The Hasmonean State and Rome: a New Appraisal
Samuele ROCCA The Neri Bloomfield School of Design and Education, 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”
Revue des études juives, 173 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2014, pp. 263-295. doi: 10.2143/REJ.173.3.3062102
997567.indb7567.indb 263263 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 264 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
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?”, Journal of Jewish Studies, 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, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley (Ca.), 1986, Appendix II, “The First Encounter of Rome and the Jews”, p. 745-748.
997567.indb7567.indb 264264 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 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 socius et amicius populi romani, in a treaty that could only be clearly catalogued as foedus aequus. 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, The Antiquities of the Jews, 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, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley (Ca.), 1993, p. 269-287, and É. WILL, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, 323-30 av. J.-C., t. II, Paris, 2003, p. 102-238 and 385-397.
997567.indb7567.indb 265265 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 266 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
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. Badian concludes that this policy was achieved by Rome helping the claims, independence, and expansion of the smaller states — in our case, Hasmonean Judaea.6 On the other hand, in contrast to the Hasmonean rebels, the Senatorial ruling class of Rome was quite well disposed towards Hellenistic culture, albeit with some exceptions.7 Rome, however, was indeed far away. This is made clear by the last part of the praise of the Romans, in the First Book of Maccabees, in which the Roman political constitution is briefly discussed. The author was aware that Rome was a Republic and not a kingdom, and that the main decisional power lay in the hands of the Senate; yet he was clearly unaware that each year two supreme magistrates, or consules, were chosen, and not just one.8 Yet, some qualifications must be made regarding the exact nature of this treaty. First of all, was the treaty authentic? According to Stern, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the treaty. In fact, Stern connects this episode to the rebellion of Timarch in the eastern part of the Seleucid Empire. It seems that Timarch and Heracleides, leaders of the rebels, influenced the Roman Senate in aiding Judah Maccabeus to conclude the treaty. On the other hand, in contrast to Stern, Sherwin-White argues that the document was a forgery intended to justify the Maccabees, since the treaty is not mentioned
6. See E. BADIAN, Foreign Clientelae, 264-70 BC, Oxford, 1958, p. 107-108. See note 2, p. 108 regarding the support given by Rome to the Maccabees as a typical example of this policy. On Ptolemaic Egypt, see p. 108-110. The example cited by Badian of help given to the Maccabean rebellion is particularly apt, for once the Seleucid kingdom was weakened by prolonged civil strife and war with the Parthians, Rome’s intervention ceased, and there is no recorded intervention occurring between the accession of Alexander Balas and the Parthian wars. 7. Although the cultural circle around Scipio Africanus was quite well disposed towards Hellenistic culture, yet in Rome not everyone was so well disposed towards Greek-Hellenistic culture. Thus, the writings of Cato Censor and the comedies of Plautus present quite a negative image of the Hellenistic world and of the cunning Greculus, who was so despised. On the Scipionic circle see J. L. FERRARY, Philhellénisme et impérialisme, aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique (“Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome”, 271), Rome, 1988, mainly p. 45-132 on the theme of Greek liberty during the Second Macedonian War, and p. 133-209 on the successive period. See also p. 589-615 on Scipio Aemilianus and Panetius. See also GREEN, op. cit., p. 277-278, 279, 440, on Plautus see p. 374. 8. See 1 Macc. 8, 14-16.
997567.indb7567.indb 266266 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 267
in non-Jewish sources. According to Zollschan, it is highly doubtful that the Hasmoneans concluded a treaty in 161 B.C.E.9 Besides, as Mendlessohn has already argued, the Jewish ambassadors were successful only in obtain- ing amicitia from the Roman senate in 161 B.C.E., since the Romans were not keen to give a foedus to states that were not free. This status was not achieved by the Jews until the time of Simon.10 Gruen makes a case that this treaty was the result of a Jewish request, not a Roman impulse. For the Maccabees this treaty did indeed amount to some international recognition which could have constituted a valuable element in their struggle. On the other hand, this alliance was carried out by the Romans with no concrete implications involved. No one dreamed of enforcing this treaty, and the Jews were left to their own devices. Indeed, Gruen points out that this treaty, like the various successive treaties reported in the First Book of Maccabees and Josephus, does indeed reflect the main tenets of Roman foreign policy, as already noted and analyzed by Badian. Thus the Roman affirmations of sup- port, on the one hand, and the lack of implementation of this support, on the other, evince a remarkable regularity. While the Senate sent pro forma messages, in this case to the Maccabees and later to the Hasmoneans, the recipients had in fact already worked matters out for themselves.11 Besides, it is of critical significance to point to the fact that for Rome in the late first half of the second century B.C.E., the Seleucid kingdom was perceived as a dangerous enemy and a threatening force. Yet Rome did not wish to initiate military hostilities, but tried instead to deal with the Seleucid kingdom on the diplomatic front only. Thus, after the Syrian War of 191 B.C.E., Roman commitment against the Seleucids consisted of a diplomatic treaty with Attalid Pergamon, Ptolemaic Egypt, and the powerful city-state of Rhodes. All of these states, which surrounded the Seleucid kingdom, had much to fear from the expansionistic policy of the Seleucids. Rome did not commit any soldiers, but only its diplomatic power and influence, and hence, no matter what the international standing of any ally
9. See L. ZOLLSCHAN, “The Senate and the Jewish Embassy of 161 BCE”, in D. GERA et al. (eds.), The Path of Peace. Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom, Beersheva, 2005 (Hebrew), p. 1-37. See also ID., “Orality and the Politics of Roman Peacemaking”, in C. COOPER (ed.), Politics of Orality, Leiden, 2007, p. 171-190; ID., “Justinus 36.3.9 and Roman-Judaean Diplomatic Relations in 161 BCE”, Athenaeum, 96 (2008), p. 153-171. 10. See L. MENDLESSOHN, “Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitati- bus”, Acta Societatis philologiae Lipsiensis, 5 (1875), p. 83-288. 11. See GRUEN, op. cit., I, p. 45-46 and II, Appendix III, “Effects of the Roman-Jewish Treaty”, p. 748-753. See also BADIAN, op. cit., p. 1-14. On foedera with allies, see M. CARY and H. H. SCULLARD, A History of Rome, London, 1986, p. 169-171. See also M. STERN, “The Treaty between Judaea and Rome in 161 BCE (Hebrew)”, Zion, 51 (1986), p. 3-28.
997567.indb7567.indb 267267 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 268 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
was, it was welcome to join a chain of states, a “cordon sanitaire” surround- ing the Seleucid entity and threat. This is made quite clear in the treaty through the specific mention that Rome “shall assist them [the Maccabees], as far as they are able” or, in other words, it refers to the impossibility of direct Roman military intervention in favor of Judah the Maccabee and only to diplomatic assistance; conversely, Rome makes no mention of possible military help from the Maccabees. Thus the Roman Republic did not inter- vene militarily after Judah the Maccabee’s defeat and death in 161 B.C.E. at Elasa. The analysis of this situation is not to show that the treaty was a mere piece of paper, for in fact Rome’s diplomatic interventions were greatly feared, most unwelcome, and swiftly complied with by Rome’s enemies. Moreover, these diplomatic interventions were more often than not quite successful.12 Of further significance, it is clear that the treaty was signed with a party considered to be a warlord, and not with a state with well-defined borders. No territorial entity is overtly mentioned. Obviously the area of the territory of Judah the Maccabee fluctuated according to the area of territory occupied by his army. However, it is important to stress that the position of warlord, such as that of Judah the Maccabee, was common enough in the Hellenistic world from the days of Antigonus Monophtalmus onwards. The state as such was defined by the possession of an army. Thus, wherever Judah and his army were, there stood the state, or, at any rate, a political entity. The Hellenistic world was a world of kings and warlords, not only of city-states. Moreover, from 165 B.C.E. and onward, Judah the Maccabee was considered to possess a recognized territorial entity, since he dominated the Temple City of Jerusa- lem and its immediate surroundings, and thus he was an entirely possible and willing diplomatic partner.13 According to the First Book of Maccabees, quoted by Josephus, Jonathan, as well as Simon, renewed this treaty, although this is not confirmed in any other source.14 At the beginning of his rule, John Hyrcanus maintained his friendly alliance with the Seleucids. But when Antiochus VII was slain in
12. A good example of a highly successful Roman diplomatic intervention is that of G. Popilius Laenas in favor of Ptolemy VI of Egypt in 170 B.C.E., which put an end to the Sixth Syrian War. See Plb. 29. 27.4 and Liv. 45, 12. 4. See also WILL, op. cit., p. 321-323. 13. On the other side, Gruen argues that Rome framed the official compact with the Jewish people, rather than with an individual leader. See GRUEN, op. cit., I, p. 45-46. 14. According to Josephus, Jonathan sent two envoys to Rome, Numenius, son of Antio- chus, and Antipater, son of Jason, and he renewed the treaty with Rome. On Jonathan see 1 Macc. 12: 1-23. See also JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 164-170. Simon sent an embassy to Rome to renew the treaty, under the leadership of Numenius. See also 1 Macc. 14: 24. See also JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 227.
