SELEUKID STUDY DAY VI Reception, Response, and Resistance: Reactions to Seleukid Claims to Territorial Rule or Hegemony Nipissing University, North Bay ON 1–3 September 2017 List of 19 Paper Abstracts & CVs 1) Eran Almagor (Jerusalem, Israel): Two Possible Ways of Jewish Response to the Seleukids Email: eranalmagor at gmail.com Abstract: This paper addresses two possible ways in which Jews responded to Seleukid rule and claims to authority, as seen in Jewish sources. One mode of response is that of acceptance and the other is defiance up to the level of open revolt. Whereas the latter one is visible in the Books of Maccabees and the Jewish tradition, the former may be gleaned from several passages in Jewish literature, i.e., Josephus, and the Book of Esther. While probably conveying a popular tradition that goes back to Persian times, and presumably echoing a vague memory of a brief and turbulent time of the Jews or of Judaea under Xerxes (cf. Ezra 4.6), Esther is late. It stands to reason that the book was composed during the Seleukid period (Fox 1991, 139–140) and reflects a Jewish exilic existence, rather than one centered in Judaea. Its message is one of approval of a foreign rule, of recognition that power and position could be gained only through the royal court, and its ultimate goal seems to be the enjoyment of religious autonomy of Jews in a separate physical presence among the gentiles (cf. Jos. BJ 7:43– 45 on the Jews of Antioch). The only acts of violence mentioned in Esther are not against the sovereign, but rather sanctioned by it (Est 8.11–13, 9.1–16). The participation of Jews in these violent acts may evoke their part in the Seleukid army (2Macc 8.20, against the Galatians), perhaps as mercenaries (cf. Jos. AJ 12.147–153, if authentic). The loyalist impression of Esther is further attested in that no higher authority above the Great King is present, since God is not even mentioned in the story. The other reaction to Seleukid rule is the famous violent resistance of the Hasmonaean revolt. The demands of the rebels for political independence (alongside religious autonomy) can be seen in 2Macc (e.g., 2.17, 2.22, 9.14–15, 15.22), a condensed version of a five-book history written by Jason of Cyrene (2.23) and probably of a diasporan venue itself (Schwartz 2008, 45; 52); it is thus of a presentation comparable to contemporary claims for political autonomy. It is significant that this book ends with a victory over the Seleukid general Nikanor at the Battle of Adasa, before the ensuing setbacks in the Jewish struggle (1Macc 9). The two responses may seem to be reactions to two different claims voiced by the Seleukid ruler: one as overarching king, like the Persian monarch (Ma 1999, 272–276; Tuplin 2008, 119), and the other as a local king, identifiable with the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Borsippa Cylinder, Sachs and Hunger 1989, 187A rev.11; 1Macc 1.24b). The two Jewish responses were probably seen as competitive by the Jews themselves, and of note is the proximity of the festive ‘Day of Nikanor’ on the 13th of Adar and ‘Purim’ (or ‘Day of Mordechai’: 2Macc 15.36) on the 1 14th or 15th of Adar. Gradually (till the modern era), Purim grew in prominence at the expanse of the commemoration of the political aspects of the Hasmonean revolt. References Fox, M.V. 1991. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, Grand Rapids MI. Ma, J. 1999. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford. Sachs, A.J. & H. Hunger 1989. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 2, Vienna. Schwartz, D.R. 2008. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin. Tuplin, C.J. 2008. ‘The Seleucids and Their Achaemenid Predecessors: A Persian Inheritance?’ in S. Mohammad Reza Darbandi &A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11–13 November 2006), Athens, 109–136. Short CV: After serving as a Visiting Scholar at Oxford University (2006–2007), Dr. Almagor earned his PhD at Hebrew University (2007). Subsequently, Dr. Almagor was a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Max Weber Kolleg, Erfurt (2011), a recipient of the Minerva Stiftung, Max Planck Gesellschaft (2009–2011), and a British Academy Visiting Fellow (2009) before becoming a Lecturer at Ben Gurion University (2011–2014). He is currently an independent scholar. Dr. Almagor has published extensively on Hellenistic history and his contributions to Seleukid scholarship include: 'Seleukid Love and Power: Stratonike I' in A. Coşkun & A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart 2016, 67–86. Other notable publications include: (with J. Skinner) (eds.), Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches, London 2013, and ‘The political and the divine in Achaemenid royal inscriptions’ in T. Howe et al. (eds.), Ancient Historiography on War and Empire, Oxford 2017, 26–54. 