DOCSLIB.ORG

The Hasmonean State and Rome: a New Appraisal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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.
Recommended publications
  • Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept of Kingship

    Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept of Kingship

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Jacob Douglas Feeley University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, and the Jewish Studies Commons Recommended Citation Feeley, Jacob Douglas, "Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2276. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Abstract Scholars who have discussed Josephus’ political philosophy have largely focused on his concepts of aristokratia or theokratia. In general, they have ignored his concept of kingship. Those that have commented on it tend to dismiss Josephus as anti-monarchical and ascribe this to the biblical anti- monarchical tradition. To date, Josephus’ concept of kingship has not been treated as a significant component of his political philosophy. Through a close reading of Josephus’ longest text, the Jewish Antiquities, a historical work that provides extensive accounts of kings and kingship, I show that Josephus had a fully developed theory of monarchical government that drew on biblical and Greco- Roman models of kingship. Josephus held that ideal kingship was the responsible use of the personal power of one individual to advance the interests of the governed and maintain his and his subjects’ loyalty to Yahweh. The king relied primarily on a standard array of classical virtues to preserve social order in the kingdom, protect it from external threats, maintain his subjects’ quality of life, and provide them with a model for proper moral conduct.
  • Honigmanonigman - 9780520275584.Indd9780520275584.Indd 1 228/06/148/06/14 2:382:38 PMPM 2 General Introduction

    Honigmanonigman - 9780520275584.Indd9780520275584.Indd 1 228/06/148/06/14 2:382:38 PMPM 2 General Introduction

    General Introduction SUMMARY Th e fi rst and second books of Maccabees narrate events that occurred in Judea from the 170s through the 150s and eventually led to the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty: the toppling of the last high priest of the Oniad dynasty, the transforma- tion of Jerusalem into a Greek polis, Antiochos IV’s storming of Jerusalem, his desecration of the temple and his so-called persecution of the Jews, the liberation of the city and rededication of the temple altar by Judas Maccabee, the foundation of the commemorative festival of Hanukkah, and the subsequent wars against Seleukid troops. 1 Maccabees covers the deeds of Mattathias, the ancestor of the Maccabean/Hasmonean family, and his three sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, taking its story down to the establishment of the dynastic transmission of power within the Hasmonean family when John, Simon’s son, succeeded his father; whereas 2 Maccabees, which starts from Heliodoros’s visit to Jerusalem under the high priest Onias III, focuses on Judas and the temple rededication, further dis- playing a pointed interest in the role of martyrs alongside that of Judas. Because of this diff erence in chronological scope and emphasis, it is usually considered that 1 Maccabees is a dynastic chronicle written by a court historian, whereas 2 Macca- bees is the work of a pious author whose attitude toward the Hasmoneans has been diversely appreciated—from mild support, through indiff erence, to hostility. Moreover, the place of redaction of 2 Maccabees, either Jerusalem or Alexandria, is debated. Both because of its comparatively fl amboyant style and the author’s alleged primarily religious concerns, 2 Maccabees is held as an unreliable source of evidence about the causes of the Judean revolt.
  • The Identification of “The Righteous” in the Psalms of Solomon(Psssol1))

    The Identification of “The Righteous” in the Psalms of Solomon(Psssol1))

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.28977/jbtr.2011.10.29.149 The Identification of “the Righteous” in the Psalms of Solomon / Unha Chai 149 The Identification of “the Righteous” in the Psalms of Solomon(PssSol1)) Unha Chai* 1. The Problem The frequent references to “the righteous” and to a number of other terms and phrases2) variously used to indicate them have constantly raised the most controversial issue studied so far in the Psalms of Solomon3) (PssSol). No question has received more attention than that of the ideas and identity of the righteous in the PssSol. Different views on the identification of the righteous have been proposed until now. As early as 1874 Wellhausen proposed that the righteous in the PssSol refer to the Pharisees and the sinners to the Sadducees.4) * Hanil Uni. & Theological Seminary. 1) There is wide agreement on the following points about the PssSol: the PssSol were composed in Hebrew and very soon afterwards translated into Greek(11MSS), then at some time into Syriac(4MSS). There is no Hebrew version extant. They are generally to be dated from 70 BCE to Herodian time. There is little doubt that the PssSol were written in Jerusalem. The English translation for this study is from “the Psalms of Solomon” by R. Wright in The OT Pseudepigrapha 2 (J. Charlesworth, ed.), 639-670. The Greek version is from Septuaginta II (A. Rahlfs, ed.), 471-489; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 203-204; K. Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light From Psalm of Solomon 17”, JBL 118 (1999), 440-444.
  • As Raízes Judaico-Cristãs Do Movimento Proto-Islâmico E Os Profetismos Na Península Arábica (Séc