997567.indb7567.indb 268268 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 269
129 B.C.E., John Hyrcanus broke away as client king of the Seleucids and declared his independence.15 Besides, it seems that John Hyrcanus I renewed the treaty with the Romans already in 132 B.C.E. By this time, the Hasmo- neans were recognized by the Roman Republic as the legal rulers of an independent state, with the titles ethnarch and high priest. In the last known treaty, dated 132 B.C.E., the Roman Republic recognized the territorial achievements of Simon the Maccabee, which were still the same as the borders of the kingdom in the early years of John Hyrcanus’ rule. Josephus quotes the text of this treaty in its entirety. According to the treaty, the cities of Joppa, Gazara and Pegae, which were taken by Antiochus VII, evidently against the Senate’s wish, had to be returned to the Hasmoneans. Moreover, in the future, the Seleucid army would not be allowed to pass through Judaea. Once more, probably, for the Romans, the main purpose of the treaty was an attempt to weaken and humiliate the Seleucids rather than to further the independence of Judaea.16 The second part of the rule of John Hyrcanus was dominated by various military conquests that included the whole of Samaria, between the years 112-107 B.C.E., and Idumaea, between the years 112-111 B.C.E.17 Josephus does not report any other treaty between the Hasmoneans and the Roman Republic that can be dated to the second half of the rule of John Hyrcanus I. Did the Roman Senate sanction the con- quests of the Hasmonean ruler? It seems to me that since the main purpose of Roman foreign policy at this time was to weaken the larger Hellenistic states, such as the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the expansionistic policy of John Hyrcanus I greatly furthered Rome’s policy in the East. It is thus important to conclude that, in this case, as before, Rome did not need to send any army in support of John Hyrcanus I’s foreign policy of conquests. In concluding, the First Book of Maccabees shows a quite positive perception of the Roman Republic in Hasmonean Judaea. Flusser, who dates the First Book of Maccabees to the reign of John Hyrcanus I and argues that the author of the book was probably a Sadducee, living at the Hasmonean court, argues that the author extols Rome as justification for the establish- ment of diplomatic ties between the Hasmoneans and Rome. On the other hand, the author, despite the praises, also offers veiled criticism of Roman
15. JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 230, 236-248, and 273 also The Jewish War, 1. 61-70. 16. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 259-266. G. Fannius and G. Sempronius were praetores in 132 B.C.E. 17. Ibid., 13. 249, 254-258, 275-283 and The Jewish War, 1. 63, 64-66. See also E. SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, Edinburgh, 1987, p. 200- 215.
997567.indb7567.indb 269269 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 270 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
imperialism. It is striking that there is no mention of the Roman law system or of Roman justice, which was regarded by Rome as one of the founding principles of the Empire. Indeed the truly positive aspects of Roman power, such as the rule of law and the Pax Romana are omitted. Moreover, the author notes the heavy taxes imposed by Rome on the vanquished nations. Thus, the main redeeming quality of Roman imperialism is that the power used to defeat their enemies is not turned against their allies. As a matter of fact, according to the author of the First Book of Maccabees, the socii of Rome can rely on Roman fidelity. Fuchs argues that there is a similarity between the valorization of Rome in the First Book of Maccabees and in the Third Book of the Sybilline Oracles, which was probably composed in the middle of the second century B.C.E.18
II. The Late Hasmoneans and Rome
What was the relationship between the Hasmonean state and the Roman Republic from the end of the second century B.C.E. through the early dec- ades of the first century B.C.E.? Did the Hasmonean rulers renew the treaty of friendship with the Roman Republic? It is of course necessary to point out that it was precisely during this period — from the beginning of the first century B.C.E., during Alexander Jannaeus’s rule, and later on, under the rule of his widow, Salome Alexandra — that the Hasmonean kingdom reached its zenith. On the other hand, it is during this same period that Rome had to face the most vicious and dangerous of its enemies in the Hellenistic East, namely Mithridates VI of Pontus. Moreover, it is during this period as well that the political life of the Roman Republic was dominated by both the Social War and the civil war between Marius and Sulla. The most important scholars who have dealt with the subject are most notably U. Rappaport and M. Pucci Ben - Ze’ev. Rappaport have argued that Alexander Jannaeus did not renew the treaty of friendship with the Roman Republic. Thus the reign of Alexander Jannaeus is characterized by a change in the foreign policy of the young and militaristic Hasmonean State. Accord- ing to Rappaport, Aristobulus I, and Alexander Jannaeus after him, did not renew the treaty with Rome, which had last been renewed during John Hyrcanus I’s reign. Thus, according to Rappaport, the accusations of Pompey,
18. See 1 Macc. 8, 1-16. See also D. FLUSSER, Judaism in the Second Temple Period I, Qumran and Apocalypticism, Jerusalem, 2007, p. 182-186, 193. See also H. FUCHS, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt, Berlin, 1964, p. 175-178, 190, 194-195.
997567.indb7567.indb 270270 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 271
that the Hasmonean kingdom was no longer an ally of Rome, were justified. In contrast, Rappaport argues that the Hasmoneans had made a treaty of friendship with Mithridates VI of Pontus and that the Hasmonean fleet acted as pirates, or at least supported them. The main source utilized by Rappaport is Josippon, a Jewish historian who lived in tenth century Byzantine Southern Italy.19 Josippon indeed reports a treaty of friendship between Aristobulus II and Mithridates.20 However, the main source of Josippon, as the historian’s nickname implies, is of course Josephus, whose work, in fact, Josippon abridged in Hebrew. But then Josephus did not report any friendly contact between the Pontic ruler and Alexander Jannaeus, and, moreover, the state- ment of Josippon is not corroborated by any other ancient source, either Greek or Latin. Thus, using Josippon as his main source, Rappaport argues that Alexander Jannaeus made this treaty, which “his successor” Aristobulus II renewed. According to Rappaport, Alexander Jannaeus had new interests, and he preferred newer and closer allies, such as Mithridates VI, King of Pontus, Tigranes I of Armenia, the Parthians and, last but not least, the Cilician pirates, rather than the far away Roman Republic, mired in civil strife which weakened its power and influence. Thus, according to Rappaport, Alexander Jannaeus completely altered the attitude of the Hasmonean kingdom with respect to Rome and decided that it was no longer necessary to renew the treaty, which was by now judged to be useless and impractical. With respect to Rome, there were new local powers, whose friendship would have been much more useful to the expansionistic policy of the Hasmonean state. The foreign interests of the Hasmoneans had indeed changed. The all powerful and menacing Seleucid kingdom, now just a shadow of its former self, was no longer a threat either to Rome or to Hasmonean Judaea. Rappaport con- cludes his article by postulating that by the end of the period considered, Rome was interested in direct domination of the Hellenistic East, and not just in controlling it through treaties with local powers. The result of this disastrous foreign policy, begun by Alexander Jannaeus, was that Pompey divided the Hasmonean State in 63 B.C.E. Another no less important scholar, M. Pucci Ben-Ze’ev, has argued that John Hyrcanus I had already forged an alliance with Phraates II of Parthia against the Seleucid King Antiochus Sidetes. This treaty has been viewed by
19. See U. RAPPAPORT, “La Judée et Rome pendant le règne d’Alexandre Jannée”, Revue des études juives, 78 (1968), p. 329-342. See also D. FLUSSER, The Josippon (Josephus Gorio- nides): Edited with an Introduction Commentary and Notes, Vols. I-II, Jerusalem, 1978-80. See also ID., Josippon: The Original Version MS Jerusalem 8 41280 and Supplements, Jeru- salem, 1978. 20. See FLUSSER, ibid., p. 488, 1, 45.
997567.indb7567.indb 271271 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 272 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
Pucci Ben Zeev as an early example of a policy which did not conform to the interests of the Roman Republic.21 Besides, Like Rappaport, Pucci Ben Zeev has also argued for the existence of a treaty between Aristobulus II and Mithridates. However, since no treaty between Alexander Jannaeus and Mithridates is mentioned anywhere in Josephus writings, she does not sup- port the possibility of an alliance between the Hasmonean ruler and the King of Pontus.22 Last but not least Pucci Ben-Ze’ev pointed to the treaty between Mattatiahu Antigonus and the Parthians in 40 B.C.E.23 However, contrary to Rappaport, the main point of Pucci Ben-Ze’ev’s article is not so much the relationship between the Late Roman Republic and the Hasmonean state, but rather the attitude of Josephus to Rome. Thus Pucci Ben-Ze’ev contends that one of the aims of Josephus was to prove his personal loyalty to Rome, as well as the loyalty of the greater part of his people, the Jews. Generally Josephus justified the loyalty of the Jews implicitly, and thus, whenever Josephus could choose between two sources, he chose the source that was closer to and supported the interests of Rome. Events indicating the con- trary, such as the treaty between Mattatiahu Antigonus and the Parthians in 40 B.C.E. — the only episode among those mentioned above clearly reported by Josephus — were recorded with a clear lack of objectivity.24 It is important to point out that Josippon is the common source used by Rappaport and Pucci Ben-Ze’ev to argue that the last Hasmoneans adopted a new foreign policy that was hostile to Rome. Thus it is Josippon who reports the alliance between John Hyrcanus I and Phraates of Parthia, as well as the alliance between Mithridates VI of Pontus and Aristobulus II, which go unmentioned by Josephus. It seems to me that there is no motivation for discarding Josippon as a further source, since he probably utilized an ancient source that has been lost to us. I argue, however, for a different interpreta- tion of the information given by Josippon. I think that Josippon’s data has not been interpreted in the right context, thereby generating a bias towards
21. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 250-253. It seems that Josippon used as source Diodorus or Pseidonius, but not Nicolaus. The original text of Josippon appears in an interpolation added to the third version, the long one, which is dated before 1160-1161. See M. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, “On the Tendentiousness of Josephus’ Historical Writing”, in U. RAPPAPORT (ed.), Josephus Flavius, Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Jerusalem, 1982 (Hebrew), p. 117-130. See also ID., “Jewish-Parthian Relations in Josephus”, The Jerusalem Cathedra, 3, 1983 (Hebrew), p. 13-14. Josippon, H. HOMINER (ed.), Jerusalem, 1957, p. 28. 22. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, art. cit., 1982, p. 117-130. See also ID., art. cit., 1983, p. 13-14. 23. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 330-369, The Jewish War, 1. 248- 273. 24. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, art. cit., 1982, p. 117-130.
