Jerusalem

JERUSALEM

JERUSALEM

Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period

(538 S.C.E. - 70 C.E.)

2002.5763

THE JEWISH PuBLICATION SOCIETY PHILADELPHIA

.JTSl;~ PuBLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA

Copyright © 2002 by Lee I. Levine First edition. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, except for brief passages in connection with a critical review, without permission in writing from the publisher: The Jewish Publication Society 2100 Arch Street, 2nd floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Composition and design by Desperate Hours Productions Manufactured in the United States of America 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Levine, Lee I. Jerusalem: portrait of the city in the second Temple period (538 b.c.e.-70 c.e.) / Lee I. Levine. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index. ISBN 0-8276-0750-4 1. Jerusalem--History. 2. Palestine--History--586 B.C.-70 AD. 3. Jews--History--586 B.C.-70 AD. 4. Judaism--History--Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-21O AD. I. Title. DS109.912 .L484 2002 933--dc21 2002006014

Support for the publication of this book is provided with admiration and respect for Professor Lee I. Levine by the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies and e.G. Foundation Jerusalem Project, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel and by the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation

U,J, l":llJ'K 1:J'):) 'l:l'O'!:l

"P"'l~ 'Y.3'O'~

0"'0'"

tJ'7iL1'" "'):)'77 Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies Publications

To our children: David and Havi, Elana, Tali and Arjon, Dafna And grandchildren: Shira, Yoav, Nadav, Tiara

vii

Contents Preface

xi

Introduction

Xlll

Part I. From Cyrus to the Hasmoneans Chapter 1. The Persian Era (539-332 B.C.E.) 3 The Restoration of City and Temple 8 The First Returnees: Hopes Thwarted by Hardships The Temple Rebuilt 15 The Era of Ezra and Nehemiah 20 Ezra 20 Nehemiah 23 Religious Reforms 28 The Enigmatic Fourth Century B.C.E. 31 The Persian Era in Perspective 42 Chapter 2. The Hellenistic Era (332-141 B.C.E.) 45 The Ptolemaic Era (301-198 B.C.E.) 48 Leadership of the City 51 In the Hellenistic Orbit 54 Judaism in Ptolemaic Jerusalem 60 The Seleucid Era (198-141 B.C.E.) 65 The Decrees of Antiochus III 65 Jason's Reforms and Their Aftermath 69 The Seleucid Akra 75 Jerusalem during the Maccabean Revolt 78

12

CONTENTS

viii

Dedication of the Temple and the Festival of Hanukkah Jerusalem under Jonathan the Hasmonean 86

82

Chapter 3. The Hasmonean Era (141-63 B.C.E.) 91 The Hasmonean Factor in Jerusalem Society 92 Biblical Precedents 93 The Wedding of Politics and Religion 95 Between Judaism and Hellenism 97 Three Episodes in Hasmonean Jerusalem 99 The Great Assembly and Simon's Installation-140 B.C.E. 99 The Siege ofJerusalem by Antiochus vn (ca. 134-132 B.C.E.) 102 Civil Disobedience and Rebellion under Alexander Jannaeus 104 The Urban Setting 106 Political and Religious Groupings in Hasmonean Jerusalem 114 Hever Ha- Yehudim 114 The Priesthood 115 Religious Sects 119 Pharisees and Sadducees 124 The Ideological Dimension 124 The Sociopolitical Dimension 126 Other Aspects of Hasmonean Pharisaism Essenes 130

129

Other Religious Circles: The Literary Evidence Common Judaism under the Hasmoneans 133 The Temple in Hasmonean Jerusalem 134 Temple-Related Observances 137 "Purity Burst Forth in Israel" 139 The Avoidance of Figural Art 142 Hellenization in Hasmonean Jerusalem 143 The End of an Era 147

132

Part II. Herodian Jerusalem Chapter 4. The Historical Dimension 151 Transition to Roman Rule 151 From Pompey's Conquest to the Rise of Herod (63-37 B.C.E.) 158 Herodian Politics: At Home and Abroad (37-4 B.C.E.) 165 Herodian Rule in Jerusalem 170 Herod's Domestic Woes 179

CONTENTS

ix

Evaluating Herod and His Rule 181 The Reign ofArchelaus (4 B.C.E.-6 C.E.)

183

Chapter 5. The Urban Landscape 187 The Antonia 194 The Western Towers 196 Herod's Palace 198 Entertainment Institutions 201 Funerary Remains 206 Water Supply and Installations 213 Chapter 6. The Temple and Temple Mount 219 The Temple Mount: Physical Dimensions and Functions The Temple and Its Courts 237 Temple Functionaries 243 The Temple as a Religious Focus 245

226

Chapter 7. Jerusalem in the Greco-Roman Orbit: The Extent and Limitations of Cultural Fusion 255 The Temple 257 Residential Quarters 260 Funerary Remains 261 Political Institutions 265 Language 270 Pharisaic Exegesis 276 Defining the Limits ofAcculturation 278

Part III. The First Century C.E. Chapter 8. The Historical Dimension 285 Direct Roman Rule: The Earlier Period (6-41 C.E.) 285 Jerusalem under Agrippa I (41-44 C.E.) 295 Procuratorial Rule (44-66 C.E): The Collapse ofJerusalem Society 302 Chapter 9. The Urban Configuration 313 Geographical Expansion 313 The Third Wall 315 Topography 318 The Lower City 319 The Upper City 326 The Northern Commercial Quarter 335

x

CONTENTS

The Bezetha Quarter (the New City) 337 Demography 340 Economic Activity 343 Appendix: The Use of Rabbinic Literature in the Study of Second Temple Jerusalem 349

Chapter 10. Social Stratification

351

The Social Dimension 351 High Priests 352 Priests 358 The H erodian Dynasty 361 The Nonpriestly Aristocracy 365 Diaspora Jews 369

Chapter 11. Religious Ambience

375

Religious Life in First-Century Jerusalem 375 Scribes 381 The Christian Community 382 Common Judaism in First-Century Jerusalem 387 Synagogues 394

Chapter 12. The Destruction of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.) Causes of the Revolt 401 Jerusalem during the Revolt (66-70 C.E.) The Siege and Fall of the City 406

Epilogue

413

Glossary 417 Abbreviations 420 Bibliography 423 Modem Sources 423 Critical Editions 469

Illustration Credits 470 Subject Index 472

404

401

xi

Preface

This volume is a completely revised and greatly expanded version of a more popular presentation fIrst written in Hebrew that appeared in two editions, both titled Jerusalem in Its Glory: A History of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. The fIrst edition was published in 1996 (Jerusalem: Ariel, nos. 114-115) and the second, revised, version in 1998 (Tel Aviv: Modan). My thanks to Dr. Ellen Frankel, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of the Jewish Publication Society, and to Chancellor Ismar Schorsch of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, for their interest and support in undertaking the publication of this monograph; and to Professor Allan Cooper, Chairman of the Seminary's publication committee, for his successful efforts in finalizing this cooperative venture. I am grateful to the Rennert Center for the Study of Jerusalem at Bar-l1an University and its director, Professor Joshua Schwartz, as well as to the Littauer Foundation, for its assistance in making this publication possible. A number of my esteemed colleagues agreed to read all or parts of this manuscript: Adele Reinharz, David Satran, Daniel R. Schwartz, Seth Schwartz, and Ziony Zevit. I am most appreciative of their comments and suggestions. My thanks to Judy Davidson, who translated several parts of the original version into English and to my father-in-law, Irving Karp, for his helpful comments while proofreading the manuscript. I am most grateful to Hani Davis who has been of incalculable assistance through the various stages of preparing this manuscript and the accompanying illustrations. Her finely tuned editing skills and critical reading have improved the manuscript in myriad ways. Finally, I am pleased to acknowledge the devoted efforts of Carol Hupping, Publishing Director of The Jewish Publication Society, and of Dr. Candace B. Levy, copyeditor of the volume, production manager Robin Norman, as well as the other JPS staff involved in this project; all have been of great help in seeing this manuscript through publication.

xii

Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.

xiii

Introduction

Ancient Jerusalem was the capital of Judah and subsequently of the entire Jewish people for over one thousand years. Its history can be divided into two distinct periods: the First Temple period (ca. 1000-586 B.C.E.), when the city served as capital of the kingdom of Judah, and the Second Temple period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.), when Jerusalem functioned largely under foreign rule. Despite the subjection of the Jews to foreign rule in the latter period, the city experienced dramatic growth as it achieved unprecedented political and religious prominence. This process peaked toward the close of the era, when the city, according to Pliny, attained international recognition as "by far the most famous of the cities of the East.'" We shall focus on the six hundred years of the Second Temple period by tracing the city's urban, demographic, topographical, and archaeological components, replete with its unusual variety of political regimes, public institutions, socioreligious groupings, and cultural and religious frameworks. Jerusalem found itself in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman orbits, respectively; these wider contexts profoundly influenced most aspects of city life and played a major role, both directly and indirectly, in shaping its urban profile. Persian policy, for example, enabled and repeatedly facilitated the return of tens of thousands of Jews from Babylonia. Later on, after Alexander the Great's conquest in 332 B.C.E., Jerusalem became an integral part of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, whose cultures likewise left an indelible mark on the character of the city. The city's art and architecture drew inspiration from Hellenistic and Roman models; public buildings such as the gymnasium, theater, hippodrome, and amphitheater were erected; kitchenware, furniture, jewelry, and coins popular

1. Natural History 5, 70.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

in other cities of the Roman East were used widely in Jerusalem as well. In these respects and others, Jerusalem differed little from any other Greco-Roman city. Nevertheless, despite the profound impact of the Persian and Greco-Roman worlds, Jerusalem always retained a distinctive Jewish character, which found expression in its demography, calendar, holidays, religious institutions, forms of worship, historical memories, and other facets of urban life. Walking through the city's streets in the fIrst century C.E., one could not help but be struck by the absence of idols, statues, and fIgural art that set Jerusalem apart from all other urban centers of antiquity. Moreover, the number and variety of ritual baths and stone utensils for domestic use were unique to the city and attest to the marked emphasis on ritual purity observed by many of its inhabitants. This dual orientation, reflecting both the universal and the particularistic, distinguished Jerusalem within Jewish society and vis-a-vis the larger Roman world. As we shall see, this was the most Jewish of cities and, at the same time, the most cosmopolitan of Jewish cities.

Scope and Sources The extensive literary and archaeological information at our disposal regarding the city and its population afford a remarkable opportunity for reconstructing urban life in Second Temple Jerusalem but, nevertheless, it is far from uniform. Sources regarding the Persian era are rather sparse; only a handful of biblical books (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and perhaps Nahum and Joel) are dated to this period, and relevant archaeological fInds are almost negligible. 2 The early Hellenistic era (332-175 B.C.E.) shares a similar dearth of source material. However, from the first half of the second century (175-141 B.C.E.) on, and especially with the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty (141--63 B.C.E.), a greater abundance of primary sources becomes available. These include the second half of the book of Daniel, 1 and 2 Maccabees, a series of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books (e.g., Jubilees, parts of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Judith), Josephus, the Dead Sea scrolls, a number of Hellenistic writings, and many more archaeological fmds than before. 3 Compared to the earlier Second Temple period, the history of the city in the era's final 130 years (i.e., from Pompey's conquest in 63 B.C.E. to the destruction in 70 C.E.) is infinitely better documented, owing primarily to Josephus' detailed 2. See Widengren, "Persian Period," 489-503, and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:27-73. 3. Schiirer, History, 1:17-122; Schafer, "Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods," 539-559; and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:171-189.

INTRODUCTION

xv

accounts. His writings are supplemented by the New Testament, early rabbinic traditions, several apocryphal books (e.g., the Psalms of Solomon, and parts of the Testament of Moses), the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, and accounts of a number of Roman writers. Herod's monumental building efforts have greatly increased the sheer quantity of archaeological evidence for the period; as a result, the many finds uncovered in the years since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 have made an enormous contribution to the understanding of the city's public sphere, especially in the vicinity of the Temple Mount, and of the private domain of the city's upper classes. Thus, in light of the greater availability of information, our discussion of the Herodian and post-Herodian eras is far more detailed than that of the earlier periods.

Layers of History: A Millennium in Jerusalem's Urban Development From David's conquest of the city ca. 1000 B.C.E. and its becoming the capital and primary religious center of his and Solomon's kingdoms, Jerusalem continued to playa central role in Israelite history. Traditions associating the city with the patriarchs of the book of Genesis were created in subsequent generations (Gen. 14:18-20,22:1-19); psalms praising the city and its unique religious status were composed, often in enthusiastically pious terms (e.g., Ps. 48, 122, 125, 126); more historically oriented accounts relating to the city's history found expression in Deuteronomistic sources (Joshua through 1 and 2 KingS).4 Jerusalem's political and religious prominence in the First Temple period peaked in the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. Beginning with the reign of King Hezekiah (727-fJ98 B.C.E.), the city's status increased dramatically, owing to Assyria's destruction of the northern kingdom ofIsrael and its capital Samaria. Hezekiah's efforts to fortify and enlarge his capital were accompanied by attempts to achieve administrative centralization and religious reform. Political and religious agendas regarding the city were inextricably intertwined, as they had been under David and Solomon. Moreover, Jerusalem's stature was enhanced by the sudden flight of the Assyrian king Sennacherib's besieging forces in 701 B.C.E.,s an event interpreted by many as proof of God's protection of the city.6 The

4. Japhet, "From King's Sanctuary," 3-8, and Zakovitch, "First Stages of Jerusalem's Sanctification," 16-35. 5. Borowski, "Hezekiah's Reforms," 148-155; Tadmor, "Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah," 65-80; and Hallo, "Jerusalem under Hezekiah," 36-50. 6. See, e.g., the connection between this event and the centralization of the cult as proposed by Nicholson, "Centralisation of the Cult," 380-389.

xvi

INTRODUCTION

prophet Isaiah expresses the increased pride in Jerusalem's centrality and importance at that time when depicting the city in universalistic and quasi-messianic terms as a veritable second Mount Sinai; the Torah was now given to all the nations gathered there, and not-as before---just to the children of Israel in the desert: In the days to come, the Mount of the Lord's House shall stand firm above the mountains and tower above the hills; and all the nations shall gaze on it with joy. And the many peoples shall go and say: "Come, let us go up to the Mount of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob; that He may instruct us in His ways, and that we may walk in His paths." For instruction shall come forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Thus He will judge among the nations and arbitrate for the many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not take up sword against nation; they shall never again know war (Isa. 2:2-4).

The fmal stage in the evolution of Jerusalem's religious and political prominence during the First Temple period came in 622 B.C.E., with King Josiah's sweeping reforms revolving around the centralization of all cultic worship in the city. Previously, shrines and altars had existed throughout the country, and sacrifices to the God ofIsrael could be offered anywhere. Josiah's reforms established Jerusalem as the sole legitimate site for all such activity.7 Jerusalem's enhanced stature in the Second Temple period was the result of both internal and external developments, and its international recognition as a temple-city from the Persian era onward accorded the city a distinguished position in Jewish and non-Jewish eyes alike. As the capital of an extensive kingdom under the Hasmoneans and Herod, Jerusalem became the seat of all major national institutions-political, social, and religious-as well as the home of important priestly and aristocratic families and a variety of religious sects. Extensively and lavishly reshaped during Herod's reign, the city bore an impressive physical appearance. The Temple and Temple Mount, both of which were enlarged and rebuilt, formed an especially imposing public domain. Jerusalem's renown spread throughout the Roman world as ever-increasing numbers of pilgrims visited the city. The history of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period can be conveniently divided into three eras: Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman. The frrst of these spanned some two hundred years (536--332 B.C.E.), its key event being the return of many exiles from Babylonia. This, in turn, led to the restoration and revitalization of city life, first under Sheshbazzar and Zerubabbel and then, almost a century later, under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. On the centralizaton of the cult, see Bright, History of Israel, 295-300; Widengren, "Persian Period," 458-469; and Tigay, Deuteronomy, 459-464.

INTRODUCTION

xvii

In the Hellenistic era, which lasted about 270 years (332-63 B.C.E.), two distinct periods can be discerned. During the first, Jerusalem and Judaea were part and parcel of the dominant Hellenistic kingdoms. During the entire third century B.C.E., the Egyptian-based Ptolemaic dynasty governed the city and was succeeded during the first sixty years of the second century by the Seleucid dynasty, which was centered in Syria. A dramatic change in the city's fortunes took place in 142-140 B.C.E., when Jerusalem became the capital of the newly created Hasmonean state of Judaea. This sovereign status was aborted about eighty years later with the Roman conquest by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. However, Herod's subsequent reign as a client king within the context of the pax Romana catapulted the city to ever-greater prominence. In the last century before the revolt and destruction, it reached, in many respects, the pinnacle of its development. There can be little doubt that the central phenomenon shaping the Jerusalem urban scene in countless ways was the growing importance of the Temple in city life. As noted, the Temple Mount physically dominated the city. Politically, judicially, and economically, it served as the setting for much of the city's activity, including, of course, its religious dimension. Religious leaders from various sects met with their disciples on the Temple Mount, and the Temple itself attracted large numbers of people throughout Judaea and the Diaspora. This was especially evident during the pilgrimage festivals from Herod's reign onward, when tens, if not hundreds, of thousands flocked to the site. In contrast to other cults and peoples who had many temples, the Jews had only one, inextricably bound to Jerusalem, which guaranteed the city's religious preeminence. The doctrine of a single, exclusive Temple thus imbued Jerusalem with multiple layers of sacrality, and its dominance and centrality in almost every conceivable aspect of urban life determined many of the city's parameters during the Second Temple era. Even after its destruction in the year 70, Jerusalem remained a central component in Judaism and Jewish life. It embodied the hopes of return, of rebuilding, and of renewal of national life; and, as a result, it weighed heavily in Jewish religious thought and custom. 8 These dreams for the future, however, were firmly anchored in memories of the past. In the thousand years from David's monarchy to the destruction of the Second Temple, Jerusalem served as the political and religious center of the Jewish people; it was the scene of almost every important development-spiritual, social, and political-among the Jews of antiquity. Kings, prophets, high priests, and sages of all stripes walked its streets, most books of the Bible and postbiblical literature were composed there, and the basic tenets of Judaism incubated and first found expression within its walls. 8. Golinkin, "Jerusalem in Jewish Law and Customs." 408-423.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

"If I forget you, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand wither" (ps. 137:5) is thus not merely an oath of allegiance or an affirmation of historical memory. It is also a profound recognition that so much that characterizes Judaism of the last several millennia is, in a profound sense, inextricably intertwined with the city. If biblical Jerusalem witnessed the laying of these foundations, then the Second Temple city provided the impetus, stimulation, models, and directions that allowed many additional stories of the edifice to be built. The subsequent attraction of Christianity and Islam to the city is rooted in no small measure in the legacy that made Jewish Jerusalem the unique urban setting that it was.

Part I

From Cyrus to the Hasmoneans

3

Chapter 1

The Persian Era (539-332 B.C.E.)

The Persian, or Restoration, era witnessed the renewal of Jewish life in Judaea following a hiatus of some fifty years. l The primary and almost exclusive sources for this era, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (henceforth Ezra-Nehemiah), inform us of the return of thousands of exiles from Babylonia who, despite innumerable obstacles, succeeded in rebuilding Jerusalem and its Temple. 2 The fact that there was a return at all should not be taken for granted. In 722 B.C.E., the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed and its inhabitants, dispersed. Lacking a strong leadership, a well-defined communal framework, and presumably the possibility of returning to their homeland, these exiles eventually became fully assimilated into their new milieu.

1. We will be using the term "Judaea" for the entire period under discussion, as this was the official title of much, if not all, of the country for most of this time. A related term, "Yehud," was used in the Persian and early Hellenistic eras and in "Coele Syria" for a time in the third and second centuries. Only in 135 C.E., in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba revolt, did Hadrian officially change the name to "Syria Palaestina," even though Herodotus had already made use of the term "Palestine." See SchUrer, History, 1:514; M. Stem, GLAJJ, 1:233, 290, and II: 11-15, 168-170, 217-220; Feldman, "Some Observations," 6-14; and Cohen, Beginnings of Jewisimess, 72-73. It should be noted, however, that in much of the period under discussion "Judaea" had a dual meaning-a limited reference to the southern part of the country (in contrast to the coastal region, Samaria, the Galilee, and Peraea) and a broader one referring to the entire country. To clarify this distinction, we will use the spelling "Judea" for the more limited geographical meaning and "Judaea" for the broader one. 2. Although Bright's History of Israel, 360-403, remains a classic, there are a number of other excellent surveys: Ackroyd, Israel under Babylonia and Persia, 162-344, and "Jewish Community," 130-161; Widengren, "Persian Period," 489-538; Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 48-76; and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:27-145. The latter two contain rich and relatively up-to-date bibliographies, and Grabbe includes broad discussions of central issues. See also Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, for an extensive bibliography. Owing to the paucity of remains in both the archaeological and the literary domains, there are contrasting assessments of the degree of continuity in settlement in post-586 Judaea. While E. Stem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 303-311, 348-350, offers a minimalist picture, Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land, claims that the archaeological remains attest to a significant continuity.

4

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 1. The Persian Empire.

The Babylonian exiles returned after 536 B.C.E. in significant enough numbers to initiate social, political, and religious renewal. Both external and internal factors favored the Restoration. One factor that contributed to the successful return of the Judaean exiles under Cyrus was that Jerusalem had never been resettied by the Babylonians after the conquest of 586, and there was thus no foreign body in the city that might have prevented their return. This situation obviously facilitated the returnees' repossession of the city a half century later.3 Of more consequence, however, was the dramatically innovative Persian policy that allowed, and even encouraged, subject peoples to restore their national and religious institutions while in exile, thereby providing them with an indispensable frame of reference for the Restoration (Fig. 1).4 Moreover, Persian authorities aided in the return: Safe passage was afforded, regular communication with those remaining behind in Babylonia was facilitated via the Persian royal road system,S and local leaders were appointed as Persian officials (e.g., Nehemiah) or at least given official support for their missions (e.g., Ezra). The Persian govemment also extended financial aid for the construction of the Temple, helped defray the costs of sacrificial offerings, and granted tax privileges to Temple personnel. The Jews, for their part, generally responded to this support by expressing confidence in the imperial government and fully cooperating with it. These close ties with the Persian authorities had a profound impact on Jerusalem's destiny and character.

3. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 3-10. 4. See Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, 34-58. and Dandamaev and Lukonin, Culture and Social Institutions, 292-360. 5. Graf, "Persian Royal Road System," 167-187, and Briant, Histoire de ['empire perse, 369-398.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

5

However, the role of the Persian govemment in the shaping of Jewish policies and directions at this time may have been even more far reaching. Blenkinsopp6 suggests that the initiative for the return stemmed from imperial circles that sought a loyal group to organize and govern the province of Yehud and chose the local (i.e., Babylonian) Jewish elite to represent them: As an essential element of the establishment of a viable polity in the province, and again in keeping with well-attested Achaemenid practice, the Imperial government mandated, rather than permitted, the rebuilding of the temple and financed the project out of the Imperial and satrapal treasury. The result was the emergence, in the early decades of Achaemenid rule, of a semi-autonomous temple-community controlled by the dominant stratum of Babylonian immigrants, the benei haggola (?) of Ezra-Nehemiah. 7

In a similar vein, Berquisfl attempts to trace the degree of imperial support and involvement in Yehud throughout the Persian era on the basis of the needs and policies of the central government. Thus, while Cyrus and then Darius proved to be actively involved on the local scenes, Xerxes was less able to do so, given the crisis stemming from the Babylonian revolt and the challenges posed by Greece. 9 However, later on, under Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.E.), Persia's western frontier once again held center stage. Owing to the revolt in Egypt (460--454 B.C.E.) and the continued confrontation with Greece, culminating in the Peace of Callias (449 B.C.E.), the government placed strong leaders in the region to guarantee security and stability. An even more decisive influence of Persia in the fifth century is posited by Hoglund,lO who regards Ezra's and Nehemiah's missions as well as their particular policies and programs as having been determined by an imperial agenda. In the mid-fifth century, Persia faced the possible loss of Egypt, which was aggravated by the participation of Greek forces on the latter's side; the need to quickly bolster the western front of the empire became critical. The government thus sought to commission Ezra and Nehemiah for leadership roles in Yehud. In fact, the very components of Nehemiah's program, which included the strengthening of Jerusalem's fortifications, dealing with economic and tax issues, and initiating a variety of religious reforms (including the question of who belongs in the com-

6. Blenkinsopp, "Temple and Society," 50-53. 7. Ibid., 51. See also in this regard Weinberg, Citizen· Temple Community, and Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 37-39, 390, and elsewhere-both summarized and discussed by Bedford, Temple Restoration, 185-230. 8. Berquist, Judaism in Persia's Shadow, 87-94, 105-120. See also Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse, 531-585, and Dandamaev, Political History, 178-237. 9. Briant, Histoire de I 'empire perse, 591-604, and Dandamaev, Political History, 238-255. 10. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration, passim.

6

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

munity and who does not-i.e., the question of intermarriage), were steps that may well have been influenced by imperial concerns and policies. 1I Some of these assertions may be overstated, thereby divesting the Jews of any significant role in conceptualizing and initiating the programs attributed to them by Ezra-Nehemiah, treating them as mere extensions of Achaemenid policy. Nevertheless, there is no question that the above perspectives should not be entirely ignored when trying to explain what transpired in Judaea at this time and why. As has been the case throughout Jewish history, and as Ezra-Nehemiah indeed acknowledge, the larger, non-Jewish, historical context undoubtedly played a crucial role in the events of the era. Nevertheless, these same sources, both in a historical and literary vein, ought not be entirely dismissed in regard to their claim that the unfolding of events, decisions, and policies-not to mention the indigenous leadership--stemmed in no small measure from earlier Jewish traditions, memories, and aspirations. These Jewish components should be factored into the equation as well so that the picture drawn will be as inclusive, balanced, and complete as possible.1 2 Another interesting approach in this vein is suggested by Elayi and Sapin,13 who posit that throughout the eastern Mediterranean one can discern similar syntheses between local and imperial political authority. Focusing on Syria (and especially Sidon), Palestine, and Cyprus, they claim to have detected various combinations of indigenous traditions and empirewide models, processes and an economy that, on the one hand, stimulated local production while, on the other, participated in international trade facilitated by the Persians. These dynamics were operative throughout the region in generally similar patterns with, of course, many local variations. Returning now to the question at hand, what were the internal Jewish factors that allowed the Restoration to take place? First, the Jewish community in Babylonia had remained intact after 586 B.C.E., with the former King Jehoiachin enjoying a privileged position in the Babylonian court (2 Kings 25:27-30). This was undoubt-

11. Ibid., 208-226. In summarizing his thesis, Hoglund may be somewhat overstating his case when he notes: As a consequence of this understanding of the context for the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is clear that these missions were not, as has often been argued, the result of the empire rewarding the Restoration community for loyalty in the face of regional revolts. Rather, their missions were an effort on the part of the Achaemenid empire to create a web of economic and social relationships that would tie the community more completely into the imperial system. Part of this process involved the clarification of the population under imperial control by legislating some means of defining that community. Rather than being a reward, the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah were an effort to compel loyalty to the imperial system by tying the community'S self-interest to the goals of the empire (244). 12. See Bedford, Temple Restoration, 230-299. 13. Elayi and Sapin, Beyond the River, passim.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B,C,E.)

7

edly a critical factor in maintaining communal identity and discipline in Babylonia, one that seems to have been absent in regard to the exiles to Assyria a century and a half earlier.14 Moreover, the presence of prophets within the community (Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah), frequently reminding the Jewish exiles of the centrality of Jerusalem and its Temple, may have provided a source of inspiration and encouragement for the people. There can be little doubt that prophetic influence was enhanced by the calamitous events of 586 B.C.E., since such a possibility had been predicted by earlier prophets for generations. As a result, the Temple's destruction came to be viewed as neither a sign of weakness on the part of the God of Israel nor His subjugation by a foreign deity; quite the opposite, it was a demonstration of His strength. After all, it was He who had inflicted punishment on the Jews through the agency of a foreign power. While the number of biblical works written during this period is not inconsequential, it is Ezra-Nehemiah that, as noted, provide the overwhelming preponderance of historical information. These two books focus almost exclusively on events in Jerusalem, although chronologically the narrative is uneven. Only some twenty years in the sixth century (ca. 538 to 515 B.C.E.) and about twenty-five years in the fifth (ca. 458 to 432 B.C.E.) are chronicled, and even then large gaps remain. Ezra-Nehemiah are composite works, using both Hebrew and Aramaic and incorporating allegedly governmental documents, lists of returnees from Babylonia, at times chronologically misplaced narrative material, and a highly stylized autobiographical account (the bulk of the book of Nehemiah). Given the rather transparent ideological agenda of the author(s)/editor, the historical value of much of this material has often been called into question. There is also little consensus among scholars whether these two books--despite their composite nature-were edited at one time with an overriding purpose in mind and whether there was a more encompassing Chronicler history of which they were a part. 15 The difficulties in using this material are compounded by the fact that it stems from different sources, each with its own view and interpretation of events. A careful reading is fraught with contradictions, idealizations, and polemics, 14. It may well be that communal identity was greatly facilitated, if not ensured, by the fact that Jews were settled in Babylonian villages and towns that had been destroyed-e.g., Tel Aviv (Ezek. 3: 15)perhaps in the course of the Babylonian-Assyrian battles decades earlier. 15. There are thus three basic approaches to the relationships between these works. The traditional position, reaffirmed of late by Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 47-54, is that the Chronicler edited the material in Ezra-Nehemiah along with the books of Chronicles (see also Klein, "Ezra and Nehemiah," 361-376, and Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 25-31). This nexus has been challenged by Japhet, "Supposed Common Authorship," 330-371, and "Relationship between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah," 298-313; and Williamson, Israel, 5-70, and Ezra and Nehemiah, 37-47. For an approach that seeks to draw a sharp ideological distinction between the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, see Kraemer, "On the Relationship," 73-92, and VanderKam, "Ezra-Nehemiah," 55-75. On the literary unity of Ezra-Nehemiah, see Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, passim.

8

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

often with woefully incomplete and chronologically jumbled reports.16 In short, any historical reconstruction must be, in no small degree, provisional. 17

The Restoration of City and Temple With Cyrus' conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C.E., the Persian Empire became the largest one heretofore established. In his first regnal year, the king issued a proclamation allowing Jewish exiles in Babylonia to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple: In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, when the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah was fulfilled, the Lord roused the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to issue a proclamation throughout his realm by word of mouth and in writing as follows: 'Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: 'The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has charged me with building Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Anyone of you of all His people-may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel, the God that is in Jerusalem; and anyone who stays behind wherever he may be living, let the people of his place 18 assist him with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, beside the freewill offering to the House of God that is in Jerusalem'" (Ezra 1: 1-4).

Cyrus is depicted here as helping all Babylonian Jews; those wishing to return and rebuild the Temple are allowed to do so, while others opting to remain are to be supported by the local non-Jewish population, which seems to have been obligated to contribute to the Temple as well. This last inference-if correct-is quite unusual and appears to be historically implausible. It may have been added by a Jewish editor who wished to associate these events, both literarily and theologically, with the Exodus story, wherein the local Egyptian population gave gold, silver, and clothing to those leaving. 19 Another issue requiring comment relates to the authenticity of the above document. Written in Hebrew, it attributes to Cyrus pious phrases about the God of Israel ("the Lord God of Heaven," "the House of the Lord God of Israel") and His dwelling in Jerusalem. Comparative data demonstrate that such phenomena are not exceptional: Cyrus presented himself as a servant of Marduk to the Babylonians, of 16. See. e.g., Halpern, "Historiographic Commentary," 81-142. 17. See Japhet, " 'History'and 'Literature,'" 174-188, and "Composition and Chronology," 189-216. 18. I.e., non-Jews; see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 74-76. 19. Exod. 3:21-22, 11:2-3a, 12:35-36. On the Exodus theme here as well as with respect to Ezra, see Ackroyd, I and II Chronicles, 215; Koch, "Ezra and the Origins of Judaism," 184-189; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 75-76; and Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 84-86. See also B. Anderson, "Exodus and Covenant," 339-360.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

9

Figure 2. The Cyrus Cylinder. The baked clay inscription,discovered in the excavations in the city of Babylon,praises Cyrus' benevolent policies.

the God of Israel to the Judaeans, and as a pharaoh to the Egyptians. The statue of Darius discovered at Susa in 1972 depicts the king in Persian dress and an Egyptian pose, together with both a cuneiform text and a hieroglyphic inscription. 20 However, the decree in Ezra 1 appears to be at odds with another, Aramaic, one cited in Ezra 6:2-5: "Memorandum: In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus issued an order concerning the House of God in Jerusalem: 'Let the house be rebuilt, a place for offering sacrifices, with a base built up high. Let it be sixty cubits high and sixty cubits wide, with a course of unused timber for each three courses of hewn stone. The expenses shall be paid by the palace. And the gold and silver vessels of the House of God which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away from the Temple in Jerusalem and transported to Babylon shall be returned, and let each go back to the Temple in Jerusalem where it belongs; you shall deposit it in the House of God.' "

Besides appearing in different languages, the contents of the these documents are radically diverse. One letter (Ezra 1) is addressed to the Jews in quasi-poetic, theological terms; the other (Ezra 6) is a dry, matter-of-fact directive regarding the Temple's rebuilding and financing. The former document was intended to be both written and oral; the latter, written only. There is also a difference regarding who is to contribute toward the expenses of this undertaking, the Persian government or the people among whom the Babylonian Jews were living. Whatever our conclusions regarding the authenticity of the documents, there is little doubt that their details accord well with overall Persian policy. Such gestures of goodwill were not conferred on the Jews only; in the "Cyrus Cylinder," the king also authorized the rebuilding of temples and holy cities as well as the return of exiles to their homelands (Fig. 2): 20. See Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 151-152, and Leith, "Israel among the Nations," 379.