    As Raízes Judaico-Cristãs Do Movimento Proto-Islâmico E Os Profetismos Na Península Arábica (Séc

    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS FACULDADE DE FILOSOFIA E CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM HISTÓRIA PAULO RENATO SILVA DE ANDRADE RECITA , EM NOME DO TEU SENHOR: As raízes judaico-cristãs do movimento proto-islâmico e os profetismos na Península Arábica (séc. VII E.C.) Belo Horizonte 2017 PAULO RENATO SILVA DE ANDRADE RECITA , EM NOME DO TEU SENHOR: As raízes judaico-cristãs do movimento proto-islâmico e os profetismos na Península Arábica (séc. VII E.C.) Dissertação apresentada como requisito parcial para a obtenção do título de mestre no Programa de Pós-Graduação em História da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, na linha de pesquisa História e Culturas Políticas. Orientador: Prof. Dr. André Luis Pereira Miatello. Belo Horizonte 2017 FOLHA DE APROVAÇÃO Dissertação de mestrado intitulada "Recita, em nome do teu Senhor: as raízes judaico- cristãs do movimento proto-islâmico e os profetismos na península arábica (séc. VII E.C.)" , defendida pelo aluno Paulo Renato Silva de Andrade e aprovada no dia ___ de _________________ de 2017 pela banca examinadora, composta pelos seguintes professores: ____________________________________________ Prof. Dr. André Luis Pereira Miatello (orientador) ____________________________________________ Prof. Dr. Tadeu Mazzola Verza (UFMG) ____________________________________________ Prof. Dr. José Antônio Dabdab Trabulsi (UFMG) AGRADECIMENTOS Qualquer tentativa sincera de agradecimento imediatamente nos remete não a uma tarefa hercúlea – visto que esta, ainda que enorme, implica em sua possível completude – mas sisífica. Não por uma suposta inutilidade do objetivo em si, mas pela futilidade do esforço, cujo ator já inicia consciente de que a pedra rolará para o pé da montanha. Ainda assim, é com a resignação otimista do Sísifo, tal como interpretado por Camus, que empreendemos a tarefa, com a mais alegre boa vontade, apesar da ciência da incomensurabilidade da gratidão que nutrimos e da incapacidade de expressá-la, em toda a sua plenitude e subjetividade.
  • 2 the Assyrian Empire, the Conquest of Israel, and the Colonization of Judah 37 I

    2 the Assyrian Empire, the Conquest of Israel, and the Colonization of Judah 37 I

    ISRAEL AND EMPIRE ii ISRAEL AND EMPIRE A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism Leo G. Perdue and Warren Carter Edited by Coleman A. Baker LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY 1 Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56705-409-8 PB: 978-0-56724-328-7 ePDF: 978-0-56728-051-0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) 1 Contents Abbreviations vii Preface ix Introduction: Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonial Interpretation 1 I.
  • The Maccabees (Hasmoneans)

    The Maccabees (Hasmoneans)