997567.indb7567.indb 272272 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 273
the possibility that the last Hasmonean rulers had indeed renewed their treaty with Rome. The first point that must be discussed is, of course, John Hyrcanus I’s treaty with Parthia, probably sometime after the treaty with the Roman Republic and signed in the early years of his reign. According to an interpolation added to one of Josippon’s manuscripts, John Hyrcanus I also established a secret agreement with the Parthian king Phraates II against the Seleucid King Antiochus VII Sidetes, which can be dated to 130-129 B.C.E., when John Hyrcanus was following Antiochus VII in his expedition against Parthia. As, I wrote earlier, this treaty has been viewed by Pucci Ben Zeev as an early example of a policy which did not conform to the interests of the Roman Republic.25 It is important, however, to consider the timing. First of all, at this juncture, the Parthians were a geographically distant power with which Rome still had no diplomatic contact. Besides, during this period the Roman Republic had no expansionistic aims in the Near East, and in fact, during this period, its imperialistic aims were directed towards the West, mainly towards Spain. Rome did not demonstrate any military commitment towards the Hellenistic East following either the annexation of Asia as a new province in 133 B.C.E. or the successive rebellion of Aristonicus, which was crushed in 129 B.C.E. Moreover, the unrest in Rome itself, during the tribunates of the Gracchi, effectively prevented Rome from taking any interest in the Near East.26 Furthermore, the Seleucid kingdom, a traditional enemy of the Roman Republic, was still strong, and thus the distant Parthian kingdom could only have been regarded as a tool in further weakening the Seleucid kingdom. It was only more than thirty years later, in 96 B.C.E., that the Roman Republic established a direct diplomatic relationship with the Parthian king- dom, and it is probable that both Rome and the Parthians still had a common enemy, namely the Seleucid kingdom. Thus it is important to point out that only with the definitive fall of the Seleucid kingdom would Rome have had to face Parthia as an adversary, and, in any case, during the earlier days of Pompey in the East, the Parthian kingdom was not regarded as an enemy. The days of Carrhae were clearly still far away.27 Hence, it seems to me that
25. See JOSEPHUS, Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 250-253. It seems that Josippon used as source Diodorus or Pseidonius, but not Nicolaus. The original text of Josippon appears in an interpolation added to the third version, the long one, which is dated before 1160-1161. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, art. cit., 1982, p. 117-130; ID., art. cit., 1983, p. 13-14; Josippon, HOMINER (ed.), Jerusalem, 1957, p. 28. 26. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 165-167 on Rome’s foreign policy in Asia and in the Near East from 188 until 129 B.C.E., and p. 203-210 on the tribunate of the Gracchi. 27. In 96 B.C.E. Sulla, then propraetor in Cilicia, made friendly diplomatic overtures to the Parthians. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 230.
997567.indb7567.indb 273273 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 274 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
this treaty between John Hyrcanus I and the Parthians was in no way intended to affect the contemporary foreign policy of the Roman Republic in a nega- tive way. Therefore, although the possibility that a Jewish-Parthian treaty would have been welcomed by Rome is questionable, on the other hand, the Roman Republic was too far away to be affected in any way by such a treaty. But what happened after the death of John Hyrcanus I, who, anyway, signed a treaty of friendship at the beginning of his rule? It seems to me that Judas Aristobulus I, who reigned for a year only, did not renew the treaty with Rome. His reign was simply too short for this to have occurred.28 Did his successor, King Alexander Jannaeus, perhaps renew the treaty of friendship with Rome? Did Hasmonean Judaea continue a favorable policy towards the now embattled Roman Republic, which had previously been an ally? Did Alexander Jannaeus take a hostile stand, as Rappaport and Pucci Ben Ze’ev suggest, using Josippon as source. Or was Hasmonean Judaea simply neutral, waiting for a further development? At this juncture we must point out that if Mithridates VI had his military and political aims, so did Alexander Jannaeus, and thus a further question arises, namely, were the politi- cal aims of Alexander Jannaeus opposed to those of the Roman Republic? These questions are significant since a possible treaty between the Roman Republic and King Alexander Jannaeus is nowhere mentioned by any source, including Josephus or any Greek or Roman authors. Before facing the main issue regarding the relationship between Alexan- der Jannaeus and the Roman Republic, it is important to ask if Alexander Jannaeus did renew his treaty with Rome, and if so, when? The topic is quite problematic. If Alexander Jannaeus did in fact renew a treaty with Rome, we would expect Josephus to mention it, since in his writings, as Pucci Ben Zeev has argued, he always stresses each sign of good will and cooperation between the Jews and Rome. And yet, as I wrote earlier, Josephus does not write anything about this treaty. Indeed it is possible to argue that even if the alliance and friendship between the Hasmonean state and Rome was not renewed, the previous treaty would have remained valid. Indeed Gruen argues that in the previous treaties, Rome framed the official compact with the Jewish people, rather than with an individual leader and hence there was no real necessity for a formal renewal of the treaty.29 And yet, if Alexander Jannaeus renewed the treaty with Rome before 89 B.C.E., as was probably
28. On Judah Aristobulus I see JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 301-319, The Jewish War, 1. 70-84. See also SCHÜRER, op. cit. I, p. 216-218. 29. See GRUEN, op. cit. I, p. 45-46.
997567.indb7567.indb 274274 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 275
the case, at the beginning of his rule, he would have done this exactly as before, in Rome, in an official ceremony, in the presence of the entire Senate. But did he? And if not, what happened afterwards? From 89 B.C.E. until 82 B.C.E., Rome was dominated by a violent civil war between Marius and Cinna, on the one hand, and Sulla on the other.30 With whom could Alexander Jannaeus have renewed the treaty of friendship — with Marius or Cinna in Rome, or with Sulla in the East? Although the last possibility seems to me the more likely of the two, since Sulla was Rome’s representative in the East, it is important to point out that a treaty was legitimate only if signed in the presence of the Senate. Otherwise the treaty was no more than a personal agreement between a Roman warlord and a private cliens. Thus, in order to have his conquests, or at least his aims, legitimized, Alexander Jannaeus had need of a formal treaty, not merely with the representatives of Rome, but with the Roman Senate itself.31 In fact, to renew a treaty with the representative of one of the factions could have been extremely problematic; especially if it turned out that the other faction eventually won the civil war. Thus, in this case, not only could the adversary faction have easily repudiated the treaty, but it could have taken an overtly hostile stand against it. Although I must admit that this discussion of the possibility of a treaty between Alexander Jannaeus and Rome is very speculative, it seems to me that there are various reasons to assume that the previous treaty between Rome and the Hasmonean State was still in effect. There are indeed compelling reasons to assume that there was a renewal of the treaty between Alexander Jannaeus and the Roman Republic. For the most part, both Hasmonean Judaea and Rome had common enemies — namely, the various Hellenistic kings, with their expansionistic agenda, and the Greek cities that desired independence. There is no hint that the Greek cities conquered by John Hyrcanus I, and later by Alexander Jannaeus, had any treaty of friendship with Rome during this period, even if, afterwards, first Pompey and then Gabinius gave back their freedom and restored their independence. Yet the relationship between these cities and Rome was quite volatile even afterwards, when Augustus returned most of these cities to Herod in 30 B.C.E. Thus, when Gadara complained of Herod, Augustus stood by Herod.32 Thus King Alexander Jannaeus had to face the
30. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 227-229, and 233-234. 31. I wish to thank Professor Gruen for this hint. 32. John Hyrcanus I conquered Samaria (JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 275- 282), and Scythopolis (ibid., 13. 280). Alexander Jannaeus conquered Strato’s Tower and Dora (ibid., 13. 324), Gadara, Amathus, Raphia, Anthedon, Gaza (ibid., 13. 356-364). Josephus gives a list of Greek cities conquered by the Hasmoneans, see ibid., 13. 395-397. The list
997567.indb7567.indb 275275 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 276 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
Greek cities of the Decapolis, those on the coast, and of course the Seleucids. On the other hand, the Roman Republic faced Mithridates VI, King of Pontus, the ever- present Seleucids, a traditional enemy of both the Roman Republic and Hasmonean Judaea, as well as the various Greek cities of Achaia and Asia, including no less than Athens, which, at this time, actively sided with Mithridates against Rome. Thus it is possible to say that during this period both Hasmonean Judaea and the Roman Republic faced a general “Hellen- istic” threat, to which both reacted strongly.33 While Alexander Jannaeus wiped out the cities of Gaza and Gadara,34 Sulla did the unthinkable — in 86 B.C.E. his soldiers sacked, pillaged and raped Athens, which was still the cultural capital of Hellenism, albeit an ally of Mithridates.35 To relate Hasmonean Judaea to the Roman Republic, we shall divide Alexander Jannaeus’s reign in two periods. The first period, from 101 till 94 B.C.E., was dominated by a series of conquests as well as by a confron- tation with the Ptolemies. The second period, from 94 till 76 B.C.E., was dominated by both civil and foreign wars. In the early eight years of his reign, from 101 till 94 B.C.E., still before the Mithridatic Wars, Alexander Jannaeus begin a war of conquest of the coastal littoral, that brought him to war first against Ptolemais and then, in consequence, to a confrontation against the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, in the person of King Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, the Ptolemaic ruler of Cyprus.36
includes Strato’s Tower, Apollonia, Joppa, Jamnia, Ashdod, Gaza, Anthedon, Raphia, Rhinocolura, Adorn, Marissa, Scythopolis and Gadara, Selucia and Gabala, Heshbon, Medaba, Lemba, Oronas, Gelithon, Zara, Pella. First Pompey and then Gabinius freed most, although by no means not all of these cities. Thus Pompey took away cities of Coele-Syria which Jews had subdued, rebuilt Gadara, restored and gave freedom to Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella, Dios, Samaria, Marissa, Ashdod, Jamnia, Arethusa, Gaza Joppa, Dora, Straton’s Tower (ibid., 14. 74-76). Gabinius rebuilt Samaria, Ashdod, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Raphia, Dora, Marissa, Gaza (ibid., 14. 88). However, Herod was given back most of the cities on the coast and all the cities of the Decapolis by Augustus in 30 BCE (ibid., 15. 215- 217 and The Jewish War, 1. 396-397). On Herod and Gadara, see. See also A. KASHER, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel. Relations of the Jews with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period, Tübingen, 1990, p. 195-197. Kasher rightly argues that Herod policy towards these cities, exemplified in the episode of Gadara, was not different from the policy of Alexander Jannaeus. 33. See GRUEN, op. cit., passim. See also GREEN, op. cit., p. 547-565; WILL, op. cit. II, p. 462-485; and P. MATYSZAK, Mithridates the Great, Rome’s Indomitable Enemy, Barnsley, 2008. 34. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 356, 396 on Gadara and 358-360, 362, 365 on Gaza. 35. See on Sulla and Athens C. HABICHT, Athens from Alexander to Antony, Cambridge (Mass.), 1999, p. 297-314. See also GREEN, op. cit., p. 563-564, 569, 571. 36. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 324-347, The Jewish War, 1. 86. See also SCHÜRER, op. cit. I, p. 219-228. Ptolemy IX Soter II or Lathyrus, ruled on the main on
997567.indb7567.indb 276276 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 277
The siege of Ptolemais by Alexander Jannaeus, a city which traditionally maintained an alliance with the Ptolemies, which were also allies of Rome, could have had negative consequences for his relationship with Rome. Was by then Ptolemais already an ally of Rome? However, things were not so simple. Josephus clearly states that part of the population, under the leadership of Demeneteus, preferred the rule of the Jewish king to that of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus. Moreover, Ptolemais did not have any special affec- tion for his mother and rival, Cleopatra III, since she had to besiege the city. Thus Ptolemais tried not to be entangled in the internecine strife between the two Ptolemies. It is interesting to note that, a decade later, Ptolemais, besieged by Tigranes II, evidently had a good relationship with Queen Salome Alex- andra, who was trying to help Cleopatra Selene, who had taken refuge there. Never part of the Herodian kingdom, during the rule of Claudius, Ptolemais became a Roman colony, Colonia Claudia Felix Ptolemais Germanica Stabilis.37 Did the war against Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, the Ptolemaic ruler of Cyprus, disturb the Roman Republic’s interests in the East? The question is quite legitimate, since there was a treaty of friendship and alliance between Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt, exactly as there was with Hasmonean Judaea. Yet, I think that the answer must be negative. In fact, Ptolemy IX Lathyrus had a problem of legitimacy, since the true legitimate ruler of Egypt was his mother Cleopatra III, who was, in contrast, quite friendly to the Hasmonean kingdom. In fact in this period, Ptolemy IX ruled from Cyprus, while his mother ruled from Alexandria.38 And since the Roman Republic was always interested in backing the legitimate ruler, it seems to me that the Roman Republic probably backed Cleopatra III, and not her son. Moreover some years later, Ptolemy IX Soter (Lathyrus), while for once he was the ruler of Egypt, did not support Rome against Mithridates VI. Last but not least, the period from 103 until 89 B.C.E. was so critical to the survival of the Roman Republic — entangled first in the Jugurthine War and then in the Social War — that Rome had probably no real interest in what was going on in the distant East, so far away from Rome’s sphere of influence.