10

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Upon their complaints, the lord of the gods became terribly angry and [he departed from] their region, (also) the (other) gods living among them left their mansions .... Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people/worshippers, beheld with pleasure his (i.e., Cyrus') good deeds and his upright mind (lit., heart) (and therefore) ordered him to march against his city Babylon.... I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king .... When I entered Babylon as a friend and (when) I established the seat of the government in the palace of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord, [induced] the magnanimous inhabitants of Babylon [to love me], and I was daily endeavouring to worship him. ... As to the inhabitants of Babylon... I brought relief to their dilapidated housing .... Marduk, the great lord, was well pleased with my deeds and sent friendly blessings to myself, Cyrus, the king who worships hirn.21

In addition to this explicit declaration by the king himself, we know from elsewhere that the Persians acted in a like manner toward the Egyptians. The imperial government supported (perhaps commissioned) the priest Udjahorresnet's activities, which included the rebuilding of temples, financing the cult, the establishment of a priestly leadership, and the reinstatement of ancestral laws as central to that society. As recorded in an inscription on his mortuary statue, Udjahorresnet attested that by sending him, Darius was, in fact, fulfilling the program and ideals of the last Egyptian king, Amasis. 22 A second example, following Eph 'al's interpretation,23 comes from Neirab, southeast of Aleppo, where some twenty-seven Neo-Babylonian tablets from the later sixth century B.C.E. were found. These tablets speak of an organized community of Syrians living in Babylonia who returned to their hometown-presumably under government auspices-some time around 520 B.C.E., as was the case with a major wave of Judean exiles. Given these parallels, it seems safe to assume the basic historicity of the two documents cited, and we may best account for the differences between them by positing that Cyrus' proclamation in Ezra 1 was directed toward the Jewish community of Babylonia and thus explains the epistle's terminology and references. Permission was granted to those who wished to return and for the sacred Temple vessels to be returned with them. 24 Ezra 6, on the other hand, was an internal gov-

21. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 315-316. See Kuhrt, "Cyrus Cylinder," 83-97, and Dandamaev and Lukonin, Culture and Social Institutions, 347-366. 22. Lloyd, "Inscription ofUdjahorresnet," 166--180, and Blenkinsopp, "Mission ofUdjahorresnet," 409-421. 23. Eph'al, "Western Minorities in Babylonia," 84-87. 24. Inclusion of this claim establishes a link and continuity between the First and Second Temples; its historicity, however, remains unclear. While the books of Ezra and Chronicles stress the return of all Temple vessels (2 Chron. 36: 10,18), 2 Kings notes that all gold vessels were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (24:13). See Ackroyd, "Temple Vessels," 166--181.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

11

ernment memorandum sent to local Persian authorities who were instructed to carry out the order. 25 Cyrus' enlightened attitude signaled a new era for conquered peoples. Previously, the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms had pursued a policy of suppression and exile, often accompanied by exchanges of populations. 26 Such was the case after the conquest of Samaria in 722 B.C.E. and, to an extent, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. Regarding the latter, however, a large number of inhabitants were exiled or fled, but no foreign settlers were brought in their stead; the vacuum created was filled only with the returning exiles some fifty years later. Cyrus' conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C.E. was interpreted by some Jews as auguring the end of exile and the imminent redemption. His positive actions toward the Jews and Judaism kindled messianic expectations for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its Temple and hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty were awakened.27 This is expressed in Deutero-Isaiah: It is I who say of Jerusalem, "It shall be inhabited," And of the towns of Judah, "They shall be rebuilt; And I will restore their ruined places." [I], who said to the deep, "Be dry; I will dry up your floods," Am the same who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd; He shall fulfill all My purposes! He shall say of Jerusalem, 'She shall be rebuilt,' And to the Temple: 'You shall be founded again.' " Thus said the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed oneWhose right hand He has grasped, Treading down nations before him, Ungirding the loins of kings, Opening the doors before him And letting no gate stay shut (Isa. 44:26-28; 45: 1).28

One of the Songs of Ascents in the book of Psalms expresses the excitement and anticipation that undoubtedly accompanied news of the return: 29

25. Bickerman, "Edict of Cyrus," 244--275 (= Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 72-108); Tadmor, "Historical Background," 450-473; Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 33-34; Dandarnaev, Political History, 63--D4; and Halpern, "Historiographic Commentary," 85-93. See, however, the denial of the historicity regarding attempts to rebuild the Temple under Cyrus by Bedford, Temple Restoration, 85-181. 26. For possible Assyrian precedents to this Persian policy, see van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy?" 278-283, and Kuhrt, "Cyrus Cylinder," 83-97. Compare, however, Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 126-128. 27. M. Smith, "II Isaiah and the Persians," 415-421, and Ackroyd, "Biblical Portrayal," 2-4. 28. Similar messianic sentiments can be found elsewhere as well; e.g., Isa. 40:9-11, 49:25-26, 51:3. 29. Beyerlin, We Are Like Dreamers, 33-40, and Crow, Songs of Ascents, 58-66, 159-187.

12

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

When the Lord restores the fortunes of Zion -we see it as in a dreamour mouths shall be filled with laughter, our tongues, with songs of joy. Then shall they say among the nations, ''The Lord has done great things for them!" The Lord will do great things for us and we shall rejoice. Restore our fortunes, a Lord, like watercourses in the Negev. They who sow in tears shall reap with songs of joy. Though he goes along weeping, carrying the seed-bag, he shall come back with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves (ps. 126:1-6).

The First Returnees: Hopes Thwarted by Hardships The first wave of returnees was led by Sheshbazzar, possibly the son of Jehoiachin king of Judah (if one wishes to identify him with Shenazzar son of the king; 1 Chron. 3:17-18). Sheshbazzar is likewise referred to as a "nasi [prince] of Judah" (Ezra 1:8) and apeha (Persian governor; Ezra 5:14). However, the associations of Sheshbazzar with the Davidic royal house remain tenuous. The two Babylonian names "Sheshbazzar" and "Shenazzar," despite their similarities, do not refer to the same person. Whether the term "nasi" here designates a figure of Davidic descent (as in Ezek. 44:3, 45:7-9,16, 46:16-18) is unclear; it might also refer to the head of a tribe or household (l Chron. 2: 10; 2 Chron. 1:2). No less enigmatic is the relationship between Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, the latter clearly identified as being of royal lineage (l Cbron. 3:17-19).30 While the former is featured in Cyrus' proclamation and the subsequent return, Zerubbabel figures prominently in the events of the first years in Jerusalem (Ezra 3: 1-13,4:1-5). Both men are credited with laying the Temple's foundations (Ezra 3:8-13, 5:16; Zech. 4:9), and perhaps it is on this basis that Josephus identifies the twO. 31 Although Sheshbazzar never appears again in the biblical narrative, Zerubbabel reemerges as a pivotal figure in the city about fifteen years later. Why Sheshbazzar 30. For an analysis of the information on each in the sources, see Japhet, "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel," 66-98. 31. Ant. 11.1,3,11-13. See the comments by Marcus, in LCL.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

13

disappears from the sources after 536 and what happened to Zerubbabel between 535 and 522 remain mysteries. 32 The number and composition of the Babylonian returnees are unclear. The almost identical lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 record a long series of names numbering about fifty thousand. These lists cannot be considered mere fabrications, nor do they refer to any single wave of returnees; the numbers are far too large for anyone wave. Moreover, the lists appear in two different contexts (one in the sixth century and the other in the fifth century B.C.E.). If there is any historicity whatsoever to these lists, it is likely they refer to a number of waves of returnees from the time of Cyrus to at least Ezra and Nehemiah in the frfth century, a period of a hundred years. 33 The obvious intent of this list in Ezra 2 was to indicate the massive response to Cyrus' offer; the reality, however, seems to have been far more modest. 34 The first wave of Babylonian returnees may have commenced work on restoring the Temple upon arrival in Jerusalem; what such a restoration might have entailed is never stated. However, we are told that by the seventh month of the first year the altar was completed-despite opposition from the local population (whether the reference is to Jews, gentiles, or both is unclear). According to the author of Ezra, this task was accomplished under the aegis of Jeshua (in Haggai and Zechariah he is referred to as Joshua) and ZerubbabeJ.35 Divine worship was thus resumed at the beginning of Tishri, and the altar was used for the Sukkot festival celebrations several weeks later: When the seventh month arrived-the Israelites being settled in their townsthe entire people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brother priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his brothers set to and built the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings upon it as is written in the Teaching of Moses, the man of God. They set up the altar on its site because they were in fear of the peoples of the land, and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, burnt offerings each morning and evening.

32. See Japhet, "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel," 68-71. Zerubbabel's and Jeshua's thirteen-year disappearance from the historical records is paralleled by that of Ezra (between 458 and 444). Alt's thesis, in "Die Rolle Samarias," 316-337, that sixth-century leaders functioned more as royal commissioners under Samaria than as governors of a subprovince, is refuted by Williamson, "Governors of Judah," 59-82, who asserts that, from Zerubbabel through Nehemiah, these leaders were appointed governors of the local province Yehud. See also a critique of All's thesis by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 193-201, as well as Grabbe, Judaism, I:79-83. 33. Galling, " 'Golii-List,'" 149-158, and Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 30-31. 34. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 79-93. 35. These two leaders are well attested at the outset of Darius' reign (see below). Whether they were active at this early juncture and then disappeared for a decade and a half or whether the author of Ezra tendentiously retrojected them to this earlier date to bolster the legitimacy (and perhaps downplay the importance) of Sheshbazzar is difficult to determine.

14

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Then they celebrated the festival of Tabernacles as is written, with its daily burnt offerings in the proper quantities, on each day as is prescribed for it, followed by the regular burnt offering and the offerings for the new moons and for all the sacred fixed times of the Lord, and whatever freewill offerings were made to the Lord (Ezra 3:1-5).

A half year later, in the second month of the second year, work commenced on the Temple foundations-as was the case, perhaps not coincidentally, with Solomon's Temple (l Kings 6:1); their completion was marked by an elaborate ceremony (trumpets, cymbals, the recitation of psalms, and the wearing of priestly vestments; Ezra 3:8-11).36 The dedication ceremony was greeted with mixed reactions: The elders wept over the modest dimensions of the new Temple compared to the one that had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, whereas the young people rejoiced and regarded the construction of the Temple as the fulfillment of a dream (Ezra 3: 12-13). Despite the enthusiastic beginnings and heady expectations that accompanied the achievements of this first wave of returnees, complete realization of their mission remained unfulfilled for several decades. 37 One reason for the delay had to do with the considerable difficulties encountered, not the least of which was a challenging economic situation. Hag. 2:14-19 and Zech. 8:9-17 note hardships-such as natural disasters, droughts, and social tensions-that afilicted the country in the years following the arrival of the first wave of exiles: You have sowed much and brought in little; you eat without being satisfied; you drink without getting your fill; you clothe yourselves, but no one gets warm; and he who earns anything earns it for a leaky purse (Hag. 1:6). For before that time, the earnings of men were nil, and profits from beasts were nothing. It was not safe to go about one's business on account of enemies, and I set all men against one another (Zech. 8:10).

More problematic, however, for the realization of these dreams was the active opposition of a variety of groups to the returnees. One source of friction seems to have come from those Judahites who remained in the country after the 586 B.C.E. destruction and continued to work the land as before. Admittedly, 2 Kings 25: 11,19-21 seems to indicate a fairly complete exile, but this may have been an exaggeration serving the author's claim that the Babylonian conquest (i.e., God's punishment) was total. Of more import are a number of references to 36. According to Ackroyd, "Jewish Community," 136-143, these events probably belong to the completion of the Temple building in 515, but were transferred to a context twenty years earlier by the author to highlight the achievements of the first returnees. See also Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 51-54; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 98-104; and Halpern, "Historiographic Commentary," 101-103. 3? Widengren, "Persian Period," 515-523.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E)

15

the fact that the poor remained behind after 586 B.C.E. (2 Kings 24: 14, 25: 12,22; Jer. 39:10). A recent analysis of the archaeological remains from four locales north of Jerusalem, in what is often referred to as the Land of Benjamin, indicates a continuity of settlement throughout the sixth century.38 Only with the restoration of Jerusalem did the population at some of these sites decline. 39 Although nothing is known about Jerusalem's indigenous population, there can be little doubt that significant social and religious differences existed between it and the Babylonian returnees. The golah community had developed many of its own beliefs and practices while in exile, and it is quite likely that there were also social differences between these groups, since many of the exiles may have hailed from Jerusalem's fonner upper classes (2 Kings 24:14--16).40 These social differences, when combined with the returnees' aspirations to make significant changes in Jerusalem's religious life, could not but lead to dissension. 41 No less of a threat to the returnees was posed by neighboring peoples, such as the Edomites, Ashdodites, and Samaritans, who seem to have viewed the renewal of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem with hostility. Referred to as "the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" and those "who dwell in Samaria" (Ezra 4: 1,17), at least one of these groups, the Samaritans, asked to take part in the Temple's construction but were rejected. 42 Moreover, even the tenn "peoples of the land"those living both in Judaea and neighboring regions-seems to refer to all those who opposed the golah community's program. Finally, there is some evidence that local Persian officials also attempted to hamper, if not thwart, the construction process; at the very least, they were in no hurry to obey the king's orders and provide the required assistance (Ezra 4).

The Temple Rebuilt The internal and external difficulties noted above seem to have exacted a heavy toll on the first wave of returnees and effectively brought the Temple's construction to a halt for well over a decade (Ezra 4:4-5,10,17-24). It was only at the onset of Darius' reign (522-486 B.C.E.) that the situation changed radically and the political tremors that shook the Persian Empire in the king's first year con38. On the continuity of settlement in the Land of Benjamin in contrast to the extensive destruction from Jerusalem southward, see E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 321-326,335-338. 39. Lipschits, "History of the Benjaminite Region," 271-310. 40. See D. L. Smith, "Politics of Ezra," 73-97. See also Bedford, Temple Restoration, 10-23. 41. See also Zech. 8:9-10. 42. For a survey of the archaeological remains from Samaria at this time, see E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 422-428.

16

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 3. A relief of Darius I (521-486 B.C.E.) depicted in the city of Persepolis, which he built.

tributed to the ferment and messianic expectation in the Jewish community (Fig. 3).43 Moreover, Darius' interest in promoting the restoration oflocal institutions and traditions is well attested and could not have escaped the attention of Judaeans. He sent his Egyptian physician, Udjahorresnet, back to Egypt to restore the local temples and schools wherein priestly traditions and lore were taught and transmitted. Darius also instructed his Egyptian satrap to oversee the codification of Egyptian law and its translation into Aramaic and Demotic.44 Haggai presumably regarded these political and religious developments under Darius as signs of hope for a messianic restoration of the kingdom of Israel. When added to the certainty of redemption found in the writings of the exilic prophets (e.g., Isa. 40-44), Haggai's message gained even more cogency: And the word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month: "Speak to Zerubbabel the governor of Judah: I am going to shake heaven and earth. And I will overturn the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the might of the kingdoms of the nations. I will overturn chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders shall fall, each by the sword of his fellow. On that day-dec1ares the Lord of Hosts-I will take you, a My servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel-dec1ares the Lord-and make you as a signet; for I have chosen you-dec1ares the Lord of Hosts" (Hag. 2:20-23).

43. Hag. 2:6-7. Also Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, 107-118; Berquist, Judaism in Persia's Shadow, 51-60; and Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 145-148. In his famous Behistun inscription, Darius wrote the following: "This is what I did. Under the protection of Ahuramazda, in one year after I became king I fought 19 battles. Under the protection of Ahuramazda, I defeated them. I captured their nine kings" (von Voigtlander, Bisitun Inscription, 60). 44. N. Reich, "Codification," 178-185; Briant, Histoire de ['empire perse, 489-490; and Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 149-151.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 8.C.E.)

17

It was at this time that Zerubbabel reappears in the sources and is now referred to as "the govemor of Judah." His political position was complemented-as before-by that of the High Priest Jeshua b. Jozadak (Ezra 5:1-5; Hag. 1:1,2:2; Zech. 3-4). A new wave of wealthy returnees may have added impetus to renewed efforts toward completing the Temple (Zech. 6:9-17).45 In 520 B.C.E., the prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to reproach those who had been neglecting the Temple. According to Hag. 1:4, everyone was looking out for his own interests and not contributing to the national mission: "Is it a time for you to dwell in your paneled houses, while this House is lying in ruins?" The message of both prophets was as simple as it was revolutionary: God's messianic intervention will not inaugurate the period of redemption; the people must first act in order to activate the redemptive process and ultimately witness its realization, i.e., building the Temple is Israel's responsibility, and achievement of this goal is the sine qua non for the final redemption. 46 The fourth of Zechariah's seven visions from this time gives us a clear indication of this political-religious agenda: The angel who talked with me came back and woke me as a man is wakened from sleep. He said to me, "What do you see?" And 1 answered, "I see a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl above it. The lamps on it are seven in number, and the lamps [or the bowl] above it have seven pipes; and by it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and one on its left." I, in turn, asked the angel who talked with me, "What do those things mean, my lord?" .... "Those seven are the eyes of the Lord, ranging over the whole earth." "And what," 1 asked him, "are those two olive trees, one on the right and one on the left of the lampstand?" And 1 further asked him, "What are the two tops of the olive trees that feed their gold through those two golden tubes?" .... Then he explained, "They are the two anointed dignitaries who attend the Lord of all the earth" (Zech. 4:1-4,10-14).

The prophet envisions a golden menorah with seven lights flanked by two olive trees-symbolism that is then interpreted for him by an angel. The focus of the vision is the lights of the menorah and not the menorah itself; its political and religious significance is alluded to obliquely only toward the end. The menorah represents the Jerusalem Temple,47 and God Himself resides in the new building now under construction. The menorah thus symbolizes God's presence there and all 45. Discounting the earlier period, Bedford, Temple Restoration, 183-3lO, attributes the entire building effort to this period. 46. Japhet, "Temple in the Restoration Period," 195-25l. 47. On the theme of the Temple's foundation as standing behind Zechariah's visions (Zech. 1:7-6: 15), see Halpern, "Ritual Background," 167-190.

18

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

over the earth, thereby giving expression to His particularistic and universal dimensions. The two trees, or their branches, represent the two leaders of the time, the High Priest Jeshua and the Davidic Zerubbabel. This dyarchy is to lead the people, although the prophet is quite explicit in indicating the dominant religious orientation of this leadership: "Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit" (Zech. 4:6). Soon after 520, construction resumed under the leadership of Zerubbabel. In the words ofZech. 4:8-9: "And the word of the Lord came to me: 'Zerubbabel's hands have founded this House and Zerubbabel's hands shall complete it.'" Ezra 5:2 states that Zerubbabel, together with the High Priest Jeshua, "began rebuilding the House of God in Jerusalem, with the full support of the prophets of God." Almost immediately, Tattenai, governor of the satrapy "Beyond the River" (i.e., west of the Euphrates River), came to Jerusalem and demanded to know who authorized the construction (Ezra 5:3-14). Cyrus' proclamation was found in the royal archives of Persia, and then Darius ordered the Temple's construction be completed (Ezra 5:17-6:5). In keeping with Cyrus' commitment, Darius arranged for the work to be financed by his treasury and a supply of animals to be provided for sacrifices, including one for the welfare of the king and his sons (Ezra 6:6-14). This practice continued throughout the Second Temple period, as well as under Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Roman rule; its termination in 66 C.E. signaled the formal commencement of the revolt against Rome. Construction of the Temple proceeded undisturbed until its completion in 515 B.C.E. Zerubbabel's fate, however, is unknown. He disappears from the scene as mysteriously as he had reappeared several years earlier. Already in the negotiations with Tattenai several years earlier, the people were represented by elders and not by him (Ezra 5:5,6:8,14). Was Zerubbabel dismissed from his position by internal forces (for reasons unknown) and no longer in power? Or perhaps the messianic hopes associated with him aroused the suspicions of the Persian government and led to his remova1. 48 The Temple was completed on the third of Adar in the sixth year of Darius' reign (Ezra 6:15), corresponding to March 12, 515 B.C.E., seventy-one years after the destruction of the First Temple and more than twenty years after the first wave of exiles had begun restoration by building the altar. Jerusalem had now become recognized as a temple-city entitled to certain privileges. In addition to the regular supply of animals for sacrifices, tax exemptions were granted to Temple personnel (priests, levites, and others); this continued under Ezra as well. Consequently, the Temple leadership's loyalty to the central authorities was ensured. The high priest became a pivotal figure in the province ofYehud, ruling the Temple 48. Bright, History of Israel, 352-355, and Grabbe, Judaism, I: 128-129.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.c. E.)

19

and exerting a strong influence on Jerusalem and its environs. The completion of the Temple was a reason for festivities, and the celebration of Passover that year is described in euphoric terms (Ezra 6: 19-22). While the historicity of this description is somewhat suspect-being written in Hebrew instead of the contiguous Aramaic material and echoing Hezekiah's celebration (2 ehron. 30)-it nevertheless seems to have captured the exultation and sense of achievement upon the completion of this sacred task. 49 With the completion of the Temple and the disappearance of Zerubbabel and the prophets, the messianic expectations associated with this building project subsided dramatically. The situation that came to prevail in Jerusalem was deplored bitterly by the prophet Malachi in the first half of the fifth century. He castigated the people and priests for neglecting, even scorning, the Temple and their obligations toward it, for intennarrying, and for treating each other immorally (Mal. 1:6-14,2:1-9,11,3:5-12). This malaise may have been exacerbated, in part, by the economic straits in which the Temple, and indirectly the city, found themselves under Darius' successor, Xerxes I (486--465 B.C.E.). In contrast to his predecessors, this king halted the flow of funds to local temples in order to preserve the empire's finances, thus leaving the Jerusalem Temple and priesthood with less resources and less leverage within society. 50 At the same time, however, there seem to have been Jerusalemites who wished to expand the building program and restore the city walls; the plan is referred to in a letter sent to Xerxes (Ezra 4:6). Infonnation relating to a later period, likewise documented by Ezra 4:7-24, reveals the intense opposition of the Jews' neighbors as well as some Persian officials to the construction of these walls. 51 That some Jerusalemites attempted such a task attests to the perceived need to ensure the city's safety and strengthen its political position. These plans were never (or only partially) implemented, and thus the picture painted at the outset of the book of Nehemiah-relating to 445 B.C.E.-is somber indeed. The city's walls were breached, wide social gaps existed, the extensive involvement of foreigners in the city's affairs was a given, intennarriage between Jerusalemite men and non-Jewish women was widespread, and the religious-cui tic framework was severely compromised-at least in the eyes of Ezra and Nehemiah. 52 49. See Fleishman, "Echo of Optimism," 15-29. It is indeed unfortunate that we have no evidence, either archaeological or literary, regarding the size and plan of this Temple. Nothing is known about it other than its modest proportions (Hag. 2:3; Ezra 3: 12; see also Zech. 4: 10). 50. On Xerxes'changed attitude, see Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, 235-237, and Berquist, Judaism in Persia's Shadow, 92-94. 51. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 108-115. 52. On the suggested catastrophe that enveloped the Jerusalem community in 485 after an alleged revolt, see Morgenstern, "Jerusalem--485 B.C.," 101-179. See the critique in Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration, 51-61.

20

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

In the middle fifth century B.C.E., however, far-reaching changes took place in Jerusalem that left their mark on the character of the city until the very end of the Second Temple period and, in fact, on Judaism ever since. The two people associated with these developments were Ezra and Nehemiah. 53

The Era of Ezra and Nehemiah

Ezra Historically speaking, Ezra is an intriguing yet enigmatic figure. 54 Rabbinic tradition and the apocryphal 1 Esdras consider him to be the central personality of the Restoration period, and many reforms and innovations in Jewish religious life are attributed to him and his generation (e.g., the Men of the Great Assembly).55 In contrast, sources such as Ezra-Nehemiah paint a somewhat different picture. According to the biblical account, Ezra first appears in 458 B.C.E. wielding extensive powers. We have adopted the biblical chronology that places Ezra in this year, although in the past many scholars have preferred to date his arrival in Jerusalem either in the latter part of Nehemiah's term (ca. 428) or even some decades after Nehemiah, in 397. 56 Ezra bore two titles: (1) a priest descended from the leading family of Zadok and (2) a "[sofer] scribe expert in the Teaching of Moses" (Ezra 7:2,6). It is subsequently noted that "Ezra had dedicated himself to study the Teaching of the Lord so as to observe it, and to teach laws and rules to Israel" (Ezra 7: 10). Moreover, he is also referred to as a "priest-scribe" and "priest, scholar in the law of the God of Heaven" (Ezra 7:11,12,21). The term "sofer" refers not only to one who writes or teaches the Torah but also to one who knows how to interpret its laws and thus render judgment; the term may have been an official title within the Persian administration. 57 53. On the problems of the historical relationship between these two figures, see Shaver, "Ezra and Nehemiah," 76-86. 54. See Grabbe, "What Was Ezra's Mission?" 286-299. 55. On 1 Esdras, see Talshir, J Esdras. For traditions ascribed to the Men of the Great Assembly, see Finkelstein, "Men of the Great Synagogue," 229-244, and Lightstone, "Judaism," 33-36. 56. For example, M. Smith, "Ezra," 141-143; Margalith, "Political Role," 110-112; and Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 139-144 argue for the traditional date based on developments in the Persian Empire. Bright, History of Israel, 392-403, argues for a 428 date, in contrast to Emerton, "Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem?" 1-19, who prefers a 397 date. For a review of the issues involved and the various positions adopted regarding the chronology, see also Widengren, "Persian Period," 503-509; Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 55-69; and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:88-93. For an entirely different approach that suggests redating Nehemiah's and Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem to 465 and 445, respectively, see McFall, "Was Nehemiah Contemporary with Ezra?" 263-293. See also Demsky, "Who Came First?" 1-19. 57. See the discussions of Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 39-59; Widengren, "Persian Period," 535-536; Blenkinsopp, "Sage, Scribe, and Scribalism," 307-315, and Ezra-Nehemiah, 134-139.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

21

Ezra is presented as the religious leader of all Jews dwelling in the satrapy Beyond the River. He was empowered by the king with wide-ranging authority to teach the laws of the Torah and enforce their observance, appoint magistrates and judges, and authorize heavy penalties, including execution (Ezra 7:25-26). In addition, Ezra received gold and silver vessels, extensive provisions for Temple worship, and gold and silver from the king to finance his plans. There was also a promise of tax exemption for all those associated with Temple service (Ezra 7: 12-25). Thus we might well assume that Ezra would have been able to carry out sweeping reforms at will. In striking contrast to the apparently powerful official status conferred on him, Ezra is depicted as functioning in an entirely different mode. Although his work appears to have been carried out primarily within the context of qehal hagolah (the community that returned from the captivity; e.g., Neh. 8:17), in some cases it affected the entire society (Ezra 9:1-2, 10:1). Even so Ezra never invoked the broad powers allegedly invested in him but, rather, relied solely on persuasion and admonition. Ezra's role in the episode of the foreign women highlights this contradiction and points to the limits of his power and authority. On his arrival in Jerusalem, he was told of the intermarriages that had become common practice among the population: " 'The people of Israel and the priests and levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land .... They have taken their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed has become intermingled with the peoples of the land' " (Ezra 9: 1-2). Ezra's reaction to the news was extreme: He tore his clothes, pulled out hair from his head and beard, fasted, and sat desolately, praying, confessing, weeping, and prostrating himself before the Temple. His prayer warns of the heinous sin involved in marrying the daughters of "the people of the land" owing to their impurity, which has led to the uncleanness of the land itself (Ezra 9:11-12). In short, Ezra reacts as if he were devoid of any power. 58 While the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy contain a number of references concerning the prohibition of marriage to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country (Exod. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-5,23:4-9), the laws stipulated are usually justified by the need to avoid idolatry or for historical reasons (e.g., to avenge earlier sufferings). However, the Ezra narrative offers no such rationale. Rather, the prohibition of intermarriage was related to the fear of polluting the "holy seed" (Ezra 9: 1-2), an echo of Deut. 7 :6. Ezra here has adopted an extreme position in regard to the question, "Who is a Jew?"; only a person of Jewish blood, i.e., who 58. For a recent attempt to solve this dilemma by denying the authenticity of Artaxerxes'letter in Ezra 7, see Janzen, " 'Mission' of Ezra," 619-643.

22

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

was born a Jew and who adopted the way of life of the exilic community in Jerusalem (Ezra 9:2, 10:9-12), was to be considered a fully authentic Jew. 59 Thus the Deuteronomic law was extended far beyond its original meaning and came to include all neighboring peoples (Deut. 23:4-9; Lev. 18).60 This separatist outlook reflects Ezra's and, of course, Nehemiah's particular circle, as it did that of Ezekiel beforehand. At the same time, there clearly was another approach among Jerusalemites that permitted contacts with gentiles and was willing to accept them into Israelite society. The fact that four members of the high priestly family did so is an indication of the practice then current in Jerusalem (Ezra 10: 18). In fact, this very practice had been prevalent in earlier biblical times, in the marriages of Joseph, Moses, Samson, David, and others. Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 56:6) relates favorably to "the foreigners who attach themselves to the Lord," as did Zechariah (8:20-23) several generations earlier. Thus the practice of marrying non-Jewish women that Ezra encountered among Jerusalem's priests and aristocracy was not a matter of indifference toward Jewish norms but obviously reflected a less isolationist approach that had prevailed in Israelite society for generations. 61 The immediate results of this intermarriage crisis are far from clear. Ezra succeeded in shaming the returned exiles and the people of Judah and Benjamin (whose exact identity is uncertain), making them swear to divorce the gentile women. It required three months to draw up a list of those who had transgressed. This list was handed over to a council set up to deal with the situation. Because referral of an issue to a committee is the time-honored way of postponing a decision, it is unclear what happened next. All told, the names of less than ninety men who had married foreign women were listed. Does this number sum up the entire problem? Were these men from only one particular group? Or does the list reflect the small number of Jerusalemites who indeed heeded Ezra's bidding? We will never know for sure. Nothing else is said about the matter, and it never receives any kind of closure. 62 The account, and the book of Ezra itself, abruptly end here, and we know nothing of Ezra's activities for the next fourteen years, until Nehemiah arrives. 59. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 359-361, and Hayes, "Intermarriage and Impurity," 6-14. On the related issue of whether the matrilinear principle was applicable in this instance, see Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 14--17, and Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 243-244. 60. See Kaufmann, History of Israelite Religion, VIII:289-298, and Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114-123. 61. For a classic, if somewhat overstated, expression of these polarizing forces (assimilationist vs. separatist) at work in Jewish society at the time, see M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 82-125. 62. Several fascinating insights into this episode have been forthcoming of late from both sociological and comparative historical perspectives; see Eskenazi and Judd, "Marriage to a Stranger," 266-285, and Zlotnick-Sivan, "Silent Women of Yehud," 3-18.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

23

Nehemiah In contrast to Ezra, whose status and activity in Jerusalem raise a plethora of questions, the personality and achievements of Nehemiah are described in far greater detail. In fact, the book of Nehemiah is presented as an autobiography,63 similar in many ways to the inscription of the Egyptian priest Udjahorresnet noted above. Nehemiah is depicted (as might be expected from his own memoirs) as an energetic, God-fearing man, determined to rebuild Jerusalem and reshape its society and, of course, he was largely successful in these endeavors. The flfst part of the book is devoted primarily to the opposition encountered in his various efforts to rebuild the city and refashion its society and how Nehemiah managed to overcome these obstacles. Nehemiah held the position of cupbearer to the Persian king when he learned that the inhabitants of Jerusalem "are in dire trouble and disgrace; Jerusalem's wall is full of breaches, and its gates have been destroyed by fife" (Neh. 1:3).64 Nehemiah decided to act immediately and asked for the king's permission to return to Jerusalem (where the tombs of his ancestors were) in order to rebuild the city (Neh. 2:5). He requested timber for three specific projects: roofing the gatehouses of the Temple fortress, rebuilding the city walls, and constructing a house for himself (Neh. 2:8). Artaxerxes consented and provided him with letters to the governors of the satrapy Beyond the River to ensure safe and unencumbered passage en route to Jerusalem (Neh. 2:7). Despite the pious tone of the introduction to his autobiography, Nehemiah's mandate (and possibly motivation) had a political dimension as well; he, in fact, functioned as the Persian governor of Jerusalem and the surrounding province, Yehud (Neh. 5:14-18, 12:26). The beginning of his public career is clearly dated to 445 B.C.E., the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign (Neh. 1:1,2:1). Nehemiah's first task on his arrival in Jerusalem was the construction of the city's walls and gates. On a clandestine nocturnal tour (presumably to prevent potential opponents from finding out about the project), he inspected the walls to assess the extent of the damage. The actual construction was divided among various segments of the community, with each group undertaking to build one section. While the book of Nehemiah states that the work took fiftytwo days to complete, Josephus claims it required two years and four months.65 If harmonization is warranted, one could assume that the Nehemiah figure refers to only one particular (perhaps the final) stage. 63. See Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help?, 124-164. 64. Josephus offers a more dramatic rendition of the events leading to Nehemiah's decision (Ant. 11.5, 6, 159-163). 65. Ant. 11.5,8,179.

24

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 4. Map of Jerusalem showing the proposed line of Nehemiah's wall.

Both archaeological evidence and historical sources attest that the restored city was far smaller than the one destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar 150 years earlier. 66 A new wall was erected on the crest of the City of David's eastern slope, high above the Qidron Valley, thereby reducing the size of the city from the east (Fig. 4). Previously, the city wall had included much of the eastern slope, and the terraces created there held a sizable portion of the population. Moreover, the western side of the First Temple city (i.e., today's Mount Zion) also contracted, even though the archaeological evidence here is absent. In the numerous excavations conducted in the Jewish and Armenian Quarters of today's Old City and on the eastern slopes of Mount Zion, remains from the First Temple period were regularly found immediately beneath the Hellenistic stratum. There is thus a marked absence of finds from the Persian era; and therefore, we must assume that Persian Jerusalem did not extend to this area. 67 The city's archaeologically attested contraction in the east only strengthens this conclusion for the western side of the city. Moreover, assuming that the western parts of First Temple Jerusalem were not resettled seems to find confirmation in the book of Nehemiah: "They abandoned Jerusalem as far as the Broad Wall" (Neh. 3:8). For generations, scholars had difficulty interpreting this passage, but following the discovery of Hezekiah's wall in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, it can safely be concluded that this is

66. See Avi-Yonah, "Walls of Nehemiah," 239-248; Tsafrir, "Walls of Jerusalem," 31-42; Williamson, "Nehemiah's Walls Revisited," 81-88; Bailey, "Nehemiah," 34-40; and Eshel, "Jerusalem under Persian Rule," 336-342. See also Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 437-458. 67. Kenyon, Jerusalem, 105-112.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

25

Figure 5. The Broad Wall (also known as the "Wide Wall"). looking northeast.

the Broad Wall in Nehemiah (Fig. 5).68Thus Nehemiah excluded the entire western area of the earlier city, leaving it outside his city wall. Jerusalem's smaller size in this period is indirectly confinned by its reduced population; Nehemiah had difficulty in populating it. In the end, he was forced to have the people draw lots to determine who would make up the tenth of the population that would be compelled to live in the city (Neh. 11:1-2).69 Nehemiah's Jerusalem was thus somewhat similar to the contours of the city between the reigns of Solomon and Hezekiah (ca. 950-700 B.C .E.), with one major identifiable exception being on the eastern slope. This area, as noted, was not included in the later city.70 Jerusalem now extended over 120 to 130 dunams (30 to 32 acres), of which perhaps a quarter to a third was used for Temple and administrative purposes. 71 However, this is merely an educated guess, since the northern boundary of the city remains unknown, as does the precise nature of this northern area. Did it contain a residential quarter or was it used only as public space? Finally, the size of the Temple area itself at this time, or even earlier, in First Temple days, cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Owing to the massive construction in the later Hasmonean and Herodian eras, however, few archaeological remains from Persian Jerusalem have been 68. Grafman, "Nehemiah's ' Broad Wall, '" 50--52, and Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 54--57. 69. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah. 227-242. 70. E. Stem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 434--436. 71. Shiloh's suggestion that some two thirds of the city's area in the pre-Hezekiah period (100 of 160 dunams, i.e., twenty-five of forty acres) were used for these purposes seems unlikely, but it certainly does not hold true for the much more modest political and religious structures of the Persian era (Excavations at the City of David I. 1978-1982. 3).

