The Hasmonean State and Rome: a New Appraisal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Samuele ROCCA TheNeriBloomfieldSchoolofDesignandEducation,Haifa THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL RÉSUMÉ L’objectif principal de la présente étude est d’analyser l’évolution de la relation entre l’État hasmonéen et la République romaine. Dans la première partie de l’article, qui discute le début de la relation entre les deux pays (des dernières années de Judas Maccabée aux premières années du règne de Jean Hyrcan Ier), nous défendons l’idée d’une perception très positive de la République romaine dans la Judée hasmonéenne. Dans la deuxième partie, qui présente l’évolution de cette relation des dernières années du règne de Jean Hyrcan Ier au règne de la reine Salomé Alexandra, nous soutenons que l’État des Hasmonéens n’avait pas modifié sa politique étrangère, comme l’ont soutenu Rappaport et Pucci Ben Ze’ev, mais que l’amitié entre les deux pays a continué. Toutefois, malgré le traité existant entre la Judée hasmonéenne et la République romaine, le Pesher d’Habacuc décrit les «Kittim» comme cruels et avides, conformément à la perception répandue de l’impérialisme romain que les auteurs latins attribuaient aux ennemis de Rome. Dans la troisième et dernière partie de l’essai, les dernières années de l’État des Hasmonéens sont discutées à la lumière de la conquête de Pompée. On comprend que, après la conquête de Pompée, la perception de Rome, qui passe principalement par la figure de Pompée, a été modifiée de façon significative. Les psaumes de Salomon ainsi que le Pesher de Naḥum dans les manus- crits de la mer Morte représentent les Gentils ou les «Kittim» comme l’instrument divin de la punition frappant les dirigeants hasmonéens. À ce stade de l’histoire, les Romains sont donc perçus de façon négative. ABSTRACT The main purpose of this essay is to analyze the evolution of the relationship between the Hasmonean state and the Roman Republic. The first part of the essay shall discuss the beginning of the relationship between the two countries, from the last years of Judah the Maccabee to the early years of John Hyrcanus I’s rule. In this section I shall argue for a quite positive perception of the Roman Republic in Hasmonean Judaea. The second part of the essay shall discuss the evolution of this relationship from the last years of John Hyrcanus I’s rule to the reign of Queen Salome Alexandra. In this part, I shall argue that the Hasmonean state did not shift its foreign policy, as argued by Rappaport and Pucci Ben Ze’ev, but that the friendship between the two countries continued. However, notwithstanding the existing treaty between Hasmonean Judaea and the Roman Republic, Pesher Habakkuk depicts the “Kittim” Revuedesétudesjuives,173(3-4),juillet-décembre2014,pp.263-295. doi:10.2143/REJ.173.3.3062102 997567.indb7567.indb 226363 228/01/158/01/15 110:090:09 264 THEHASMONEANSTATEANDROME:ANEWAPPRAISAL as cruel and greedy, mirroring a general view of Roman imperialism that Latin authors attributed to the enemies of Rome. In the third and final part of the essay, I shall discuss the last years of the Hasmonean state in light of Pompey’s conquest. By now, quite understandably, after Pompey’s conquest, the perception of Rome, mainly filtered through the figure of Pompey, was significantly altered. The Psalms of Solomon, as well as Pesher Naḥum in the Dead Sea Scrolls, depict the Gentiles or the “Kittim” as the Divine instrument to punish the Hasmonean rulers. Thus, at this juncture in time, the Romans are seen in a negative light. I. The Early Hasmoneans and Rome According to Zollschan it is possible that by 174-173 B.C.E. the Jews had already established diplomatic contacts with Rome. According to the Second Book of Maccabees, the Jews sent an embassy, under the leadership of John, father of Eupolemus, to “establish a friendly relationship with the Romans” and had met the Romans either on their way to or in Antioch.1 Gruen argues that the memory of the first diplomatic encounter between the Romans and the Maccabees is preserved in the Second Book of Maccabees. It consists of a letter from Roman envoys to the Jews in 164 B.C.E, when, according to Gruen, Jewish representatives had contacted Roman envoys to Antioch, asking them to support their cause with the Seleucid ruler, possibly Antiochus IV or perhaps Antiochus V, in presenting their case to the king. The letter is more of a gesture on the part of the Roman envoys than an actual statement of policy on the part of the Roman Senate itself. The Roman dele- gation had recently endorsed the agreement between the Jews and Lysias, and thus the message conveyed a cordial response, not an offer