Cyprus. However he was successful in ruling Egypt three times, from 116 B.C.E. to 110 B.C.E., 109 B.C.E. to 107 B.C.E., and 88 B.C.E. to 81 B.C.E. See G.A. HÖBL, History of the Ptole- maic Empire, London, 2001, p. 197-204 on Cleopatra III’s rule, when Ptolemy IX was his co-regent and heir, p. 204-207 on Ptolemy IX’ first reign, on Ptolemy IX’s exile to Cyprus, see p. 207-210, and on Ptolemy IX’ second reign, see p. 211-213. 37. On Alexander Jannaeus siege of Ptolemais see JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 324-334. On Demeneteus see ibid., 13. 330. On Cleopatra III siege see ibid., 13. 350. On Tigranes II siege of Ptolemais, see ibid., 13. 419-420. 38. See ibid., 13. 334-336, 348, 351-358, and The Jewish War, 1. 86.
997567.indb7567.indb 277277 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 278 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
However, the second period is much more relevant to our discussion, since during this period the Roman Republic was embattled in the Mithridatic Wars. As noted above, civil and foreign wars dominated the last years of Alexander Jannaeus’s rule.39 On the other hand, for the Roman Republic, the Mithridatic Wars dominated the period between 88 and 82 B.C.E.40 Thus once more it is more than relevant to ask if the embattled Republican Rome and the Hasmonean Kingdom, which fought for its life in the middle of bloody civil wars against a resurgence of Hellenism, had a common treaty, formal or informal? Three episodes can be reported to support the thesis of a treaty between King Alexander Jannaeus and the Roman Republic. First, Mithridates VI, King of Pontus and enemy of Rome, was hostile, to say the least, during this time towards the Hasmonean Kingdom. According to Josephus, sometime in 88 B.C.E., Mithridates confiscated no less than 800 talents of gold that had been left on the Island of Cos by Jews of Caria and Ionia with the intention of it being forwarded to the Temple. This event could only have happened during the First Mithridatic War, since it refers to the Province of Asia being overwhelmed by Mithridates’s mercenaries. If, as Rappaport and Pucci suggest, Mithridates and Alexander Jannaeus were allies, why would the king of Pontus confiscate from the Jews of Asia money that was directed to his ally? Indeed the episode may be related to Mithridates’ economic needs during his struggle against Rome, and not nec- essarily as evidence of any hostility towards the Hasmonean state. However, Josephus states clearly that the Jews of Asia removed their money “out of fear of Mithridates.”41 But why did the Jews of Asia fear Mithridates? Were they perceived by the King of Pontus as enemies? It seems to me that we can explain the entire episode only if we postulate that the Jews of Asia sent their “sacred” money to Cos, which looked like a safe place far away from the reach of Mithridates, since they feared that the King of Pontus would confiscate it, which in fact he eventually did, possibly because he perceived the Jews as enemies rather than allies. Otherwise the Jews of Asia would not have had anything to fear from Mithridates. Indeed Josephus clearly states later on that the Jews living in Judaea, “who had a strong city and a Temple”, as well as the Jews of Alexandria, who lived far away from his reach, would not have sent their sacred money to Cos, since they had
39. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 372-394. See also SCHÜRER, op. cit. I, p. 219-228. 40. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 230-231. See WILL, op. cit., p. 462-485. See also MATYSZAK, op. cit. On Sulla see A. KEAVENEY, Sulla, the Last Republican, London, 1982. 41. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 112-113, originally from the History of Strabo. See also MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 57.
997567.indb7567.indb 278278 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 279
nothing to fear from Mithridates. The only possible reason why the Jews were perceived as hostile is probably because of their attitude towards Rome, or more probably because of that of the ruler of Judaea, to whom this money was directed. In fact, although the money belonged to the Jews of Asia, it was directed to the Temple in Jerusalem, and thus the Temple — and not the Jews of Asia — was the ultimate victim of this act of con- fiscation. Since Alexander Jannaeus was perceived as an enemy, and not as an ally, it seems clear that Mithridates did not take the money as a loan but actually appropriated it, specifically because it was intended for the coffers of an enemy state, Judaea, which was the ally of Rome. Otherwise the episode would have been presented differently by Josephus or by his source, Strabo. This money could in fact have indirectly helped the Roman war effort. If Alexander Jannaeus had been neutral during the conflict between Rome and Mithridates, Mithridates would not have confiscated the 800 talents, since to confiscate the property of a neutral state would have been tantamount to an undeclared act of war. In fact, his action can be explained only if there did indeed exist an a priori treaty between Republican Rome and Hasmonean Judaea, and thus Hasmonean Judaea was regarded by Mithridates as a poten- tial or even active enemy. Second, it is important to point to the relationship between the Roman Republic, Parthia, and Hasmonean Judaea during this time frame. Did Parthia, menaced by Mithridates, have a treaty of friendship during this time with the Roman Republic and the Hasmonean kingdom? It is important to note that Pontus, as well as Armenia, its main ally, threatened the interests of Parthia. On the other hand, neither Rome nor Hasmonean Judaea in any way threatened the Parthian Kingdom. Did Alexander Jannaeus make a treaty of alliance with Parthia? Indeed, whether Parthia had a treaty of friendship with Jannaeus at the time is uncertain and cannot be regarded as an indisputable fact. According to Neusner, it is possible to trace a treaty of alliance between King Alexander Jannaeus and the Parthians in Rabbinic literature. The Par- thian kings who were possible candidates for this treaty were Mithridates II (123-88 B.C.E.), Gotarzes (91-80 B.C.E.), or Orodes I (80-76 B.C.E.).42 However, the argument made by Neusner has an insubstantial foundation. First of all, the Rabbinic sources used by Neusner, from the Amoraic period, postdate the events by at least three centuries and are manifestly legendary in character. Goodblatt argues, through a deconstruction of the Talmudic source, that the treaty of alliance between King Alexander Jannaeus and the Parthians
42. See Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 7. 2, and Nazir 5. 3. See also I. NEUSNER, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, The Parthian Period, Studia Post-Biblica, Leiden, 1995, p. 25-26.
997567.indb7567.indb 279279 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 280 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
is based on events during the reign of Agrippa I and that the hypothesis regarding the relationship between the Hasmonean kingdom and Parthia, as suggested by Neusner and Rappaport, is highly problematic.43 Thus it is indeed possible that no treaty of alliance was signed between Alexander Jannaeus and Parthia. And yet, even if there is no conclusive proof that Hasmonean Judaea and Parthia forged a formal alliance that had a clearly anti-Seleucid impulse or motivation, in any event the two countries were by no means hostile to each other. Moreover, even if we accept at face value the interpolation added to one of Josippon’s manuscripts, there is no reason to believe that that the secret agreement established by John Hyrcanus I with the Parthian king Phraates II against the Seleucid was by then valueless. But then again, the Parthians were “informal” allies of Rome. As I have mentioned earlier, no less than Sulla himself negotiated a treaty with the Parthians in 96 B.C.E., when, as propraetor, he was the governor of Cilicia. According to Plutarch, Sulla met, on the banks of the Euphrates, the Persian ambassador Orobazus, envoy of Arsaces, who requested an alliance and friendship. Plutarch clearly states that “Sulla was the first Roman with whom the Parthians held conference when they wanted alliance and friendship.” Thus it appears that Sulla concluded an agreement, somewhat short of a formal treaty, in which the Euphrates was recognized as the border between the territories of the Roman Republic and those of the Parthian kingdom.44 Sulla had good reasons for establishing diplomatic relations with Parthia. Rome’s ally, Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia, had been exiled by the invasion of Tigranes II of Armenia, father-in-law and ally of Mithridates, and obviously both Pontus and Armenia challenged not only Rome’s interests, but also the interests of Parthia. However, since the sources are silent on the subject, we do not know if the treaty was later legitimized by the Roman Senate. In any event, this episode shows us that Rome was by then aware of Parthian interests in the region, that these interests did not clash with those of Rome, at least for the time being, and that there were some points of commonality.