26

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

discovered. In 1925, Macalister and Duncan identified a segment of a wall on the eastern slope as existing in Nehemiah's time, a conclusion accepted by more recent excavators as well.72 Assemblages of pottery were been found on the eastern slope of the City of David, along with seal impressions on jar handles bearing the province's name, Yehud; the names of officials, such as Hananiah and Ahzai; and a seal bearing the image of an animal. 73 The Valley Gate, exposed by Crowfoot along the western slope of the City of David in 1927, also seems to have been in use in Persian times, together with the remains of the wall enclosing the city from that direction. 74 While the construction work in Jerusalem was undoubtedly welcomed by the city's inhabitants, it was bitterly opposed by outside elements who seem to have been deeply involved in city affairs: Sanballat, governor of Samaria; Tobias the Ammonite, a Jewish landowner east of the Jordan River; and Geshem the Arab, apparently from southern Judah or the northern Negev (Neh. 3:33-4: 17, 6: 1-19). The first two had close, including marital, ties with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, especially with the aristocracy and the priesthood (Neh. 6:17-19).75 Several reasons may be suggested as to why these neighboring peoples attempted to disrupt the construction of Jerusalem's wall. For one, they may have been fearful of a strong, fortified Jerusalem that could pose a potential political and economic threat to them. At that time, Samaria seems to have been the largest and most important city in the country's interior, and Sanballat might have regarded a rebuilt and thriving Jerusalem as an undesirable rival to his own city's privileged statuS.76 Moreover, the religious way of life that Nehemiah, together with Ezra, promulgated was certain to weaken the privileged status that Jerusalem's neighbors were enjoying, including intermarriage, business transactions on the Sabbath, and special grants such as the use of a room in the Temple that the high priest had made available to Tobias. These three adversaries reportedly made a concerted effort to thwart the construction project by attacking the builders in the course of their work. The latter were forced to divide into two groups-those who were actually building and those who were to stand guard (Neh. 4: 15). Unsuccessful in this endeavor, these leaders then sent letters and prophets to intimidate and incite the Jerusalem population against Nehemiah and ultimately tried to have 72. 73. 74. 75.

Shiloh, "Jerusalem: Persian Period," 709. Avigad, Bullae and Seals, 22,28-29. For a summary of excavations in Jerusalem, see Carter, Emergence ofYehud, 134-148. If we add the tensions with Ashdod recorded later on (Neh. 13:23-24), then Judaea's adversaries included people from all directions. 76. Widengren, "Persian Period," 509-514, and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:81-83.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.c. E.)

27

him killed. 77 Nehemiah triumphantly reports how he foiled all these schemes, one after another (Neh. 6). The socioeconomic hardships endured by many of the city's inhabitants likewise engaged Nehemiah's attention during these early days. Economic crises (perhaps exacerbated by the burden of rebuilding the city's wall) led to polarization, with members of the priesthood, affluent families, and local officials aligning on one side and farmers and small landowners on the other: Some said, "Our sons and daughters are numerous; we must get grain to eat in order that we may live!" Others said, "We must pawn our fields, our vineyards, and our homes to get grain to stave off hunger." Yet others said, "We have borrowed money against our fields and vineyards to pay the king's tax. Now we are as good as our brothers, and our children as good as theirs; yet here we are subjecting our sons and daughters to slavery-some of our daughters are already subjected-and we are powerless, while our fields and vineyards belong to others" (Neh. 5:2-5). Nehemiah's solution was far-reaching: Fields and vineyards were returned to their original owners and burdensome debts were canceled. He forced this arrangement on creditors at a public meeting, in part by shaming them into agreeing. Nehemiah believed that these steps went a long way toward rectifying this precarious social situation; they also won him the gratitude and loyalty of the populace. Moreover, Nehemiah further eased the people's burden by forfeiting his food allowance and personally contributed to the wall's construction by having his servants help with the work (Neh. 5:14-18). Within the wider international context, the nature and goals of Nehemiah's publie career were far from exceptional. The example of Udjahorresnet is instructive in this regard: The Egyptian priest was empowered by the Persian authorities to carry out reforms similar to some of those attributed to Nehemiah and Ezra. Moreover, Udjahorresnet's career is described in an autobiographical inscription, complete with personal prayers, thus resembling Nehemiah's memoirs. 78 The combination of roles operative in Jerusalem-Nehemiah, a Persian official who was also part of the indigenous population-was a familiar pattern elsewhere as well. In Sidon, for example, the local king doubled as a Persian official. 79 The conflicting foci of authority and the clash of interests are all too evident, at least in potentia. Turning a little more afield, to the Greek world about 150 years before Nehemiah, Solon of Athens had attempted to rectify a similar social situation by 77. On the role of prophets in Ezra-Nehemiah, and especially that of Noadiah the prophetess, see Carroll, "Coopting the Prophets," 87-99. 78. BJenkinsopp, "Mission of Udjahorresnet," 409-421. 79. Elayi and Sapin, Beyond the River, 145-156.

28

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

issuing decrees like those of Nehemiah; and not long before the latter built the walls of Jerusalem, Themistocles carried out a similar project connecting the harbors of Piraeus with Athens.8o A few years later, after Nehemiah, Pericles enacted laws restricting Athenian citizenship to those born of Athenian citizens, analogous perhaps to both Ezra's and Nehemiah's endeavor to determine who was entitled to be counted among the people of IsraePI Nehemiah's actions strikingly correspond with those of the populist leaders in the Greek cities of the sixth and fIfth centuries B.C.E.,82 who-often referred to by their aristocratic opponents as "tyrants" (i.e., strong leaders )-based their rule on broad support from the lower and middle classes, which they often acquired by fortifying and strengthening their cities, instituting major social and economic reforms (for example, the cancellation of debts and return of land), standing firm against external foes, and initiating cultic reforms. These tyrants would cultivate specific groups in a society and then use these alliances to pursue other objectives. Nehemiah, for his part, granted many rights to the levites, who then became his most ardent supporters (Neh. 8:11,9:4,5, 10:1-29,38-40,12:27-30,13:10--13,29-31). As noted at the outset of this chapter, some of the programs and policies of Ezra and Nehemiah, such as building fortifications, resolving economic issues, and defining who could not be part of the community, may have been influenced to some degree by the agenda of the Persian government. Moreover, Persian authorities were actively involved in the codification of local law as part of the pax Persica, an involvement more pronounced in the first part of the Persian era. It was Darius who directed that a commission be appointed to carry out this type of codification in regard to traditional Egyptian law, which was to be reinforced on a par with Persian imperiallaw.83 Similar imperial support may well have been forthcoming in the efforts of Jerusalem's leaders to define a new religious agenda for the city and province, but of this we cannot be certain.

Religious Reforms Having first dealt with political, socioeconomic, and security issues, Nehemiah then focused on religious and cultic matters, for which he seems to have joined 80. Lenardon, Saga ofThemistocles, 37. 81. For parallels of the instances cited here, see M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 126-147, 170; Weinfeld, Justice and Righteousness, 84-100; G. Moore, Judaism, 1:20; and Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 267 n. 15. 82. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 126-147. Despite its compelling nature, the weakness of Smith's evidence is that no one tyrant combined all the policies and programs implemented by Nehemiah. In other words, only by drawing a composite of tyrant-associated activities, as documented in Greek sources, can one find a complete parallel to Nehemiah. 83. N. Reich, "Codification," 178-185, and Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 149-151.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

29

forces with Ezra. This phase commenced with a public reading of the Torah. 84 The nature and content of this "Torah" (or Teaching) is unclear. Called by a variety of names (Book of Moses, Teaching of Moses, Teaching of God, or simply Teaching or Book of the Teaching), it may indeed refer to the Torah (i.e., the Pentateuch) as we know it or, alternatively, a penultimate version of the Torah or some other collection of priestly or Deuteronomic materials, most of which were eventually incorporated into the Pentateuch. 85 It is also unclear how revolutionary this Torah was. Was something entirely new being introduced, or did this document incorporate laws and practices already familiar to Jerusalemites and the inhabitants of Yehud?86 Whatever the case, on the first day of the seventh month (i.e., Tishri, some time in September), the people gathered in the open space in front ofthe Water Gate to hear the Torah being read, a ceremony that continued from dawn till noon. Standing on a wooden platform, Ezra read these words while others explained them to those gathered, a practice not unfamiliar to the Persian court, where records were recited aloud. 87 This day is described as one of feasting, merrymaking, and giving food to the needy (Neh. 8:1-12). The following day, the heads of the clans, priests, and levites met with Ezra to read the laws relating to the upcoming holiday of Sukkot, and the people then went out to the mountains to gather branches and leaves for constructing sukkot (booths), in which they sat and read the Torah daily throughout the holiday several weeks later (Neh. 8:13-18).88 On the twenty-fourth of Tishri, the people again assembled, but this time the mood was somber, as fasting and mourning took priority. For one quarter of the day they read the Torah and for another they confessed their sins and prostrated themselves (Neh. 9: 1-5). They subsequently took an oath ''to follow the Teaching of God given through Moses the servant of God, and to observe carefully all the commandments of the Lord our God, His rules and laws" (Neh. 10: 30). This oath sealed a covenant (or pact-iTlY.lX) that included abstaining from marriage to 84. On the literary and ideological components in this account, see Duggan, Covenant Renewal. 85. See Kaufmann, History of Israelite Religion, VlII:340-345; Widengren, "Persian Period," 514-515; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 152-157; Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 90-98; and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:94-98. While most material in Ezra-Nehemiah is similar or identical to Pentateuchallaw, some details are strikingly different, e.g., fasting on the twenty-fourth of Tishri, ignoring Yom Kippur on the tenth of that month (Neh. 9:1), and giving one-third instead of one-half sheqel to the Temple (Neh. 10:33). 86. On the theory that the Persian government played a central role in "authorizing" the Torah's promulgation, as well as a number of critical reactions to this suggestion, see Watts, Persia and Torah. See also Runesson, Origins of the Synagogue, 261-303. 87. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 108-109: "Such a lexical expansion was arguably influenced by Persian courtier customs of declaiming records and by Iranian terminology." 88. Ibid., 109-113. See also Kaufmann, History of Israelite Religion, VIII:327-329, who considers the Nehemiah Sukkot tradition to be a midrashic synthesis of the priestly and Deuteronomic sources.

30

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

gentiles; observing the Sabbath and sabbatical year rulings; giving one third of a sheqel to the Temple each year; and regularly providing bread and meal offerings, daily sacrifices, wood, first fruits, offerings for the firstborn, and contributions for priests (terurnah, hallah) and levites (rna 'aser)-all of which are stipulated in the Torah (Neh. 10:31-40). Observance of these laws, therefore, was designed to ensure the support necessary for the Temple's proper functioning. This public gathering is reminiscent of the inauguration of Josiah's reforms several centuries earlier, which likewise involved a public gathering, the reading of a book (presumably Deuteronomy), addressing issues of impurity (in Josiah's case, idolatry as well), securing the sanctity of the Temple, and celebrating the heretofore ignored Passover holiday (2 Kings 23: 1-25). Thus, while Ezra and Nehemiah undoubtedly revered and supported the Temple, the reforms they introduced may have indirectly provided the basis for an institution that eventually would supplement the Temple as a focus ofthe people's spiritual life. The sacred text ultimately assumed a more central role in Jewish society. It is quite possible that the repeated reading of the Torah first orchestrated by Ezra, followed by the pact forged between the people and the God of Israel (Neh. 8-lO), was destined to playa role in this development. Henceforth, whoever wished to know the will of God did not have to tum to a prophet, but rather looked to the Torah. Midrash (the search for determining God's will through Scripture) eventually became central, and the mantle of religious authority would come to rest more and more on the shoulders of those who knew how to interpret the sacred text. Over the course of time, the learned argument began to hold sway over apodictic rulings, and the scribe or sage assumed a role in some ways equal to and even surpassing that of the priest and prophet. 89 During the Second Temple period, the custom of reading the Torah in public developed as a means of worshiping God and understanding His commandments. Initially, this reading took place only on Sabbaths and holidays, but after the destruction of the Second Temple it was read on weekdays as well. The reading of the haftarah (a selection from one of the books of the Prophets) was added at some point, as were the sermon and targurn (the translation of the Torah into Aramaic, and perhaps also into Greek).90 Despite the enthusiasm ostensibly generated by the convocation ceremony reported in Neh. 8-lO, it seems that before long matters reverted to the status quo ante. Nehemiah went back to Persia after twelve years in Jerusalem, only to return to the city where he found a situation that was completely different from the one he had left behind. Intermarriage remained rampant, Tobias the Ammonite was 89. See the various articles on the sage in Second Temple Judaism in Gammie and Perdue. Sage. 90. On synagogue ritual in the Second Temple period, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 124-159.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 8.C.E.)

31

ensconced in a room of the Temple, tithes were not being given to the levites, Temple-related commandments were being ignored, and both Jews and foreigners (Tyrians) were violating the Sabbath. Nehemiah set out on a vigorous campaign to rectify matters (Neh. 13:4-31), but the degree of his success is unknown because his memoirs terminate at this point. 9 !

The Enigmatic Fourth Century B.C.E. Jerusalem was the capital and major city of the Persian province of Yehud, itself part of the fifth satrapy, which included Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia, and CypruS.92 Like most other provinces in the empire during this era, Yehud enjoyed a good measure of autonomy, at times limited only by the interference of Persian officials. 93 Yehud was divided into five districts, centering around Bet Hakerem, Mizpah, Bet Zur, Keilah, and Jerusalem. The exact size of the province is unclear, since the books of Ezra and Nehemiah preserve no less than five different lists of inhabitants and settlements that contain many discrepancies. Any attempt to offer a definite demarcation is well nigh impossible. 94 Archaeological remains may, however, clarify this situation, at least in part. Seal impressions and coins that were routinely issued by the local administration might well indicate an area of provincial jurisdiction. Such fmds have been discovered in the Shephelah west of Jerusalem; at Mizpah, Gibeon, and Tell el-Ful to its north; at Jericho and 'En Gedi to the east; and at Ramat Rachel and Bet Zur to the south. We may therefore assume, albeit cautiously, that these indeed were Yehud's borders: from Mizpah in the north to Bet Zur in the south, and from the Jordan River and Jericho in the east to the Shephelah in the west (including Lod, Ono, Hadid, Yarmut, and 'Azekah) (Fig. 6).95 What seems clear, however, is that the population was concentrated around Jerusalem, i.e., in northern Judaea and Benjamin; the southern regions appear to have suffered more at the hands of the Babylonians.% The population of the province probably numbered in the tens of thousands, with a marked increase posited for the latter part of the era (fifth to fourth centuries B.C.E.).97 91. Fishbane, BiblicalInterpretation, 123-133. 92. Herodotus 3, 89-94. See Eph'al, "Syria-Palestine," 153-164. As to when Yehud became a separate province, in the sixth or only in the fifth and fourth centuries, see the contrasting opinions of Kochman, "Yehud Medinta," 3-30, and E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 580-582. 93. Ant. 11.7,1,300-301. See Williamson, "Governors ofJudah," 59-82. 94. Grabbe, Judaism, I:79-88. See also Avi-Yonah, Holy Land, 11-31, and Weippert, PaWstina, 687-692. 95. Avi-Yonah, Holy Land, 13-22; Carter, Emergence of Yehud, 75-113; and in an abbreviated format, Carter, "Province ofYehud," 114-127. 96. Carter, "Province ofYehud," 109-127. 97. E. Stern, Material Culture, 31-40, 245-249. Estimates of the population of Yehud range from less than twenty thousand to more than two hundred thousand; see, in a minimalist to maximalist order:

32

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Chephlrah

*

...,

Mltzpahfjl Ramah Glbeon

*.**

*

QlryatYe'artm *

*Beerot JERUSALEM

Mlchmash Geba Azm avet

*~:atot

0

* * * Netofah

Bet. Ha-I(erem

Bethlehem

Teqoa * *set-Zur

Figure 6. Yehud's borders.

During this time, as has been noted, Jerusalem was located on the eastern ridge and included most of the City of David to the south (minus the eastern slopesca. ten dunams, i.e., two and a half acres), an area to the north that mayor may not have been similar to that of Solomon's Temple and royal palace, and the land connecting the two, often referred to as the Ophel (or, at times, the Millo). Calculating the city's population with any degree of certainty remains a formidable and almost impossible task. Given the fact that the best way of estimating this number is by applying a population-density coefficient to an inhabited area, the issues of geography and demography are clearly inextricably intertwined. The problems begin with the fact that we cannot be sure of the precise area that the city occupied or how much was used for public space (sacred and administrative). Then there is the issue of how densely settled the sections of the city were, particularly the Ophel, where, for example, no Persian artifacts have yet been found . Finally, what coefficient figures should be used for calculating Jerusalem's urban populations? Estimates of 20 to more than 100 people per dunam (i.e., 80 to 400 per acre) have been suggested for the ancient world in general. What accounts Carter, Emergence ofYehud, 107-108, and "Province of Yehud," 134-135 (a maximum of seventeen thousand); E. M. Meyers, "Second Temple Studies," 30 (eighteen to twenty thousand); Albright, Biblical Period, 87 (no more than twenty thousand); Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Community, 43 (two hundred thousand). Blenkinsopp, "Temple and Society," 43 and n. 3, prefers a number closer to that of Albright rather than that of Weinberg.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

33

for this wide range of estimates? Scholars have often based their suggestions on parallels drawn from very different kinds of settlements (cities, towns, or villages) or different periods: an ancient or modem settlement, a Middle Eastern model, or one from an entirely different geographical area. Other features are sometimes taken into account as well: a locale's cultural and economic life, local ethnic needs and standards, environmental considerations, and the political status of a city (e.g., a capital city).98 Despite these diverse options, most scholars have opted for either 20 to 25 or 40 to 50 people per dunam (80 to 100 or 160 to 200 per acre), depending on which type of parallel one wishes to draw.99 Our suggestion is that Persian Jerusalem-without the eastern slope-included 120 to 130 dunams (about thirty acres) and that the popUlation of the city ranged between four and five thousand.lOo Nevertheless, it should be noted that the numbers listed in N eh. 11 indicate a figure of some three thousand people. If, however, the reference is to adult males only, then a population of ten to fifteen thousand is called for, as has been advocated by Weinberg (twelve to fifteen thousand) 101 and B. Mazar (who speaks of ten thousand in the city and another five thousand outside the walls ).102 If, on the other hand, the Nehemiah number refers to the entire population, then the evidence is not far off our estimate. 103 As regards the layout of the city itself, only scraps of information can be gleaned from Nehemiah's various descriptions of the city wall and gates (Neh. 2:11-16, 3:1-32, 12:31-42).104 Throughout the ages, Jerusalem required special protection from the north, where it was most vulnerable to attack; in other directions, several steep valleys made the city almost impenetrable. Thus we read of the Hananel and Hundred's Towers in the north, the Tower of Ovens in the west, and the Jutting Tower in the east. An inner tower, connected to what is termed the King's House, is also noted on the eastern side of the city. Gates 98. Hollingsworth, Historical Demography, 278-284, and Schacht, "Estimating Past Population Trends," 128-131. 99. For maximum estimates, see Broshi, "Estimating the Population," 5-14; Shiloh, "Population of Iron Age Palestine," 30--31; Zorn, "Estimating the Population Size," 31-48; and Van Beek, "Population Estimate," 65-66. On the minimal side, see Wenke, "Imperial Investments," 89-92, and Carter, Emergence ofYehud, 201-202. See also Tarler and Cahill, "David, City of," 65-67; C. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, "Demography and Diatribes," 278-282; and Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 73-76. 100. This calculation is based on a popUlation coefficient of 40 to 50 people per dunam (or 160 to 200 people per acre). Carter, Emergence of Yehud, 201, estimates a population of only 1,500, having calculated Jerusalem's area at only sixty dunams (fifteen acres). One reason for preferring the larger number is owing to Jerusalem's political and religious importance for the local population and for Jews abroad (e.g., Elephantine and Babylonia), a factor that may well have increased the city's numbers. 101. Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Communit)l 42-43, and Weinberg, "Jerusalem in the Persian Period," 316. 102. B. Mazar, Mountain of the Lord, 200. 103. See also Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 320--327, and Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 59. 104. For various treatments of this issue, see n. 66.

34

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 7. Bullae (seals) from the City of David excavations.

were to be found in every direction, with the heaviest concentration in the north, bearing the names Sheep, Fish, Yeshannh (perhaps Old), and Ephraim. These names are clearly not fortuitous, indicating the proximity of markets (sheep and fish) or a building (the prison; see below). To the west were the Valley Gate and perhaps the Comer Gate, and to the southwest, the Jackal's Gate. On the southern tip of Jerusalem, where the Qidron and Central Valleys meet, were the Dung and Fountain Gates, as well as a series of noteworthy sites: steps (perhaps monumental) leading up to the City of David, David's tomb, several pools, and the House of the Warriors. On the eastern side of the city were the Water and Horse Gates, and in the north presumably the Gate of the Prison Compound, or Armory (Matarah). A number of individual homes, including that of the High Priest Eliashib, are mentioned, most of which were located on the eastern side of the city. The dominant leadership position in Jerusalem was that of governor ofYehud, who seems to have controlled political affairs. lOS The Bible names Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14), Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:1), and Nehemiah (Neh. 5: 14) as governors, and a papyrus from Elephantine (no. 30) dating to 408 B.C.E. mentions a governor called Bagohi (Bagavahya).I06 This title is also linked to others, Urio, Hananiah, Elnathan, Yeho'azar, Ahzai, and Yehizqiah, whose names appear on seals, or bullae, stamped onjug handles (Fig. 7) and on coins from this period. 107 On the basis of these names, it is apparent that many, if not most, governors of Yehud were Jews, a situation that, as noted, conforms with the Persian practice of appointing local leaders whenever possible.

105. McEvenue, "Political Structure in Judah," 353-364. 106. Porten, Archivesfrom Elephantine, 289-290. 107. Grabbe, Judaism, 1:68-73, and Porten and Yardeni, Textbook ofAramaic Documents, I:A 4.7, A 4.8, A 4.9.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 8.C.E.)

35

A second leading figure at the time was the high priest, whose authority seems to have focused largely on Temple affairs. 108 This was true at the time of Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Zechariah, when Jeshua son of Jehozadak: served in this position, and continued to be the case throughout most of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. Some of these priestly families opposed the policies of Ezra and Nehemiah (discussed below). The names of high priests in the Persian era have been preserved in Ezra 10:6 as well as Neh. 12:10-11,22-23, and 28, and by Josephus. I09 Aided by the Wadi Daliyeh finds, a continuous tradition of ten generations has been reconstructed, though not universally accepted. liD A Yehud coin from the fourth century B.C.E. bears the inscription "Yohanan the [high?] priest" and possibly his image as well. The appearance of priests on local coinage is a powerful statement of their prominence and centrality in Persian Jerusalem.1l1 Together with the priestly clans, the levites also constituted a recognizable presence in the city at this time. Nehemiah appears to have assiduously cultivated the latter as political supporters, although how long they maintained their preferred status thereafter is conjectural. We hear very little about this group in subsequent centuries. The above-noted papyrus from Elephantine indicates that Jerusalem's religious leadership was viewed, at least by this Diaspora community, as authoritative. Nevertheless, the fact that Jerusalem initially did not respond to the original query from the Elephantine leaders may reflect a tendency among the city's priests to remain aloof, especially in regard to what may well have been viewed as a rival and illegitimate Jewish sanctuary.ll2 Indeed, toward the end of the fourth century B.C.E., at the beginning of the Hellenistic era, a number of Greek authors-such as Theophrastus and Megasthenus-portrayed the Jews of Jerusalem as philosophers who devoted their time to the Temple in deep reflection and meditation and who 108. Rooke, Zadok's Heirs, 125-174. For an attempt to characterize the ideology of this Zadokite priesthood in the Persian and subsequent eras, see Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 43-82. Note, however, that Josephus, writing much later and thus perhaps influenced by subsequent developments within the high priesthood, claims that the form of government in Jerusalem in the Persian and Hellenistic eras was both aristocratic and oligarchic, and that the high priest was in charge (Ant. 11.4, 8, 111). It is of interest in this regard that the letter from the Elephantine community in 411 was addressed to the Jerusalem high priest; only later, when no reply was forthcoming, was a second one dispatched to the Persian governors of Judaea and Samaria. 109. Ant. 11.5,1,121; 7,1,297; 7, 2, 302. 110. Cross, "Reconstruction," 4-18. Compare, however, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 336-338. On the Wadi Daliyeh finds, see NEAEHL, "Wadi Daliyeh." 111. See below, as well as Cross, "Reconstruction," 9-11, and Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 7-12. A poignant indication of priestly prominence at the time is reflected in the Chronicler's retelling of King Uzziah's contraction of leprosy, assigning the priests a pivotal role in his reproach and subsequent affliction; see 2 Chron. 26:14-21 in contrast to 2 Kings 15:1-5. 112. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Jerusalem authorities eventually responded, making allowances for the observance of a nonsacrificial ritual.

36

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

lived their lives according to the Law of Moses.l13 This type of religious isolation was an integral part of the religious and social policy promUlgated by Ezra and Nehemiah, and it appears to have had an impact on subsequent generations. 1l4 Jewish tradition, inherited from past generations but now given a far more focused and rigid application by the golah community, was likewise a major factor in shaping Jewish society. The total exclusion oflocal shrines, idolatry, and figurines at this time stands in sharp contrast with the situation that held sway earlier.l15 It is, therefore, not surprising that the personal names associated with Jerusalem from this era are distinctly Jewish, including certain official titles known from earlier times. Although there is much truth to this image of a relatively insulated, staid, conservative Jewish society, this view does not constitute a complete picture and must be balanced by other considerations. We have already noted a number of developments in Persian Jerusalem that resulted from direct and indirect influences from the outside world. The missions of Ezra and Nehemiah parallel those of other contemporary leaders, the status of Jerusalem as a temple-city reflects well-known foreign models, and many newly emerging religious concerns were at times strikingly similar to those of other peoples: reinstating traditional law and practice, the emergence of a class of scribes and savants who focus on a holy text, the heightened emphasis on Temple-related obligations, purity concerns, and defining a given community so rigorously so as to exclude others, and rnore. 1I6 The very centrality of the Temple during this period and its preeminent recognition by the Persian authorities place the city, and even the province of Yehud, in the category of temple-states and temple-communities that flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and farther eastward during the Persian and Hellenistic eras.ll7 Two further phenomena make their appearance in Persian Jerusalem, each of which clearly points to the profound influence of Persian norms on the Jews. Aramaic was to gain a significant presence in Jewish society, and it was to remain a constant and dominant language until the end of antiquity. Originally spread by the Assyrian Empire and then adopted by the Persians, Aramaic became the lingua franca of the latter empire for both colloquial use and government and diplomatic 113. GLAJJ, I: 10,46,50.

114. For the suggestion that Hecataeus of Abdera's description of Jewish society derived from priestly circles and was heavily influenced by the ideology of Ezra-Nehemiah, albeit in a Greek garb, see Mendels, "Hecataeus of Abdera," 96-110. 115. The former situation has been referred to as "pagan Yahwism" (E. Stem, "Pagan Yahwism," 21-29) or as a polytheism of either the superficial and fetishistic or the more profound variety; see Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 37-41. 116. Bickerrnan, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 14-31, and Blidstein, "Atimia," 357-360; and above. 117. See, e.g., Strabo, Geography 12, 2, 3, C535; 12,2,6, C537; Blenkinsopp, "Temple and Society," 22-34. See also Broughton, "New Evidence on Temple-Estates," 236-250, and Weinberg, CitizenTemple Community, 24-33.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E)

37

Figure S. Samaria in the Persian era.

communications.1I8 The Aramaic documents in the book of Ezra (e.g., 7: 12-26), as well some of the narratives there, clearly attest to this penetration. 119The eventual need to have the synagogue Torah reading translated into Aramaic (targum) is eloquent testimony to this new reality. Moreover, the concept bet avot, which appears frequently in Chronicles and signifies a unit that comprises a number of related families, seems to have much in common with other land-holding groups attested throughout the Persian Empire. 120 The tension in Jerusalem surrounding the degree of openness toward others and the fact that attitudes had become far more hostile under the influence of the Babylonian returnees are reflected in the Samaritan question. Many Israelites had remained in Samaria after Sargon's conquest in 722 (despite the claims of 2 Kings 17 :6,24),121 so much so that Hezekiah and Josiah attempted to reach out and include this population in Jerusalem's religious celebrations and reforms (2 Kings 23:15-20; 2 Cbron. 30:1-18, 34:6-7). Reciprocally, there is at least one piece of evidence that some of this northern population was receptive; following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 586, eighty people brought offerings to Jerusalem (Jer. 41 :5) (Fig. 8). 118. See Naveh and Greenfield, "Hebrew and Aramaic," 115-129. 119. No less significant is Nehemiah's bemoaning the fact that Hebrew was being abandoned in favor of neighboring languages (Neh. 13 :24). 120. Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Community, 24--31, 49-61. See also, by way of comparison, the hiltrus of Achaemenid Babylonia, in Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire, 70-103, as well as the more general comments of Grabbe, Judaism, 1:20-23. Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Community, has taken this concept of bet avot further, positing that these communities, essentially made up of the golah returnees, constituted the dominant political, social, and economic force in Yehud. Reactions to this idea have been mixed, from the enthusiastic and appreciative to the critical (at times quite harsh) . See, e.g., Dion, "Civic-and-Temple Community," 281-287; Eskenazi, "Current Perspectives," 67-69; Blenkinsopp, "Temple and Society," 40-50; Carter, Emergence ofYehud, 294-307; and Williamson, "Judah and the Jews," 145-163. 121. See Broshi and Finkelstein, "Population of Palestine," 3-24.

38

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Under Persia, however, the attitude of the Babylonian leadership toward this neighboring population-from Zerubbabel to Nehemiah-was singularly hostile. The attempts by Samaritans in the sixth century to be involved in the Temple's rebuilding were rebuffed (Ezek. 4:1-5), and they were subsequently referred to as "the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" (Ezek. 4: 1). Later on, Sanballat's opposition to Nehemiah is highlighted in the latter's memoirs; the former is always cast in negative terms (Neh. 2:10,19, 4:1-2,6:1). Nevertheless, not all Jerusalemites rejected the Samaritans. Some maintained normal relations, and this is especially noted in regard to the marriage of several men from the high priestly family to Samaritan women (Neh. 13:28).122 Such ties were not limited to these instances or to high priestly families. Thus, in fifth- and fourth-century Jerusalem, tensions were often high concerning the desirability and permissibility of ties (marital and otherwise) with Samaritans.123 Archaeological finds have proved quite surprising vis-a-vis the question of Jerusalem's receptiveness to outside influence. Beginning in the fourth century B.C.E. (although some scholars would posit at the end of the fifth century B.C.E.), the Jerusalem authorities began to issue minute silver coins for local needs. 124 These coins bore both inanimate (the lily) and animate decorations; for instance, the owl, symbol of Athens, was a common motif, as were images of a winged creature (a vulture or eagle), a leaping winged animal, and perhaps a god sitting on a winged wheel (Figs. 9 and 10). Various human images are also depicted, such as a warrior (a man wearing a helmet) and the head of a Persian king. Some coins bore figures and the inscriptions: "Yehizqiah the governor" and "Yohanan the priest," the latter being in all probability a high priest. The name "Yehudah" appears on another coin, although no known high priest bore that name. 125 Yehizqiah the governor may well be identified with Ezechias, who lived toward the end of the fourth century and who was referred to by Josephus as a high priest, "highly esteemed by his countrymen" and having obtained much "honor" (see Chapter 2).126 In the latter cases, it is quite possible that the names and titles noted belong to the very figures that appear on the coins. If so, this would be the only instance in antiquity in which Jewish leaders are depicted. Moreover, the 122. And possibly Ant. 11.7,2, 302-303. Whether Josephus has preserved a second account or only a garbled version of the first has been debated for generations, see Cross, "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History," 201-224, and Mor, "Samaritan History," 4-7. 123. On the larger issue of universalism vs. isolationism in Judaism at the time, see Weinfeld, "Universalism and Particularism," 228-242, and M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, passim; and throughout the Second Temple period, see Schalit, Konig Herodes, 513-562 (Hebrew ed., 252-272). 124. See Meshorer, Treasury, 1-19, as well as Rappaport, "First Judean Coinage," 1-17; Machinist, "First Coins of Judah and Samaria," 365-380; and Ariel, "Survey of Coin Finds," 275-277. 125. Meshorer, Treasury, 14-15. 126. Against Apion 1.22, 187-189.

39

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

Figure 9. A Yehud coin depicting an owl.

Figure 10. A Yehud coin depicting some

The legend reads:"Yehizqiah the Peha

divinity (perhaps) on a winged wheel.

[governor)."

actual use of coins by the Jerusalem authorities was itself a foreign import; these coins, including their decorative motifs, are, in fact, quite similar to those from Athens, the coastal region of Palestine (commonly referred to as Philisto-Arabian coins), and Cilicia in Asia Minor. The most surprising aspect of these coins, of course, is the appearance of human images. It would seem that in this period, continuing First Temple practice, the Jews did not adhere to a restrictive interpretation of the Second Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image or any likeness" (Exod. 20:4). In fact, the Bible itself records many instances of figural art: cherubim over the Ark; lions beside Solomon's throne; twelve oxen supporting the giant laver (literally, the molten sea) that stood before the Temple; ten bronze laver stands featuring lions, oxen, and cherubs (I Kings 7:29); Moses' bronze serpent; and numerous figurines and statues from a plethora of Israelite sites. From this perspective, then, the Yehud coins can be construed as a continuation of the use of figural art from the previous period. Apparently, the prohibition of the second commandment applied only to images relating to actual idolatry and not to symbols used for decorative and ornamental purposes.127 What is especially unusual about these coins is not so much the use of images generally, but rather the representations themselves-symbols associated with other peoples (the owl of Athens), mythological figures, and possibly images of contemporary Jewish personalities. Nothing remotely similar to this practice can be found in any other period of premodern Jewish history. These coins clearly reflect the willingness of the city's leaders (and perhaps the general population as well) to use figural symbols borrowed from the outside world, and even to place the images of their own Jewish leaders on the coins of their city and province.J28 127. Machinist, "First Coins of Judah and Samaria," 365-380. 128. Barag, "Silver Coin of Yah an an," 4-21. Barag, "Some Notes," 168, suggests that this figure may have been simply a mask, attested on Greek coinage as well.