    The Maccabees Page 1 The Maccabees (Hasmoneans) HASMONEANS hazʹme-nēʹenz [Gk Asamomaios; Heb ḥašmônay]. In the broader sense the term Hasmonean refers to the whole “Maccabean” family. According to Josephus (Ant. xii.6.1 [265]), Mattathias, the first of the family to revolt against Antiochus IV’s demands, was the great-grandson of Hashman. This name may have derived from the Heb ḥašmān, perhaps meaning “fruitfulness,” “wealthy.” Hashman was a priest of the family of Joarib (cf. 1 Macc. 2:1; 1 Ch. 24:7). The narrower sense of the term Hasmonean has reference to the time of Israel’s independence beginning with Simon, Mattathias’s last surviving son, who in 142 B.C. gained independence from the Syrian control, and ending with Simon’s great-grandson Hyrcanus II, who submitted to the Roman general Pompey in 63 B.C. Remnants of the Hasmoneans continued until A.D. 100. I. Revolt of the Maccabees The Hasmonean name does not occur in the books of Maccabees, but appears in Josephus several times (Ant. xi.4.8 [111]; xii.6.1 [265]; xiv.16.4 [490f]; xv.11.4 [403]; xvi.7.1 [187]; xvii.7.3 [162]; xx.8.11 [190]; 10.3 [238]; 10.5 [247, 249]; BJ i.7 [19]; 1.3 [36]; Vita 1 [2, 4]) and once in the Mishnah (Middoth i.6). These references include the whole Maccabean family beginning with Mattathias. In 166 B.C. Mattathias, the aged priest in Modein, refused to obey the order of Antiochus IV’s envoy to sacrifice to the heathen gods, and instead slew the envoy and a Jew who was about to comply.
  • 30-Between the Testaments #5

    30-Between the Testaments #5

    Old Testament History Lesson #30 The Hellenistic Period Introduction. With the death of the last of the sons of Mattathias, in 135 B.C., the heroic age of the Maccabean struggle came to an end. The generation which had fought for religious liberty was dying out. The new generation was proud of the Maccabean victories and hopeful of even greater successes at home and abroad. I. The Growth And Decay Of The Hasmonean Dynasty A. John Hyrcanus. 1. Although powerful enough to conquer Jerusalem, Syria offered rec- ognition to Hyrcanus on the condition that Hyrcanus consider him- self subject to Syria and promise to help in Syrian military cam- paigns. The Syrians left Palestine, and the Hellenizing party disap- peared from the Jewish political scene. 2. This change in political alignments is an important factor in the reign of Hyrcanus. The Maccabean struggle resulted in victory for the Hasidim, although the Hasidim did not completely align them- selves with the Maccabees. They were willing to stop short of politi- cal independence in their dealings with the Syrians. 3. In the subsequent history of the Hellenistic party, its ideals were perpetuated in the party of the Sadducees, and the ideals of the Hasidim were perpetuated in the party of the Pharisees. These par- ties are first mentioned during the lifetime of Hyrcanus. Before his death he repudiated the Pharisees and declared himself a Sad- ducee. 4. The rule of John Hyrcanus was one of territorial expansion. Al- though devout Jews frequently differed with his policies, his per- sonal life was free from suspicion.
  • Hanukah History

    Hanukah History

    A BRIEF HISTORY OF Chanukah More than a little oil – edited by Rabbi Ron Symons Alexander the Great conquered Israel in the 4 th century B.C.E. He was a benevolent ruler result of a vision he was said to have had before he began any battle. The story goes that upon entering Jerusalem, he was met by the High Priest, Shimon HaTzaddik. Before every battle, he saw his likeness in a vision. As a result, he cancelled taxes on the Jews during the Sabbatical year, offered animals in the Temple on his own behalf, and granted the Jews religious freedom. Conditions changed when Alexander died. His empire was divided among different generals. After a power struggle, Israel came under the control of the Seleucid Dynasty – Greek kings who ruled from Syria. Until this point, the major threat was spiritual annihilation resulting from Hellenization, the adaptation of Greek culture and philosophy (assimilation). Hellenization attacked the moral, ethical and religious fibre of Judaism. Many Jews resisted assimilation but many became ardent Hellenists. Under the Seleucid kings, this situation continued. With the rise of Antiochus IV both the spiritual and physical survival of the Jewish people was severely threatened. Sadly enough, Jewish Hellenists contributed towards Jewish destruction by complaining to the king that the pace of assimilation was not fast enough. Tragedy resulted. One man, named Joshua, or the Hellenized Jason, bribed the King into replacing the high priest and appointing him instead. This new “high-priest” erected a gymnasium near the Temple where the priests would go and play sports, thereby neglecting their duties.
  • 2210 Bc 2200 Bc 2190 Bc 2180 Bc 2170 Bc 2160 Bc 2150 Bc 2140 Bc 2130 Bc 2120 Bc 2110 Bc 2100 Bc 2090 Bc