43. See Appendix to D. GOODBLATT, “Agrippa I and Palestinian Judaism in the First Century”, Jewish History, 2 (1987), p. 16-22. 44. It seems, however, that the agreement was not especially popular either in Rome or in Parthia. Orobazus was executed on his return to Parthia, while Sulla came under criticism. See PLUTARCH, Sulla, 5, 7-10. See also J. CARCOPINO, Silla, o la monarchia mancata, Milan, 1981, p. 40. Carcopino stresses that Sulla’s main purpose as governor of Cilicia was to reintegrate Ariobarzanes philoromaios as King of Cappadocia. Ariobarzanes fled to Rome in 94 B.C.E., when Tigranes II of Armenia, father-in-law of Mithridates, invaded his kingdom. See also KEAVENEY, op. cit., p. 32-33, 38. Keaveney points that although no treaty was signed, Sulla and the Parthian ambassador reached an agreement by fixing the Euphrates as the boundary between Rome and Parthia.
997567.indb7567.indb 280280 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 281
Was there an informal agreement, or at least a convergence of interests, between Rome, Judaea and Parthia against Mithridates, Tigranes II, and the Seleucids? Third, it is important to stress the attitude of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies towards Mithridates. Although the Seleucids were neither allies of Rome, nor of the Hasmoneans, the Ptolemies were. However, during this period the Ptolemies were divided by internecine strife. It seems that this civil strife resulted in a loosening of the ties between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Roman Republic and in the formation of pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions. But did it result in the Ptolemies’ support for Mithridates? In fact, there some hints that the Ptolemies actually supported Mithridates: Accord- ing to Appian, in 88 B.C.E., Mithridates was well received in Cos by its inhabitants, who give him the money that Cleopatra had deposited in the island of Cos years before and while there he met on friendly terms with the Ptolemaic ruler, the grandson of Queen Cleopatra III. Josephus confirms this piece of information. Thus, in the same passage in which he states that, while in Cos, Mithridates confiscated the money which belonged to the Jews, Josephus also writes that the King of Pontus confiscated the money which once belonged to Cleopatra III.45 Thus it is clear that, on the one hand, Mithridates confiscated the treasure deposited by Cleopatra III, while, on the other hand, he entertained a friendly relationship with the Ptolemaic ruler there, possibly a son of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, who by then was the ruler of Cyprus and Egypt. As I mentioned earlier, Josephus also states that Cleopatra III entered into a league with Alexander Jannaeus at Skythopolis, through his Jewish general Ananias.46 There is no source which records any help that the Ptolemies gave to Rome against Mithridates. Their mighty fleet, for example, could have made a difference. On the contrary, there are some hints that the Ptolemies supported Mithridates. In 88 B.C.E., Mithridates was well received in Cos by its Ptolemaic ruler, the grandson of Queen Cleopatra III, and it seems that Mithridates also showed his good will towards the Ptolemaic ruler of Cos.47 Indeed it seems that Ptolemy IX Soter, who ruled Egypt in 86 B.C.E., stepped away from his alliance from Rome. As Plutarch writes in the Life of Lucullus, “Ptolemy of Egypt [evidently Ptolemy IX Soter] abandoned his alliance with Rome out of fear for the outcome of war, but
45. See APPIAN, Mithridates, 23, 115. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 112- 113. See MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 47. Cleopatra III died in 101 B.C.E., murdered by his son Ptolemy X. See HÖBL, op. cit., p. 207 -210. 46. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 355. 47. See MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 47.
997567.indb7567.indb 281281 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 282 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
furnished Lucullus with ships to convey him as far as Cyprus.”48 Although Egypt was too geographically distant from Pontus to fear retaliation by Mithridates, the Ptolemaic ruler did not comply with his military obligations as socius et amicus Romani and decided to side with Mithridates, albeit not in an active way. Moreover it seems that the Ptolemies established familiar ties with the royal family of Pontus. Thus, upon the demise of Ptolemy XI, who died without a male heir, the only available male descendents of the Ptolemy I lineage were the illegitimate sons of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus by an unknown Greek concubine, who were living at Sinope, at the court of Mith- ridates. Appian also states that the daughter of Mithridates was betrothed to Ptolemy XII Auletes.49 Thus it seems that Cleopatra III, who established an alliance with Alexander Jannaeus and possibly supported the alliance with Rome, had his treasure confiscated by Mithridates at Cos. On the other hand, her son and adversary, Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, by then ruler of Cyprus as well as Egypt, entered into very friendly ties with Mithridates and ceased to sup- port Rome. Incidentally, Ptolemy IX Lathyrus was also the enemy of Alex- ander Jannaeus. A possible hint that the Romans did not appreciate the Ptolemies foreign policy is given in the statement of Strabo, found also in Appian, that Ptolemy, ruler of Cyprus and younger brother of Ptolemy XII Auletes, was deposed by M. Cato and committed suicide when the island was annexed by the Romans in 58 B.C.E.50 There is no hint that the Seleucid kingdom, mired in a series of civil wars between various pretenders, actively supported Mithridates VI against Rome, but King Alexander Jannaeus fought twice against Seleucid rulers — against Demetrius III Eucaerus and Antiochus XII, as well as Ptolemy IX Lathyrus. It is possible that, at the very least, Seleucid Syria hoped to be given a free hand from Mithridates against Judaea, which was in a state of civil strife and thus quite vulnerable. On the other hand, the fact that King Alexander Jannaeus fought against two
48. See PLUTARCH, Lucullus, 3, 1. See also MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 86. See also HÖBL, op. cit., p. 212-213. Höbl also points Ptolemy IX refusal of help to Lucullus. Before reaching Alexandria, Lucullus went to Cyrene, already annexed to Rome in 94 B.C.E. There according to Plutarch, Lucullus’ arrival seems to have put a belated end to a civil war, which lasted from the departure of the proconsul Caius Claudius Pulcher, already seven years. See PLUTARCH, Lucullus, 2, 3-4. Josephus, quoting Strabo, narrates on a rising of the Jews in Cyrene during the period, which was quelled by Lucullus. However Plutarch does not mention it. Probably the Jews just were just one side during the civil war in Cyrene. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 114-118. 49. On the family of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, see STRABO 17. 1, 11. See also on Ptolemy IX Lathyrus: JUSTIN, Epitome, 39.4-5 and PAUSANIAS, 1.9.1-3. On Ptolemy XII Auletes, see STRABO, 12. 3, 34, and 17. 1, 11. On the daughter of Mithridates betrothed to Ptolemy XII Auletes, see APPIAN, Mithridates, 111. 50. See STRABO, 14. 67, 6. See also APPIAN, The Civil Wars, 2. 23.
997567.indb7567.indb 282282 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 283
powers, whose “neutrality” favored Mithridates more than it did Rome, can be interpreted as being a pro-Roman stand. I would like to note a similar attitude evinced by Sulla as well as King Alexander Jannaeus towards the Greek world, an attitude dominated by alter- nating moments of aversion and of attraction. On the one hand, both leaders had a special cultural affinity with the Hellenistic world. Sulla collected the greatest Greek library in Rome, which included the “opera omnia” of Aristo, while Alexander Jannaeus had Graeco-Jewish philoi at his court and built his Jericho palace in Hellenistic style. Thus, in practice, the Hasmonean rulers incorporated Greek culture into their lives on various levels. Moreover, there is no evidence of the use of anti-Greek propaganda regarding the relationship between the Hasmoneans and the Greeks, and thus Alexander Jannaeus’s brother, Aristobulus I is defined as “Philellenos.”51 This tradition of Philo- Hellenism shall continue during the rule of Hyrcanus II, as the various decrees by Pergamun and Athens, honoring the Jewish ruler clearly demon- strates.52 On the other hand, however, both leaders politically repressed the push for independence on the part of Greek cities and fought against the Hellenistic kingdoms. Alexander Jannaeus’s wars against the various Graeco- Phoenician and wholly Greek cities in the Land of Israel are well known, and, to cite some examples, he conquered, among others, the cities of Dora, Straton’s Tower, Gaza, and Gadara, depriving them of their independence, which of course resulted in strong resentment on the part of the Greek elites. Rajak points out that it is interesting that although the Greek cities do emerge as victims of greater hostility and wanton brutality, Strabo or Timagenes, as quoted by Josephus, do not suggest any noteworthy enmity
51. On Aristobulus I as Philellene, see JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 318. On the Hasmonean palaces of Jericho see E. NETZER, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, Jerusalem, 2001, p. 14-39. On the Hasmonean coins Hellenistic iconography, see Y. M ESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coinage I, Persian Period through Hasmonaeans, New York, 1982, p. 61-76. See also U. RAPPAPORT, “The Hasmonean State and Hellenism”, Tarbiz, 60 (1991), p. 481-490 (Hebrew). See also ID., “The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans”, in M. MOR (ed.), Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accommodation: Past Traditions, Cur- rent Issues and Future Prospects II, Studies in Jewish Civilization, New York and London, 1991, p. 2-13. See also T. RAJAK, “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism”, in P.R. DAVIES and R.T. WHITE (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays in Jewish and Christian Literature and History, Sheffield, 1990, p. 265-71. Rajak argues for the adoption of Greek trappings, already from Judah. Besides she claims as good examples of Greek influence the family tomb erected by the Maccabees in Modi‘in, the Greek features that can be noticed in Simon public life, and of course the coinage. 52. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 149-155 on the decree of Athens, which celebrates the benefactions or evergetism of Hyrcanus II, ibid., 14. 247-255 on the decree of the city of Pergamum to commemorate the alliance with Hyrcanus II, on the decree of Halicarnas- sus, which celebrate the alliance between “the Jews and our city”, see ibid., 14. 256-258.