40

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

The penetration of foreign influences into Persian Jerusalem of the fourth century B.C.E. is reflected in other archaeological fmds as well. It has long been recognized that as regards the material culture of Persian Palestine, a geographical distinction can be made between the coastal area and the Galilee on the one hand and the interior central highlands (Samaria, Yehud) on the other. Greek influence was pervasive in the former, but much less so in the latter. 129 However, this distinction requires further refinement. Regarding Yehud, for example, a chronological differentiation is also called for. Two very different periods can be discerned: The fIrSt, extending to the end of the fifth century B.C.E., can be characterized as continuing First Temple or Iron Age practice; the names on the seals and bullae follow those of the earlier kingdom of Judah, as does the use of weights and the ancient Hebrew script. In the fourth century B.C.E., however, these traditional uses and practices were supplemented, and at times replaced, by Greek influences that reached Jerusalem and its environs via the coastal region. Elements of Greek culture, not the least of which was the use of coinage, began to penetrate inland, manifesting itself in a range of everyday items. Greek pottery, for example, was more ubiquitous in fourth-century Yehud and Jerusalem than before, when local Iron Age pottery traditions remained dominant. Even locally made pottery now showed traces of foreign influence. Once again, this phenomenon is surprising in light of the relative isolation of the city and province that the written sources convey, although, even in these, some small cleavages are discernible. The universalism articulated by Deutero-Isaiah 56:1-8,60:1-3 and, to a lesser extent, Zech. 14:16-21 offers a perspective different from that of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the former may have had a powerful influence on the actions of Jerusalem's elite. Jerusalem's society seems to have been far more complex and diverse than heretofore imagined, and it is quite possible that the vast and heterogeneous Persian Empire actively encouraged, and certainly seemed to enable, these various cultures to coexist. A conservative bent might well have flourished alongside more innovative and dynamic perspectives; such was the case in Egypt and seems to have held true for Yehud as well. l3O Of particular interest is one relatively large Yehud coin fIrst published at the beginning of the eighteenth century; it is about ten times heavier than other Yehud coins and bears an Aramaic, instead of a Hebrew, script. However, the most unusual aspect of this particular coin, which has generated much discussion, is the depiction of a bearded and helmeted man sitting on a winged wheel holding a bird (presumably an eagle or falcon). At fIrst, the inscription "Yehud" was misinterpreted as referring to either Yahweh (Yahu) or a syncretistic divinity, and the representation depicted a god, or perhaps specifIcally the God of Israel. Other suggestions include a depiction of a Persian governor and a representation of the prophet Ezekiel; see Meshorer, Treasury, 2-4, and references therein. 129. E. Stem, "Archaeology of Persian Palestine," 112-113. See also Eph'al, "Changes in Palestine," 106-119. 130. These complementary forces existed in Egypt as it moved from the Saite dynasty (664-525) to direct Persian rule and then to independence in thefourth century (404-341); see Johnson, "Persians," 149-159.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

41

The Persian government's recognition of the centrality and importance of Jerusalem as well as its granting the city privileges and support undoubtedly contributed, however indirectly, to the enhancement of Jerusalem in Jewish eyes as well. Persian recognition encouraged the Jews themselves to ascribe an increasingly enhanced status to the city; and this, quite naturally, reinforced their own historical and religious bonds to the City of David and its Temple. Jerusalem is referred to in the literature of the period as follows: "the nations and the countries round about her" (Ezek. 5:5), "I chose Jerusalem for My name to abide there" (2 Chron. 6:6), "the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God" (Ps. 48:9), "The Lord Is There" (Ezek. 48:35), "the God that is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:3), "God of Jerusalem" (2 Chron. 32: 19), "God ofIsrael ... [who has] made His dwelling in Jerusalem forever" (1 Chron. 23:25), "Thus said the Lord ... I will dwell in Jerusalem (Zech. 8:3), and "May the Lord bless you from Zion" (Ps. 128:5, 134:3). Indeed, the collection of the Songs of Ascents (Ps. 120-134), which focus largely on Jerusalem and consider the city a source of blessing and hope for all the people, were probably redacted during this period. 131 Jerusalem plays the central role not only in the book of Psalms but in the books of Chronicles as well. Of the 660 times the city is mentioned in the entire Bible, it appears in Chronicles more than 150 times. This constitutes about 22 percent of all occurrences, even though the books of Chronicles make up only one eighth of the biblical corpus.132 Moreover, Chronicles emphasize the sanctity of Jerusalem historically, theologically, and ethnically: It is the earliest source to identify Mount Zion with Mount Moriah of the 'Aqedah (1 Chron. 3: 1), and this work introduces an explicit divine sanction for David's choice of the city as his capital by describing a ftre that descended from heaven to light the altar (1 Chron. 21:26). Moreover, the inhabitants of the city are symbolically representative of all Israel, corning from Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (1 Chron. 9:3).133 In a sense, Chronicles reflect a culmination in the centralization of the Israelite-Jewish religious focus on Jerusalem and its Temple. Beginning with David and Solomon and developing markedly under Hezekiah and Josiah, this process reached a new level of intensity in the historical and theological work of the Chronicler. According to the prophets of the Second Temple era, and continuing an earlier tradition inherited from late First Temple days, Jerusalem had become a barometer of the people's moral and religious standing; neglect of the city on their part leads to God's neglect of them (Hag. 1:9-11,2: 18-19; Mal. 3:10-11). 131. Crow, Songs of Ascents, 181-187. Whether these psalms reflect actual pilgrimages at this time is difficult to say. 132. Beentjes, "Jerusalem in the Book of Chronicles," 15-28. 133. See Japhet, Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 237-264. On the various names used by Chronicles for the Temple, see Hurvitz, "Terms and Epithets," 165-183.

42

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

While not all the prophets necessarily subscribed to this type of emphasis on the city (Isa. 66:1-2; Mal. 1:10-11), it would seem that for many of those living there, the above perceptions were fully shared. One historical note relates to the fourth century on the basis of later, Roman-Byzantine, sources-Solinus, Eusebius, Jerome, Orosius, and Syncellus. They report briefly and enigmatically the subjugation of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes lll, and some of them mention the transfer of Jews of Palestine to Hyrcania, near the Caspian Sea. 134 Hints of tension can be found in both Hecataeus ("nor the frequent outrages of Persian kings and satraps . . . can shake their determination")135 and Josephus ("Bagoses ... defiled the sanctuary and imposed a tribute on the Jews").136 It has been suggested that at least some of these instances may have been connected to the unrest in Palestine resulting from the rebellion of Tennes, king of Sidon, ca. 350 B.C.E. 137 Excavations in Jericho indicate a severe fourth-century destruction there. How these events affected Jerusalem and Jewish society, however, is unknown.

The Persian Era in Perspective Throughout the Persian era, the Temple played a central role in the life of Jerusalem. The priests constituted the ruling class, both politically and religiously ("For the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; for he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts"; Mal. 2:7), and all eyes looked to the Temple-the focus of national and religious life. Jerusalem was considered a temple-city whose status and uniqueness were ipso facto due to the presence of the Temple. The first waves of returning exiles attempted to restore the threefold leadership of the First Temple period: Davidic ruler, high priest, and prophet. We thus find Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel-both probably of Davidic descent-serving as political leaders; Jeshua son of Jozadak as high priest; and Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and possibly others as prophets. However, several generations later, by the mid-fifth century B.C.E., two of these three leadership roles, the Davidic dynasty and the prophet, had all but disappeared; and only the high priest remained, now joined by the scribe-sage and the wealthy aristocrat (i.e., Ezra and Nehemiah). The latter two types ofleadership were destined to playa central role in Jerusalem society for generations to come. 134. See GLAJJ, II: 420--422. 135. Against Apion 1.22,191. 136. Ant. 11.7,1,297-301. 137. Barag, "Effects of the Tennes Rebellion," 6-12, and reservations of Widengren, "Persian Period," 501-502. See also Grabbe, Judaism, 1:99-100.

THE PERSIAN ERA (539-332 B.C.E.)

43

Ezra-Nehemiah make it quite clear that this period of history was not without its tensions. There seems to have been an ongoing struggle between the Jews and their neighbors, while relations with the Persian bureaucracy, especially the lower echelons, were likewise not always smooth. There were internal tensions as well-for example, between the Babylonian returnees and those who had remained in the country, and between those who wanted more social contact with neighbors and those who aspired to a more insular community. However complex the reality may have been, the Persian era is nevertheless depicted in extant sources as a time of restoration of both Temple and city. The Temple's reconstruction was the focus of sixth-century efforts, and the city's physical and social restoration and religious life occupied much of the attention of fifth-century leaders. Continuity is alluded to time and again in the narratives of Ezra-Nehemiah; there were attempts to revive memories from the past-from the Exodus, Joshua's conquest,138 and the reign of David-while the community worked to restore the worship of God in the place consecrated by Solomon through his Temple. What is hinted at in Ezra-Nehemiah is stated explicitly in Chronicles, namely that the denouement of the earlier, First Temple, period was Cyrus' proclamation (2 Chron. 36:22-23), while the subsequent Restoration era constituted the continuation of the previous periody9 An example of this theme of continuity is evidenced in the Passover festivities described in Ezra 6, a description similar to Hezekiah's Passover celebrations (2 Chron. 30). Moreover, the account of Ezra's return to Jerusalem appears to invoke images of the Exodus from Egypt (Ezra 7). The repeated reference to the fact that the Temple's vessels were brought back from captivity (e.g., Ezra 6:5, 8:27-28) may well have served as an opportunity for the author (or redactor) of the book of Ezra to assert the legitimacy of the Restoration Temple as an authentic continuation of the earlier sanctuary. In short, for the book of Ezra, the pivotal factor in the account of the first waves of returnees was the Temple, and its completion by the late sixth century symbolized the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy of the redemption that began with Cyrus' declaration. While continuity is unquestionably intrinsic to understanding this era, it is nevertheless insufficient. Probing beyond the declared message of the sources, we l38. Porten, "Restoration," 129-l31. l39. The Chronicler views the basic Israelite institutions as having been established already by David and Solomon: the monarchy, priesthood (including the division into twenty-four priestly courses; 1 ehron. 24), Temple, and Jerusalem itself. Even beyond the literary works, there is other evidence of the desire by the Jerusalem authorities to forge links with the past, as, for instance, in the case of the menorah. To the best of our knowledge, the Second Temple menorah was always a single artifact. This contrasts with the arrangement in Solomon's Temple, in which there were no less than ten menorot (1 Kings 7:49). In this matter (though not in others), the Temple authorities clearly chose to hark back to the Wilderness precedent (real or fictitious) in representing this sacred object, thus ignoring the earlier Solomonic precedent. See Levine, "History and Significance of the Menorah," l31-153.

44

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

have seen that enormous changes were taking place at this time, some of which can be accounted for by the new circumstances within Persian Jerusalem, but others that were undoubtedly in response to the synchronic forces at play within the Achaemenid Empire at large. This perspective is no less important than the continuity theme for a full understanding of the complexities at play in sixth- through fourth-century Jerusalem. Given the traumatic events of the early sixth century and the dramatically changed political, social, and religious contexts just fifty years later, it is no wonder that the city's inhabitants confronted a series of basic issues: messianic hopes vs. loyalty to Persia, social and cultural integration within the region vs. a proclivity toward isolation, restoration of earlier institutions vs. innovation and change, and the introduction of new religious practices vs. the continuation of the old. l40 In many ways, Persian Jerusalem was a society in ferment; but before many of these issues could be sufficiently sorted out, much less resolved, the city confronted another major challenge, this time from the West.

140. See also Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 81-86.

45

Chapter 2

The Hellenistic Era (332-141 B.C.E.)

Judaea was conquered time and again throughout antiquity. Change in rule often entailed massive destruction and ruin; on occasion, conquest proved much less devastating. As we have seen, by gaining control of Judaea following his subjugation of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Cyrus adopted a policy far different from (and diametrically opposed to) that of his predecessors. Alexander the Great's conquest was similar to Cyrus' in that Jerusalem was not destroyed. However, after being under the control of empires based in the East for centuries, Alexander ushered in a period in which the focus of power and influence was in the West. But the change was not merely directional-Jerusalem was now entering a very different political, social, economic, and cultural orbit that was to last for some one thousand years. Following the death of his father, Philip II, in 336 B.C.E., Alexander (336-323) was crowned king of Macedonia and the previously conquered Greek cities. His conquest of the entire Persian Empire over the next ten years brought about a revolutionary change in the East (Fig. 11). In addition to political and economic goals, the Greeks also aspired to spread Hellenic culture among the "barbarians" of the East. Even though the area Alexander conquered remained politically divided among a number of kingdoms and empires for centuries, the Hellenistic world, thus created, became a meeting place for many cultures that was mutually enriching for all peoples in the area. During the ensuing centuries, the influence of Greek culture in Jerusalem permeated all areas of civic life. The most salient examples are found among the ruling and wealthy classes, but there can be little doubt that the middle and lower classes in the city were affected to some degree as well, just as those living in an urban setting were generally more exposed than those living in the towns and vil-

46

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

,,',, , .... ~ ~ ... - -. -,. '" ,.'

,.'

"

-

,,,'

: Aj '.._- ..

~'''

.

Figure 11. The empire of Alexander the Great.

lages of Judaea. Over time, this outside influence became more intensive and penetrated the various strata of Jewish society. It is important at this juncture to define what we mean by "Hellenization." The term should not be regarded as merely the degree to which Greek religion, literature, or philosophy had an impact on the East. 1 In the frrst place, one must also take into consideration all aspects of society-economic, social, political, and material. Second, Hellenization should not be measured solely by the degree to which the peoples and cultures of this region were drawn to Greek culture. Without denying the dominant role of Greek civilization, the phenomenon of Hellenization was far more complex than merely the effect of the West on the East. The account of Alexander the Great and his soldiers marrying Persian women and adopting Persian customs is indicative of more complex processes transpiring in the wake of Greece's conquest of the East. 2 In this encounter of cultures, the East left its mark as well, be it of the Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, Babylonian, Phoenician, or Jewish variety. Thus what took place in the Hellenistic world also had an element of mutuality; for the peoples of the East it was a process of selection, adoption, adaptation, and even rejection-and not only of conquest and imposition. 3 The resultant interactions-whether a question of combination, amalgamation, or synthesis-are the very essence of what we refer to as Hellenization. Although the Hellenistic age in Jewish history is often defined as the 270 or so years between Alexander's conquest of Judaea in 332 B.C.E. and Pompey's in I. Grimal, "Hellenistic East," 124-206, and Koester, History. Culture. and Religion. 97-196. 2. Diodorus Siculus 17, 107,6, and Plutarch, Alexander 70,3. 3. See Levine, Judaism and Hellenism. 16-32.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

47

63 B.C.E., we have divided this period into two parts: the Hellenistic era (332-141), when Judaea was under the direct control of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires (based in Egypt and Syria, respectively), and the Hasmonean era (141--63), when Jerusalem and Judaea achieved political independence. In the Hellenistic era, the province of Judaea became a battleground as the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires each sought to gain control over its territory. No less than five wars-each lasting a number of years-were fought in the third century. Moreover, even before Ptolemaic rule was finally established in 301, control over Jerusalem changed hands a number of times among the various Diadochi, as Alexander's successors were called. These upheavals, beginning in the late fourth century, had a significant impact on the city. Not only did political uncertainty foster the growth of contending political parties, each siding with one foreign power or another, but the very presence of armies, in times of both conflict and peace, introduced an entire range of social and cultural issues for the local inhabitants. Troops would often demand billeting in private homes and this, of course, would inevitably prove socially disruptive and economically draining. An inscription from Kibbutz Hefzibah in the Jezreel Valley includes several documents from around 200 B.C.E. that reflect the trials and tribulations of the local community in its attempt to rid itself of such impositions. 4 The constant presence of foreign soldiers was disruptive in other ways as well. The need to service these soldiers economically, culturally, socially, and religiously often introduced new and different patterns of behavior to which villages and cities were not accustomed. As was the case in Judaea generally, Jerusalem may have been subjected to some sort of military presence from the very outset of Ptolemaic rule; however, lack of evidence in this regard does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. For example, we read of a garrison of Ptolemaic soldiers stationed in Jerusalem before the Seleucid conquest in 198, but it is impossible to determine how long it had been present in the city (years? decades? the entire century?) or to assess its influence. As discussed below, Ptolemaic officials also had occasion to visit Jerusalem. In short, Jerusalem's geographical and political status changed abruptly during the transition from the Persian to the Hellenistic eras. Earlier, the city had enjoyed a significant degree of isolation, the Persians demanding only political loyalty and the payment of taxes. The province of Yehud encompassed a relatively compact area around Jerusalem, far from other important cities and from international trade routes that traversed the country. Being thrown then into the vortex of political and military affairs of the Hellenistic world was undoubtedly as traumatic for some as 4. Landau, "Greek Inscription," 54-70; T. Fischer, "Zur Seleukideninschrift," 131-138; and Bertrand, "Sur I'inscription," 167-174.

48

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 12. Tetradrachm of Ptolemy I (323-283 B.C.E.). Obverse: Diademed bust of Ptolemy. Reverse: Eagle on thunderbolt. The inscription reads:"King Ptolemy."

it was welcomed by others. Government officials, merchants, soldiers, and others visited, if not inundated, the city-a far cry from the time Nehemiah could simply close the gates of the city to keep out undesirable visitors. Jerusalem's historical setting had thus changed radically, and the city was now to cope not only with a different set of challenges but also with a far different degree of intensity.5

The Ptolemaic Era (301-198 B.C.E.) As noted, the century of Ptolemaic rule was prefaced by several decades of repeated conquests and political uncertainty. We are told that Ptolemy I gained control of the city on four different occasions (in 320, 312, 302, and 301),6 but there are conflicting accounts by several Hellenistic writers as to how this was done and the responses of Jerusalem's inhabitants (Fig. 12). Agatharchides reports that Ptolemy once took the city, along with many captives, on the Sabbath: The people known as Jews, who inhabit the most strongly fortified of cities, called by the natives Jerusalem, have a custom of abstaining from work every seventh day; on those occasions they neither bear arms nor take any agricultural operations in hand, nor engage in any other form of public service, but pray with outstretched hands in the temples (sic!) until the evening. Consequently, because the inhabitants, instead of protecting their city, persevered in their folly, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was allowed to enter with his army; the country was thus given over to a cruel master, and the defect of a practice enjoined by law was exposed. 7

Josephus also quotes another Greek writer, Hecataeus of Abdera, who offers a strikingly different account of Ptolemy's conquest: Hecataeus goes on to say that after the battle of Gaza [312 B.C.E.] Ptolemy became master of Syria, and that many of the inhabitants, hearing of his kindli-

5. This is, of course, not to say that there were no outside influences earlier; we have noted quite the opposite in Chapter I. Now, however. the spread of Greek culture was carried out far more actively, and at times even aggressively.

6. GIAll, I: \08. 7. Quoted by Josephus, Against Apion, 1.22,209-2\0. A violent conquest of the city by Ptolemy is also reported by the Lett. of Aristeas 12, Josephus (Ant. 12.1, 1, 3-7), and Appian (Syriaca 50, 252). For Agatharchides'and Appian ' s texts, see GIAJJ, I:no. 30a, and I1:no. 343.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

49

ness and humanity, desired to accompany him to Egypt and to associate themselves with his realm: "Among these (he says) was Ezechias,8 a chief priest of the Jews, a man of about 66 years of age, highly esteemed by his countrymen, intellectual, and moreover an able speaker and unsurpassed as a man of business .... This man, after obtaining this honor and having been closely in touch with us, assembled some of his friends and read to them [a statement showing] all the advantages [of emigration]; for he had in writing the conditions attaching to their settlement and political statuS."9 Given the fact that the city was overrun a number of times, it is quite likely that these conflicting descriptions refer to two separate occasions. Since Hecataeus specifically mentions Ptolemy's victory in 312 B.C.E. over Demetrius Poliorcetes at Gaza, it would seem that his smooth incorporation of Jerusalem and Judaea took place at that time. Shortly afterward, however, the country was occupied by Antigonus, and only ten years later Ptolemy, in alliance with others, was able to recapture it. Tcherikover has plausibly argued for a 302 date for the violent conquest of the city, as per Agatharchides' description. lO Jerusalem thus experienced a series of wrenching events in the early years of Hellenistic rule. Both the generally uncertain political situation and the subjugation to various foreign rulers undoubtedly proved disconcerting for many. Moreover, each conquest presented its own challenges. The forceful taking of the city on the Sabbath in 302, when Jerusalemites apparently thought that Jerusalem was immune from attack (or at least from subjugation), must have been unnerving for some. In addition, the exile of many inhabitants to Egypt could not help but further disrupt city life. Even the friendly takeover of 312 that led to many Jews opting for migration to Egypt may have had its unsettling effects. Taken together, both these episodes, with perhaps changes of rule on two other occasions (in 320 and 301), probably caused a significant depopulation of the city and the concomitant demoralization of its inhabitants, about which we can only speculate. One other incident reported at this time that certainly affected Jerusalem concerned the building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim with 8. Ezechias is possibly to be identified with Hezekiah (or Yehizqiah), whose name and title as Persian governor (peha) appears on a Yehud coin from this period; see Meshorer, Treasury, 15-16. If this identification is accepted, it provides striking evidence of the political role of (some) high priests at this time. However, it must also be borne in mind that the title "high priest" may refer, as was indeed the case later on, to a member of the high priestly family and not necessarily to the high priest himself. 9. Josephus, Against Apion, 1.22,186-189 (GLAJJ, I: 12]). 10. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 56-58. For a very different approach to the (Pseudo) Hecataeus narrative-dating it to the Hasmonean era, at the tum of the first century B.C.E.-see Bar-Kochva, PseudoHecataeus on the Jews, 232-248. Given the confused nature ofthe Hecataeus source, Bar-Kochva claims that there was one violent conquest in 302-301 and that, at that time, Hezekiah (a governor and not a high priest) was subjected to a forcible deportation and not a voluntary emigration (ibid., 71-91).

50

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Alexander's approval. ll Given the rivalry between Judaeans and Samaritans throughout the previous period, including the defection of a number of Judaean priests and potential high priests to Samaria, such a development was undoubtedly viewed with disquietude, if not outright hostility and anger, by the Jerusalem authorities. 12 We do not know to what extent the Ptolemies' five wars with the Seleucid Empire in the course of the third century (274-271, 260--253, 246-241,221-217, 202-198) actually disrupted the life of Jerusalem. Most of the hostilities occurred along the coast; and, with rare exception, we know nothing about Jerusalem suffering any ravages during this period. We may thus assume that the third century was in large measure a relatively quiet one for the city and its residents. Nevertheless, circumstances seem to have changed toward the end of the century. According to 3 Maccabees, Ptolemy IV attempted to enter the Temple's Holy of Holies following his victory at Raphia in 217, causing enormous distress to everyone in the city. Following a large-scale demonstration of shock and protest, as well as a personal entreaty from the High Priest Simon, the king fmally relented, according to the author, only after divine intervention (3 Macc. 1:8, 2:24). Like other incidents recounted in 3 Maccabees, the historicity of this episode is highly questionable. J3 If, however, there is a kernel of truth in this account, it apparently was a singular occurrence during Ptolemaic rule; attempts to enter and plunder the Temple were to recur with greater frequency in subsequent centuries. 14 Besides this specific instance relating to Jerusalem, Josephus offers a general description of the difficulties endured by the Jews of Judaea toward the end of the century during the last two Syrian wars: When Antiochus the Great reigned over Asia [223-187] it was the lot of the Jews to undergo great hardships through the devastation of their land, as did also the inhabitants of Coele-Syria. For while he was at war with Ptolemy Philopator and with his son Ptolemy, surnamed Epiphanes, they had to suffer, and whether he was victorious or defeated, to experience the same fate; so that they were in no way different from a storm-tossed ship which is beset on either side by heavy seas, finding themselves crushed between the successes of Antiochus and the adverse tum of his fortunes. IS

11. Ant. 11.8,4,321-324. 12. Purvis, "Samaritans and Judaism," 85-90, and "Samaritans," 591-604. An indication of a Jerusalemite's disparagement of the Samaritans can be found in Ben Sira 50:25-26, where they are referred to as the "foolish people dwelling in Shechem." 13. Hadas, Third and Fourth Maccabees, 3-16, and Tcherikover, "Third Book of Maccabees," 5--6. See also H. Anderson, "Maccabees, Books of," 450-452. 14. The historical veracity of this account has been argued by Gutman, "Historical Value," 49-72.

15. Ant. 12.3,3,129-130.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

51

This report unfortunately leaves much unsaid. The precise damage and how it may have affected Jerusalem are not stated. Moreover, the image of Antiochus causing grief to the Jews stands in stark contrast to the very supportive decree issued upon his conquest of the city (discussed below).16

Leadership of the City Jerusalem's society was theocratic or, more precisely, hierocratic (i.e., ruled by priests), even more so than during the Persian era, and this situation was to hold true for most of the subsequent centuries as wel1. l7 Fortunately, Hecataeus has left us a detailed description of Judaean society that may well reflect his own day (ca. 300 B.C.E.).18 Speaking of Moses' founding of many Jerusalem institutions, he states: He (Moses) picked out the men of most refmement and with the greatest ability to head the entire nation, and appointed them priests; and he ordained that they should occupy themselves with the Temple and the honors and sacrifices offered to their God. These same men he appointed to be judges in all major disputes, and entrusted to them the guardianship of the laws and customs. For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God's commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them. ... Their lawgiver (assigned) equal allotments to private citizens and greater ones to the priests, in order that they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be undistracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of God. 19

This passage makes it quite clear that the high priest was the recognized leader in Jerusalem, certainly in the religious domain, but possibly in the politi16. It is difficult to know whether the praise heaped by Ben Sira on the High Priest Simon for reinforcing the Temple building and rebuilding its wall (Ben Sira 50:1-5) was simply a matter of poetic license or whether the city had indeed suffered damage in the various battles. 17. See Josephus, Against Apion, 2.16, 164-165; 21, 184-187, and the discussion of Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 30--56.

18. The dating of the Hecataeus fragments, particularly those preserved by Josephus, has been debated for generations. While unanimity is lacking, a growing consensus has emerged that views these statements as authentic, with perhaps some slight Jewish revisions added on later. See Schiirer, History, 111:671-677, and GLAJJ, I: 22-24. See also Holladay, Fragments, 1:283-290, and "Hecataeus, Pseudo-," 108-109; and Pucci ben Zeev, "Reliability of Josephus Flavius," 215-234. See, however, Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus on the Jews, 54-121,232-248. 19. "Hecataeus, Aegyptiaca" in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 40,3.4-7 (GLAJJ, I: 28).

52

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

cal and social spheres as welPo The high priest's prominence is further emphasized in later accounts of his purported meeting with Alexander on the latter's march through Palestine in 332, with tradition going so far as to claim that the king even prostrated himself upon seeing the High Priest Yadoa. 21 Moreover, if the third-century Spartan letter to Jerusalem is indeed authentic (see below), the addressee was none other than the High Priest Onias. A further attestation to the prominence of this office comes at the beginning of the second century in Ben Sira's paean to the High Priest Simon: 22 Greater than his brothers and the glory of his people was Simon the son of Yohanan the priest; In whose generation the Temple was attended to, and in whose days the Sanctuary was strengthened ... Who took care for his people (to preserve them) from robbery, and strengthened his city against the adversary. How glorious was he as he gazed forth from the tent, and when he went forth from the house of the curtain (i.e., the Temple); Like a star of light from among clouds, and like the full moon in the days of a festival; And like the sun shining resplendently on the king's Temple, and like the rainbow that appears in the cloud ... When he covered himself with the garments of honor and clothed himself in garments of glory. When he ascended the altar there was majesty, and He made the court of the Sanctuary glorious ... All the sons of Aaron in their glory with the fire-offerings of the Lord in their hands in the presence of the whole congregation of Israel; Until he finished ministering at the altar and set in order the arrangements (perhaps the piles of wood on the altar) of the Most High ... And all the people of the land gave a ringing shout of joy in prayer before the Merciful One, until he had finished ministering at the altar and his statutory duties had been completed. Then he went down (from the altar) and lifted his hands over the whole congregation of Israel; And the blessing of the Lord was on his lips, and in the name of the Lord he was glorified ... 20. See. e.g., the example of Hezekiah (Ezechias), cited in Chapter I and above, who may have been a high priest and Persian governor at one and the same time. 21. Or Jaddua (Ant. 11.8, 5, 329-339). For a discussion of the various traditions of this meeting, see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 42-49; Kasher, "Alexander of Macedon' s Campaign," 187-208; Momigliano, "Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem," 442-448; Cohen, "Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest," 41-68; and Golan, "Josephus, Alexander's Visit," 29-56. See also Marcus'remarks, Josephus, LCL, VI, Appendix C. 22. Simon II is generally dated to ca. 219-196 B.C.E.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.CE.)

53

He will be faithful to (the promise) made to Simon in loving-kindness, and fulfill for him the covenant of Phinehas, That neither his nor his descendants' seed shall be cut off, (and shall continue) like the days of heaven. 23

The high priest, according to Ben Sira, had a very lofty status, and indeed eleven poetical figures were required by the author to describe Simon's glorious appearance (which is compared to the shining sun) in Temple ceremonies. For Ben Sira, the priestly office ranked higher than that of a Davidic king.24 Returning to Hecataeus, in addition to the high priest, he singles out the priestly class in general as occupying positions of leadership, especially judicial ones, and those charged with overseeing guardianship of the laws and customs, i.e., religious leaders and teachers. Ben Sira, too, probably a priest himself, ranks the priesthood along with the high priest, at the very acme of Jewish society, in much the same way as do the priestly documents of biblicalliterature.25 There is reason to believe that the figure of fifteen hundred priests cited by Hecataeus may, in fact, reflect the number of priests in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Hellenistic era. 26 He refers to the priests as being generally well off economically, as they were in later periods. They tended to own larger plots of land than other Jews, and we are told in a passage by Hecataeus27 that priests not only administered communal affairs but also received tithes. Previously, these tithes were given to the levites (Num. 18:21,24; Neh. lO:38-39), but some time during the later Persian era this practice seems to have changed and is reflected in works of the third (Tob. 1:7) and second (Jth. 11:13; Jub. 32:15) centuries. Needless to say, the right to receive tithes was considered a major privilege in economic terms. 28 Another leadership group in Hellenistic Jerusalem was the aristocratic class of the city, particularly the council, or gerousia. This group is not noted by either Hecataeus or Josephus or by the Spartan king Areus in his letter to Jerusalem (discussed below). It is, however, referred to in a number of sources relating to 23. Translated from the Hebrew version of Ben Sira 50: 1-24 as per M. Z. Segal, Complete Book of BenSira, 340-342. For a comparison of the Greek and Hebrew versions, see C. T. R. Hayward, Jewish Temple, 75-84. 24. See Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 142-143. 25. See Olyan, "Ben Sira's Relationship," 261-286. 26. Josephus, Against Apion, 1.22, 188. I Chron. 9: 13 notes that there were 1,760 priests, and Neh. II: 10 ff. records 1,192; both sources may also have had contemporary Jerusalem in mind. On the other hand, the number 4,289 found in Ezra 2:36 ff. possibly refers to priests throughout Judaea. Josephus' claim that there were 20,000 priests may well reflect the situation at the end of the Second Temple period (Against Apion 2.8, 108). 27. Cited by Josephus, Against Apion 1.22, 188. 28. See GLAJJ, I: 41-42.

54

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

the late third and early second centuries B.C.E. For example, 3 Mace. 1:8 mentions such a council with respect to the events of 217, as does Antiochus Ill's letter to the Jerusalem authorities following his conquest of the city in 198.29 Somewhat later, a gerousia is mentioned in a letter from Antiochus V to the Jews (2 Mace. 11 :27). These latter two documents, originating with Seleucid kings, relate to the gerousia as the official body of Judaea, although the high priest may well have been the dominant figure in such an institution. How much authority such a body had and how it interacted with the high priest are crucial issues that, unfortunately, lie beyond the sources at our disposal.

In the Hellenistic Orbit Along with his emphasis on the traditional nature of Jerusalem society, which followed Mosaic legislation, Hecataeus notes in passing that the Jews were not impervious to outside influences: As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he (Moses) saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other men. But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations (both under Persian rule and under that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians), many of their traditional practices were disturbed. 30

While evidence for the claim of such influences on Jewish society at this particular time is nonexistent, corroborating data do exist for both the marital and funerary contexts during Hasmonean and Herodian times (see Chapters 3 and 7)?1 Nonetheless, Hecataeus' remark regarding Jerusalem's engagement with the outside world finds remarkable confirmation in a plethora of other sources from the third century. First and foremost is the numismatic evidence. On Jerusalem coins of the early third century (ca. 300---270) we find the images of Ptolemy I and II; their wives, Berenice I and Arsinoe II; a bareheaded man; and the symbolic eagle of Ptolemaic rule.32 These coins continue the Yehud series discussed above and 29. Ant. 12.3,3, 138, 142. 30. "Hecataeus, Aegyptiaca," in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 40, 3, 8 (GIAll, I: 29); and generally, see Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus on the lews, 18-43. 31. It is worth pointing out that although many of Hecataeus' statements are reliable and authentic, some passages are either clearly the author's exaggeration or later additions. For example, in addressing the size of Jerusalem, Hecataeus notes that its circumference was some 50 stades (almost 10,000 m) and its population was 120,000 (Against Apion 1.22, 197 [GIAll, I: 12]). These numbers have no basis in reality for the period in question. Josephus reports the size of the city at its greatest extent at the end of this era as 33 stades, and the number of permanent inhabitants reached 60,000 to 80,000 in the first century (see Chapter 9). For other estimates of Jerusalem's size in the Hellenistic era, see GIAll, I: 41 and 42, and Lett. of Aristeas 105. 32. Kindler, "Silver Coins," 73-76, and Barag, "Coinage ofYehud," 27-38. See also Mildenberg, "Yehud," 189-194, and Meshorer, Treasury, 19-21.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

55

attest to the desire within Jerusalem's ruling class to be part of the Hellenistic world order. There is no consensus among scholars as to the degree of autonomy wielded by Jerusalem's authorities in the minting of these coins. Were the symbols used determined by Alexandria or did the initiative (or, at least, the consent) for their depiction lie in the hands of the localleadership?33 There is little way of being certain at present but, given the earlier Yehud coinage, there is no reason to assume that such coins can be explained only as a dictate from above. Jerusalem's involvement in the Hellenistic world also finds expression in a letter sent from Sparta around 270 B.C.E. According to I Macc. 12:20-23, and in a somewhat reworked form in Josephus' Antiquities,34 correspondence took place between Jerusalem's High Priest Onias II and Areus, king of Sparta, although only Areus' letter has been preserved. The text of the letter as rendered in 1 Maccabees reads as follows: 35 To Onias, Areus King of the Spartans, greetings. In a work concerning the Spartans and the Jews there is a statement that they are brothers and that they are descended from Abraham. Now that we have learned this, please be so good as to write us how you are. We are ready to write in reply to you: "Your cattle and property are ours, and ours are yours." We have ordered that you be given a full report on these matters. 36

The reference here is probably to Areus I (309-265) and Onias I (early third century). The specific motivation for the Spartans' writing this letter is unknown, although the work referred to (dealing with Spartans and Jews) indicates some sort of connection between Judaeans and Spartans, probably stemming from the same ethnographic tradition as recorded in Hecataeus. Along with the exile of the Hebrews from Egypt, Hecataeus also speaks of the expulsion of Danaos (and Kadmos) whose descendants occupied the Peloponnesian region, which included Sparta. The inhabitants of Pergamon in Asia Minor claimed that their ancestors were friends of Abraham. 37 Given the fact that links were being forged 33. See, e.g., Rappaport, "First Judean Coinage," 14-15, and Barag, "Coinage ofYehud," 37. 34. Ant. 12.4, 10,225-227.

35. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 445. This letter is appended to the correspondence of Jonathan the Hasmonean with Sparta (ca. 145). Its authenticity has been the source of much scholarly discussion. Schiirer, History, 1:184-185, n. 33, and Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 455-462, assume that the letter is historical, as do Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, 36-37, and M. Stem, Hasmonean Judaea, 63-70. However, its authenticity has been questioned by Bickerman, Jews in the GreekAge, 184-185; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:26; and, more recently, Gruen, "Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation," 254-269, and Mendels, Identity, Religion and Historiography, 28-30. 36. An enigmatic statement, possibly referring to the earlier document noted above, that presumably spelled out the kinship between the Jews and Sparta.

37. Ant. 14.10,22,255: "and also remembering that in the time of Abraham, who was the father of all Hebrews, our ancestors were their friends, as we find in the public records."