2) Altay Coşkun (University Waterloo ON): Historical and Ideological Implications of Eras in the Orbit of the Seleukid Empire Email: acoskun at uwaterloo.ca Abstract: The counting of time according to the years of an individual monarch (‘regnal years’) can be traced back to the Bronze age. In contrast, Antiochos I was the first Hellenistic ruler to establish a count for his whole dynasty. This started with the foundational campaign of his father Seleukos I in 312/311 BCE. With minor regional variation, it became the chronological point of reference throughout the kingdom for centuries to come or, in other words, the beginning of the ‘Seleukid Era’. Gradually, however, several minor kingdoms or cities in the former territory either replaced the Seleukid Era by introducing their own regnal year counts or dynastic or civic eras respectively, occasionally even side by side with the Seleukid Era. It is crucial for the interpretation of the ideological implications of using or rejecting Hellenistic eras to identify not only their start years, but also the time when those counts were effectively introduced, modified, abandoned, rejected, or even resumed; likewise, it may be relevant to specify the audience that was being addressed. Case studies that draw on the (1) Arsakids of Parthia, (2) Maccabees of 2 Judaea and (3) Mithradatids of Pontos and the Bosporos will illustrate the complexity of the problem as well as the potential of shedding light on ideological choices made in the orbit of the Seleukid Empire. (1) The beginning of the Arsakid era is the 1st Nisan 247 BCE. While this has often been seen as the date of the decisive or at least first major defection from the Seleukids, the late attestation (beginning with the coinage of Phraates IV, 37/32 BCE) recommends some caution. This is all the more in place since there is sufficient evidence for continued loyalty until the 160s despite some temporary upheavals. The start date rather seems to mark the appointment of Arsakes as the karanos (satrap) by Antiochos II, probably as a reward for helping defeat the usurper Andragoras. (2) The First Book of Maccabees is a conundrum: while the tone is largely hostile towards the Seleukids and proudly documents Judaean independence under Maccabaean (or Simonid) leadership, no other extant Greek text includes as many Seleukid era years (namely 25). Previous scholarship pointed either towards Seleukid or Babylonian chronicles as sources, or simply to the convenience of this rational time count. While this cannot be excluded, it deserves to be pointed out that the bulk of the text seems to have been written or edited before 129 BCE, when John Hyrkanos II finally gained independence for good. Accordingly, much of the text is still quite friendly to the Seleukids, in how they proudly heralded the royal letters that conceded privileges, and thus neither hesitated to draw on the Seleukid era. It is only the final revision that changed the tone and focused on the full independence of the high priest by denouncing the treacherous character of the Seleukid kings and praising the Romans as guarantors of their freedom (129/28 BCE). One may add that the Maccabees / Hasmonaeans never introduced a dynastic era, but the earliest year count for a high priest is attested in the year 140 BCE (besides the Seleukid Era: 1Macc 14.27) and in 128 BCE (without era date: Jos. Ant. Jud. 14.8.5 [148]). (3) The Pontic-Mithradatic era begins with 298/97 BCE, but is not attested before the time of Mithradates VI Eupator (120–63 BCE). While arguments from silence are always difficult, we can at least point to the alliance between Pharnakes I and Chersonesos (IOSPE 402) of ca. 179 BCE: this seems to prove that Pharnakes no longer used the Seleukid era on the one hand, but that he had not yet established his own dynastic era on the other (Avram 2016 argues for the era of Sinope). The dynastic era was continued in the Bosporan Kingdom by the offspring of Eupator. The usurpator Asandros (48/47–18 BCE), however, rejected it and dated his coins with regnal years. His wife Dynamis, the granddaughter of Eupator, re-introduced the Mithradatic era when she was appointed co-ruling queen in 21/20 BCE, so that for a short time the two alternative year counts are attested side by side. References: Avram, A. 2016. ‘On the Date of the Treaty between Pharnaces and Tauric Chersonese’, in J.- Ch. Couvenhes (ed.), La symmachia comme pratique du droit international dans le monde grec, Besançon, 213–237. Coşkun, A. 2016. ‘Laodike I, Berenike Phernophoros, Dynastic Murders, and the Outbreak of the Third Syrian War (253–246 BC)’, in A.