997567.indb7567.indb 283283 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 284 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
on the part of the Hasmoneans towards the Greek cities. Kasher argues that Jewish barbarism in the stories narrating Jewish cruelty have been played up and exaggerated in the historical record. It is not credible that numerous cities were reduced to rubble, only to flourish a generation later. This distortion probably originated in the Greek sources utilized by Josephus. We ought to remember that the use of rhetoric led the Greek historians to exaggerate the catastrophes of war. Besides, Kasher suggests further reasons for conflict and rivalry between the Greek cities and the Jews: first, the natural rivalry between the Greek urban population and the Jewish rural population; second, a mutual economic rivalry; third, the ordinary quarrels occurring between neighbors; and finally such demographic factors as the growth of the Jewish population.53 In addition, less known is that Sulla himself ordered the sack of Athens, the “berceau” of the Graeco-Roman culture. That the Sullan sack was a serious setback for the Attic city is not to be doubted, and it is second only to the scope of Xerxes’ destruction of the city in 480 B.C.E.54 King Alexander Jannaeus and Sulla disappeared from the political scene more or less at the same time. King Alexander Jannaeus died in 76 B.C.E., while Sulla died in 78 B.C.E. In Judaea, Queen Salome Alexandra, who had been the wife of both King Judah Aristobulus I and King Alexander Jannaeus, became queen in 76 B.C.E., ruling peacefully for ten years, until 66 B.C.E.55 However, the peaceful foreign policy of the queen was put under strain when she had to face Tigranes II of Armenia. For the Roman Republic, the years which followed the death of Sulla, from 78 B.C.E. through the time of Pompey’s rule in the East in 66 B.C.E., were years of relative peace.56 During these years, however, the policy in the Roman Republic changed in the Hellenistic East. As a consequence of the two Mithridatic Wars, Rome began a policy of taking control of various peripheral small Hellenistic states, such as Bythinia, Crete and Cyrenaica.57 How did these events, as well as
53. See ibid., 13. 356, 396 on Gadara and 358-360, 362, 365 on Gaza. See also RAJAK, art. cit., p. 271-78. On the relationship between the Greek cities and the Jews, see also KASHER, op. cit., p. 14-54 on the early Hellenistic period, p. 55-115 on the early Hasmoneans till Simon, and p. 116-192 from the accession of John Hyrcanus I till 37 B.C.E. Kasher argues that although the Hasmonean success fostered anti-Jewish sentiments, yet this hate was present before. Indeed Antiochus IV persecution was supported by the Greek cities. Kasher also add that the Hellenistic cities relied for support on foreign power, such as the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and the Romans. This resulted in mistrust between the Jews and the foreign power in rule. 54. See C. HABICHT, op. cit., p. 30-314. 55. On Queen Salome Alexandra see JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 405-432, The Jewish War, 1. 107-119. See also SCHÜRER, op. cit., p. 229-323. 56. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 239-242. 57. See WILL, op. cit. II, p. 486-492. See also MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 57.
997567.indb7567.indb 284284 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 285
the new policy of annexations carried on by the Roman Republic, influence the relationship between the Hasmonean State and the Roman Republic? Did the alliance continue? The annexation of Bithynia resulted in a further war, the Third Mithridatic War, with Mithridates VI of Pontus. The consul Lucullus, who was sent to fight against Mithridates, soon found himself embattled as well in a war against Mithridates’ son-in-law Tigranes II, king of Armenia, after defeating the King of Pontus. Lucullus invaded Armenia in 69 B.C.E., defeated Tigranes and conquered Tigranocerta, his capital.58 Besides, it is interesting that the Parthians still viewed Rome as a friendly power.59 How did these events, especially Lucullus’s campaign against Tigranes, and the new policy of annexations that were carried out by the Roman Republic influence the relationship between the Roman Republic and the Hasmonean State? If Hasmonean Judaea and Republican Rome were still allies, is there any hint that this alliance continued during Salome Alexandra’s reign? Although Josephus does not mention a renewal of the treaty with Rome during Salome Alexandra’s reign, it seems to me that a careful reading of Josephus’ Antiquities and War shows that’, at the very least, during this period Rome and Judaea faced the same enemy, Tigranes II, King of Armenia. As we shall see below, this campaign is quite germane to our discussion. Did Queen Salome Alexandra of Judaea indeed help Lucullus, when he faced the armies of Mithridates and Tigranes II, or vice versa?60 Although the Roman sources are silent, Josephus is, once more, helpful. According to him, Queen Salome Alexandra had to face the entire army of Tigranes II. It seems that Tigranes II of Armenia coveted the remains of Seleucid Syria. The Seleucid dynasty was foundering in civil wars, and it was already clear that Syria, the only remaining Seleucid territory, was ripe for annexation by a greater power. But by whom? Armenia, Judaea, or Egypt? Although still a local power, Hasmonean Judaea was too small a state, and Queen Salome Alexandra probably disdained territorial expansion. Egypt was also in the midst of civil strife. Thus only Tigranes II of Armenia was ripe for the con- quest of Seleucid Syria, though he did not stop at Syria and made ready to
58. See WILL, op. cit. II, p. 492-498. See MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 101-145. 59. Plutarch mentions that Lucullus received an embassy from the king of the Parthians inviting him into friendly alliance. Thus Lucullus in his turn sent an embassy to the Parthian. However as Lucullus learns of the Parthians’ double dealings, as they secretly asked for Mesopotamia, he wish to march against them, but his army refuses. See PLUTARCH, Lucullus, 30, 1-4. 60. See S. ROCCA, “The Book of Judith and Queen Sholmzion”, Materia giudaica, 10, 1 (2005), p. 85-98.
997567.indb7567.indb 285285 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 286 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
move against Judaea. Although, According to Josephus’s Antiquities, Hasmo- nean Judaea was not militarily prepared to face the Armenians, yet, Queen Salome Alexandra allied herself with the Seleucid Queen Cleopatra Selene, who was now besieged in Ptolemais by Tigranes. Queen Salome Alexandra sent ambassadors to Tigranes, to persuade him not to fight against Judaea. However, as soon as Ptolemais fell to the Armenians, Tigranes received the news that Lucullus, pursuing Mithridates, was laying waste to Armenia. Tigranes had to retreat. Judaea was now definitively free from the Armenian menace. In War, Josephus presents a different version of the episode. Queen Salome Alexandra sent her army against Damascus, under the pretense that a certain Ptolemy was continually oppressing it, and she took possession of the city. Salome Alexandra also convinced Tigranes King of Armenia with agreements and presents to withdraw, while he was besieging Cleopatra Selene in Ptolemais. However, Tigranes left in hurry because Lucullus was in Armenia.61 I would argue that to Josephus, we can add the Book of Judith as a further source on the conflict between Salome Alexandra and Tigranes II. Some years ago, I published an article, in which I argued that Judith may be identified with Queen Salome Alexandra. It seems that the story narrated in the Book of Judith relates the war between the powerful King Tigranes II of Armenia and Queen Salome Alexandra. Boccaccini arrived exactly at the same con- clusions.62 In concluding, it seems to me that the two versions of Josephus do not really contradict one another, since it is likely that the purpose of Queen Salome Alexandra was not really to fight against Tigranes — though she was prepared for this possibility — but that she was resisting Tigranes with the knowledge that Lucullus was organizing a military strike in Armenia, and thus Tigranes had no choice but to retreat from the borders of Judaea to face the Roman army of Lucullus, which was making a swift advance in enemy territory. Although there is no firm proof that Lucullus and Salome Alexandra may have collaborated against Mithridates and Tigranes, nor of
61. Josephus writes in Antiquities that Tigranes invaded Seleucid Syria with no fewer than 500,000 soldiers. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 419-421 and The Jewish War, 1. 115-116. According to Shatzman, Queen Alexandra Salome raised for the occasion an army of no fewer than 40,000 men. See I. SHATZMAN, The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod, Tübingen, 1991, p. 34-35, 135, 313, and 314. 62. It seems to me that the author of the Book of Judith was probably a Sadducee, and the book was a vehicle to criticize contemporary Pharisee leadership, which was then in power. See ROCCA, art. cit., p. 85-98. See also G. BOCCACCINI, “Tigranes the Great as ‘Nebuchad- nezzar’ in the Book of Judith”, in G.G. XERAVITZ (ed.), A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Lecture Studies 14, Berlin and New York, 2012, p. 55-69.
997567.indb7567.indb 286286 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 287
course that the two coordinated their military operations, it seems important to point to the fact that during this period Republican Rome and Hasmonean Judaea had the same enemies. In concluding this section, is it possible to reconstruct even partially the view that the dwellers of Hasmonean Judaea had of the far away Romans? Had the flattering portrait of the Roman Republic changed by this time? It is necessary to argue that the Romans were geographically far away. No Roman, with the exception of ambassadors or a few merchants, resided in Judaea. And of course, there was still no common border between Hasmonean Judaea and Rome. Bithynia, Crete, and Cyrenaica, annexed by Rome in this period, were also far away. It seems, according to Josephus, that by the end of Alexander Jannaeus’s reign, most of the population supported the expan- sionist policy of their ruler.63 Moreover, it seems that a wider segment of the population than previously thought supported the king. The “Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom”, found at Qumran and analyzed in depth by H. Eshel, shows that even the geographically distant Dead Sea Sectarians supported the king during the difficult last years of his rule.64 But is this an indication that the Roman Republic was also regarded with a positive eye? Does the term “Kittim”, with its negative connotations — found in Daniel, the Book of Jubilees, and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most notably the War Scroll and Pesher Isaiah A — refer to the Romans? Together with the “Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his King- dom”, the Pesher Habakkuk is critical to an appreciation of the view of the Romans possibly shared in late Hasmonean Judaea. Flusser dates the composition of the Pesher Habakkuk before Pompey’s intervention, to the first half of the first century B.C.E., several decades after the First Book of Maccabees. Flusser, like Segal before him, highlights the similarity between the encomium to Rome found in the First Book of Maccabees and the description of the Kittim found in the Pesher Habakkuk. However, Flusser points out that the Pesher Habakkuk is not a protest against the friendship between the Hasmoneans and Rome, as argued by Segal, but is a critique of Roman imperialism, which is presented as cruel and rapacious.65 Flusser,
63. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 13. 394. Josephus states that the Jews welcomed their king “eagerly because of his successes.” 64. See H. and E. ESHEL, “A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom”, Israel Exploration Journal, 42, 3-4 (1992), p. 199-229. See also ID., “Rare DDS Text Mentions King Jonathan [4Q448]”, Biblical Archaeology Review, 20, 1 (1994), p. 75-78. 65. Already Segal proposed that the Pesher Habakkuk is a forceful protest on the part of the author, a member of the Qumran community, against the policy of the Hasmoneans from Judah till John Hyrcanus I, who sought the friendship of Rome. Thus the prophecy of Habbakkuk
997567.indb7567.indb 287287 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 288 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
through an analysis and comparison of the First Book of Maccabees to the Pesher Habakkuk, argues for a different interpretation to parallel phenomena. Therefore, the description of Roman imperialism is indeed similar in the First Book of Maccabees and in the Pesher Habakkuk, but it is seen through opposing perspectives, since the author of the First Book of Maccabees admires the might of Rome, while the Qumran author abhors it and sees it as a threat to Judaea. Thus, the author from Qumran deeply opposes Roman might, rejecting the notion that Roman rule is based on law and justice, depicting it as evil and treacherous. Besides the author also emphasizes Roman greed, together with the wanton acts of cruelty involved in Roman conquest and domination. Thus the author of the Pesher Habakkuk could write that the Kittim are “swift and powerful in battle”, although “all their thoughts are premeditated to do evil and with cunning and treachery they behave towards all nations.” They are greedy, as “they distribute their yoke and their burden, which is their food, among all peoples, year after year, ravaging many countries.” And their conquest is cruel as “the Kittim will cause many peoples to die by the end of the sword, youths, adults, and old people, women and children.”66 It is clear that the view of the Qumranic author is totally blind to the positive aspects of Roman imperialism, since it serves as a manifest of sorts for the victims of Roman power, both actual and potential. Also, as Flusser argues, it provides us specifically with a Jewish perspective on Rome and anti-Roman arguments, which was well accepted in the first half of the first century B.C.E. and which was voiced by those threatened by Rome. There is a clear similarity between claims against Rome expressed by the Pesher Habakkuk and those that Latin authors attribute to the enemies of Rome during the same period. Cicero could write that the rapacious behavior of Roman provincial governors “almost justified hatred against our kingdom.” In the letter of Jugurtha to Bocchus, the Numidian king argues that the Romans are “scoundrels, greedy to the very core of their being.” However the best example is the Epistle of Mithridates to Arsaces, found in the Histories of Sallust, of which only fragments survive. According to the King of Pontus, the “Roman fight against peoples is moved by deep lust for power and wealth” as ”from the outset they amassed all wealth by robbing homes, women, fields, kingdoms.” The Romans are thus the “Plague
about cruel Assyria is mirrored in the behavior of the Kittim-Romans, who shall soon destroy Judah, as the Assyrian did before. See M.Z. SEGAL, “On the History of the Sect Yahad”, Tarbiz, 22 (1951) (Hebrew), p. 137-152. See also FLUSSER, op. cit. I, p. 187, 198. 66. On Roman might see 1QpHab 2.12-13 – 3.5-6. On the Kittim’ greed see 6.6-8. On the description of Roman military aggression see 6.10-11 – 4.5-6. See also FLUSSER, op. cit. I, p. 188-194.