56

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 13. Stamped jar handles.

between Greek and Levantine cities, an affiliation between Sparta and Jerusalem was not out of the question. Both populations were known for their military prowess,38 strict adherence to traditional law, renowned lawgivers (Lycurgus and Moses), and exclusion of foreigners .39 We have no idea of the Jewish response to this letter, but about 125 years later, as noted, Jonathan the Hasmonean sent a letter to Sparta renewing this liaison (1 Mace. 12: 1-18). During the interim between these two letters, the former High Priest Jason fled Jerusalem in 169, ultimately finding refuge "with a kindred people" in Sparta (2 Mace. 5:9); this would seem to presume (unless we posit that this episode, too, is unauthentic) that some sort of connection between these two cities already existed.40 Additional evidence of Jerusalem's integration into the Hellenistic world, this time on an economic plane, comes from more than one thousand stamped jar handles originating on the island of Rhodes that were discovered in the City of David excavations (Fig. 13). These amphora handles are engraved with official Rhodian stamps and dated by the names oflocal priests that appear on them from the fourth to fIrst centuries B.C.E., with the overwhelming majority dating from the middle third to middle second centuries B.C.E. These amphorae most probably contained imported wine, as was the custom in many other Hellenistic cities as well. 41 There 38. Besides the military colony at Elephantine, see also regarding Asia Minor: Ant. 12.3, 4, 148- 153. and Schalit, "Letter of Antiochus III," 289-318. Regarding Jewish soldiers at Leontopolis in the Hellenistic era, see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 275-284. 39. There were, of course, many significant differences between the two communities, particularly in their social, familial, and military orientations. 40. On Sparta during the Hellenistic era, see Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, 28-90. 41. Ariel, Excavations at the City of David, 13-25.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E)

57

Figure 14. Zenon's travels.

can be little doubt that such imports were intended for Jerusalem's inhabitants and not necessarily for foreigners, such as a Ptolemaic military garrison, residing in the city. Their number was insignificant at this time and could in no way account for the large quantity of jar handles discovered. If, then, ordinary Jerusalemites used this wine, we can assume that this was not in violation of the halakhah prohibiting the use of gentile wine. It is far more likely that these later rabbinic laws had not yet been formulated and that there were no halakhic constraints against the use of gentile wine at this time. These archaeological finds thus offer an interesting instance of Jerusalem's integration into the trade network of the Hellenistic world. A further indication of such economic ties with the outside world appears in the Zenon papyri, named after a Ptolemaic official who was sent on a mission to Palestine in 259 B.C.E. Some forty documents from this trip have survived (letters, lists, accounts, etc.), attesting to the Ptolemaic government's extensive involvement in the country, especially in regard to trade in oil, wine, and slaves (Fig. 14). Judaea also served as an important way station for goods from Syria and the Arabian Peninsula. Although the coastal cities are most frequently mentioned, Jerusalem appears on several lists, indicating that Zenon and his entourage had occasion to visit the city.42 Involvement in international affairs, and specifically with the Ptolemaic court, is noted in Josephus' account of the Tobiad family. He focuses on one Joseph who outmaneuvered the ruling high priest, Onias II: Having borrowed money from friends in Samaria, he managed to obtain tax-collecting rights

42. Tcherikover, Fuks, and Stem, Corpus Papyrorum ludaicarum, I:115-130.

58

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

from the Ptolemaic authorities for all of Coele-Syria, an area that included Judaea, Phoenicia, Syria, and parts of Transjordan. 43 Joseph was based in Jerusalem, and although his family estate was in Transjordan, he became a political and economic force in the region for several decades and was succeeded by his sons. It is difficult to assess how such a career may have affected Jerusalem society generally; many were undoubtedly brought into this social orbit, and Joseph's activities certainly benefited those associated with him financially and politically. Josephus concludes the account of this family history with a sympathetic and laudatory hyperbole: "And then also died Hyrcanus' father Joseph, who had been an excellent and high-minded man and had brought the Jewish people from poverty and a state of weakness to more splendid opportunities of life during the twenty-two years when he controlled the taxes of Syria, Phoenicia, and Samaria."44 The ever-increasing degree of Hellenization that was apparent in the Tobiad family in each successive generation must have been shared, at least to some extent, by other Jews as well. 45 Of considerable interest regarding Jerusalem's exposure to the Hellenistic world is a report in the Letter of Aristeas about the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek that had allegedly been commissioned by Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C.E.).46 According to this account, the king engaged seventy-two sages from Jerusalem, experts in both the Bible and Greek, to come to Alexandria and work on the translation. 47 The assumption behind this story is that one could fmd people in Jerusalem who had a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and a command of the Greek language. This would indicate a significant degree of Hellenization, at least within certain intellectual circles of that society. What is the historical reliability of this story? Is it totally fabricated or might it contain a modicum of truth? If the latter, then does this attest to the widespread know ledge of Greek as early as the third century, or at the very least during the second century, when the Letter of 43. Ant. 12.4,2-11,160--234; see Grabbe, Judaism, 1:192-198, and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization,

126-142,153-156. D. R. Schwartz, "Josephus' Tobiads," 47-61, suggests that this Joseph-Hyrcanus story reflects a later period, i.e., early second-century Seleucid Palestine. A skeptical assessment of the historical worth of this account was rendered by Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 36-58. 44. Ant. 12.4, 10, 224. Elsewhere in his account, Josephus speaks of Joseph's authority extending

beyond Judaea and including the collection of taxes in Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Samaria (ibid., 12.4, 4, 175). 45. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 127-142; Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces, 138-140. Testimony of the wealth and lavishness of the Tobiads can be found in the Transjordanian family residence at 'Iraq el-Emir; NEAEHL, TI:646-649. See also the suggested reconstruction of the lake and palace-pavilion there by Netzer, "Tyros," 340--353, and Ji, "New Look at the Tobiads," 417-440. 46. On the Alexandrian library generally, see Parsons, Alexandrian Library, 83-269. For a discussion of Aristeas and the Septuagint translation tradition, including quotes from early Jewish and Christian sources, see ibid., 83-105. 47. Lett. of Aristeas 32.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 8.C.E.)

59

Figure 15. A stampedjar handle from Ptolemaic Jerusalem featuring a pentagram with "Jerusalem" written between the star's points.

Aristeas was presumably composed'r8 Unfortunately, there is no way at present of reaching a firm conclusion. A more traditional, non-Hellenistic proclivity within Jerusalem society is revealed in several types of locally made stamped jar handles. One type, numbering twelve handles, is inscribed in palaeo-Hebrew script with the letters tJ-,i1,49-apparently the continuation of a stamp that appeared in the Persian era (which, however, used an Aramaic script); these specimens were all found in a Hellenistic context. 50 Most of the Judaean stamps (roughly 60 percent) were discovered in Jerusalem. A second type of jar handle, of which almost 70 percent come from Jerusalem, features a five-pointed star and the palaeo-Hebrew inscription 07W" (Jerusalem) (Fig. 15). This type was clearly imprinted in or for the city, and it, too, is dated to the Hellenistic era. It is interesting to note that the use of the pentagram is also found on handles from the Greek islands. 51 We therefore seem to be dealing with a specifically Jewish inscription embedded in a borrowed Hellenistic symbol. 48. A significant though isolated instance of the penetration of Greek into early Hellenistic Idumaea, south of Judaea, comes from several ostraca found between Hebron and Lachish. Of the six found, four are in Aramaic, one in Greek, and the longest one bilingual. The last-mentioned is a contract written in the early third century. See Geraty, "Khirbet el-Kom Bilingual Ostracon," 55-61. For a survey of all Palestinian evidence that might be used to indicate Hellenistic influence at this time, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, passim. 49. The appearance of the Hebrew letter lJ (tet) is enigmatic, although it is also attested on eighth- and seventh-century Judaean stamps with interesting Phoenician parallels. Suggestions offered include (I) the letter represents the Hebrew word :l1lJ (good) and indicates the superior quality of the contents, (2) it indicates a measure (the number nine, lJ), (3) it indicates that the weight in question accords with a specific standard (stamped Hebrew, lI:llJ), and (4) it refers to the mishnaic term 7:llJ (food from which tithes were not taken). See Cross, "Judean Stamps," 22-23, and Avigad, "More Evidence," 52-54, and Bullae and Seals, 25 n. 81. 50. Avigad, Bullae and Seals, 25, and references therein.

51. This parallel, and the most recent survey of the above-noted finds, are discussed by Ariel and Shoham, "Locally Stamped Handles." See also Avigad, "More Evidence," 54-58.

60

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Judaism in Ptolemaic Jerusalem There can be little question that the religious focus of Ptolemaic Jerusalem was the Temple, the centrality of which is emphasized in all of the known sources (though, admittedly, they are few) from this period. In his very short description of the city, Hecataeus points to several features of the Temple,52 as does the Letter of Aristeas53 in much greater detail (although this latter source is, as mentioned earlier, of a later date). Ben Sira's54 lavish description of Simon IT also takes note of his contributions to the building and repair of the Temple precincts (the fact that Simon was a high priest also redounds to the Temple's benefit).55 The wellknown statement of Simon the Just (probably to be identified with Simon IT56) in Mishnah Avo!, if, in fact, authentic, emphasizes the Temple as one of the three pillars of his age, along with the Torah and fulfilling God's commandments.57 Furthermore, an important document from the very beginning of Seleucid rule, discussed below, spells out in great detail Antiochus' commitment to support the Temple and its personnel following his conquest of the city. 58 We have no explicit information about religious groups or sects that may have been operative in third-century Jerusalem. Josephus first noted the existence of sects ca. 150;59 perhaps the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes-or their forerunners-existed even earlier. While such a possibility cannot be summarily dismissed, it seems rather unlikely. As we discuss below, there is reason to believe that these particular sects did, in fact, crystallize in the middle second century in reaction to the traumatic events of those decades. It is somewhat more likely, however, that a group called Hasidians, or Pietists, who were active during the Maccabean revolt, had already crystallized as a group in the third century B.C.E. Since they constituted an important factor in the early stages of the Maccabean struggle, it is quite probable that the sect had existed for at least a generation or more. Described as "mighty warriors of 52. Against Apion 1.22, 197-199. 53. Lett. of Aristeas 84--99. 54. Ben Sira 50: 1-4. 55. These descriptions must be used with the great caution, as they seem to be based on biblical precedents or to borrow heavily from utopian Hellenistic motifs; see Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach, 18-20, and Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 48-52. For the relevant texts and commentary, see C. T. R. Hayward, Jewish Temple, passim. 56. Following G. Moore, "Simon the Righteous," 348-364, and the overwhelming majority of scholars. For a different view, preferring to identify Simon I (ca. 300) with Simon the lust, see VanderKam, "Simon the lust," 302-318.

57. Avot I, 2; following the interpretation of Goldin, Studies in Midrash, 27-38. 58. Ant. 12.3,3, 138-144. 59. Ibid., 13.5,9, 171-173.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

61

Israel, all who volunteered in defense of the Torah" (l Macc. 2:42), these Hasidians are also referred to as "men learned in the Torah" and "those who seek justice" (l Mace. 7:12). Eventually they laid down their arms and accepted the Seleucid government's abrogation of the religious prohibitions it had imposed on the Jews as well as its compromise candidate for high priest (l Macc. 7:12-15; see, however, 2 Macc. 14:6). Unfortunately, not much more can be said about them; they remain quintessentially enigmatic. 60 Although not extensive quantitatively, the literary output of the third century is quite varied, attesting to a dynamic and creative cultural-religious ambience in Jerusalem. We will focus on three different works, all of which are assumed either to have been written in Jerusalem or, at the very least, had adherents within the city, as it was the only substantial urban area in Jewish Judaea at the time. In one way or another, these works reflect the concerns of some of Jerusalem's intellectual and religious elite. A caveat, however, is in order here in regard to dating. We can be certain of the date of composition of only one of these works: the Wisdom of Ben Sira. First of all, we know from its preface that Ben Sira's grandson translated the book into Greek in 132 B.C.E. Second, it heaps lavish praise on a high priest named Simon, undoubtedly Simon II, who flourished at the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries. In contrast, the dating of the other two books (Ecclesiastes and the early parts of 1 Enoch) is more problematic and speculative, as neither can be securely assigned to this period. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus today that both are to be assigned a Ptolemaic provenance.61 Of the three works noted, two can be categorized as wisdom literature. Ecclesiastes (Qohelet, in Hebrew) addresses the intellectual and religious struggles of its author (and presumably of a much wider circle as well) in the face of contemporary challenges to the conventional religious wisdom. The author does this in a very personal, individualistic, and existential fashion, eschewing the more matter-of-fact aphorisms that had come to characterize much of earlier wisdom literature. The basic outlook of Ecclesiastes can be summarized as follows: (1) wisdom cannot achieve its goal of creating a good life; (2) God is remote and the world unpredictable; (3) a moderate, not excessive, lifestyle is recommended; (4) there is no clear-cut system for reward and punishment, and death takes no account of virtue or vice; (5) if possible, one should enjoy life to the fullest 60. The Hasidians have been identified with every conceivable sect (e.g., Pharisees, Essenes) and literary work (e.g., Daniel) from the period. As Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 201, notes: "The party of the Hasideans has grown in recent scholarship from an extremely poorly attested entity to the great Jewish alternative to the Maccabees at the time of the revolt. There has been no corresponding growth in the evidence." See also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:175-180, and Lightstone, "Judaism," 36-40. 61. See Crenshaw, "Ecclesiastes," 274-275, and Nickelsburg, "Enoch," 509.

62

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

before the onset of old age. 62 Not for naught does the book open with the phrase: "Utter futility! All is futile!" (Eccles. 1:2, 12:8). This is the overpowering mood that permeates the author's brooding reflections. It has usually been posited, quite rightly in our opinion, that the challenges of the Hellenistic world contributed significantly to the dilemmas and doubts articulated by Ecclesiastes. This encounter had clearly undermined many of the author's moral and religious beliefs, planting instead a plethora of doubts and misgivings. 63 Around the turn of the second century, one Jesus (or Yeshua) ben Elazar ben Sira, a scribe in Jerusalem, produced what is the most comprehensive corpus of wisdom literature in ancient Judaism. Known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the book contains proverbs, cultic and moral maxims, exhortations, poems and psalms, and theological reflections, along with observations on life, contemporary attitudes, and current practices. These statements are frequently organized into clusters, thus giving the impression of discourses rather than individual sayings. Ever since the time of Rufinus (345-410 C.E.), this book has been construed-perhaps correctly-as a response to the baneful message of Ecclesiastes. Indeed, it seems to have been written for the purpose of bolstering the faith and self-confidence of Jews who were then confronting a new and often threatening world internally and externally.64 Both at home and perhaps in travels abroad, Ben Sira presumably encountered Jews whose faith had been weakened, if not shattered, by the questions and doubts raised by their encounter with Greek culture. His conclusion, however, is that all wisdom does, in fact, come from the Lord, thereby reaffIrming the eternal nature and veracity of the Jewish tradition (Ben Sira 1:1). To phrase it somewhat differently, true wisdom is to be found in Jerusalem, not Athens. The purpose of the book is quite clearly spelled out by Ben Sira's grandson several generations later: Many and great things have been delivered to us through the Torah and the Prophets and the other (books) that followed after them, and for which we must praise Israel for instruction and wisdom ... my grandfather Jesus devoted himself greatly to the reading of the Torah and the Prophets and to the other books of our fathers. And when he had acquired a large measure (of wisdom), he, too, began writing down thoughts pertaining to instruction and wisdom so that those who love Torah will devote themselves to these (words) as well and will enhance their lives according to Torah. You are thus requested to read this material with diligence and attention and to forgive, if it seems that we did not succeed finding the correct words in our translation (Ben Sira prologue).

62. See Crenshaw, "Ecclesiastes," 275-277, as well as Gordis, Koheleth, 112-122. 63. Gordis, Koheleth, 51-58, 63-68; Eissfe1dt, Old Testament, 491-500; Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 141-167; and Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I:115-128. 64. See Di Lelia, "Wisdom of Ben-Sira," 933.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

63

Thus, for Ben Sira, wisdom and Torah were one or, as he succinctly states: "If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments" (Ben Sira 1:26). Nevertheless, even in a clearly apologetic work aimed at strengthening Jewish identity and commitment, we can find influences of the outside world. Ben Sira was well read regarding worldly matters, as is evident in many parts of his work, and he included elements of foreign wisdom in his composition. For example, his perception of wisdom bears similarity to what can be found in contemporary Egyptian literature.65 The list of Israel's great leaders at the end of the book follows a popular Greek genre and served as the model or inspiration for his paean of Israel's ancestors. His praise of Jerusalem (a civic prayer, perhaps) seems to reflect well-attested civic encomia of other Hellenistic cities.66 Thus, here, as elsewhere, non-Jewish patterns were being adopted and adapted to strengthen the case for the priority of Judaism. 67 Even the literary device of selfidentification by the author and his grandson was a distinctly Hellenistic custom. Such practices have no earlier precedents in Jewish literature.68 The third and final work dating from this era, 1 Enoch, contains several chapters (1-36 and 72-82) that are considered the oldest sections of Jewish apocalypse, dating from the third century.69 This literary genre is characterized, inter alia, by descriptions of heavenly journeys, the heavenly realm, the divine palace, and the revelation of secrets of the universe (i.e., God's will) to a human being by an angel and by a focus on cosmology, angelology, astronomy, and the calendar, with predictions of a future judgment day.70 Also central to this and later apocalyptic literature is a concern with the origins of evil, the sources of which are posited in supernatural, demonic forces. 7! This "scientific" lore, with its visionary component in the form of an ascent to the heavenly realm, is interwoven with pagan elements drawn from Babylonian, Greek, and Near Eastern myths.72 Clearly, the circles responsible for these speculations, perhaps to be identified with some priestly groups and the more educated stratum of Jerusalem society,?3 were able to draw on a rich variety of intellectual and religious streams. 65. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:157-162, and J. T. Sanders, Ben Sira. See also Bickennan, Jews in the Greek Age, 165-172. 66. Bickennan, "Civic Prayer," 163-185. 67. See, e.g., Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach, passim. 68. See Bickennan, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 63-65. 69. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions, 27-35, and VanderKam, Enoch, 79-88, 111-114. 70. The second part of Daniel (7-12), written ca. 165 B.C.E., is undoubtedly the most famous example of this literary type. 71. Later on, at Qumran, a dualistic conception was adopted: God had created two spirits, one of light and one of darkness. 72. Stone, "Book of Enoch," 479-492, and Scriptures, Sects and Visions, 27-47. 73. See Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 9-46.

64

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

However, very little is known about the creators of this literature or why such traditions coalesced specifically at this time. 1 Enoch 8: 1-2 may offer a glimpse into the motivation for at least some of them: "And the world has changed. And there was great impiety and much fornication, and they went astray, and all their ways became corrupt." Commenting on these verses, Collins74 notes: It is difficult not to read this passage as a loose allegory for the cultural crisis brought on by the advent of Hellenism, which entailed the spread of information and new ideas of morality that were often scandalous to traditional Jews. The story of the Watchers, then, is not only an etiology of the spread of wickedness before the flood. It is also paradigmatic of the way the world was changed in the author's own time in the Hellenistic age.

Opinion is divided regarding the origins of the first apocalyptic groups, their literature and ideas. Were these speculations an outgrowth of the prophetic or wisdom literature of the First and early Second Temple periods that underwent significant changes between the fifth and third centuries B.C.E.? Or were they the product of a new stream in Judaism that began to crystallize in the third century-either under the influence of Hellenistic apocalyptic literature in both the East and West or in reaction to Greek conquest and rule (or both)TS Although there is no unequivocal answer to these questions, the parallels in the surrounding world are too similar for us not to assume some measure of external influence as well. 76 The three books surveyed reflect a variety of viewpoints and genres, each addressing central issues of its day from different perspectives.77 Together with the intellectual vitality attested therein, each uniquely reflects the searching and instability within Jerusalem's religious circles, intensified, if not caused, by the new forces unleashed in the third century.78 Each author (and presumably the cir74. Collins, "From Prophecy to Apocalypticism," 137. 75. On the dispute as to whether this phenomenon was primarily diachronically or synchronically inspired, see R. Hanson, "Jewish Apocalyptic," 31-58, and Collins, "Jewish Apocalyptic," 27-36, and "From Prophecy to Apocalypticism," 145-147. See also Stone, "Lists," 435-443. On apocalyticism in other cultures, see the contributions by Clifford, Hultgard, and Cancik, in Collins, Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Apocalypticism, along with other phenomena, may also be a form of protest against Hellenistic rule; see Eddy, King Is Dead, 324-342, and Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 191-218. 76. Another book, Song of Songs, is often dated in its final form to the third century H.C.E. on the basis of linguistic considerations as well as parallels to Hellenistic love poetry; see Roslar, "Song of Songs," 33-48, and Zakovitch, Song of Songs, 19-20. Nevertheless, caution is required. In the words of Heine: "Love songs appear in every age as violets in every Spring." 77. Bickerman suggests a date more or less contemporary with Ben Sira for another apocryphal collection, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; see his "Date of the Testaments," 245-260. On some important commonalties between 1 Enoch and Ben Sira, see Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. 78. Much has been said about the social matrix of these books, but as Stone has rightly warned: "the movement from tendencies of thought discerned in the analysis of texts to the positing of the existence of otherwise unattested social groups is fraught with peril" ("Book of Enoch," 483).

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

65

cles represented) deals with these challenges in his own way, and some of the forces that propelled such endeavors proved so powerful that they not only engaged the intellectual elite but were to explode-culturally and socially-within the next generation.

The Seleucid Era (198-141 B.C.Erg

The Decrees of Antiochus III Although lasting for less than sixty years, Seleucid rule in Jerusalem brought in its wake enormous changes. SO With but one possible exception, the fIrst few decades appear to have been relatively quiet. Nevertheless, the changes effected in 175 and the upheavals that followed were so cataclysmic that they dramatically recharted the city's history. In addition to the specifIc political developments, it seems that there were cultural and religious forces coalescing beneath the surface of city life that came into the full light of history only at this point. The Seleucid era opens with an important document, preserved by Josephus, which tells us that when Antiochus conquered Jerusalem, he issued a proclamation guaranteeing the city and its leadership certain rights and privileges: King Antiochus to Ptolemy [Seleucid governor of Coele-Syria], greeting. "Inasmuch as the Jews, from the very moment when we entered their country, showed their eagerness to serve us and, when we came to their city, gave us a splendid reception and met us with their senate and furnished an abundance of provision to our soldiers and elephants, and also helped us to expel the Egyptian garrison in the citadel. ... We (therefore) have seen fit on our part to requite them for these acts and to restore their city which has been destroyed by the hazards of war (variant: "men"), and to repeople it by bringing back to it those who have dispersed abroad. In the first place we have decided, on account of their piety, to furnish them for their sacrifices an allowance of sacrificial animals, wine, oil and frankincense to the value of 20,000 pieces of silver, and sacred artabae of fine 79. According to 1 Macc. 13:41-42, Hasmonean independence began in the year 170 of the Seleucid era. However, precise calculations as to when this era commenced differ (the Macedonian Seleucid era or the Babylonian Seleucid era), with dates thus ranging between 313 and 311 B.C.E. Thus the statement regarding independence could refer to any time between 143 and 141 B.C.E., with either 142 or 141 B.C.E. being the most probable. See Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 22 (esp. n. 47), 478-479. 80. The sources available for reconstructing the history of the city become more abundant for this period, the most important of which are I and 2 Maccabees. Together these books offer a rather detailed, though sometimes contradictory, account of the events from 175 onward. Dan. 7-12 likewise records certain details. Josephus' historical account also becomes much richer for this period, although much of what he has to say is drawn from 1 Maccabees; see Gafni, "Josephus and I Maccabees," 116-131.

66

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

flour in accordance with their native law, and 1,460 medimni of wheat and 375 medimni of salt. And it is my will that these things be made over to them as I have ordered, and that the work on the Temple be completed, including the porticoes and any other part that it may be necessary to build. The timber, moreover, shall be brought from Judaea itself and from other nations and Lebanon without the imposition of a toll-charge. The like shall be done with the other materials needed for making the restoration of the Temple more splendid. And all the members of the nation shall have a form of government in accordance with the laws of their country, and the senate, the priests, the scribes of the Temple and the Temple-singers shall be relieved from the poll-tax and the crown-tax and the salt-tax which they pay. And, in order that the city may the more quickly be inhabited, I grant both to the present inhabitants and to those who may return before the month of Hyperberetaios exemption from taxes for three years. We shall also relieve them in future from the third part of their tribute, so that their losses may be made good. And as for those who were carried off from the city and are slaves, we herewith set them free, both them and the children born to them, and order their property to be restored to them."81

A word is in order about the form of this proclamation before we discuss its contents. As was customary in antiquity, the letter was addressed to the local governor rather than to the party affected (in this case, the Jews). Such a step was intended, among other reasons, to inform the official in charge of what was to be done to carry out the king's order. It was precisely such a documeni, sent by Cyrus to his officials regarding aid in rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple, that was found in the time of Darius (Ezra 6:1). In this case, the Jews of Jerusalem probably received a copy of Antiochus' letter to Ptolemy, just as they did a half century later, when Demetrius II sent the official version of his edict to Lasthenes (1 Macc. 11:31). The edict before us is structured as a conditional statement: "Whereas ... now, therefore." The king first lists the expressions of loyalty and aid offered by Jerusalemites when he conquered the city, starting with their positive attitude and enthusiastic reception of the king and ending with their military involvement. The list is thus organized on an ascending scale, the pinnacle of which was the aid extended in ousting the local Egyptian garrison from the city's citadel (Akra).82 Such receptions of conquering rulers are well known. The Jews of Jerusalem had pur-

81. Ant. 12.3,3,138-144. On the authenticity of this document, see Bickerman's classic study, "La charte seleucide," 4--35.

82. Little is known about the location of this Ptolemaic citadel. Other than the above text, it is only described in Lett. of Aristeas 100-114. However, if the author had an actual building in mind, it is unclear whether this rather detailed description refers to a third- or second-century building, the latter being more or less contemporaneous with the Letter of Aristeas. See Wightman, "Temple Fortresses. Part I," 29-31.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C. E.)

67

portedly greeted Alexander in such a manner over a century earlier,83 and Ptolemy IV is said to have merited a similar welcome several decades before (3 Mace. 1:8). For whatever reason, Antiochus III displayed a generous measure of goodwill toward Jerusalem. The city apparently suffered extensively in the last war, and much restoration was required. Those who fled were to be brought back from abroad, those sold into slavery were to be set free, and the Temple was to undergo extensive repairs. In the Syrian wars of the previous century, we find no indication that the city was involved in any hostilities. Thus the situation described in Antiochus' letter remains somewhat enigmatic. A possible clue to this mystery may be found in a statement in the book of Daniel that clearly reflects the decades prior to the Maccabean revolt: In those times, many will resist the king of the south, and the lawless sons of

your people will assert themselves to confirm the vision, but they will fail. The king of the north will advance and throw up siege ramps and capture a fortress city, and the forces of the south will not hold out; even the elite of his anny will be powerless to resist (Dan. 1l:14--15).

In the first part of this passage, Daniel seems to indicate that the population of Jerusalem was politically divided between support for the Ptolemies (here referred to as the south) and the Seleucids (the north). Such conflicting loyalties split the Tobiad house itself, with Hyrcanus supporting the Ptolemies, while his brothers, along with the High Priest Simon, identified with the Seleucids.84 Moreover, Josephus quotes Polybius to the effect that at one point during this war, Scopas, Ptolemy's general, "subdued the Jewish nation."85 If Jerusalem's popUlation was indeed divided in its loyalties, it might well explain Antiochus' need for a violent conquest of the city, especially if the pro-Ptolemaic faction was reinforced by the presence of an Egyptian garrison. Thus we may suggest the following sequence of events for this period: The city was taken by Antiochus some time in 202 or 201, recaptured by Scopas in 201-200, and subdued once again by Antiochus after an extended siege ca. 198. As a result of such sustained hostilities, the city and Temple presumably suffered considerable damage. This appears to have been the background for Antiochus' decision to repair the damages as quickly and as fully as possible. 86 83. Ant. 11.8,5, 329-332. 84. Ibid., 12.4, 11,228-229. 85. Ibid., 12.3, 3, 135. 86. The reference in Daniel (11:14-15) to the lawless sons who wished to confirm a vision is enigmatic.

It has been suggested that the reference is to messianic circles that tried to take advantage of the political upheavals to establish some sort of political alternative. See Taubler, "Jerusalem," I-30, 125-137,249-263. In regard to both the Fourth and Fifth Syrian Wars, see the judicious remarks of Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 3-35.

68

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Support for the Temple is a central issue articulated in Antiochus' letter, thereby perpetuating the tradition initiated by Cyrus. It included physically restoring the area of the Temple and its surrounding porticoes and providing various types of sacrifices. However, there seems to have been a clear-cut distinction in the degree of the government's involvement in specific areas. Whereas the king committed himself to furnishing whatever was necessary for sacrifices and the cult, responsibility for the restoration and enhancement of the Temple building and its surrounding area appears to have fallen on the Jews. The king here merely allowed them to bring wood from the north while exempting them from the toll charges involved. This might explain why Ben Sira praised the High Priest Simon so lavishly, singling him out for his role in restoring the Temple, its wall, towers, and water reservoirs, as well as fortifying the city (Ben Sira 50: 1-4).87 The last part of Antiochus' letter addresses the city's social dimensions. Here the king tried to relieve the effects of the ravages of war by helping the population to reconstitute itself. Property was to be restored to those who had been enslaved; everyone was given a three-year exemption from taxes, and thereafter citizens were to pay one third less taxes. City and Temple leadership was slated to benefit the most. This category of beneficiaries, which included members of the gerousia, priests, Temple scribes, and Temple singers, was exempt from the poll, crown, and salt taxes. Of those named, it seems clear that the king intended to support and bolster Jerusalem's traditional leadership: the priesthood, several Temple-related offices, and the aristocracy. A further indication of the traditionally oriented composition of Jerusalem's leadership at the time is another royal proclamation (programma in Greek) that also referred to the city and was dispatched, according to Josephus, out of reverence for the Temple: It is unlawful for any foreigner to enter the enclosure of the Temple which is for-

bidden to the Jews, except to those of them who are accustomed to enter after purifying themselves in accordance with the law of the country. Nor shall anyone bring into the city the flesh of horses or of mules or of wild or tame asses, or of leopards, foxes, or hares or, in general, of any animals forbidden to the Jews. Nor is it lawful to bring in their skins or even to breed any of these animals in the city. But only the sacrificial animals known to their ancestors and necessary for the propitiation of God shall they be permitted to use. And the person who violates any of these statutes shall pay to the priests a fine of 3,000 drachmas of silver.88

The first part, prohibiting non-Jews from entering the Temple precincts and restricting the entrance to those Jews in a state of purity, is well known from later 87. See Aitken, "Biblical Interpretation," 191-208. 88. Ant. 12.3,4, 145-146.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

69

Temple practice. There is no reason to assume that it was instituted specifically at this time; such a practice may well have been normative for generations, if not centuries. Thus the king was merely confirming a time-old tradition through his edict. The second part of the above proclamation is most puzzling. While prohibiting the introduction of the flesh of forbidden (i.e., non-kosher) animals into Jerusalem may be understandable, the prohibition of bringing in their skins or breeding and using them appears strange indeed. What other animals might be used for everyday work, if not horses, donkeys, or mules? Such a prohibition seems rare in antiquity, and Strabo notes but one place (Comana in Asia Minor) that outlawed all swine flesh in the city.89 There is no other evidence that the use of unclean animals or their skins was ever forbidden in Jerusalem at the time. There have been a number of attempts to clarify this enigma. Bickerman90 claims that the real issue being addressed was the danger that an unclean animal might die in the city and that its corpse would then become a source of pollution. Tcherikover91 suggests that these restrictions had nothing to do with the city itself and that the author of the document was referring to the Temple area, known as the (center of the) city. Hengel,92 for his part, views these restrictions as serving the interests of the conservative element in the city that opposed the Tobiads and were attempting to reduce Jerusalem's mercantile significance. Whatever the case, the city apparently received a more restrictive and purist (i.e., "pious") image at this time. It can be assumed that the priestly class, with Simon at its head, was the beneficiary (religiously, if not economically) and that these circles may well have initiated this decree. The fact that any violation of these orders entailed paying a fme to the priests seems to reinforce this assumption.

Jason s Reforms and Their Aftermath Given the conservative religious and political status quo that seems to have been established or reconfirmed at the outset of Seleucid rule, the turn of events in 175 B.C.E. is indeed stunning. As related in 2 Maccabees, the following took place: When Seleucus passed away and Antiochus, called Epiphanes, succeeded to the throne, Jason, Onias' brother, usurped the high priesthood. He did so by presenting a petition in which he offered the king 360 talents, plus 80 talents of other revenue. In addition, he promised to pay 150 talents if he should be granted by virtue of his office the power to establish a gymnasium and an

89. Geography 12, 8,9, C575.

90. Bickennan, "Une proclamation se1eucide," 67-85. 91. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 86-87. 92. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:271-272.

70

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

ephebic organization and to draw up the list of the Antiochenes in Jerusalem. The king consented. On taking office, Jason immediately brought his fellow Jews over to the Greek style of life. He cast away the humane royal concessions gained for the Jews by John, the father of the ambassador Eupolemus, who negotiated the treaty of friendship and alliance with the Romans. Overthrowing the civic institution of the Torah, Jason brought in new usages which were contrary to the law. Indeed, he took pleasure in founding a gymnasium beneath the very citadel and in making the education of the noblest adolescent boys consist of submission to the broad-brimmed Greek hat. The enormous wickedness of the impious Jason-no true high priest is he!-brought it about that the aping of Greek manners reached a peak and the adoption of gentile ways a height, such that the priests were no longer eager to perform their duties at the altar but made light of the Temple and neglected the sacrifices, in their haste after the gong sounded calling them to participate in the illicit entertainment in the wrestling yard. Setting at nought their hereditary distinctions, they put the highest value on Greek honors. For that very reason, grievous troubles came upon them: the Greeks, whose way of life they admired and whom they wished to ape in every way, became their enemies and the executors of their punishment. It is no light matter to be impious toward the laws of God (2 Macc. 4:7-17).

Before discussing the remarkable events recorded here, a word is in order regarding the source itself. Clearly, the author of 2 Maccabees, as well as his source, Jason of Cyrene (2 Mace. 2: 19-32), was hostile to the High Priest Jason and the reforms he introduced. We do not know to what extent this judgment, written decades later, reflects the actual opinion of the Jerusalem populace in 175.93 Moreover, the author's negative appraisal must be understood not only in the context of his overall perspective of the period but also in his understanding of the events that preceded Jason. For example, the era before Jason's high priesthood is described in glowing terms: Under the High Priest Onias the inhabitants of the holy city enjoyed undisturbed peace, and there was the strictest observance of the laws, because of his piety and hatred of wickedness. It also frequently happened that even the king honored the Place and contributed to the glory of the Temple with the most sumptuous gifts. In fact, Seleucus [IV, son of Antiochus III], king of Asia, provided for all the expenses of the sacrificial cult out of his own revenues (2 Macc. 3: 1-3). 93. See also Ant. 12.5, I, 240. Regarding these reforms, which he erroneously dates to the time of Menelaus in 172, Josephus writes: "they wished to abandon their country's laws and the way of life prescribed by these, and to follow the king's laws and adopt the Greek way oflife."