    2210 Bc 2200 Bc 2190 Bc 2180 Bc 2170 Bc 2160 Bc 2150 Bc 2140 Bc 2130 Bc 2120 Bc 2110 Bc 2100 Bc 2090 Bc

    2210 BC 2200 BC 2190 BC 2180 BC 2170 BC 2160 BC 2150 BC 2140 BC 2130 BC 2120 BC 2110 BC 2100 BC 2090 BC Fertile Crescent Igigi (2) Ur-Nammu Shulgi 2192-2190BC Dudu (20) Shar-kali-sharri Shu-Turul (14) 3rd Kingdom of 2112-2095BC (17) 2094-2047BC (47) 2189-2169BC 2217-2193BC (24) 2168-2154BC Ur 2112-2004BC Kingdom Of Akkad 2234-2154BC ( ) (2) Nanijum, Imi, Elulu Imta (3) 2117-2115BC 2190-2189BC (1) Ibranum (1) 2180-2177BC Inimabakesh (5) Ibate (3) Kurum (1) 2127-2124BC 2113-2112BC Inkishu (6) Shulme (6) 2153-2148BC Iarlagab (15) 2121-2120BC Puzur-Sin (7) Iarlaganda ( )(7) Kingdom Of Gutium 2177-2171BC 2165-2159BC 2142-2127BC 2110-2103BC 2103-2096BC (7) 2096-2089BC 2180-2089BC Nikillagah (6) Elulumesh (5) Igeshaush (6) 2171-2165BC 2159-2153BC 2148-2142BC Iarlagash (3) Irarum (2) Hablum (2) 2124-2121BC 2115-2113BC 2112-2110BC ( ) (3) Cainan 2610-2150BC (460 years) 2120-2117BC Shelah 2480-2047BC (403 years) Eber 2450-2020BC (430 years) Peleg 2416-2177BC (209 years) Reu 2386-2147BC (207 years) Serug 2354-2124BC (200 years) Nahor 2324-2176BC (199 years) Terah 2295-2090BC (205 years) Abraham 2165-1990BC (175) Genesis (Moses) 1)Neferkare, 2)Neferkare Neby, Neferkamin Anu (2) 3)Djedkare Shemay, 4)Neferkare 2169-2167BC 1)Meryhathor, 2)Neferkare, 3)Wahkare Achthoes III, 4)Marykare, 5)............. (All Dates Unknown) Khendu, 5)Meryenhor, 6)Neferkamin, Kakare Ibi (4) 7)Nykare, 8)Neferkare Tereru, 2167-2163 9)Neferkahor Neferkare (2) 10TH Dynasty (90) 2130-2040BC Merenre Antyemsaf II (All Dates Unknown) 2163-2161BC 1)Meryibre Achthoes I, 2)............., 3)Neferkare, 2184-2183BC (1) 4)Meryibre Achthoes II, 5)Setut, 6)............., Menkare Nitocris Neferkauhor (1) Wadjkare Pepysonbe 7)Mery-........, 8)Shed-........, 9)............., 2183-2181BC (2) 2161-2160BC Inyotef II (-1) 2173-2169BC (4) 10)............., 11)............., 12)User......
  • View of Late Antiquity In