to change political arrangements to the advantage of the Jewish rebels: in other words, the Roman mission had no actual pragmatic intention or purpose. Were the Romans corresponding with the Maccabees or with the Hellenizing leader- ship? In any event, Gruen notes that the accords between Lysias and the Maccabees broke down immediately, and warfare resumed.2 In 161 B.C.E., Eupolemus Ben Jochanan and Jason Ben Eleazar, two ambassadors from Judah the Maccabee, a warlord in far away Judaea, arrived 1. On the possibility of an early contact between the Jews in Rome already in 174 B.C.E., see L. ZOLLSCHAN, “The Earliest Jewish Embassy to the Romans: 2 Macc.4.11?”, Journalof JewishStudies, 55 (2004), p. 37-44. This embassy is mentioned in the 2 Macc. 4, 11, in the middle of the account of the reforms of the high priest Jason. According to Zollschan, the Jews met a Roman diplomatic mission sent to Syria, in the wake of the previous embassy sent by Antiochus IV to Rome in 174 B.C.E. 2. See E. GRUEN, TheHellenisticWorldandtheComingofRome, Berkeley (Ca.), 1986, Appendix II, “The First Encounter of Rome and the Jews”, p. 745-748. 997567.indb7567.indb 226464 228/01/158/01/15 110:090:09 THEHASMONEANSTATEANDROME:ANEWAPPRAISAL 265 in Rome and concluded an alliance with the Roman Republic. Josephus, as well as the First Book of Maccabees, reports the text of this treaty of friend- ship, quoting the actual text of the treaty,3 according to which, Rome, like Judaea, was bound by the same obligations to help its new ally and its confederates in the event of a defensive or offensive war. This treaty put the Hasmonean family on the status of equal standing with Rome as sociuset amiciuspopuliromani, in a treaty that could only be clearly catalogued as foedusaequus. Why did the Hasmonean warlord decide to make a friendly overture to such a geographically distant power? The answer can be seen in the First Book of Maccabees, whose author gives various motivations as to why it was important and probably necessary to strike such an alliance. Moreover, the author gives us a hint not just regarding the motivations lying behind Judah’s decision to send two ambassadors, but regarding how Rome itself was perceived. Thus, according to the First Book of Maccabees, the main reason was that although Rome was far away, its strength and influ- ence was felt even in the Hellenistic Near East, as “as many as have heard of their fame have feared them.” It is extremely important to note that, according to the author of the First Book of Maccabees, Rome was an ally on which it was possible to rely — “with their friends and those who rely on them they have kept friendship” — an ally that was well disposed towards any other power that wished to ingratiate itself with them, as clearly seen in the following: “were well-disposed toward all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them.” Thus the alliance and friendship of a nation of which it was said, “those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose”, could only be desirable.4 Moreover, the author of the First Book of Maccabees was quite familiar with the military as well as diplomatic achievements of the Roman Republic in the West and in the Hellenistic East, albeit in exaggerated form.5 Hence, the main reason why the Roman Republic was probably chosen as a potential ally is because the early Hasmo- neans recognized in it a non-Greek power which was hostile to the Seleucid rulers. Thus the early Hasmoneans and the Roman Republic had a common 3. See JOSEPHUS, TheAntiquitiesoftheJews, 12. 417-419. Josephus’s version of the treaty has to be preferred. The version found in the First Book of Maccabees is in fact a Greek translation of the Hebrew original text, while Josephus possibly handled the document itself, while in Rome. See also 1 Macc., 23-29. 4. See 1 Macc. 8, 1, 12-13. 5. See ibid. 8, 3-11. See P. GREEN, AlexandertoActium,TheHistoricalEvolutionofthe HellenisticAge, Berkeley (Ca.), 1993, p. 269-287, and É. WILL, Histoirepolitiquedumonde hellénistique,323-30av.J.-C., t. II, Paris, 2003, p. 102-238 and 385-397. 997567.indb7567.indb 226565 228/01/158/01/15 110:090:09 266 THEHASMONEANSTATEANDROME:ANEWAPPRAISAL political interest, namely to neutralize the Seleucid rulers at odds with Ptolemaic Egypt and Attalid Pergamon, both allies of Rome. Indeed Badian points out that the Roman Senate as a corporate body did its best to further the disintegration of the Seleucid state. Thus the Senate’s foreign policy towards the Seleucids was characterized by the former fomenting trouble, making treaties with the Seleucids’ rebellious subjects, giving them moral support, and, moreover, supporting the claims and attempts of pretenders.