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

71

Thus, according to 2 Maccabees, everything was idyllic until the appearance of the wicked and scheming Simon (2 Macc. 3:4--40), who stirred up trouble after a dispute with Onias. He reported to the local Seleucid governor that the Temple treasury overflowed with money that could be confiscated, as it was not intended for sacrifices and, therefore, was not considered inviolate. This led to an attempt by the Seleucids to rob the Temple, strapped as they were for cash following their humiliating treaty with Rome in 188. 94 We learn in 2 Macc. 3 that the attempt was foiled owing to divine intervention. However, Simon's venom knew no bounds, and it is reported that he then perpetrated murders in the city (2 Macc. 4:3) while his alliance with the Seleucid governor encouraged him to continue undermining Onias' position. This, then, forms the historiographical and ideological background of 2 Maccabees' account of Jason's reforms. Foreign rulers were inherently positive toward the Jews, and it was only evil and misguided Jews who fostered tension and violent confrontation. Jason's goal seemed simple enough: to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis. This would explain the introduction of a gymnasium and ephebium, two institutions intended for the training of Greek citizens. It would also clarify the term "Antiochenes of Jerusalem," an apparent reference to the registering of Jerusalemites as citizens of the new Greek city named after Antiochus IV. The establishment of a polis, of course, was a common occurrence in the Hellenistic world. Some Greek cities were formed on either royal or local initiative, in the latter case because it afforded the local popUlation an opportunity to enjoy the full political, social, cultural, and economic benefits of the empire. Aside from the introduction of cultural institutions, paramount among which was the gymnasium intended for both physical and intellectual training, the establishment of a polis changed the entire political decision-making process, at least in theory. No longer were the traditional leaders of a city, e.g., the high priest or the priestly class, ipso facto invested with supreme authority in civic matters. Decisions could be taken by officials who were elected by the citizenry at regular intervals. A constitution defined the authority of each constituent body of the polis; decisions on important public questions were made by majority vote and trial by jury of one's fellow citizens was mandated. In the century and a half after Alexander, pole is had sprung up throughout Judaea-along the coast, in Transjordan, and inland as well (Bet Shean, Samaria). At times such cities, e.g., Gadara east of the Jordan River, quickly became centers of Greek culture. Such a change was now being introduced into Jerusalem after 150 years of Hellenistic rule. It is a moot point whether the delay was due to top94. See Gruen, Hellenistic World, 636-643, and Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 81-100.

72

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

ographical, ethnic, or religious factors---or a combination thereof. But in the end, even Jerusalem could not remain isolated from the outside world; and, indeed, some (or many) of its residents had no wish to be isolated (see the ideological statement of the Hellenizers' in 1 Macc. 1:11). By 175, it was no longer possible or desirable to ignore the political and economic opportunities, or the cultural and social attractions, of the Hellenistic world. 95 We come now to a cardinal question that has divided scholarly opinion sharply over the past half century: How extensive and deep was the Hellenism that Jason and his colleagues had absorbed when they converted Jerusalem into a polis? This issue has two related components, one social and the other cultural: (1) Were the Hellenizers a numerically small coterie within the population that represented not much more than a thin veneer of the priestly aristocracy? And, if so, were they attempting an adventurous policy in disregard of the vast majority of the population? (2) Was the transformation of Jerusalem into a polis a relatively isolated act or did it represent the culmination of a long process of acculturation that was undoubtedly expressed in many other areas of city life as well (of which, however, we know very little)? These are indeed complex questions, and because the sources at our disposal are sparse and the ideological positions of modem scholars poles apart, opinions are sharply divided. Some regard the Hellenism of Jerusalem during this period as a widespread and significant phenomenon (Bickerman, Hengel, and Goldstein), while others view pre-Hasmonean Hellenism as marginal and superficial (Tcherikover, Stem, and Millar). Our discussion of Ptolemaic Jerusalem leads us to conclude that both views bear merit and that more subtle and nuanced distinctions are required. 96 The issue cannot be framed as merely: "Hellenism-yes or no? Significant or minimal?" The populace of Jerusalem was diverse, including various socioeconomic classes and religious circles, and the facets of city life that might be affected by outside influences were numerous. To ignore the evidence we have surveyed above would be unjustified, as it would to assume that Jerusalem was exposed to the same degree and intensity of Hellenism as other cities in the East. Jerusalem in 175 was far from 95. Nevertheless, there were Jewish circles that looked askance at the political and cultural developments since Alexander; see, e.g., Dan 11:2-4 and 1 Macc. 1:1-10. Very often, such Greek cities were established alongside existing ones rather than replacing them. It is not entirely clear what happened in Jerusalem's case, although it seems that we are dealing with a situation in which the city itself became a polis. There is no indication in our sources that another area was set aside for the polis. Moreover, several years later, in 168, a large fortified area (the Akra) was established to house troops and eventually some of the more extreme Hellenizers (see below). Surely there were not three such separate entities in Jerusalem-the older city, the polis, and the Akra! See also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 165. 96. See above, as well as Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 16-27.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

73

identical to contemporary Alexandria or Antioch. Whether for geographic, ethnic, or religious reasons, it had been slower to transform itself into a full-fledged Greek city. On the other hand, given what we know today about the material finds (coins and jar handles), literary output, and the few, but precious, historical accounts (e.g., the Tobiad family) relating to third-century Jerusalem, it would also be imprudent to dismiss this evidence as not reflective of a much greater receptivity to Hellenistic influence than the minimalists cited above would want to admit. An interesting and pemaps significant indication of increasing Hellenization in Seleucid Jerusalem may be found in the names of historical figures who ftmctioned in the frrst half of the second century. These people were contemporaries of Jason. Little needs to be said of the priestly circles, many of whom are identified in 2 Maccabees with the Hellenizers. Aside from Jason, names such as Menelaus, Lysimachus, and Alcimus are noted. However, the priest John, who had negotiated a treaty with Rome and was well regarded by the author of 2 Maccabees, named his son Eupolemus and saw to it that he received a serious Greek education. Eupolemus was later to be a Hasmonean ambassador to Rome and is very probably to be identified with the author of the same name who wrote the Greek book On the Kings in Judaea. 97 Eupolemus' partner in the 161 B.C.E. embassy to Rome was Jason son of Eleazar (1 Macc. 8:17), another Greek-named son of a Hebrew-named father. The proto-Pharisee Antigonus of Soch098 also bears a Greek name and flourished in the first half of the second century, about the same time that the last of the Tobiads, Hyrcanus son of Joseph, was at the peak of his career.99 On the basis of these names, we may thus conclude that Jason's initiative of 175 was far from being a totally unexpected step, and it certainly did not take place in a cultural vacuum, as some minimalists would have it. Jerusalem was moving in the direction of ever-increasing exposure to the Hellenistic world, and Jason's reforms only served to catapult this historical process in a sudden and dramatic fashion. It is quite evident by what took place after the transformation of the city that Jason was not totally out of step with most of Jerusalem's inhabitants. When Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem a year or two later, perhaps on the occasion of the formal establishment of the polis "Antioch in Jerusalem," a not uncommon phenomenon in Hellenistic cities as Tcherikover1oo suggests, "he was sumptuously 97. 1 Mace. 8:17; 2 Mace. 4:11. On Eupolemus and his writings, see Hollada)l Fragments, 1:93-156, and "Eupolemus, Pseudo-" 671-672; and Wacholder, Eupolemus.

98. M Avot 1,3. 99. To the above should be added the possibility entertained by many scholars, that a number of Jewish (and perhaps Samaritan) authors who wrote in Greek at this time likewise lived in Palestine; if so, they may well have resided in Jerusalem: Theodotus, Philo the Elder, Ezekiel the Tragedian, PseudoEupolemus, and Pseudo-Hecataeus. See Holladay, Fragments, passim; Schiirer, History, III:509 ff.; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:69 ff. 100. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 164-165.

74

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

greeted by Jason and the Jerusalemites, and he was brought into the city with a torchlight parade and shouts of applause. Thereafter in the same manner [i.e., with the same enthusiasm] he and his army marched off to Phoenicia" (2 Macc. 4:22).101 Given this warm reception, which clearly expressed a high degree of goodwill and loyalty to the king, it seems safe to assume that the reaction of the Jerusalem populace to Jason's reforms, which were closely associated with the monarch, was far from hostile. Moreover, it should be remembered that the reforms themselves were political and cultural in essence; there is no indication whatsoever that any of the so-called Hellenizers had a religious, i.e., pagan or syncretistic, agenda in mind. No religious reforms were initiated in the city, as was to happen with a vengeance some eight years later. In fact, a delegation sent to participate in the athletic games at Tyre in 173 was careful to contribute its gifts to the Tyrian navy and not, as was customary, to the god of the city, in this case Melqart-Hercules (2 Macc. 4:18-20). Even Jason, who according to 2 Maccabees had intended the gifts to be offered as sacrifices to the god, probably considered such a tribute as no more than a mere entrance or admission fee to the games. Despite this apparently harmonious transition to a polis status, the gates of political infighting among various priestly factions had now been thrown wide open, and Jerusalem entered a period of fierce and often violent conflict. In 172, the priest Menelaus successfully wrested control of the high priesthood and city from Jason using the same tactics as the latter had introduced several years earlier, namely, bribing the king. However, to meet his commitments, Menelaus, with the assistance of one Lysimachus, was forced to rob the Temple treasury. Together with the murder of Onias III, which he engineered, Menelaus managed to enrage the Jerusalem populace and incite mayhem in the streets of the city (2 Macc. 4:23-42). Matters seem to have quieted down thereafter, at least for several years. It was only in the wake of Antiochus' disastrous Egyptian campaigns in 169 and 168 that the city was again rocked with violence and destruction.102 In 169, a rumor of Antiochus' death reached the city, and this emboldened the former High

101. Abel, Les livres des Maccabees, 337, and Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 235-236. 102. The chronology of Antiochus'two Egyptian campaigns and his punishment of Jerusalem have been the subject of much debate and discussion. We have assumed that these violent actions took place after the campaigns of 169 and 168 (contra 1 Mace. 1:20,29, and Ant. 12.5,4,248), that after each campaign the king had occasion to wreak havoc on the city, and that the confrontation with Jason was in 169 (contra 2 Mace. 5:1-7). For a review of the issues involved in the conflicting chronologies of 1 and 2 Maccabees, see Schiirer, History, I:151-154; Bickerman, God of the Maccabees, 104-111; GLAJJ, I: 115-116; Marcus' remarks, Josephus, LCL, VII, 126-127 n. e; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 186-191; Schafer, "Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods," 564-566, 582-585; Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 246; Bringman, Hellenistische Refonn, 36-40; Broshi and Eshel, "Greek King," 128; Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 153-157; and, most recently, D. R. Schwartz, "Antiochus IVEpiphanes in Jerusalem.," 45-56.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

75

Priest Jason to return and try to wrest control of Jerusalem. Divided between the two contenders, the city was plunged into internal strife, which terminated only with the arrival of Antiochus who proceeded to drive out Jason and his followers and then plunder the Temple: While returning from his conquest of Egypt in the year 143 [of the Seleucid era, or 169 B.C.E.], Antiochus marched against Jerusalem with a strong army.... Arrogantly entering the Temple, he took the golden altar and the candelabrum with all its furnishings and the table for the showbread and the libation jars and the bowls and the golden ladles and the curtain. He stripped off all the cornices and the ornamentation of gold from the front of the Temple and took the silver and the gold coins and the precious articles, whatever he found of the treasures on deposit. He took them all and carried them back to his own country. He massacred the people and spoke most arrogantly (1 Mace. 1:20-24).

In 2 Mace. 5: 11-16, extensive devastation and unbridled plunder are also noted. Undoubtedly, the king's need to replenish his coffers-if not his self-confidence and self-image-following his unsuccessful Egyptian ventures was a major motivation for his actions and not merely the desire to punish the city for its disorders. A year later, in 168, Antiochus returned to Jerusalem, this time enraged by his humiliating retreat from Egypt caused by the Roman legate Popillius Laenas. It is impossible to know whether the continued unrest in Jerusalem exacerbated his response; Tcherikover's theory-that a full-fledged revolt was now in the making-is unattested. 103 Whatever the explanation for his anger and vindictiveness, the effects of Antiochus'rage on Jerusalem were nothing short of devastating. Massacre, pillage, and destruction were again ubiquitous, and many people were sold into slavery. The Temple was once again robbed, and buildings were destroyed along with the walls of the city. The Seleucid government now established a permanent presence in Jerusalem. This was accomplished not only by the appointment of an official named Philip who assumed responsibilities in Jerusalem along with Menelaus. J04 Of far more significance, a citadel (the Akra) was built to guard the city and house both soldiers and Hellenizers who supported continued Seleucid rule (1 Mace. 1:29-35; 2 Mace. 5:1-21).

The Seleucid Akra The Akra seems to have had an enormous impact on the city not only militarily but physically, politically, and socially as well. The fact that the fortress survived

103. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization. 192-193. 104. It is interesting to note not only that this step was directed against Jerusalem but one Andronikos was also appointed to take charge of Mount Gerizim, i.e., the Samaritan temple.

76

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 16. The proposed locations of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem.

for twenty-seven years, despite repeated attempts to eliminate it, attests to its prominence and strength. Unfortunately, we are ill-informed as to the Akra's social, political, and religious composition. No relevant archaeological evidence has been discovered to date, and thus we do not even have a clear idea where it was located. To make matters worse, some of the references in existing sources (1 Maccabees, Josephus) offer what appear to be contradictory statements, and at times conflicting testimony appears in one and the same source. Josephus, for example, claims time and again that the Akra was located in the City of David (or Lower City), while at the same time he reports that it stood higher than the Temple Mount, which would be all but impossible given the topography of the area. The Akra would have had to be a skyscraper by modem standards for it to overlook the Temple area if it were located in the much lower City of David. lOs The book of 1 Macc. 13:52, for its part, notes the proximity of the Akra to the Temple, while stating that following its conquest by Simon in 141 it was converted into a palace for his use. In contrast, however, Josephus notes that the Akra, together with the hill on which it stood, was totally destroyed. 106 Given such contradictory evidence, and in the absence of firm archaeological data, it is little wonder that suggestions abound regarding the location of the Akra (Fig. 16). Following Josephus, many have suggested the City of David; others have opted for the western hill (later referred to as the Upper City), which would afford a commanding view of the Temple and where a Hasmonean palace 105. Ant. 12.5, 4, 252. 106. Ibid., 13.6,7,216-217.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

77

was to be found later on.W? The site of the Akra has also been located just south or southeast of the Temple, as well as north of it, on the site of the Hasmonean Baris, where Herod's Antonia fortress was eventually constructed. 108 The political and social significance oftheAkra is also shrouded in mystery. It would appear that the citadel wielded a dominant role in Jerusalem for much of this period, certainly from 168 to 164, intermittently from 164 to 160,\09 and again from 160 to 152. Only after 152, concomitant with Jonathan's rise to power, did the focus of power shift back to the Temple and city. The presence of such a citadel was not foreign to a Seleucid city and was often built on its periphery. In this way, it could control and defend the settlement while ensuring itself direct access from the outside. Foreign troops invariably constituted a main component of a citadel population, often having access to an institution such as the gymnasium. Whether the gymnasium that Jason had erected functioned in this capacity can only be conjectured; following its construction, this building is never again mentioned in any source. The Akra also seems to have served as a prison for the incarceration of hostages (l Macc. 9:53). The difference in emphasis between 1 Maccabees and Josephus as regards the inhabitants of the Akra is noteworthy. The former regularly speaks oftheAkra as housing foreign troops,11O while the latter repeatedly emphasizes that Jewish renegades resided there as well. III Residents of the Akra presumably maintained a viable economic life buying and selling, perhaps also owning fields outside the city. At one point, the Hasmoneans sought to disrupt this free and unencumbered movement to and fro (l Macc. 12:36; 13:49). It is impossible to tell whether the commander oftheAkra was charged with the collection of revenue from the city, as had been the case beforehand, in the days of Menelaus (2 Macc. 4:28). It is also unknown whether the Akra itself paid revenue to the king. In any case, the power and status of this citadel during these twenty-seven years clearly ebbed and flowed; at times it seems to have exercised dominant control over the city, and at others it was far more isolated. The Akra nevertheless remained a recog107. Ibid., 20.8, 11,189-190. 108. For the various suggestions as to the location of the Akra, see Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 145-157; Shotwell, "Problem of the Syrian Akra," 10-19; Tsafrir, "Location," 501-521; Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 214-220; Ben-Dov, "Seleucid Akra," 22-35; Luria, "Location," 31-40; BarKochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 445-465; and Wightman, "Temple Fortresses. Part I," 31-39 and references therein. See also Decoster, "Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra," 70-84. 109. Antiochus V's decree of 162 abolishing the religious persecutions and allowing the Jews to live according to their ancestral customs (2 Mace. 11 :25) undoubtedly restored much of Jerusalem to its former life, although it was still under the leadership of a moderate Hellenizer, Alcimus. 110. However, see the reference in I Mace. 4:2 to "men of the Akra" serving as guides to the general Gorgias, clearly a reference to native Jews. 111. On this and other aspects concerning the historical significance of the Akra, see Sievers, "Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus," 195-209.

78

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

nized and official outpost of Seleucid rule, with all the benefits and drawbacks accruing such a status. Thus its fall immediately preceding the Hasmonean declaration of independence is far from fortuitous.

Jerusalem during the Maccabean Revolt Returning to the events in Jerusalem during 168-167, we come face to face with one of the most decisive episodes and intractable historiographical problems of the entire Second Temple period. We know nothing about what transpired in Jerusalem for the year following the building of the Akra (from fall 168 to fall 167), as our sources simply skip over this time frame. Then, suddenly, in December (Kislev) 167, we learn that the king decreed a religious persecution against the Jews of Jerusalem and Judaea. They were forbidden to observe a wide range of commandments, from performing circumcisions, studying Torah, possessing a Torah scroll, and observing the Sabbath and holidays to offering sacrifices, meal offerings, and libations at the Temple. No less severe was the attempt to force Jews to worship idols. They were compelled to build temples, shrines, and altars to pagan deities, as well as offer sacrifices to them and eat forbidden foods, including those that had been offered as sacrifices to the gods (l Macc. 1:44--64; 2 Macc. 6: 1-17). Why this happened, whose idea it was, what steps led to such an unusual and extreme decision, what kinds of contacts existed between Jewish leaders and the Seleucid monarch in the days, weeks, and months preceding these decrees are some of the crucial questions simply not addressed in any extant source. No clear-cut rationale is offered for this persecution other than some very general remark regarding the need to unify all peoples (l Macc. 1:41); however, this was patently not Seleucid policy elsewhere in the realm. What is more, Antiochus IV's religious persecution only affected the Jews of Judaea; elsewhere, as in Antioch, capital of the Seleucid kingdom, the Jews apparently remained unscathed. Most astonishing of all is the fact that there was a religious persecution at all. The pagan world was known for its religious tolerance, a characteristic that flowed, inter alia, from the recognition that there were many deities and temples in the world, and honor was due them all. In fact, no religious persecution is known before the events of 167. In light of the fact that Antiochus IV himself had benefited from an enlightened Hellenistic education, to assume such a deviation from accepted norms would be most peculiar. Because of these issues, and given the absence of any directly related source material, theories explaining the rationale behind Antiochus' decree abound. Most scholars, following the lead of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, have placed the blame at the feet of the king: Antiochus had some strange behavioral patterns that may have contributed to this irrational and unprecedented action

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

79

or he may have hoped to bring a greater coherency and unity to his kingdom politically and culturally, especially on its western frontier.ll2 Other theories introduce other motives: (1) Antiochus witnessed a religious persecution firsthand while being held hostage in Rome and copied this pattern in Jerusalem (Goldstein); (2) the profound anger and frustration of the king that led to this and other (irrational) steps stemmed from a deep sense of humiliation, which he suffered at the hands of the Romans in Egypt just before (Gruen); (3) the extreme Jewish Hellenizers under Menelaus were responsible for convincing the king to act in this manner (Bickerman, followed and amplified by Hengel); (4) the persecutions were, in reality, the Seleucid response to a religiously inspired revolt that had already broken out earlier, and Antiochus' response was thus directed at the religious sphere of Jewish life as well (Tcherikover).ll3 There is no question that the effects of the persecution throughout Judaea, and particularly in Jerusalem, were traumatic. There may have been certain elements ofthe population (if Bickerman is correct) that had little or no objection to this drastic step, but there were certainly many who opted for discretion or voiced no opposition at all, fearing reprisals and death; we know nothing of these people. Others remained adamant in their observances and consequently paid the price of martyrdom; such reactions are noted in 1 and 2 Maccabees and highlighted in the latter. 1l4 For instance, two women, insisting on circumcising their sons, were paraded before the townspeople with their babies hanging from their breasts and, after being dragged through the city, were thrown down from its walls (2 Macc. 6:10; 1 Macc. 1:61). The deaths of Eleazar and a mother with her seven sons for refusing to eat forbidden foods are accorded detailed descriptions in 2 Macc. 6: 18-7:42. Such incidents probably took place in Jerusalem. Finally, many escaped persecution by leaving the city, some taking refuge in nearby caves (2 Macc. 6: 11) and others fleeing even farther away. We know very little of the events in Jerusalem for the next several years. The sources quickly tum their attention to their heroes, to either Judah (2 Maccabees) or the Maccabean family generally (1 Maccabees). Since the Maccabean revolt began in Modi'in and remained focused in the Judaean countryside until the capture of Jerusalem at the end of 164, information regarding the city itself during 112. Millar, "Background to the Maccabean Revolution," 16-17, who lays the blame squarely at the feet of the king, is unable to pinpoint the specific reason: "there seems no way of reaching an understanding of how Antiochus came to take a step so profoundly at variance with the normal assumptions of government in his time." 113. Reviews of the various theories regarding the persecution are legion, see, e.g., Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 175-203; Schafer, "Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods," 562-":564; and Grabbe, Judaism, 1:247-256. See also Gruen, "Hellenism and Persecution," 238-274, and Scurlock, "167 BeE: Hellenism or Reform?" 125-161. 114. See van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs.

80

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

this three-year period is practically nonexistent. We can safely surmise that the status quo of December 167 prevailed; instead of traditional Judaism, pagan cults flourished in the Temple, at least among the soldiers and government officials stationed in the city; Menelaus served as high priest; and the Jerusalem gerousia survived, whatever may have been its authority and function. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that even though the revolt and its concomitant campaigns took place outside Jerusalem, the city always remained the focus of attention and the ultimate target of all military efforts. The armed struggle ~ed at recapturing the city and cleansing its Temple was its raison d' etre. Thus ceremonies held before important battles included a prayer for the redemption of the city (l Macc. 3:42-45). At one point, Judah gathered his followers at Mitzpeh, north of Jerusalem, and in the midst of an elaborate ceremony-including the wearing of sackcloth, fasting, rending garments, sprinkling ashes, and sounding trumpets-they bemoaned the state of the Temple and implored God's intervention. Judah then organized his forces for battle (1 Macc. 3:46--60). Whatever may have been the initial purpose( s) of the persecutions, it is also quite possible that Syrian goals may have changed vis-a-vis the city and country, especially in light of the successful military campaign being waged under the leadership of the Maccabees. For example, the Syrian general Nicanor had plans to take many Jewish prisoners and, by selling them, alleviate some of the empire's financial burdens (2 Macc. 8:10).115 Of no less consequence is the threefold plan quoted by 2 Macc. 11 :2-3 and associated with the general Lysias as he began his campaign in Judaea in 164: (1) resettling Jerusalem with Greeks; (2) taxing the Temple like other shrines throughout the empire; and (3) putting the high priesthood up for sale annually, thus turning it into a regularly dispensed Seleucid office. And 1 Macc. 3:35-36 speaks of an attempt to eliminate the Jewish character of the city as much as possible by settling foreigners there and dividing its land among these new settlers. These plans, formulated toward the end of the revolt, never came to fruition, but they do give us an indication of the direction the Seleucid policy makers were considering had the hostilities in Judaea lasted much longer. Although our sources focus on the campaigns of the Maccabees in Judaea during this period, and thus on the conflict between Jew and Greek, we must not forget that, at the same time, a civil war of sorts was being waged among the Jews themselves. For almost a decade, the Jewish Hellenizers in Jerusalem had 115. It is yet another question whether the author of 2 Maccabees is correct that the reason for these sales was to help payoff Se1eucid debts to the Romans incurred in the (in)famous treaty of Apamea in 188. According to both Po1ybius (21,17,4-5) and Livy (37, 45,14), the payment schedule of twelve annual installments should have terminated some time around 177-176 B.C.E.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C. E.)

81

charted a course with an eye toward integrating Jerusalem into the Seleucid Empire (1 Macc. 1: 11). This goal became sidetracked, partly because of outside events and partly owing to conflicts within the Hellenizers' circles (e.g., Jason and Menelaus). Even after the outbreak of hostilities, the Hellenizers appear to have maintained some degree of loyalty to the Syrian government. Judah attacked the Hellenizers in the towns that he had captured (l Macc. 3:8; 2 Macc. 8:6) and later on killed many while plundering their property (1 Macc. 6:22-24). In tum, some of those living in the Akra aided Gorgias by serving as guides in his campaign (1 Macc. 4:2), while others joined another Seleucid general, Seron, in his march toward Bet Horon (1 Macc. 3:15). Nevertheless, despite some geographical dispersion, it is clear that the Hellenizers' base of power was in Jerusalem. Their presence in the Akra, and the fact that one of their members (A1cimus) held the office of high priest for several years, beginning in 162, ensured them significant leverage in the city. It is with respect to Lysias' campaign of 164 that we are informed more specifically about the Hellenizers' leadership in Jerusalem during this period and their role in trying to bring the hostilities to a close.1l 6 The book of 2 Maccabees has preserved a series of letters involving Seleucid and Jerusalem authorities, as well as a delegation of Romans. While there is no shortage of textual and interpretive problems associated with these documents, at least three of the four seem to be reliable testimony to the flurry of diplomatic activity in the spring of 164 in which the Jerusalem Hellenizers played a leading role.l17 The earliest letter was sent by the "community of the Jews" to Lysias with some unspecified requests. Lysias promised to respond affirmatively to those things in his power to implement and refer the others to the king. He concluded by promising to help the Jews in the future as long as they would maintain their loyalty to the state (2 Mace. 11:16--21). Clearly, the Jews here were not associated with the rebel cause but rather with those who had consistently demonstrated their allegiance to the empire, i.e., the Hellenizers. A second document is a letter from two Roman delegates who, while on their way to Antioch, had been approached by these same Jews for help. They endorsed the promises made by Lysias and expressed their willingness to assist in bringing matters before the king (2 Macc. 34-38). The third letter, chronologically the last, is dated to April 164 and reads as follows:

116. On Lysias·expedition. see Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 275-290. 117. We follow Tcherikover's analysis of these documents in his Hellenistic Civilization, 213-220. See also Schafer, "Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods," 566-568; Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 239-254. Regarding the above date, see n. 79 to this chapter.

82

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

King Antiochus [IV] to the gerousia of the Jews and to the rest of the Jews, greeting. If you are well, that would be as we wish. We ourselves are in good health. Menelaus has infonned us that you wish to go back to your homes and turn to your own private affairs. For those who go home by the thirtieth of Xanthicus, there shall be the assurance of safety and amnesty. The Jews are to be free to follow their own way of life and their own laws as in earlier times, and no one is in any way to molest them because of the previous misunderstandings. I am also sending Menelaus with instructions to put your minds at ease. Farewell. In the year 148,118 on the fifteenth of Xanthicus (2 Macc. 11:27-33).

This document attests that the Jewish authorities of Jerusalem were hard at work, attempting to craft an agreement with the Seleucid government; in light of the recent Hasmonean victories, it seems that the authorities in Antioch were interested now, more than ever, in reaching an accommodation. The outlines of such an agreement were clear. In return for the cessation of hostilities, those Jews who agreed to lay down their arms and return to their homes and fields would receive amnesty and security from the king, and would be granted religious freedom. In effect, the Hellenizers were attempting to negotiate an end to hostilities for a return to the religious status quo ante, thereby undercutting the Maccabees, depriving them of the raison d' etre for their military campaign and ensuring for themselves, as successful mediators, the allegiance of the people at large. Despite this imaginative initiative, nothing significant (at least as far as our sources are concerned) seems to have materialized. It may well be that Judah Maccabee's followers constituted the target population for this agreement and thus rejected it out of hand. Whatever the case, another six months were to go by before the next steps were taken-the recapture of Jerusalem by the rebels and the purification of the Temple.

Dedication of the Temple and the Festival of Hanukkah As might be expected, the capture of the Temple is accorded extensive coverage in our sources. Details of the purification and rededication ceremonies are described as the three-year period of desecration came to an end (1 Macc. 4:36-61; 2 Macc. 10:1-8).119 Anew holiday, Hanukkah, was thus added to the Jewish calendar; but just as the reasons for the original persecutions in 167 B.C.E. elude us, so does the reason for the establishment of an eight-day holiday to commemorate this occasion. In the first place, the consecration of the Wilderness Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were both seven-day affairs (Lev. 9:1; 1 Kings 8:65). More118. According to the Seleucid era that commenced in 312; the year 148 is equivalent to 164 B.C.E. 119. See also Ant. 12.7,6-7,316-326.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

83

over, Jewish tradition has sanctified the explanation offered in the Babylonian Talmud,120 whereby the length of the holiday resulted from the miracle of one day's supply of oil that lasted for eight. Such an explanation, however, is historically problematic, not only owing to its blatantly miraculous nature but also because the source itself is centuries later than the event described and was edited in a different geographical region. Its historical reliability is thus seriously compromised. 121 Finally, we have other, more likely, explanations from sources dated much closer to the event that heretofore have been largely overlooked. Deriving from a work written soon after the events themselves,122 2 Maccabees states quite explicitly that the eight-day celebrations, replete with palm branches, was originally a postponed Sukkot festival. Unable to celebrate this most popular of holidays at its proper time (in the fall), the victorious Jews decided to do so several months later (2 Macc. 10:6-8). On the face of it, this explanation makes a good deal of sense. The difficulty arises, however, with the decision to tum the holiday into an annual event, for in the following year the Jews were indeed able to celebrate Sukkot at its proper time. Why, then, did they continue to perpetuate the earlier ad hoc, one-time decision of an eight-day Kislev festival? Thus, despite its apparently compelling nature, this explanation of 2 Maccabees is not fully convincing. Two other possibilities, albeit of a more indirect character, are most intriguing. In 2 Chron. 29: 17 we read of King Hezekiah's purification of the Temple after a period of idolatrous practices, at the end of which he celebrated a rededication ceremony lasting eight days. Whether or not this actually happened (these details are not reported in the books of Kings, for example) is of no consequence; for our purposes, what is important is the fact that Chronicles, written some time in the fourth or third century, preserves such a tradition. Thus the Maccabees undoubtedly knew of this precedent, and it may have played a role in determining the eight-day Hanukkah celebration. A second consideration is rooted in the fact that pagan societies, from Babylon onward, marked the beginning of the winter solstice in middle to late December with a festival of lights, which, coincidentally enough, lasted for eight days.123 It is hard to imagine, though at present impossible to prove, that the Jews were oblivious to this remarkable parallel as the Hanukkah festival was taking shape. 120. Shabbat 21b. 121. Another rabbinic source, the fourth- or fifth-century C.E. commentary on Megillat Ta 'ani(, offers another, somewhat less "miraculous," explanation. The eight days stemmed from the time required to purify the Temple. In other words, the actual process of purification and the festivities the following day were sanctified and made into a holiday. 122. The book of 2 Maccabees-an epitome of a five-volume work composed by Jason of Cyrene some time after the death of Judah Maccabee in 160-was probably written early in the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104). 123. This tradition, although now in a Jewish garb, is referred to in B 'Avodah Zarah 8a.

84

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Given the number of possible explanations for the nature and duration of Hanukkah, it may well be that no single reason is sufficient to explain the reason for the holiday. Rather, it is quite possible that a number of factors converged (e.g., a postponed Sukkot festival, the Chronicles precedent, contemporary pagan celebrations), resulting in the eventual crystallization of the Hanukkah festival as we know it. For the remainder of Judah Maccabee's career (164-160), our sources focus primarily on the battles that took place around Jerusalem. The city found itself under the rule of one side or the other, depending on the fortunes (or misfortunes) of battle. For a year and a half after the capture of the city, the Maccabees appear to have had some sort of control there, though not enough to tempt them to replace Menelaus as high priest. The composition of the gerousia, with its former pro-Seleucid, Hellenizer-oriented, membership, probably also remained status quo ante, but we have no solid evidence of this. The only steps taken by Judah after assuming control of Jerusalem was the erection of a wall around Mount Zion (probably a reference to the Temple) and several attempts to conquer theAkra (1 Macc. 4:41, 6:18). Judah's control over the city did not prevent hostilities from erupting from time to time between the inhabitants of the Akra and Jerusalem. Josephus reports that Jews on their way to offering sacrifices were attacked and killed by the forces stationed in the Akra. l24 This threat to the safety of the Jews in the city spurred Judah to increase his efforts to take the Akra, and this, in tum, moved the Akra's inhabitants to solicit the king's help (1 Macc. 6: 18-27). Only in the spring of 162 did the Syrian government respond to those pleas and again tum its attention to Judaea. 125 A force under the command of Lysias engaged Judah Maccabee in battle in the Bet Zur-Bet Zechariah region south of Jerusalem. 126 The Seleucid victory there led to their advance on Jerusalem to lay siege to the city. However, the apparently certain capture of the city was not to be realized, owing to a sudden crisis that had erupted elsewhere in the empire (1 Macc. 6:28-63; 2 Macc. 13:1-26). In suing for peace, the Seleucid government was willing to offer far-reaching concessions that, in essence, abrogated the earlier decrees that had led to the outbreak of the revolt: King Antiochus to his brother Lysias, greeting. Now that our father has passed away to the gods, we wish the subjects of our kingdom to be undisturbed in the

124. Ant. 12.9,3,362-363. 125. In 1 Macc. 6:fr-7 we find several other reasons for this campaign: the Jews'plundering of the Syrian armies, gaining wealth and arms; the removal of the pagan cultic object from the Temple; and the building of walls around the Temple and Bet Zur.

126. See Avi-Yonah, "Hasmonean Revolt," 171-175, and Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 291-346.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

85

pursuit of their own private affairs. We have heard that the Jews do not accept our father's decree for a change-over to Greek ways but prefer their own pattern oflife and ask that they be allowed to follow their own legal usages. Since we choose that this nation, too, may be free from disturbance, we decree that their Temple be restored to them and that they govern their lives in accordance with the customs in force in the time of their ancestors. You will do well to transmit this to them and to give them assurances, in order that they, knowing our policy, may take heart and gladly devote themselves to their own private affairs (2 Mace. 11:23-26).

As a result of this compromise, the religious status quo ante was restored, prohibitions were removed, and Judaism was returned to its former status as a religio licita. In an additional gesture of reconciliation, the king ordered Menelaus to be executed, recognizing that he would not be able to serve as the high priest on behalf of the entire people. In his stead, he appointed Alcimus, himself probably a Hellenizer judging by his name but presumably more moderate and thus more acceptable to the population at large. These gestures had their desired effect, and many of Judah's followers, including the enigmatic Hasidians, abandoned the cause (1 Macc. 7:12-15). For all intents and purposes, Jerusalem continued to be governed by the Hellenizers as before. Nevertheless, Judah was able to maintain pressure on the Jerusalem authorities. Once again we read of the latter appealing to Antiochus for military aid. When Demetrius I ascended the throne, he confIrmed Alcimus' appointment and sent him to Jerusalem along with the Syrian general Bacchides. The government, on behalf of the Seleucid loyalists, then waged a series of campaigns in the city and the Akra, some more successful than others. Demetrius then dispatched Nicanor to subdue Judah, but the latter's dramatic victory over the Syrian general in 161 gave him virtual control of Jerusalem; this victory came to be commemorated annually as Nicanor Day (1 Macc. 7:5-50; 2 Macc. 14:1-15,36). During his brief period as leader in Jerusalem, Judah sent Eupolemus and Jason to Rome to forge a treaty of friendship and alliance (l Macc. 8). Soon after, however, Judah was killed in a battle with Bacchides, and the Hasmonean presence in Jerusalem disappeared for almost a decade. The remaining Hasmoneans took up residence in the Judean Desert and eventually settled in Michmash, north-northeast of the city (l Macc. 9:32-73). The victorious Bacchides appointed Hellenizers (referred to as "wicked men," i.e., the enemies of the Hasmoneans, in 1 Macc. 9:25) to rule, and they began to harass and torture Hasmonean supporters. The author of 1 Macc. 9:27 remarks that this situation was so acute that there had been nothing comparable since the prophets had ceased to appear. The leadership vacuum in the city after 160 was not only due to the exile of Jonathan the Hasmonean, who had been acknowledged as the Maccabean leader

86

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

in place of Judah (1 Macc. 9:28-31);127 soon after Judah's death, the High Priest Alcimus also died, suffering a stroke that was interpreted by his enemies as punishment for tearing down one of the inner walls of the Temple, assumed to have been the work ofthe prophets (1 Macc. 9:54-56)Ys To the best of our knowledge, then, there was no high priest functioning in Jerusalem for the next seven years. Some scholars have suggested that the founder of the Qumran sect, the Teacher of Righteousness, may have been the high priest during that period who later fled to the desert with the ascendance of the Hasmoneans. 129 As interesting as this suggestion is, there is nothing to substantiate it. The absence of a high priest for such a considerable period of time raises some interesting questions. In the first place, why did the Seleucids leave such a vacuum? Perhaps there was no logical or attractive candidate or maybe they simply opted to leave this position unfilled while allowing the turmoil of previous years to settle down. Second, if the latter was the case, who, in fact, controlled the Temple and its functions at this time? Perhaps the priests as a group appointed someone to perform the high priest's liturgical duties. If so, did they try to accommodate all the various sectors of Jerusalem's population, the city's inhabitants along with those in the Akra? The only other event recorded in this period is the strengthening of the Akra's fortifications by Bacchides. As part of his overall strategy of solidifying Seleucid control of Judaea in general, fortifications were built throughout the country, especially in northern Judaea and southern Samaria (1 Macc. 9:50-53), the are~s where the Hasmoneans had scored their greatest victories. The strategy was thus not geared to preventing attacks from the outside; there seems to have been little danger of this. Rather, Bacchides was concerned with keeping the local popUlation under control and possibly preventing any infiltration of insurgent elements into Jerusalem.