    View of Late Antiquity In

    ARAM, 23 (2011) 489-508. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.23.0.2959670 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS Dr. ROBERT SMITH (Mid-Atlantic Christian University) Walls were important to the citizens of the Decapolis cities.1 While the world- view of Late Antiquity interpreted the rise and fall of cities as ultimately being the result of divine intervention, the human construction of defensive walls was still a major civic concern. Walls, like temples, honored a city’s patron deities and fostered a sense of local identity and well-being. These structures, long a bulwark of independence and status for cities in the Levant,2 were present in the Hellenizing pre-Decapolis cities, permitted in the Decapolis during the Roman period and were promoted during the subsequent Byzantine period as well. Instead of fostering local rebellion against a distant Rome or later Con- stantinople, the construction of Decapolis city walls, like other components of the imperial architectural palette, was a strategic asset that served to cultur- ally unify the region’s ethnically and linguistically diverse population.3 The “spiritual walls” of cultural solidarity, established in Hellenism and continued by Rome, together with the physical walls of the Decapolis cities helped to preserve their identities for centuries. The Roman and Byzantine empires depended upon strong loyal cities like those of the Decapolis to sustain their rule in the Levant. WALLS OF PRE-DECAPOLIS CITIES IN THE PRE-ROMAN ERA Cities that would be counted as part of the Decapolis in the Roman Era were typically established in the Hellenistic era on the remains of ancient settle- ments.
  • Early Christianity in Transjordan

    Early Christianity in Transjordan

    Tyndale Bulletin 45.1 (1994) 97-117. EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN TRANSJORDAN Bastiaan Van Elderen Summary Considerable archaeological field work is currently being conducted in the area of the Decapolis, including the author’s involvement in the excavations of Abila. This article reviews the few references to northern Transjordan in the New Testament and the references in early Christian literature which suggest that Jewish Christianity flourished in Transjordan in the early Christian centuries. Archaeological evidence indicates a rich floruit of Byzantine Christianity in Transjordan. A study of literary allusions relating to this area and the current archaeological work promise new light on this little-known phase of early Christianity. One of the blank pages in ancient church history is the beginning stages of the movement of Christianity to the east. The movement of Christianity as presented in the Acts of the Apostles was to the west. Nothing is reported about the movement of Christianity to the south apart from the report of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch; or of the movement to the east apart from the report of Christians in Damascus whom Saul sought to apprehend. On the other hand, there are some scattered references in the literature of the early church. In view of increasing archaeological work in the Transjordan area it may be useful to assemble some of these data from the literary sources to provide a framework in which to evaluate this current and future archaeological work. Perhaps a word of caution is in order first of all. Archaeological data relating to pre-Constantinian Christianity are extremely limited.
  • Orbis Terrarum DATE: AD 20 AUTHOR: Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

    Orbis Terrarum DATE: AD 20 AUTHOR: Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

    Orbis Terrarum #118 TITLE: Orbis Terrarum DATE: A.D. 20 AUTHOR: Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa DESCRIPTION: The profound difference between the Roman and the Greek mind is illustrated with peculiar clarity in their maps. The Romans were indifferent to mathematical geography, with its system of latitudes and longitudes, its astronomical measurements, and its problem of projections. What they wanted was a practical map to be used for military and administrative purposes. Disregarding the elaborate projections of the Greeks, they reverted to the old disk map of the Ionian geographers as being better adapted to their purposes. Within this round frame the Roman cartographers placed the Orbis Terrarum, the circuit of the world. There are only scanty records of Roman maps of the Republic. The earliest of which we hear, the Sardinia map of 174 B.C., clearly had a strong pictorial element. But there is some evidence that, as we should expect from a land-based and, at that time, well advanced agricultural people, subsequent mapping development before Julius Caesar was dominated by land survey; the earliest recorded Roman survey map is as early as 167-164 B.C. If land survey did play such an important part, then these plans, being based on centuriation requirements and therefore square or rectangular, may have influenced the shape of smaller-scale maps. This shape was also one that suited the Roman habit of placing a large map on a wall of a temple or colonnade. Varro (116-27 B.C.) in his De re rustica, published in 37 B.C., introduces the speakers meeting at the temple of Mother Earth [Tellus] as they look at Italiam pictam [Italy painted].