reconstruction.” November 2, 2011.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html. Horbury, William, and David Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt with an Index of the

Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Hornblower, Simon. “Persia.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by D. M. Lewis, John

Boardman, Simon Hornblower, and M. Ostwald. 2nd ed. 6:45–96. The Cambridge Ancient

History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521233484.004. Hunt, Arthur, and Edgar Campbell. “Letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians.” In Select

Papyri, Volume II: Public Documents, 78–89. Loeb Classical Library, 1934.

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/claualex.html. John 4 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches

of Christ in the United States of America., n.d. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=John%2B4&version=NRSV. Johnstone, Steve. “A New History of Libraries and Books in the Hellenistic Period.” Classical Antiquity

33, no. 2 (2014): 347–93. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2014.33.2.347. Josephus, Titus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. Edited by Benedikt Niese, 1892. –––. “Antiquities of the Jews - Book XI.” Translated by George Lyons. Internet Sacred Text Archive

Home, n.d. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-11.htm. –––. “Antiquities of the Jews - Book XII.” Translated by George Lyons. Internet Sacred Text Archive

Home, n.d. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-12.htm. Kuhrt, Amelie. “Cyrus the Great of Persia: Images and Realities.” In Representations of Political Power:

Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, edited by

Marlies Heinz and Marian H. Feldman, 169–91. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

69 Moore, Thomas, ed. “1 Maccabees 1.” Kata Biblon - 1 Maccabees 1 - Greek Septuagint Interlinear, n.d.

https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=1Mc&ch=1. Mørkholm, Otto. “Antiochus IV.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by W. D. Davies and

Louis Finkelstein, 2:278–91. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521219297.009. Mroczek, Eva. “The Hegemony of the Biblical in the Study of Second Temple Literature.” Journal of

Ancient Judaism 6, no. 1 (2015): 2–35. https://doi.org/10.13109/jaju.2015.6.1.2. Nehemiah 1 NRSV - - Bible Gateway. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the United States of America., n.d.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%2B1&version=NRSV. “Nehemiah 1:1 (LXX).” Blue Letter Bible, n.d. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/neh/1/1/s_414001. Nodet, Etienne. “Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on

Bible, History and Linguistics, edited by Zsengellér József, 121–72. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.

https://www.academia.edu/6788422/Israelites_Samaritans_Temples_Jews. Noll, K.l. “Did ‘Scripturalization’ Take Place in Second Temple Judaism?” Scandinavian Journal of the

Old Testament 25, no. 2 (2011): 201–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2011.608541.

Peck, Michael. “Hanukkah: A Jewish Festival of Guerrilla Warfare.” The National Interest. The

Center for the National Interest, December 10, 2015.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/hanukkah-jewish-festival-guerrilla-warfare-14581. Polybius. The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Rufus, Quintus Curtius. “The Contents of Book IV.” In The Complete Works of Quintus Curtius

Rufus, translated by J.C. Rolfe. Delphi Classics, 2017. Shahbazi, A. Shapur. “The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 Bce).” In The Oxford

Handbook of Iranian History. Edited by Touraj Daryaee. February 2012, 120-41.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199732159.013.0005. Smith, Morton. “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period.” In The Cambridge History of

Judaism, edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, 1:219–78. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521218801.011.

70 Sprengling, M. “The Aramaic Papyri of Elephantine in English.” The American Journal of

Theology 21, no. 3 (July 1, 1917): 411–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3155527?

refreqid=searchgateway:d80cc91629572424b8b22a08e7ecba4d. Thompson, Thomas L. “Your Mother Was a Hittite and Your Father an Amorite: Ethnicity,

Judaism and Palestine's Cultural Heritage.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27,

no. 1 (2013): 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2013.764689. Williams, Joshua, ed. “The Letter of Aristeas.” Translated by Robert Charles. Northwest

Nazarene College, 1995. http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm.

71