Jerusalem under Jonathan the Hasmonean The last decade or so of Seleucid rule in Jerusalem (152-141 B.C.E.) witnessed the successful assumption of leadership by Jonathan. His ascendance was facilitated by a power struggle in Antioch between the incumbent ruler, Demetrius I, and Alexander Balas. Each recognized Jonathan's potential in helping to stabilize control of Judaea and each offered him far-reaching honors and privileges. At 127. On this period generally, see Sievers, Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 73-103. 128. See the different order of events given by Josephus, Ant. 12.10,6,413 ff. 129. Stegemann, Library of Qumran, 104-106, and Murphy-O'Connor, "Demetrius and the Teacher of Righteousness," 400-420. See, however, the criticism of Burgmann, "Das umstrittene Intersacerdotium," 135-176.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B.C.E.)

87

first, Jonathan responded to Demetrius' appeal for an alliance, but in the end he opted for Balas' more generous offer: King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, greeting. "We have heard about you, that you are a valorous man and worthy to be our Friend. Accordingly we hereby appoint you today as high priest of your nation and confer upon you the title Friend of the King. [Alexander also sent Jonathan a purple robe and a gold crown] so that you may support our cause and maintain friendship toward us." Jonathan put on the sacred vestments in the seventh month of 160, on the Feast of Tabemacles. He also raised troops and manufactured large quantities of arms (1 Macc. 10:18-21).

With Seleucid backing, and given the political vacuum that seems to have existed in Jerusalem, Jonathan quickly took control of the city. It is thus ironic that the Hasmonean rise to power was achieved in much the same fashion as the Hellenizers under Jason twenty-three years earlier! Whereas having recourse to the king for an appointment to the high priesthood was frowned on by the author of 2 Maccabees (and presumably by others in Jerusalem in 175), Jonathan now had recourse to this very same procedure. Moreover, having fought Seleucid armies in many a bloody encounter just a few years before, the Hasmoneans were now willing and able to change their political course rather dramatically. Jonathan now came to power via the will, consent, and authorization of the Seleucid king, but instead of a monetary bribe as before, he was now enlisted as part of the imperial hierarchy and served the king militarily and politically in an official capacity. Together with his brother Simon, Jonathan served the empire loyally, de-

spite its frequent changes in leadership. Alexander Balas was soon replaced by Demetrius II, who was then replaced by Antiochus VI under the tutelage of one Tryphon. According to the rather biased account of 1 Macc. 10:22-12:38, Jonathan's success was meteoric. Victory followed victory in the service of the king, and Jonathan was accorded ever-more impressive titles and recognition by his superiors (1 Macc. 10:65,89, 11:58-59). On one occasion, ca. 145, he brought three thousand troops to Antioch in a show of force on behalf of Demetrius II (l Macc. 11:41-48). The area under Jonathan's control was enlarged with the addition of three districts to the north and west of Jerusalem and the territory of Eqron, while he was also able to gain significant tax exemptions for his territory (l Macc. 10:89, 11 :30-37). Finally, Jonathan used his newly won status to renew contacts with Rome and Sparta (1 Macc. 12:1-23). Jerusalem undoubtedly flourished under Jonathan's rule (Fig. 17), although little is said of this in our sources. The author of 1 Maccabees states that Jonathan took up residence in the city at the first opportunity and immediately began rebuilding and renovating it. He then describes the building of walls; hewn stones,

88

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

"sb.echem S AM A Jlt A

JUDEA

Figure 17. Jonathan's realm.

which were particularly strong and secure, were used for both the city's fortifications and the wall encompassing the Temple itself (l Mace. 10:10--11). Jonathan increased the height of the city's walls and replaced part of the collapsed eastern wall, the most precarious of allowing to the steep slope toward the Qidron Valley. A section of this enceinte is visible to this day, just north of the extension that Herod built near the Temple Mount's southeastern corner. Though failing to dislodge the inhabitants of the Akra, despite repeated attempts (1 Macc. 11:20,41), Jonathan tried to isolate them by building a high wall to separate the city completely from the citadel (1 Macc. 12:36). Finally, as a result of his successful campaigns, a large amount of spoils found their way into the city (1 Mace. 10:87, 11:51, 12:31), and it seems likely that the financing of the above-noted projects (and others as well) was with these monies. Although the author of 1 Maccabees offers us a sympathetic and enthusiastic picture of Jonathan's rise to power, there are indications that there was resistance to his rule. Some of this opposition was undoubtedly politically based, some religiously motivated, and some a combination of the two. We have already spoken about the Hellenizers and other impious and lawless folk, as they are called in 1 Macc. 9:23,58,69, 10:61, 11:25. At one time, these people differed from the Hasmoneans and their followers in their willingness to cooperate with the Seleucid authorities, thus continuing the political tradition of Jason and Menelaus; however, under the new circumstances this distinction must have become more and more blurred as Jonathan began moving in the same direction. While many of these Hasmonean opponents seem to have been concentrated in the Akra, others probably continued to reside throughout Judaea. Josephus' introduction of the three sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) into his account of Jonathan's rule may very well indicate the crystallization at this time of these groups in light of the upheavals and changes that had

THE HELLENISTIC ERA (332-141 B,C,E,)

89

been taking place during these decades (see Chapter 3). In addition, there were two major religious initiatives that clearly emerged in reaction to Jonathan's assumption of the high priesthood, steps perhaps not surprisingly downplayed by the author of 1 Macc. 10:21. Onias IV probably erected his temple at Leontopolis in Egypt at this time, now that hope for the return of the high priesthood to the Oniad line was all but lost, at least for the time being.130 The Qumran community also seems to have been founded at this juncture by the Teacher of Righteousness. Given what we know about this sect and its ideology, the motivation to leave Jerusalem and build a settlement in the desert stemmed from their total opposition to Jerusalem's political and religious leadership.l3l The Qumran tradition, wherein a "Wicked Priest" attacked the Teacher of Righteousness on the latter's Day of Atonement,132 reflects this mutual animosity. It is often assumed, and reasonably so in our opinion, that the priest referred to was Jonathan. 133 As Jonathan lived by the sword, so in the end did he die. He fell victim in 143 to a ruse by Tryphon, Antiochus VI's guardian, who himself aspired to the throne. Jonathan met his demise in a surprise ambush at Ptolemais-Acre (1 Macc. 12:39-53). Although Jonathan functioned throughout the last decade of his life as a Seleucid appointee, he had nevertheless moved much closer to achieving independence, a task bequeathed to his brother and successor, Simon. Jonathan's career thus capped a stormy transition period of some three decades, in which Jerusalem witnessed violent struggles and frequent changes of leadership. In the end, the Hasmoneans emerged victorious under Jonathan and had come to the threshold of political independence. Much had to do with their single-minded commitment to the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Jewish people. The fact that many family members had sacrificed their lives for this cause only added to their luster and claim to leadership (1 Macc. 13:3, 14:29). In the end they proved politically and militarily capable of uniting the majority of the people and winning the support of the Seleucid authorities. This struggle for autonomy/independence lasted for almost twenty-five years, sometimes following the military route and at others the diplomatic track. Taking astute advantage of the operative weakness of the central Seleucid government (and, indirectly, of the Ptolemies as well), the 130, R. Hayward, "Jewish Temple," 429-443; M61eze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 121-133; Gruen, "Origins and Objectives," 47-70; J, Taylor, "Second Temple in Egypt," 297-321. 131. Schiirer, History, II:586-587; Stegemann, Library of Qumran, 104-106; H. Eshel, "4QMMT," 53-65, 132. IQpHab 11.4-8 (Habakkuk scrol1 from Qumran). 133. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, 35-36, and "Essenes and History," 18-31; Schafer, "Hel1enistic and Maccabean Periods," 591-592; and Sievers, Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 88-92. For other opinions regarding the term "Wicked Priest," either that it referred to al1 Hasmonean rulers or that no such historical person ever existed, see van der Woude, "Wicked Priest?" 349-359, and P. R. Davies, Behind the Essenes, 28, respectively.

90

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Hasmoneans were able to negotiate increasingly favorable terms for themselves, as well as for Jerusalem and Judaea as a whole. It is not fortuitous that in a similar constellation of a vacuum caused by the decline of superpowers some eight hundred years earlier, in the days of David and Solomon, those leaders were likewise able to exploit the situation in order to create an extensive kingdom. What the Hasmoneans did was not entirely unique. Other peoples (Idumaeans, lturaeans, and Nabataeans) were also carving out tracts of land as independent political entities at this very time, as were a series of cities (Gaza, Ascalon, Tyre, and Sidon). In this respect, the Hasmoneans were indeed following a contemporary trend. What was unique, however, was the extent of their success and their ability to create a sovereign state, far outstripping in size others in the region. In the process, they changed the face of Jerusalem, which now became the capital of a substantial kingdom, with all the trappings that such a status entailed. It is to these new circumstances that we now turn.

91

Chapter 3

The Hasmonean Era (141-63 B.C.E.)

With the establishment of Hasmonean rule (transfonned in 104--103 B.C.E. into a kingdom), Jerusalem entered a new stage of history as the capital of an independent state. While the city had already enjoyed this status for some four hundred years during the First Temple period (ca 1000--586 B.C.E.), it had been reduced to a modest temple-city for the first four hundred years of the Second Temple era (ca. 540-140 B.C.E.), serving as the "capital" of a small and relatively isolated district. All this changed, however, under the Hasmoneans; as Jerusalem assumed its role as the center of a sizable state, the city's dimensions and fortunes were affected as well. Replacing the district ofYehud in the Persian and Hellenistic eras, the Hasmonean realm expanded greatly, encompassing an area roughly the size of David's and Solomon's kingdomsl and becoming a sig1. Compare the relevant maps in Aharoni and Avi-Yonah,Macmillan Bible Atlas, nos. 104, 113, and 213. See also Schiirer, History, 1:200-215. Jonathan, as noted, annexed three districts to the north and west of Judaea (Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim; I Macc. 11:34). His brother and successor, Simon (142-134 B.C.E.), added areas toward the sea, capturing Gezer and Jaffa, and turning the latter into his main port (I Mace. 13:43-48, 14:5). Simon's son John Hyrcanus greatly expanded Judaea's borders, especially toward the end of his thirty-year rule (134-104), reinforcing the Hasmonean hold along the coast and capturing areas east of the Jordan. His main territorial gains, however, were in the hill area, conquering Idumaea in southern Judaea as well as Schechem, Samaria (both territory and city), and Bet Shean to the north of Jerusalem. It is quite possible that the Galilee, too, was incorporated into the Hasmonean state at this time, although, strangely enough, its conquest is never mentioned in any source. Hyrcanus' son Aristobulus 1 (104-103) was the fIrSt Hasmonean to adopt a royal title (Ant. 13.11, I, 301). Though his rule was brief, Aristobulus succeeded in capturing southern Lebanon and perhaps northern Gaulanitis (the Golan region) as well; he reportedly converted the Ituraeans to Judaism. He was succeeded by his brother Alexander Jannaeus, the most successful of the Hasmonean conquerors (103-76). Jannaeus annexed areas in four different directions, thereby bringing virtually all of Hellenistic Palestine under Hasmonean control. Starting with the conquest of Strato's Tower (later Caesarea) and Dor to the northwest, he went on to conquer Gaza and its surroundings to the southwest. The rest of the Golan and much of Gilead to the northeast (northern Jordan of today) were then incorporated into his kingdom and, finally, so were large tracts of Moab to the southeast; see M. Stern, "Judaea and Her Neighbors," 22-46.

92

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

Figure 18. Jerusalem under Hasmonean rule.

nificant regional power by the beginning of the first century B.C.E. Jerusalem under the Hasmoneans grew fivefold, from a relatively small area in the City of David with some five thousand inhabitants to a population of twenty-five to thirty thousand inhabitants (Fig. 18).

The Hasmonean Factor in Jerusalem Society The important events in Jerusalem and the development of the city at this time were inextricably intertwined with the Hasmonean leadership. The cultural creativity and religious ferment that became part and parcel of Jerusalem society were in large measure a reflection of the political leadership wielded by this dynasty. The Hasmoneans were instrumental in providing the economic means for Jerusalem's growth and constituted the decisive factor in shaping the city's social, religious, and cultural agendas, no less than its political and geographical ones. The dynamic growth of the city undoubtedly was a response to the traumatic events that had taken place in the previous decades. Having been subjected to Greek rule for almost two centuries, and with the memories of the religious persecution still fresh in their minds, the population quite likely felt a sense of relief and security, gaining political autonomy, pride, and self-confidence from having achieved independence; enormous energies were released, which in turn fueled the city's growth and creativity. Nevertheless, without the firm and active political leadership that the Hasmoneans provided, and the territorial expansion that resulted from their vigorous foreign policy, it is doubtful whether these forces would have been fully harnessed to produce such a wide range of social

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

93

and religious expressions. Never before in the Second Temple period was the power to shape city life concentrated in the hands of one particular family that was able to dictate public policy almost at will; as a result, Jerusalem came to reflect, to a great extent, its agenda and priorities. To understand Jerusalem's urban scene during this period, we should bear in mind a number of ideological predispositions that contributed to shaping Hasmonean policy. 2

Biblical Precedents As a result of the many Hasmonean conquests, the biblical concept of Eretz Israelthe area of Jewish settlement and sovereignty in ancient Palestine-was significantly expanded. Although today we are aware of the many differences in the delineation of Israel's borders according to various biblical traditions, it is generally agreed that the ''Promised Land" included the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and east of the Jordan River, and between the Galilee and the northern Negev. While the boundaries ofYehud for the first four hundred years of the Second Temple period were severely restricted to the area around Jerusalem, a much more expansive understanding of Eretz Israel became a new reality under the Hasmoneans, with enormous ideological and social implications (Fig. 19). The Hasmoneans saw themselves as successors of Israel's biblical leaders, particularly the judges and kings of the First Temple era. This self-perception is made very clear in 1 Maccabees, a book written under their auspices and the style of which is reminiscent of the biblical books of Judges and KingS. 3 The author of 1 Maccabees sought to forge a connection between those earlier rulers and the Hasmoneans.4 He uses ethnic and geographical terminology taken from the Bible (e.g., Edom and Moab), and regarding Jerusalem, he repeatedly invokes the names of biblical sites such as the City of David and Mount Zion (l Macc. 1:33,4:37, 14:36). The author's paean of Simon's achievements (1 Macc. 14) recalls a plethora of biblical blessings, including a phrase reminiscent of Solomon's reign of peace and security ("under his own vine and under his own fig tree"; 1 Kings 5:5).5 2. See Rajak, "Hasmonean Kingship," 99-115. 3. M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism from Alexander to Pompey," 264-265, calls attention to the proclivity toward "classicism" in the Hasmonean era, when a variety of works consciously imitated biblical literary models. 4. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 77: "So eager was our author to prove the divinely ordered legitimacy of the Hasmonean dynasty that he cast his book in the impressive Hebrew diction of the books of Samuel. Just as the books of Samuel proved the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty and became scripture, so our author hoped First Maccabees would serve to prove Hasmonean legitimacy." See also Rappaport, "1 Maccabees," 712. 5. See the comments and references to the various biblical verses in Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 490-492.

94

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

• dly D .......

M t:dil r:l'raJU! OIl

Sell

Figure 19. Judaea from 166 to 76 B.C.E.

The letters prefacing 2 Maccabees, a work composed in Hasmonean Jerusalem, emphasize the continuity in sanctity and legitimacy between the First and Second Temples (2 Macc. 1:1-2:18). Moreover, some Jews may have, even at this early date, associated (albeit mistakenly) the western hill, now enclosed in Jerusalem's city wall, as part of the city in the days of David and Solomon as well, an association that appears to have been established by the time of Josephus several centuries later. 6 The book of Deuteronomy also may have played a significant role in shaping Hasmonean policy, as it did regarding Ezra's policy toward intermarriage. Being in an analogous situation as the Deuteronomist author describes (i.e., on the threshold of conquering the Land), the Hasmoneans seem to have incorporated many of the attitudes and practices advocated by Deuteronomy in their own policy (see the next section). Echoes of the Deuteronomist historian's terminology and descriptions can be detected in 1 Maccabees. 7 6. War 5.4, I, 137. 7. For example, Deut. 20:2-9 and 1 Macc. 3:55-60, 4:8-11; Deut. 20:10--15 and 1 Macc. 5:46-51; Deut. 7:24, II :25 and I Macc. 14:7; Josh. 3:4 and I Macc. 9:44; Josh. 7:6-10 and I Macc. II :71-74). For a further possible influence of Deuteronomy on Hasmonean policy, this time in the realm of figural art, see below.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

95

More emphatically and explicitly, just as the God of Israel chose Israel's leaders in the past, so, too, did He designate the Hasmoneans. In 1 Macc. 5:62 we fmd evidence for the disastrous results of a battle at Jamnia (Yavneh) waged by several non-Hasmonean military commanders: "Indeed, they (these officers) did not belong to that family of men to whom power had been granted to save Israel." The propensity to link the Hasmonean state with its biblical predecessors is likewise evidenced in the coinage that commenced under John Hyrcanus. 8 To emphasize this continuity from First Temple days, the Hasmoneans adopted the ancient Hebrew script, and not the square Aramaic one that had been in vogue since Persian times.

The Wedding of Politics and Religion Hasmonean coinage proclaims the dual identification of these rulers, who were both religious functionaries (high priests) and political leaders (ethnarchs and, later, kings). More than any other type of evidence, these coins point to the two worlds in which the Hasmoneans functioned, while 1 Maccabees preserves accounts that fully substantiate these roles, which are embellished by the military dimension as well. For example, Jonathan was appointed high priest, strategos, and meridarch (l Macc. 10:19,65), Simon-high priest, ethnarch or hegoumenos, and strategos (l Macc. 14:3~5).9 Never before in Jewish history had such extensive powers been concentrated in one leader. In this sense, Hasmonean identification with biblical precedents entailed also the adoption and implementation of certain biblical views, especially those spelled out in Deuteronomy that emphasize the religious dimension of political power (and vice versa). Deuteronomy's ban of idolatry and hostility toward the indigenous gentile nations is absolute. On repeated occasions, Deuteronomy (7:1-6, 16,25-26, 20:15-20) commands the conquering Israelites to destroy all sanctuaries and idols and to annihilate all traces of the heathens. The Hasmoneans, for their part, exhibited an outright hostility toward the local pagan population, proceeded to destroy all traces of idolatry (shrines and temples),10 removed the idolaters themselves in one way or another (by conversion, murder, or exile), and instituted a rigorous policy of purification, thereby, in effect, Judaizing their realm. On several occasions, they introduced a religiously observant Jewish population into a conquered city (l Macc. 13:47-48); 8. See Ariel, "Survey of Coin Finds," 283-287. 9. On the titles associated with Simon in various verses of I Maccabees (especially the alternative political designations of ethnarch and hegoumenos), each of which appears three and four times, respectively; see Schiirer, History. 1:193 n. 13, and Sievers. Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. 124 n. 81. 10. See Josephus, Against Apion 1.22, 193, who undoubtedly is referring here to the Hasmonean era.

96

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

both the Jerusalem Akra and the city of Gezer were subjected to such a process (1 Macc. 13:49-53).11 At times a more moderate policy was adopted. For instance, although John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, he appears to have done little else to interfere with the Samaritan way of life, perhaps because it was so similar to that of the Jews. 12 In this case, Deuteronomy's emphasis on the centralization of the cult may have mandated and justified the elimination of the Gerizim sanctuary. At other times, however, whole populations were converted to Judaism, as was the case with the Idumaeans under John Hyrcanus, and the Ituraeans under Aristobulus. 13 This combination of religious fervor and political policy undoubtedly provided a powerful impetus for conquest and expansion. God's will as conveyed in Deuteronomy and elsewhere was now being fulfilled. A literature echoing this triumphalism was also being created at this time (e.g., Jubilees, Judith). Nevertheless, political power coupled with religious tenets proved to be a double-edged sword, for such a policy was bound to evoke a great deal of animosity. The Hasmonean policy of conquests, conversions, and purifications might be construed by some as an attack on the pagan world per se. Thus it is not surprising that one of the earliest statements of hostility against the Jews and Judaism is ascribed to the advisers of Antiochus VII during his siege of Jerusalem (134-132).14 Moreover, some of the views of Posidonius (a Syrian philosopher who flourished in the first part of the first century B.C.E.) may also have been in reaction to these policies. In his writings, the Jews are accused of being evil, arrogant, and corrupt; moreover, they are atheists (i.e., do not recognize the gods) and preserve barbaric customs, particularly in regard to their Temple. 15 11. On the conquest and ludaization of Gezer, see R. Reich, "Archaeological Evidence," 48-52. 12. Ant. 13.9, 1,256.

13. Ibid., 13.9, 1,257-258; 11,3,319. This is the first time we read oflarge-scale conversions to Judaism, and the only time in antiquity when it resulted from coercion. In truth, according to Josephus, the Idumaeans were given the option to convert or be expelled. Strabo, Geography 16, 2, 34 (GLAJJ, I: 299), however, offers a different picture, i.e., that the Idumaeans accepted Judaism of their own free will. According to Ptolemy, whose identity is not clear, the Idumaeans were forcibly converted, and no hint of choice is indicated; see GLAJJ, I:no. 146. Strabo's view has been adopted by Kasher, Jews, ldumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 46--77; most scholars, however, prefer either Josephus' or Ptolemy's account (often not distinguishing between the two). A more nuanced view of this process, one that allows for elements of coercion, persuasion, and local interests, has been advocated by M. Smith, "Gentiles in Judaism," 198-213; S. Schwartz, "Israel and the Nations Roundabout," 17-21, and Imperialism and Jewish Society, 36--40; and Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 110--119. However, see also Weitzman, "Forced Circumcision," 37-59. 14. "Now the majority of his (the king's) friends advised the king to take the city by storm and to wipe out completely the race of Jews, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies .... Rehearsing all these events, his friends strongly urged Antiochus to make an end of the race completely, or, failing that, to abolish their laws and force them to change their ways" (Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, 34-35, I, 1-5 [GLAJJ, I: 183]). 15. See GLAJJ, I: 146--147, and Schafer, Judeophobia, 170--179.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

97

Figure 20. A coin of Alexander Jannaeus depicting an anchor and the Greek inscription "King Alexander."

Of no less importance is the fact that a combined religious and political agenda also had deleterious domestic effects. Thus, while creating a political framework that aimed at emphasizing the common and shared, Hasmonean policy often presented a political and religious challenge and a threat to others. The synthesis of politics and religion came to characterize contemporary Jewish sects as well. Such a milieu could only exacerbate relations among various groups in Hasmonean Jerusalem (see below).

Between Judaism and Hellenism Coins also provide a valuable clue regarding the goals of Hasmonean rule in the cultural realm and reflect, for example, their desire to embrace both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds.16 While the coins of John Hyrcanus refer to him only by his Hebrew name (Yehohanan) and Jewish title (high priest), those of Alexander Jannaeus reflect a broader horizon, referring to him as high priest and king (basileios), using both Hebrew (even some Aramaic) and Greek, and calling him by both his Hebrew and Greek names (Yehonatan, Alexander) (Fig. 20). The last Hasmonean ruler, Mattathias Antigonus, minted coins with only Greek inscriptions. In general, Jewish and Hellenistic features were incorporated into many facets of Hasmonean life and viewed as complementing one another. Our sources provide a great deal of information regarding Hasmonean absorption (although at times rejection as well) of foreign influences. Judah Maccabee had already exhibited an openness to the surrounding world. Holidays were introduced following the Greek and pagan models,17 and Greek-named emissaries were dispatched to Rome to conclude an alliance. Simon's official public appointment in 140 (1 Mace. 14) was suffused with Hellenistic influences-from convening the population in order to approve such a decision (reminiscent of the political convocations of Greek city-states) to wearing purple and recording the decision on bronze

16. See Bickennan, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 148-165; T. Fischer, "Hasmoneans and Seleucids," 3-19; and bibliography cited in n. 220 to this chapter. 17. For instance, military victories were turned into annual holidays (e.g., Nicanor Day), and the eightday pagan festival of light in December served as one factor in the eventual crystallization of Hanukkah (see Chapter 2).

98

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

tablets in the Temple area. The document itself reflects numerous Hellenistic parallels in format and style. 18 Moreover, inspired by contemporary architectural models, Simon erected a monumental tomb in his ancestral home of Modi 'in, where all members of the family were interred (Fig. 21).19 Hellenization becomes even more evident under the second-generation Hasmonean ruler, John Hyrcanus. The name "Hyrcanus" is the first instance of Hellenistic nomenclature in this dynasty, and although it is not the first time such a name appears in a Jewish context,20 it is nevertheless a striking change over the preceding generation of Hasmoneans, all of whom bore distinctively Jewish names. Hyrcanus was the first in his family to hire foreign troops, as was customary among Hellenistic rulers, and the first to mint coins that, inter alia, used symbols from foreign coinage. 21 He also initiated the building of a palace complex in Jericho that invoked Hellenistic architectural and artistic designs, including swimming pools and an impressive pavilion nearby (Fig. 22).22 Although little is known about Aristobulus' one-year reign (104-103), it is noteworthy that he bore the title of Philhellene ("lover of Greeks").23 Other than the obvious implication that he was kindly disposed to Greeks and Greek culture, it is not clear why he specifically merited this designation. It was, in fact, a common title at the time, as Parthian kings and the Nabatean king Aretas were so called as well. 24 Following Aristobulus, Alexander Jannaeus continued the tradition of relying on foreign mercenaries, and he further expanded the Jericho palace complex. He was the first, as noted, to use his Greek name and royal title on coins. 25 18. See Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 501-509. On the parallels between the description of Simon's installation and four documents from Ptolemaic Egypt--each of which contains the following format: date, assembly of those issuing the decree, motivation, decision, and publication of the decision-see van Henten, "Honorary Decree," 116-145. 19. See 1 Macc. 13:27-29: Over the tomb of his father and his brothers Simon constructed a monument impressive for its height, built of hewn stone on both its front and rear sides. He set up seven pyramids, one in front of the other, for his father, his mother, and his four brothers. For the pyramids he contrived an elaborate setting: he surrounded them with massive pillars on which he placed full suits of armor as a perpetual memorial; besides the full suits of armor, there were carved ships, intended to be seen by all who sailed the sea. 20. On Hyrcanus, son of Joseph of the Tobiad family, see Ant. 12.4,6-11, 186-236. See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 126-140, who notes the increased Hellenization within this family as evidenced, in part, by the change from Hebrew to Greek names. 21. See Kindler, "Hellenistic Influence," 289-308. 22. NEAEHL, II:683-686, and Netzel; Palaces of the Hasmoneans, 5-31. A detailed archaeological report of these excavations can now be found in Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 13-174,301-311. 23. Ant. 13.11,3,318. 24. Schiirer, History, 1:217 n. 6. 25. Meshorer, Treasury, 37-41,209-218.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

99

Figure 21. A Hellenistic tomb in

Figure 22. The Hasmonean palace complex

Hamrath, Syria,similar, perhaps, to

in Jericho.

the Maccabean tomb in Modi'in.

The three above-mentioned characteristics of Hasmonean rulers not only reflect their own personal proclivities but affected many dimensions of Jerusalem urban life as well. In what follows, we examine various aspects of city life in this period, noting how it was shaped by these and other agenda. We begin with several major events that took place in the city and then discuss the urban setting, the identifiable groups that lived there, and, finally, the religious and cultural ambience of the city in Hasmonean times.

Three Episodes in Hasmonean Jerusalem We have chosen to focus on a number of events that occurred at three different junctures in this era and that reflect several dimensions of Jerusalem's history. These incidents also afford an opportunity to focus on several historiographical problems that must be confronted when studying this era.

The Great Assembly and Simons Installation-140 B.c.E. Support for Hasmonean rule within Jewish society is reflected in-and perhaps also influenced by-the impressive public ceremony held in Jerusalem in the third year of Simon's reign, following his conquest of the Akra and the unification of the city. The author of 1 Maccabees describes these proceedings in vivid detail; in attendance were representatives of all sectors of society-the people, heads of the nation, priests, and elders. It is doubtful how much real power this assembly had, and the scenario described undoubtedly had been carefully orchestrated from the start. Nevertheless, the convening of such a representative group

100

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

of leaders and the people at large invested Simon with a significant measure of legitimacy that he obviously considered necessary and desirable. The accompanying document (1 Macc. 14:27-45) spells out the reasons for Simon's appointment and offers a powerful rationale for his leadership. His brothers and family had endangered themselves in defense of the Temple, the nation, and the Torah,26 while Simon himself had proven politically and militarily resourceful and most generous in paying soldiers' salaries. Besides these accomplishments, Simon is cited as righteous, faithful, and concerned for the interests of the people. His crowning achievements, according to this document, lay in the expulsion of non-Jews from Judaea, especially Jerusalem, as well as the purification and fortification of the city. In response to these acts, the following is noted: Therefore, be it resolved by the Jews and the priests: that Simon be chief and high priest in perpetuity until a true prophet shall arise, and that he be commander over them and that he have charge of the sanctuary so that he can appoint on his own authority the officials responsible for services, for the countryside, for armaments, and for fortification, and that he have charge of the sanctuary, and that all persons obey him, and that all contracts in our country be drawn up in his name, and that he wear purple robes and gold ornaments. No one of the people or of the priests shall have the power to annul any of these provisions or to oppose any of his future commands or to convoke a meeting in our country without his permission, or to wear purple robes, or use a gold brooch. Whoever acts contrary to these provisions or annuls any of them shall be subject to the penalty of death. The entire people resolved to grant Simon the right to act according to these provisions. Simon accepted and agreed to serve as high priest and to be commander and prince of the nation of the Jews and of the priests and to preside over all. They ordered that this text be drawn up on bronze tablets and set up in the precinct of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place and that copies of the tablets be placed in the treasury so as to be available for Simon and his sons (1 Macc. 14:41-49)?7

Simon's achievements, as those of other Hasmonean rulers, may have been institutionalized in the celebration of annual holidays; according to the firstcentury C.E. Megillat Ta 'anit, fasting and mourning customs were forbidden at those times. Both the fall of the Akra and the commemoration of Simon's public appointment to office provided such occasions. 28 26. Simon's concern for family is reflected in his organizing a solemn funeral for Jonathan in Modi'in, the ancestral home of the Maccabees, where, as noted, he built a monumental tomb for his parents and brothers (l Mace. 13:25-29). For Greco-Roman parallels of the monument, see Sievers, Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 107-109. 27. For a discussion of this document, see Abel, Les livres des Maccabees, 254--262; Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 501-509; and Sievers, Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 119-127. 28. See Lichtenstein, "Die Fastenrolle," 319-320, 327, 337. The inauguration of a new calendrical era decreed by Simon indicated autonomy and freedom, as reflected in the coinage of a number of coastal cities at the time, e.g., Tyre (in 126) and Ascalon (in 104/103).

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

101

In this document, which announces his assumption of full control of society and to which 1 Macc. 14:4-15 adds a paean bearing quasi-messianic overtones, Simon exhibited political and religious acumen by qualifying the entire agreement as valid "in perpetuity until a prophet should arise (1 Mace. 14:41).29 In doing so, he formally notified the people that neither he nor his descendants had any long-term designs on the politica11eadership of the nation. 3D Simon thus attempted to assuage those who held to the belief that political control of Jewish society should eventually devolve to a scion of the royal Davidic seed and those who may have objected to the priestly and political scope of Hasmonean power (such as the Pharisees later on and undoubtedly the contemporary priests at Qumran and Leontopolis).31 Whether this formulation was Simon's own initiative or had been forced on him by more conservative elements in society cannot be determined. Whatever the case, he deftly attempted to clear the way for his family's continued rule. Moreover, the desire to blunt criticism from within Jewish society may, in fact, have been one of the reasons for the elaborate ceremony described above, with its display of support from all sectors of the population.32 It is not clear whether the ban on unauthorized meetings or possible attempts to revoke this document reflected realistic threats or were merely intended as a precautionary measure; if the former, then such steps would indicate a real sense of danger. This document, and the celebration of its publication, mark a high point of Hasmonean rule in Jerusalem. The fmal steps toward independence clearly merited popular support, and these hopes must have been uplifting for many. Although the document preserved in 1 Maccabees 14 (as in the book generally) clearly attempts to minimize the cleavages and dissensions in the body politic, it would be hard to deny that its basic claim-that a broad consensus had been forged and a heightened sense of unity achieved, at least for the moment-was correct. 29. A similar phrase ("until a prophet should come to give an oracle") also appears in 1 Macc. 4:46 with reference to the altar stones that were defiled by the introduction of a pagan cult by Antiochus IV and were subsequently discovered when Judah Maccabee was purifying the Temple. The decision was made to store them on the Temple Mount until a future prophetic decision would be forthcoming. The issue was thus laid to rest and work on the Temple's restoration could continue. Similarly, Simon wished to "deflect" any objections to his many official titles by leaving a final determination ofleadership for the future-if and when a prophet (acceptable to all, we should add) will arise. Here, too, the issue was laid to rest and matters of state could proceed unencumbered.

30. The phrase "in perpetuity" (1 Macc. 14:44) has often been taken to refer to the hereditary nature of this appointment. Alternatively, it may only mean "for life," an expression common in both Hebrew and Greek, and thus would refer only to Simon's lifetime. 31. A harsh expression of this opposition is expressed in Pesher Habbakuk from Qumran (8.8-13): [T]he Wicked Priest ... was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches. He robbed and amassed riches of the men of violence who rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping sinful iniquity upon himself. And he lived in the ways of abominations amidst every unclean defilement. 32. Sievers, Hasmoneans and Their Supponers, 124-125.