997567.indb7567.indb 288288 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 289
of the world.” Worse than that, “nothing can stop them from looting and corrupting their friends and allies.” Woe to “all who refuse to willfully submit”, as “the Romans aim their weapons against one and all.” In con- cluding, the “Romans reached their glory by their daring and their deceit, and in an endless chain of wars.” Using a slightly different language, the Epistle of Mithridates to Arsaces voices the same concerns and the same horror vis-à-vis Roman imperialism as does the Pesher Habakkuk.67 On the other hand, it seems to me important to point to the totally different view held by H. Eshel. According to H. Eshel, before 63 B.C.E., the term “Kittim” generally referred to the surrounding Hellenistic kingdoms and Greek city states of the Hellenistic East, although more often than not the term specifi- cally referred to the Seleucid kingdom.68
III. Hyrcanus II, Aristobulus II, Pompey, and the end of the Hasmonean Kingdom
In light of the above, we may rightly wonder why, in 63 B.C.E., Pompey waged war against the Hasmonean kingdom, if the Hasmonean rulers of Judaea had, until that time, been friendly towards the Roman Republic and had honored the treaty of friendship, or at least did not take any hostile action towards Rome or towards any of her allies. Besides, in any case, there is no source that can suggest that the treaty of friendship between the Hasmoneans and Rome was not in effect in 63 B.C.E., on the eve of Pompey’s conquest of Judaea.
67. See FLUSSER, op. cit. I, p. 194-198 on the Essene anti-imperialist, revolutionary, and apocalyptic ideology. See p. 202 on Sallust’ Epistle of Mithridates to Arsaces. On Roman authors see SALLUST, Epistula Mithridatis, Hist. Frg. 4.69 – 5.17. See CICERO, In Verrem, 2, 3, 207. See SALLUST, The Jugurthine War, 81, 1 on the letter of Jugurtha to Bocchus. A slightly later criticism of Roman imperialism is voiced by Crictognatus in CESAR, The Gallic Wars, 7, 77, 15. JUSTIN, Epitome, 44, 5.8., written in Augustan Rome could however by then argue that the Spaniards “wild and barbaric”, were finally transformed by “Roman law in a more cultivate way of life.” Yet TACITUS, Agricola, 30, still chooses to present a negative view of Roman imperialism. See FUCHS, op. cit., p. 5, 16-18, 36, note no. 19, 47, 52, 66, 77. 68. According to H. Eshel the term “Kittim” as used in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha as well as in most of the Qumran scrolls refers to the Hellenistic Kingdoms and more specifi- cally to the Seleucids. See H. ESHEL, “The Kittim in the ‘War Scroll’ and in the Pesharim”, Historical Perspectives from the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in D. GOODBLATT, A. PINNICK, and D.R. SCHWARTZ (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 27-31 January 1999, Leiden, 2001, p. 29-44. See also H. ESHEL, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk”, Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003-2006, Leiden, 2009, p. 107-117.
997567.indb7567.indb 289289 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 290 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
The Roman policy of annexations in the Hellenistic East, which began in the early seventies, indeed continued. Thus, after a series of victorious campaigns against the Cylician pirates, Mithridates, and Tigranes of Armenia, Pompey deposed the last Seleucid ruler, annexed Seleucid Syria as the Province of Syria in 64 B.C.E. and reconstituted it as the Roman province of Syria. Then he moved southwards and established Roman supremacy in Phoenicia. By now the territories of the Roman Republic bordered with Hasmonean Judaea, which was possibly perceived as a threat by the Roman Republic, just as the Seleucid kingdom had once been. Since the whole of the coastal strip was considered by all ancient conquerors, the Romans included, to be a single geopolitical area, the conquest of the Hasmonean kingdom and the fight against Aristobulus II which ensued could appear to be a completely logical political move that does not entail special explanations. But what if the Hasmonean state was still an ally and friend — at least offi- cially — of the Roman Republic?69 However, the situation of Hasmonean Judaea had changed dramatically. If, to the eyes of an outsider such as Pompey, Hasmonean Judaea possibly appeared to be a strong local power that needed to be coped with, in fact by then Judaea had been greatly weakened by three years of civil war. After the death of Queen Salome Alexandra, Judaea was in the throes of civil strife between her heirs, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II.70 Scaurus, Pompey’s envoy to Syria, was approached by envoys from both Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. Since the envoys of Aristobulus II offered a bigger bribe, Scaurus took the side of Aristobulus II.71 Pompey, however, once safely in Damascus, did not confirm his envoy’s choice but received three delegations, the first headed by Hyrcanus II, the second by Aristobulus II, and the third one headed by various Jewish leaders who complained that they did not want to be under the rule of kings, but only under that of priests, because “this was the form of government they received from their fore- fathers”, thereby deferring his final decision.72 Until that point, Josephus
69. See PLUTARCH, Pompey, 30. 1. See CICERO, Pro Lege Manilia. On the Lex Gabinia see P. SOUTHERN, Pompey the Great, Briscombe Port Stroud, 2002, p. 59-62, 66. See CARY and SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 244, 253-254; MATYSZAK, op. cit., p. 145-162; WILL, op. cit., p. 499- 515. 70. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 1-22 and The Jewish War, 1. 120-126. See also SCHÜRER, op. cit. I, p. 233-242 and 267-269. 71. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 29-32 and The Jewish War, 1. 128- 130. 72. See ibid., 14. 33-46 and ibid., 1. 131-132. Aristobulus II certainly did not endear himself to Scaurus and Gabinius, Pompey’s two lieutenants, Scaurus and Gabinius, by revealing that they had taken bribes and were clearly corrupt.
997567.indb7567.indb 290290 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 291
does not in any way emphasize that Pompey was moving against a hostile state. On the contrary, both Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II called in the Romans, each trying to obtain first Scaurus’ and then Pompey’s support for their own faction. Thus, it seems to me, that if the treaty of friendship was no longer valid, neither Hyrcanus II nor Aristobulus II would have called in Pompey and submitted to his judgment. It is possible that Aristobulus II made a treaty with Mithridates, as Josippon wrote. But this could not have occurred before 66 B.C.E. — by then, Mithridates was no longer a powerful figure, but merely a symbol of the Hellenistic world. According to Josephus, Pompey decided against Aristobulus II. He had three good reasons: first, because Hyrcanus accused Aristobulus of having deprived him of his rights as first-born; second, because Aristobulus had taken most of the country by force; and third, because Aristobulus was accused of having instigated the raids against neighboring peoples and acts of piracy at sea.73 It is important to point out that Josephus writes in Antiquities that Aristobulus II’s adver- saries accused him of piracy.74 Did Aristobulus II actually collaborate with the Cilician pirates as well as with Mithridates, and hence it is important to clarify whether or not Aristobulus II collaborated with the Cilician pirates as well as with Mithridates or whether these accusations were merely a slander. Rappaport argues in his article that Alexander Jannaeus could have collaborated with the Cilician pirates. Undeniably, Josephus mentions both Cilicians and Pisidians serving in the king’s army as mercenaries. However a careful reading of Josephus indicates that the Cilicians employed by Alexander Jannaeus were probably soldiers, not sailors. Thus if Pompey would have referred to these mercenaries when he leveled a charged against Aristobulus II, he would have charged Aristobulus II with banditry by land and not piracy by sea, as Josephus clearly states. Besides, there is no motivation for think- ing that the enrollment of foreign mercenaries in Alexander Jannaeus’ army did in any way disturb the Romans. Last but not least, Josephus clearly states that Alexander Jannaeus enrolled Pisidians and Cilicians in his armed forces, since he did not wish to enroll Syrians because of their innate hostility towards Jews. We must keep in mind also that these Cilicians, while serving as regular soldiers with Alexander Jannaeus in Judaea, could not have com- mitted any acts of piracy far away in Cilicia, at least during the time of their employment by the Hasmonean army.75 Besides, both Rappaport and Pucci
73. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 42-46. 74. See ibid., 14. 43. 75. See JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, 1. 88 on Pisidians and Cilicians mercenaries. See also RAPPAPORT, art. cit., p. 329-342.
997567.indb7567.indb 291291 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 292 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
point out that Josippon mentions that the arrest of Aristobulus II was attrib- uted to his contact with Mithridates, which had to be dated before 68 B.C.E. However, as I have argued before, while Rappaport contends that Alexander Jannaeus had already established a friendly relationship with Mithridates, Pucci Ben Zeev argues that it was through the initiative of Aristobulus II that an alliance with Pontus was established.76 This last possibility seems to me the most likely, as in 66 B.C.E. the pirate menace had ceased in conse- quence of Pompey’s steady and energetic campaign the previous year, in 67 B.C.E. On the other hand, it is quite possible, as Pucci Ben Zeev argues, that Aristobulus II established a formal alliance with Mithridates. Yet, it seems that Pompey, for the time being at least, recognized the status of king con- ferred upon him by the Jews, even if it was contested by Hyrcanus II and by the Jewish delegation. Indeed, in the eyes of Pompey, after the settlement of 67 B.C.E., when Hyrcanus II abdicated, Aristobulus appeared to be the legitimate ruler and holder of the title “king.” It was the Jews who had bestowed the title on him four years before Pompey arrived in Syria, and, actually, Josephus records that both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II were regarded as kings by their Jewish subjects, even when Rome denied them that title and considered them to be merely ethnarchs.77 Moreover, both Plutarch and Appian refer to Aristobulus II by the title of “king.” Perhaps neither Plutarch nor Appian had any knowledge of the dispute between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, of their meeting with Pompey, and of Pompey’s decision. However, since they were aware that Aristobulus II was later the leader of the resistance against Rome, they may have inferred that he was the King of the Jews.78 At any rate, Aristobulus II did not wait for Pompey’s decision, but prepared to resist the Romans by force. Thus Aristobulus II shut himself up in Jerusa- lem, the capital of the kingdom, with “his partisans”, beginning preparations to resist the Roman siege. It is probable that the Hasmonean army stood by Aristobulus II, who had been their commander. Therefore, when Josephus mentions that Aristobulus was besieged in Jerusalem with “his partisans”, he is probably referring, quite tactfully, to most of the Hasmonean army.
76. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, art. cit., 1983, p. 13-14. 77. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 4-6, 97, 157, 163, 165 and 172. See also, Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashana 18b. See also Ralph Marcus’ note in the Loeb Classical Library translation (JOSEPHUS, Works, vol. 7, éd. R. MARCUS, Cambridge (Mass.) and London, 1943, p. 523, n. f.). On Aristobulus II see also J.A. GOLDSTEIN, “The Hasmonean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty”, in W.D. DAVIES and L. FINKELSTEIN (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism II, The Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, 1989, p. 350. 78. See PLUTARCH, Pompey, 45. See also APPIAN, The Civil Wars, 12. 117.
997567.indb7567.indb 292292 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 293
This of course legitimized Pompey’s military action. It was thus the occa- sion to get rid of the Hasmonean army, whose hostility could have had endangered the balance of power favorable to Rome and to acquire military glory. The Roman army of Pompey besieged and conquered Jerusalem, making Aristobulus II, a usurper, prisoner. It is important to point out that during the siege of Jerusalem Pompey’ army fought against the partisans of Aristobulus II, but there was no war taking place between Hyrcanus II, the legitimate ruler, and the Romans.79 Obviously Pompey’s conquest of the Hasmonean state and its successive dismemberment left an indelible impression on the population of Hasmo- nean Judaea. By now the positive image found in the First Book of the Maccabees had become fatally tarnished. Good examples of the new, bitter attitude of the Jews towards Pompey and the Roman Republic are found in the Psalms of Solomon and in two of the Qumran Scrolls, Pesher Naḥum and, last but not least in the Pesher Habbakuk, as we already discussed. At least three of the Psalms of Solomon — Psalms 2, 8 and 17 — refer to the siege and conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, describing the conquest of Jerusalem and the defilement of the Temple (2, 1-6) (8: 14-19); the cap- tivity, the rape, etc. (2: 7-15) (8: 23-30); and also the death of Pompey (2: 26-29). Three groups of people are described in these texts, the Gentiles — or the Romans of Pompey, the Sinners — or the Hasmoneans and the Sadducees, and the devout or pious — probably referring to the Pharisees or perhaps the Essenes, according to A. Dupont-Sommer. The Romans, or Gentiles, are seen as the Divine instrument to punish the Hasmonean rulers, who, in the main, bear the bitter criticism of the author of these Psalms. Thus, the Hasmoneans, who seized David’s throne and behaved disgrace- fully, even desecrating the Temple, bring as Divine retribution the violent conquest of Jerusalem, the defilement of the Temple, and the captivity of part of the population. Yet the author of the Psalms, who refers to Pompey as the Dragon, points to his death as well, as retribution for the conquest of Jerusalem and the enslavement of its defenders. At the end, however, the Psalmist hopes that the reign of the Davidic Messiah will replace the illegiti- mate ruler (17: 1, 5, 23-51, 18: 6-10) and bring about the establishment of an independent Jewish kingdom, after the expulsion of the foreign influence
79. See JOSEPHUS, The Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 46-73 and The Jewish War, 1. 133-158. On the exact chronology of events regarding Aristobulus see SOUTHERN, op. cit., p. 163, notes 52 and 53. See also J. BELLEMORE, “Josephus, Pompey and the Jews”, Historia, 48 (1999), p. 95-118. According to Bellemore the sources used by Josephus in Antiquities are Roman, or pro-Roman, while the sources used in War stems from a Jewish milieu.
997567.indb7567.indb 293293 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 294 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL
of the Romans.80 According to Eshel, two of the Pesharim found in Qumran identify the Kittim as the Romans, Pesher Habbakkuk, and Pesher Naḥum. In Pesher Habakkuk, the term “Kittim”, contrary to the view held by Flusser, clearly refers to the conquest of the land of Israel by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. The Kittim mentioned in Pesher Naḥum can also be identified with the Romans as well. Thus, according to Eshel, at the beginning of the second third of the first century B.C.E., perhaps a little before the conquest of Judaea by Pompey, and definitely after this event, for the Qumran Sectarians the term “Kittim” refers to the Romans.81 It is interesting that the approach of the Sectarian author of the Pesher Habakkuk is quite similar to that of the author of the Psalms of Solomon. Once more the conquest of Judaea by the Kittim or the Romans of Pompey is depicted as a Divine punishment, in the course of which “the riches and booty of the last priests … of Jerusalem shall be delivered into the hands of the army of the Kittim.” Thus once more the Romans are not only depicted as an evil per se indeed, but only as the Divine instrument used to punish the Hasmoneans.
Conclusion
During the Civil War against Pompey, Iulius Caesar immediately under- stood that for the sake of balance in the Hellenistic East there was need for a strong hand in Judaea. The predominance of the Roman Republic was now threatened in the East by Parthians after the defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 54 B.C.E. At the beginning, Iulius Caesar wished for a complete restoration of Aristobulus’ branch of the Hasmonean dynasty, but Aristobulus was
80. See R.B. WRIGHT, “Psalms of Solomon”, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha II, New York, 1985, p. 642. See also F.M. ABEL, “Le siège de Jérusalem par Pompée”, Revue biblique, 54 (1947), p. 243-255. On the death of Pompey see PLUTARCH, Cesar, 48, 2-4 and Pompey 80, 6-7. D.C. 42, 8, 1-3, APPIAN, The Civil Wars, 2. 90, 380. See also E. HORST, César, La naissance d’un mythe, Paris, 1981, p. 298-299. 81. See H. ESHEL, “The Kittim”, art. cit. See of Eshel as well ID., “The Two Historical Layers”, art. cit., p. 107-117 and ID., “The Identifications of the Kittim and the Reasons Why Hints Were Not Found in the Pesharim of Historical Events That Occurred after 63 BCE”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, Jerusalem, 2004, p. 145-158. On the identifications of the Kittim as the Romans see also L. SCHIFFMANN, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York, 1995, p. 395. See also P. SCHÄFER, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World, The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, London, 2003, p. 152. See also B. SCHULTZ, “The Kittim of Assyria”, Revue de Qumran, 23, 1 (2007), p. 63-77. G.J. BROOKE, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim”, Images of Empire, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 122 (1991), p. 135-159.
997567.indb7567.indb 294294 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09 THE HASMONEAN STATE AND ROME: A NEW APPRAISAL 295
poisoned by Pompey’s friends. However, as Hyrcanus II actively supported Iulius Caesar during the Alexandrian War, Iulius Caesar, like Pompey before him, turned to Hyrcanus II, who by now had been ruler of Judaea for more than fifteen years.82 Iulius Caesar found in Antipater, epitropos of Judaea, rather than in Hyrcanus II, a strong figure. Iulius Caesar immediately begun to restore Judaea partially to its former status, as it had been prior to 63 B.C.E. Yet the differences between the situation before 63 B.C.E. and that of 46 B.C.E. were enormous: before 63 B.C.E. Judaea was an independent kingdom, while in 46 B.C.E., Judea was completely under Roman jurisdiction from the political, economic, social and military points of view.83 The short reign of Mathatias Antigonus, who ruled under the aegis of the Parthians, could only highlight the need for a strong man in Judaea who was favorably disposed towards Rome. Anthony and Augustus, however, were more successful in doing so. They promoted Herod, the son of Antipater, although this brought about the creation of a new dynasty in Judaea, namely the Herodians. Once more, under Herod, the destinies of Rome and Judaea were entwined together, yet the new and restored friendship between the Herodian Kingdom of Judaea and the Roman Empire of Augustus did not change the by now suspicious and hostile attitude of most of the Judaean population towards Rome.
Samuele ROCCA [email protected]
82. See JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, 1. 183-184 and Antiquities of the Jews, 14. 123-124. 83. See also M. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, “Caesar’s Decrees in the ‘Antiquities’: Josephus’ For- geries or Authentic Roman ‘Senatus Consulta’?”, Athenaeum , 84, 1 (1996), p. 71-91. Pucci Ben Zeev argues that these decrees are indeed authentic, and not forgeries made by Josephus. However these documents are not original but are copies of copies, translated into Greek, of authentic Roman decrees.
997567.indb7567.indb 295295 228/01/158/01/15 10:0910:09