102

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

The Siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII (ca. 134-132 B.C.E.) A second pivotal event in Jerusalem's history occurred less than a decade later, when the city was subjected to a grueling siege by the Seleucid king Antiochus VII. Simon's declaration of independence several years earlier did not, for all its pretensions, signal the final emergence of a sovereign Hasmonean state. This process proved to be more complex than originally envisioned, and Jerusalem was to suffer additional hardships along the way. Still smarting from his rebuff and defeat at the hands of Simon and his son John Hyrcanus in 138 (l Macc. 15:26-16:10), Antiochus seized the first opportunity to gain vengeance, in 134 B.C.E., soon after Hyrcanus assumed control of the realm. Although the relevant data are minimal and in some details contradictory, it seems that the siege lasted at least a year, maybe two (l34-132)?3 Archaeological remains of this siege have been discovered at the excavations in the Tower of David citadel, where hundreds of ballista stones and arrowheads were discovered at the foot of the Hasmonean wall. 34 Finally, the siege was lifted and Jerusalem was saved, but Hyrcanus was forced to accept a distinctly subservient position while the Seleucid king imposed the following demands: The besieged were to hand over their arms, Hyrcanus was to pay tribute for Jaffa and the other cities he had occupied outside of Judaea, and a garrison was to be admitted into Jerusalem. Objecting to the imposition of a garrison, the Jews instead offered hostages (including Hyrcanus' own brother) and immediate payment of five hundred talents of silver. Though not stated explicitly, this compromise seems to have been accepted. In addition to the above, the king demanded that the city's walls be demolished. It would seem that during the period immediately following the siege, Antiochus minted bronze coins in Jerusalem (131-129);35 furthermore, a holiday commemorating the lifting of the siege is noted in Megillat Ta 'an it for the twenty-eighth day of Shevat. 36 Hyrcanus' "vassalship" continued, being summoned by the king to join his forces against the Parthians in 129.37 Antiochus was killed in that campaign, and Hyrcanus returned to Judaea, free of Seleucid domination. Thus, despite the somewhat less than optimal conclusion of the siege, Hyrcanus was yet able to spare Jerusalem any extensive destruction and prevent the introduction of foreign troops into the city, in contrast to what had taken place with the establishment of the Akra some thirty-six years earlier. 33. On the chronological issues involved, see Schiirer, History, 1:202-203 n. 5. One of Hyrcanus'letters to the Romans has been dated to this period; see Rajak, "Roman Intervention," 65-81. On the sources used by Josephus in this regard, see Bar-Kochva, "Antiochus the Pious," 7-44. 34. See n. 62 to this chapter. 35. Houghton, Coins of the Seleucid Empire, nos. 831-834, and Meshorer, Treasury, 30-31. 36. Lichtenstein, "Die Fastenrolle," 321, 345.

37. Ant. 13.8,3,246-248.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

103

The accounts of the siege highlight a number of facets of Hasmonean history and historiography. One episode involves the description of Hyrcanus' efforts at the height of the siege. With a severe famine and a dearth of supplies wreaking havoc and creating enormous suffering, Hyrcanus is reported to have expelled from the city all those who were unable to help in its defense: When, however, Hyrcanus observed that his great numbers were a disadvantage because of the rapid consumption of provision by them, and that the work which was being accomplished in no way corresponded to the number of hands, he separated from the rest those who were useless and drove them out, and retained only those who were in the prime oflife and able to fight. 38

Without denying that this incident may have actually happened, it must be pointed out that such a report is nevertheless problematic. The account bears a distinctly hostile tone, as do many others found in Josephus' writings (and in this case, Diodorus' as well) regarding the later Hasmonean dynasty from Hyrcanus onward. These reports have often been ascribed to either Posidonius or Nicholas of Damascus, the latter having served as Herod's adviser and having been a recognized historian in his own right 39 In fact, Josephus refers explicitly to Nicholas,40 whose attitude toward the Hasmoneans was undoubtedly far from sympathetic. Thus we may well have here a tendentious rendition of events, leaving us to question whether they, in fact, took place as described. 41 Nevertheless, while bearing in mind the above caveat, there is little justification for dismissing the report as entirely malicious and false; Hyrcanus may well have acted in such a fashion. The account goes on to relate that Antiochus, for his part, behaved no better and refused to let those expelled cross his lines. Thus, as narrated, these Jerusalemites were condemned to wandering back and forth between the opposing lines, exposing themselves to constant dangers, exhaustion, and suffering. Finally, with the advent of the holiday of Sukkot, their fellow Jerusalemites took pity on them and allowed them to reenter the city. Hyrcanus then asked the king to arrange a seven-day truce, to which the latter agreed. In a remarkable gesture, given the circumstances, Antiochus sent lavish gifts as well as sacrifices for the Temple. 42

38. Ibid., 13.8, 2, 240. 39. See GLAJJ, I: 142-144, and Chapter 4 herein. 40. For example, Ant. 13.8,4,250-251. 41. One should not discount the possibility that here, as elsewhere, Josephus may have been influenced by Greek historiographical tradition and thus dramatized certain events. Siege situations lent themselves to such flourishes, as the accounts of first-century C.E. Masada and Jerusalem reveal.

42. Ant. 13.8,2,241-243. The king's generosity on this occasion is also reported by Plutarch (GLAJJ, I: 563-564) and may well stem from a pro-Seleucid source.

104

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

A second incident that seems to have been connected with the siege was the robbing of David's tomb by Hyrcanus, presumably for the purpose of covering expenses connected with the settlement of the siege. 43 Such action undoubtedly met with criticism, however we have no information in this regard. Another related incident involves Hyrcanus' hiring of foreign mercenaries. Both War and Antiquities report this fact, and both also connect the plundering of David's tomb with the need to pay these troopS.44 Many in Jerusalem and Judaea may have objected to the policy of hiring mercenaries in the service of the Hasmonean state, and this is perhaps reflected in Josephus' comment that never before had such a practice ever taken place,45 a claim patently contradicted by 2 Sam. 8:18 (the mercenaries of David-the Kerethites and Pelethites ['J:l7.~ij1 'J:l1~ij]); clearly this statement reflects Josephus' own disapproval but may well be relevant to Hyrcanus' day as well. 46 Following these events, Hyrcanus began minting coins in Jerusalem, a further sign of independence. Some of these coins bore the legend "Yohanan the High Priest and Hever of the Jews" (tJ"1i1'il 1:ln), others the legend, "Yohanan the High Priest, head of the Hever of the Jews."47 The term "hever' is known only from Hasmonean coins and may refer to a national body with some sort of political role (see below). Moreover, the chronology of these coins is not clear. Although it is inviting to assume that Hyrcanus at first shared power with this body and then, in the course of time, extended his authority and became its head, such a reconstruction remains speculative.

Civil Disobedience and Rebellion under Alexander Jannaeus Hasmonean political and military fortunes reached their zenith during the reign of Jannaeus,48 despite Josephus' biased presentation of the king's reign (probably due to his extensive reliance on Nicholas).49 Jannaeus' many conquests undoubtedly garnered much wealth and power, and his dependence on foreign mercenaries appears to have been considerable. 50 For some reason, and this has been

43. War 1.2, 5, 61, and Ant. 7.15,2,393; 13.8,4,249. 44. War 1.2, 5, 61, and Ant. 13.8,4,249. 45. War 1.2,5,61. 46. On David's incorporation of non-Jews in his administration as well, see Rofe, "Reliability of the Sources," 217-227. 47. Meshorer, Treasury, 31-33. 48. M. Stem, "Judaea and Her Neighbors," 22-46. 49. See M. Stem, "Nicholas of Damascus," 445-464. On Josephus'presentation of the Hasmoneans generally in War and Antiquities, see Fuks, "Josephus and the Hasmoneans," 166-176.

50. Ant. 13.13,5,374.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

105

the subject of much speculation,5! Jannaeus aroused the intense hostility of many Jerusalemites. This hatred found expression during one Sukkot holiday celebration, when a large crowd gathered at the Temple pelted him with ethrogim (citrons) while, at the same time, denouncing him as unfit to be the high priest. Jannaeus' response only added fuel to the fire. According to Josephus, he killed six thousand people and had a barrier erected to distance the people from future ceremoniesY Immediately after this incident, Josephus reports an uprising against the king following a military defeat, whereupon J annaeus proceeded to massacre no less than fifty thousand people over a six-year periodY Opposition to Jannaeus came to a head ca. 88 B.C.E., when he engaged the Seleucid king Demetrius ill in battle. The Hasmonean ruler went into battle accompanied by sixty-two hundred foreign mercenaries and twenty thousand Jewish soldiers, while Demetrius' forces were reinforced by a large contingent of Jews who had abandoned Jannaeus. This betrayal enraged the king, and when Demetrius was unable to follow up on his battlefield victory, being forced to tum his attention elsewhere, Jannaeus wreaked vengeance on those deemed traitors. Some eight hundred were crucified and another eight thousand fled into exile for the duration of his reign. Owing to these actions, Jannaeus was nicknamed Thrakidas (the "Cossack").54 Years later, however, following a string of military victories, it is reported that the people "welcomed him eagerly because of his successes."55 Clearly, much is missing from the account transmitted by Josephus, which, as noted, is probably due to the tendentiousness of the sources at his disposal. Despite the fact that our sources are often hostile to the later Hasmoneans and consequently minimize their achievements, it is quite clear that this dynasty continued to hold the reins of power firmly in its hands for some eighty years. Whatever opposition may have surfaced from time to time, it was the Hasmoneans who, in the final analysis, wielded ultimate power. No hint of a serious internal revolt can be detected, and when some sort of opposition did manifest itself, it was usually short lived. Thus, as noted, the character of Jerusalem at this time was inextricably intertwined with the Hasmonean family. The fate of the city fully depended on these 51. Among the reasons offered are Jannaeus'unending military ventures, his assumption of sole power and the abolishment of other bodies, extreme Hellenization, and cruelty. On Pharisaic opposition to the Hasmoneans, see Rabin, "Alexander Jannaeus," 3-11, and D. R. Schwartz, Studies, 44-56. Against the claim that the Pharisees opposed the combining of priestly and political roles, see Goodblatt, "Union," 7-28. 52. Ant. 13.13,5,372-373. 53. Ibid., 13.13,5,376. 54. Ibid., 13.14, 1-2,377-383. 55. Ibid., 13.15,3,394.

10(j

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

rulers, and the Hasmoneans, for their part, took great pride in the city and its Temple. One such indication is evidenced in their seal impressions dating to this era as well (i.e., the second and first centuries B.C.E.), which feature a five-pointed star with the inscription "Jerusalem" (tJ'W,,'). It is not clear to what the legend precisely refers; it may point to the city as a place of origin or it may be that such handles served some official, administrative, or tax-related purpose. If the latter, they would be reminiscent of the "LMLK" (lit., "to the king") impressions known from the late First Temple period. Just as those seal impressions seem to indicate ownership of produce by the king, 56 so, too, these "Jerusalem" seals may indicate that the contents were designated as taxes. However, such suggestions remain tentative, especially in light of the fact that these seal impressions also appear on simple domestic vessels such as cooking pots. Another indication of the centrality of the Temple and city for the Hasmoneans appears in 2 Maccabees, which, inter alia, is a history of the trials and tribulations affecting Jerusalem in the years 175-161. While the purpose of the book was to show how the Judah Maccabee saved both Jerusalem and its Temple, its subtext was to legitimize and reaffirm their sanctity and centrality for Jews everywhere.57

The Urban Setting The urban implications of Jerusalem's status as capital of a sovereign state were far reaching. Physically, the city developed rapidly in a westerly direction and more than quadrupled its area to 150 to 160 acres. By the first century B.C.E., this expanded area had already become inadequate, necessitating the construction of a second wall to the north that incorporated an additional 60 to 70 acres. Jonathan was the first to initiate Jerusalem's expansion. The resultant enceinte is referred to as the "First Wall" by Josephus, who describes its course as follows: Of the three walls, the most ancient, owing to the surrounding ravines and the hill above them on which it was reared, was well-nigh impregnable. But, besides the advantage of its position, it was also strongly built, David and Solomon and their successors on the throne having taken pride in the work. Beginning on the north at the tower called Hippicus, it extended to the Xystus, and then joining the council-chamber terminated at the western portico of the Temple. Beginning at the same point in the other direction, on the western side, it descended past the place called Bethso to the gate of the Essenes, then turned to the south above the fountain of Siloam; then it again inclined on the east 56. A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 455-458. 57. See T. Fischer, "Maccabees," 442-450, and van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 50--53,57.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.eE)

107

Figure 23. The remains of Hasmonean First Wall (to the left), which abuts the earlier First Temple tower (to the right), were discovered by Avigad in the Jewish Quarter excavations.

toward Solomon's pool,58 and after passing a spot which they call Ophlas, finally joined the eastern portico of the Temple. 59

When we apply this description to contemporary Jerusalem. the Hasmonean wall extended westward from the Temple and City of David, encircling the entire western hill (i.e., Mount Zion) that included the Citadel, or Tower, of David (Jaffa Gate). Remains of this Hasmonean wall have been discovered in several placesin the Jewish Quarter of the Old City,60 the Citadel courtyard, the western and southern slopes of Mount Zion,61 and the eastern side of the City of David. Generally speaking, the course of the Hasmonean wall followed that of Hezekiah's First Temple wall, incorporating parts of the earlier enceinte into its fortifications. A striking example of this has been brought to light in the Jewish Quarter excavations, where a Hasmonean tower abutted a late First Temple tower, with both serving as part of the second-century fortification system (Fig. 23). Dating a wall without literary or epigraphical evidence is a formidable task. Even though 1 Maccabees often notes the building and strengthening of city fortifications by Hasmonean rulers, it does not record any specific information regarding either a construction date, the place where repairs were carried out, or the nature and extent of each undertaking. Moreover, archaeological remains are 58. Adan, " 'Fountain of Siloam,'" 92-100. 59. War 5.4,2, 142-145. 60. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations, 131-197. 61. See Gibson, "1961-67 Excavations," 87-96.

108

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 24. Left: Ballista balls recovered from the Tower of David excavations. Right: The remains of arrows uncovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations.

skimpy and far from definitive. Given the fact that a number of building phases in the Hasmonean wall can be detected, as evidenced in the Citadel of area, it would appear that the wall was first built in the middle second century B.C.E. and repaired and reinforced on a number of occasions thereafter. 62 Among the few relevant finds are weapons (ballista stones and arrowheads) discovered just outside the Hasmonean city wall at the Citadel63 that are probably, as noted, associated with the siege of Antiochus VII (Fig. 24). If this is correct, then we can assume that this wall had already been built by that time. Jerusalem's significant expansion at the outset of Hasmonean rule seems to be reflected in several comments in 1 Maccabees. It is noted that Jonathan "took up residence in Jerusalem and began to renovate the city. He ordered those in charge of the enterprise to use hewn stone in building the city walls and the circuit around Mount Zion" (1 Macc. 10:10-11). Several years later, it is noted that "that he (Simon) quickly completed the walls of Jerusalem and fortified it all around" (l Macc. 13: 10). This sudden and considerable expansion of the city calls for an explanation. The fact that the city was now the cap62. Much work on the wall was undoubtedly required on the part of John Hyrcanus following the siege of Antiochus VII (see above). Moreover, Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem , 192-195, found evidence for the Hasmonean repair of the earlier enceinte of Nehemiah on the eastern side of the City of David; on the western side of the eastern ridge, the Hasmoneans presumably extended the wall farther down the slope so that it doubled as a retaining wall. A gate, discovered earlier by Crowfoot, was also in use-if not actually built-at this time. 63. Sivan and Solar, "Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel," 173-175.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

109

ital of an emerging political entity is, of course, very relevant. However, the Hasmonean kingdom grew most substantially only in the last part of the second and early first centuries B.C.E., under John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, respectively. Therefore, the city's extended boundaries under Jonathan and Simon may have been due less to actual need than to the aspirations of these Hasmonean rulers to re-create a city similar to what they believed had existed in the days of David and Solomon. The use of former Israelite fortifications, as noted, must have reminded the Hasmoneans that they were retracing the steps of their ancestors. However, ideological and political considerations aside, the main reason for adding on so much territory at one time seems to have been fundamentally topographical. From a strategic point of view, a wall built in this direction would have had to run along its present course, i.e., along the crest of the western ridge; anything less would have left this part of the city vulnerable to an attacking force occupying higher ground. Thus, once a decision was taken to enlarge Jerusalem, there was little choice but to extend the fortifications westward as Jonathan did. In fact, this topographical-strategic consideration must also have dictated Hezekiah's decision some five hundred years earlier, when he, too, embarked on expanding the city in the same direction: His wall undoubtedly followed much the same topographical contours as later adopted by the Hasmoneans. Jerusalem's "Second Wall" is described by Josephus as follows: The second wall started from the gate in the first wall which they called Gennath, and enclosing only the northern district of the town, went up as far as Antonia. 64 Of such towers the third wall had 90, disposed at intervals of 200 cubits; the line of the middle (i.e., second) wall was broken by 14 towers, that of the old wall by 60. 65

The first notable feature of the Second Wall is its short span, having only fourteen towers, instead of the sixty of the earlier First Wall and the ninety of the later Third Wall (built in the first century C.E. at the behest of Agrippa I; see below) (Fig. 25). We do not know why the Second Wall encompassed only a relatively small area (ca. sixty acres) or what its precise course was. It is explicitly stated that it connected the fortress of the Temple Mount at one end (called the Baris at that time) and the Gennath Gate at the other. While the location of the Gennath Gate is not clear, Avigad suggests that its remains are to be found several hun-

64. War 5.4, 2, 146. 65. Ibid., 5.4, 3, 158.

110

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

TEMPLE MOUNT

Figure 25. The Second Wall enclosed an additional area north of the city (first century B.C.E.).

dred meters east ofthe Citadel.66 Other issues relating to the Second Wall concern its precise course: Did it run northward from the Gennath Gate to the present-day Damascus Gate and then loop back to the fortress north of the Temple? Or did it stop short of the Damascus Gate and tum directly eastward toward the Temple fortress~? In contrast to the other two walls of Second Temple Jerusalem, no firm archaeological remains can be associated with the Second Wal1. 68 Two further conundrums relate to when this wall was built and who built it. A first-century B.C.E. date is certain, between the First Wall of the previous century and the Third Wall of Agrippa I.69 This being the case, then the two obvious candidates for such an undertaking are either Alexander Jannaeus or Herod.?O If the former, then the city had outgrown its earlier expanded area within just a few generations. Only future archaeological finds may allow for a more definitive determination.?l 66. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 69. 67. See the contrasting assessments of Avi·Yonah, 'Third and Second Walls," 98-125, and Wightman, Walls of Jerusalem, 159-191. 68. See Vincent and Steve, Jerusalem, 90-113; Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 282-343; and Schein, "Second Wall," 21-26. 69. Wightman, Walls of Jerusalem, 187, however, suggests that John Hyrcanus may, in fact, have built the Second Wall. 70. Murphy-O'Connor, in his review "G. J. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem," 434, opines that the Second Wall was actually built twice, once by a Hasmonean ruler and ending at the Baris, which was contiguous with the Hasmonean Temple, and later by Herod to connect it with his newly constructed Antonia (as noted specifically by Josephus) north of the Baris. 71. The only literary statement that might be relevant is Josephus' discussion of Herod's siege of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. in which two walls are noted (Ant. 14.16, 1,469; 16,2,476-477). If the reference is to two city walls, then it is clear that a second enceinte was already in existence before Herod

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

111

Whatever the resolution of the dating of the Second Wall, and even taking into account only the area encompassed by the First Wall, it is clear that Jerusalem's population increased dramatically under the Hasmoneans. Applying the accepted estimate of population density (between 160 and 200 people per acre), a city the size of Hasmonean Jerusalem (some 160 acres) would have had a population approaching 30,000, as noted earlier. This number included a wide variety of people, thus affording a distinctive urban ambience. As a political capital, Jerusalem attracted all sorts of officials and office holders; as a regional military power, it drew officers and soldiers associated with the Hasmonean armies; as a reinvigorated religious center (see below), it served as a magnet attracting Jews everywhere to visit and those belonging to religious sects to take up residence there. As the largest city in Judaea, Jerusalem undoubtedly drew many from outlying rural areas who were in search of economic, social, and political opportunities. Merchants and artisans were also an integral part of the city's socioeconomic fabric; but, once again, the paucity of sources for this period does not allow for elaboration. To this list, one can surely add the poorer classes of laborers and slaves. Demographically speaking, Jerusalem appears to have maintained a markedly Jewish character throughout this era. The Hasmonean intolerance of pagan worship and Jerusalem's exclusively monotheistic bent undoubtedly made the city rather inhospitable to non-Jews. There was no allowance for pagan cults nor were temples to other deities ever built there. The increasing emphasis on the centrality of the Temple and related practices (see below) would certainly have added to pagan discomfort. The only known non-Jewish presence in the city at this time was that of the pagan military contingent that served the later Hasmonean rulers. As noted, such mercenaries are first mentioned in connection with John Hyrcanus;72 later on, Alexander Jannaeus employed Pisidians and Cilicians;73 and Salome is reported to have recruited so many mercenaries that she, in fact, doubled the size of her army/4 assumed control of the city. However, it is quite possible that one of these references is to the wall surrounding the Temple precincts, and thus only one city wall is being noted, and it is unclear whether it is to the First or Second Wall that is being referred. On the problematic nature of the Second Wall, see Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 282-343, and Wightman, Walls of Jerusalem, 181-184. 72. Ant. 13.8,4,249. 73. Ibid., 13.13,5,374.

74. Ibid., 13.16,2,409. According to War 1.5,2,112, however, Salome not only doubled the size of her army but also added a large number of foreign troops. In addition to mercenaries, we have no solid information about other gentiles who may have lived in the city. Several scholars (M. Smith, "Gentiles in Judaism," 196-213, and S. Schwartz, "Israel and the Nationals Roundabout," 16-38) have opined that the Hasmoneans, beginning with John Hyrcanus, had forged a series of alliances with neighboring peoples (e.g., the Idumaeans and Ituraeans). Whether this might have caused some of those people to take up residence in the city is unknown.

112

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 26. The Baris and Temple Mount area in the Hasmonean era.

Only two buildings are specifically noted in regard to the Hasmonean city. One is the Hasmonean palace, which, according to 1 Macc. 13:52, replaced the Akra. 75 Josephus, in describing the events preceding the outbreak of the Jewish revolt of 66 C.E., likewise takes note of a Hasmonean palace that was located west of the Temple Mount, on the eastern slope of the Upper City.76 Whether these two buildings are one and the same is uncertain, and no material remains of this palace have been discovered to date. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the first-century C.E. palace noted by Josephus was a continuation of the earlier one and that the Hasmoneans indeed first located their domicile in the newly incorporated area of Jerusalem, perhaps where the Akra once stood. A second building in Hasmonean Jerusalem is the Baris,17 a fortress-palace built to the north of the Temple (Fig. 26): 78 Three statements by Josephus are relevant to its location: At an angle on the north side (of the Temple) there had been built a citadel, well fortified and of unusual strength. It was the kings and high priests of the Hasmonean family before Herod who had built it and called it Baris. Here they had deposited the priestly robe which the high priest put on only when he had to offer sacrifice.79 One of the priests, Hyrcanus, the first of many by that name, had constructed a large house near the Temple and lived there most of the time. A custodian of the vestments, for to him alone was conceded the right to put them on, he kept them

75. On the contradiction between 1 Maccabees and Josephus on the fate of the Akra, see above.

76. War 2.16,3,344. 77. On the term "Baris," see Will, "Qu'est-ce qu'une Baris?" 253-259, and Wightman, "Temple Fortresses. Part II," 7-10. 78. Wightman, "Temple Fortresses. Part II," 10-11. 79. Ant. 15.11,3,403.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

113

laid away there .... When Herod became king, he made lavish repairs to this building, which was conveniently situated, and, being a friend of Antony, he called it Antonia. 80 The tower of Antonia lay at the comer where two porticos, the western and the northern, of the first (i.e., outer) court of the Temple met.81

From these statements, it appears that the Baris filled a number of functions. It served as a Hasmonean palace; Hyrcanus used it regularly, and Aristobulus is said to have lay ill there. 82 Its use as a citadel or fortress is attested by its very name, by its solid construction, and by the fact that it continued to be so used during Herod's reign. It also served as a place of safekeeping for the high priest's vestments, and in this regard Hasmonean practice was followed by Herod and the procurators. The communis opinio is that the Baris was located at the site later occupied by Herod's Antonia. 83 This certainly is the implication of the above-quoted excerpts. It is also possible that the Baris was located somewhat south of the later Antonia, adjacent to the Hasmonean Temple precincts, which were much smaller than those built by Herod later on.84 However, the precise location of the Baris is unknown, since traces of such a building or of the Hasmonean Temple Mount area generally have never been established. 85 We thus know almost nothing about the Baris' plan. Since it had administrative, military, and domestic purposes, the building may have been so divided, perhaps around separate courtyards. There is mention of an underground passageway that connected the Baris to the Temple. 86 The structure itself was probably rectangular and included several high towers, one of which was called Strato's Tower. Such a name is enigmatic, as this was the Hellenistic, pre-Herodian, name of Caesarea. The Jerusalem tower might conceivably have been so called because it stood in a north-northwesterly direction in the Temple complex, i.e., toward the road leading to the coast and Strato's Tower (Caesarea). Why this fact should have been significant enough to name a Jerusalem tower is perplexing. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

Ibid., 18.4,3,91-92.

War 5.5,8,238. Ant. 13.11,2,307. See Wightman, Walls of Jerusalem, 187, and Ma'oz, "More on the Town-Plan," 326-328. See n. 70 to this chapter. One of the intriguing questions relating to Hasmonean Jerusalem is the location, plan, and size of the Temple Mount in this era. For an interesting, though somewhat speculative, attempt to deal with this issue, see Ritmeyer, "Locating the Original Temple Mount," 24-45, 64-65. 86. Ant. 13.11,2,307-313.

114

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 27. The tomb of Alexander Jannaeus, built north of the city.

The urban landscape of Jerusalem also included a necropolis located outside the city's walls (Fig. 27). While undoubtedly many of the burial caves known today were used during this period, almost all the remains found therein date to the later, Herodian, era. Two notable exceptions are the tombs of Jason and Bnei Hezir. The tomb of the priestly Hezir family is located in the Qidron Valley just east of the city, while that of Jason (also probably of priestly lineage) is located to the west, in today's Rehavia neighborhood. Both tombs were built in typical Hellenistic fashion (see below)Y

Political and Religious Groupings in Hasmonean Jerusalem

Bever Ba-Yehudim Besides the Hasmoneans, we can point to a number of other groups that functioned in Jerusalem at the time. One was the Rever Ra-Yehudim (Rever of the Jews), a term that appears on the coins of John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and Alexander Jannaeus (Fig. 28). The identity of this group is unclear; some believe that it was a supreme judicial-legislative body, perhaps synonymous with the gerousia noted in a number of documents from the third and second centuries; others view it as 87. Rahmani, "Jason's Tomb," 61-100; Avigad, Early Tombs, 37-78; and NEAEHL, Il:750-75I. See also Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 1:79-84. Recently, D. Barag, "New Insights," has suggested that the northern fa~ade of the Bnei Hezir tomb was fashioned as a tower (and not a pyramid, suggested by Avigad), similar to Nabataean ones found at Petra.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 8.C.E.)

115

Figure 28. A coin of Alexander Jannaeus with a paleo-Hebrew inscription in a wreath. The inscription reads:"Jonathan the High Priest and Hever Ha- Yehudim."

the ruler's private council, a sort of kitchen cabinet; a third opinion posits that this term refers to the entire people. In this last option, the head of the Hever of the Jews would have been ipso facto the head of the Jewish people. 88 Without further evidence, the issue remains moot.

The Priesthood The single leading group in Jerusalem at this time was the priestly class. Not only did priests bear the primary responsibility for the Temple but, from all indications, many were numbered among Jerusalem's social, economic, and political elite as well. Information in this regard can be gleaned from 1 Maccabees and Josephus, as both sources record the diplomatic ties fostered by the Hasmoneans, especially with Rome. Beginning with Judah Maccabee, the Hasmonean rulers renewed these ties for some fifty years, down to the end of the second century. What is interesting for our purposes are the names of those charged with the various missions to Rome and elsewhere: • In the time of Judah Maccabee, in 161: Eupolemus son of John, Jason son of Eleazar (1 Macc. 8: 17). • In the time of Jonathan, ca. 145: Numenius son of Antiochus, Antipater

son of Jason (1 Macc. 12: 16). • In the time of Simon, ca. 142: Numenius son of Antiochus, Antipater son of Jason (1 Macc. 14:22). Soon after these emissaries returned, Simon again dispatched Numenius and his entourage (l Macc. 14:24, 15:15). • In the time of John Hyrcanus, there were no less than three delegations to Rome: 89 (1) ca. 134: Alexander son of Jason, Numenius son of Antiochus, Alexander son of Dorotheus;90 (2) ca. 125: Simon son of Dositheus,

88. Schiirer, History, 1:211 n. 25; Lieberman, "Martyrs of Caesarea," 442; Sperber, "Note on Hasmonean Coin-Legends," 85-91; and Rappaport, "On the Meaning of Heber Ha-Yehudim," 67. See also the suggestion of M. Smith, "Gentiles in Judaism," 215-216, that the term refers to "the League of lou8aiol," which comprised Idumaeans, Galileans, and Ituraeans, as well as Judaeans. 89. M. Stern, Documents, 143-165. This document was mistakenly attributed by Josephus or his source to Hyrcanus II, instead of Hyrcanus I; see M. Stern, Studies, 79-82. 90. Ant. 14.8,5, 146. Referred to as "worthy men and allies."

116

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Apollonius son of Alexander, Diodorus son of Jason;91 and (3) in 113-112: Straton son of Theodotus, Apollonius son of Alexander, Aeneas son of Antipater, Aristobulus son of Amyntas, Sosipater son of Philip.92 On the basis of these names, several conclusions can be drawn about the origins and social background of these emissaries. First, it would seem that these diplomatic missions were entrusted to a small group of families. Alexander (in 134 B.C.E.) and Diodorus (in 125) were apparently brothers, sons of Jason. Apollonius served in two delegations (in 125 and in 113) and may have been the son of one Alexander, who is mentioned in connection with the delegation of 134 B.C.E. In the days of Jonathan, Numenius son of Antiochus (in 134) fulfilled a similar function together with Antipater son of Jason. The latter may have been the brother of Alexander and Diodorus. Numenius and Antipater were sent to Rome and Sparta ca. 145, and Numenius went to Rome under Simon. Antipater may have been the father of Aeneas (in 113). Jason, the father of three ambassadors, also served as such in 161, together with Apollonius son ofYohanan. Yohanan himself had also been sent on a diplomatic mission to Antiochus III and is credited with having gained the status of ethnos for the Jews (2 Macc. 4: 11 ).93 Thus, on the basis of the above, it would seem that the foreign relations of the Hasmoneans were entrusted to specific families that bore this responsibility for generations. A second conclusion directly relevant to our discussion is that most, if not all, of these emissaries belonged to the priestly class. Yohanan, father of Eupolemus, is specifically mentioned as hailing from the priestly course of Hakkoz,94 and Jason and Eleazar are well-known priestly names. Alexander and Aristobulus appear regularly as Hasmonean names, and Dositheus is often used by priests.95 Moreover, these emissaries' names reflect a significant degree of Hellenization, and we even find blatantly pagan (Apollonius) and Seleucid (Antiochus) names among them. Simeon, the only Hebrew name listed, is very close to the Greek "Simon" and may possibly have been chosen for that very reason. It is no wonder that Jews with backgrounds in the Greek language (as their names seem to indicate), and presumably in Greek mores as well, were chosen for such tasks; it would have been essential that they be able to communicate readily with their hosts. Such Hellenized names would seem to bear certain cultural implications 91. Ibid., 13.9,2,260. The document adds: "worthy and excellent men." 92. Ibid., 14.10,22,248-249. Here, too, referred to as "worthy and excellent men." This document has also been mistakenly attributed to Hyrcanus II; see M. Stem, Studies, 88-95. 93. On the possible meanings of the term "ethnos," see Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 194-196. 94. See Ezra 2:61 (= Neh. 7:63) and 1 Chron. 24:10. 95. See, e.g., the colophon of the Greek Additions to Esther; Against Apion 2.5, 49; and Ilan, "Greek Names," 1-20.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

117

and may allow us to assume that, at the very least, some rhetorical training was available to these individuals, perhaps in Jerusalem itself. The overlap among the priests, the upper classes, and the phenomenon of Hellenization in Hasmonean Jerusalem is likewise reflected in several other types of evidence from this period. One literary source, the colophon of the Additions to Greek Esther, informs us that these Additions, or at least some of them, were composed and translated (possibly together with the book of Esther itself) by the Jerusalemite Lysimachus son of Ptolemy and were brought to Egypt by Dositheus, Levitas, and his son Ptolemy in 78-77 (or, alternatively, in 114) B.C.E.: In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said he was a priest, and Levitas, and his son Ptolemy brought the above Letter of Purim, which they said was authentic and had been translated by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, a member of the Jerusalem community.96 The significance of this information should be evident; priests were clearly at the very center of this translation enterprise not only in regard to Dositheus (as explicitly stated), but also because Lysimachus was probably a priestly name as well.97 The Hellenistic background of these individuals is apparent from their Greek names and from the fact that Lysimachus'translation reveals his superior command of Greek style and language. 98 Priests and their Hellenizing proclivities are further documented in archaeological remains. The two burial tombs noted earlier, the Bnei Hezir tomb and Jason's tomb, reflect a significant appropriation of Hellenistic architectural forms by Jerusalem priestly families. The former features a Doric style fa~ade (columns, pilasters, and frieze; Fig. 29), whereas the latter has a single Doric column and a pyramidal monument Both tombs contained kukhim (or loculi), a burial arrangement that had reached Judaea from Alexandria and Palestine's coastal plain, or Shephelah (e.g., Marisa), in the course of the Hellenistic era. 99 Jason's tomb features scenes of merchant vessels and warships, a gazelle, as well as menorah graffiti. These tombs contain a variety of inscriptions, a Hebrew one on the Bnei Hezir fa~ade, and Greek and Aramaic ones in Jason's tomb. loo The prominence of the priestly class as officials in the Hasmonean bureaucracy requires further comment. In addition to the diplomatic roles they played, 96. See Bickerman, "Colophon," 339-362, and C. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: Additions, 153-252, and "Esther," 62~33. 97. See 2 Macc. 4, 29, and possibly Ant. 14.10,10,222. 98. On the stridently Jewish dimension of the Additions, see below. 99. Rahmani, "Jason's Tomb," 68. 100. See n. 87 in this chapter. Regarding other Hellenistic influences on Jason's tomb, see Foerster, "Architectural Fragments," 152-156.

118

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 29. The tomb of Bnei Hezir (center) flanked by Absalom's tomb (left) and Zechariah's tomb (right),located in the Qidron Valley.

there is also evidence that priests were among the military leaders of the Hasmonean armies. 101 The Hasmoneans themselves served as models, being both priests and strategoi. The distinctive role played by priests as military leaders several centuries later, not to mention priestly ideologies underpinning the revolt against Rome in the first century C.E., is well documented; regarding the former, Josephus himself may have served as a prime example (see below).102 However, more direct evidence is also available. Toward the end of the Hasmonean era, when the Pharisees had assumed a dominant role under the reign of Salome Alexandra, we read of the revenge they took on the priests who had persecuted them beforehand, in the days of Alexander Jannaeus. Those now on the defensive are referred to as "leading citizens," who had been granted the "greatest honors" by Jannaeus and were now close associates of Salome's son Aristobulus IV03 It is clear that these priests were associated with the military; they speak of their suffering the perils of war and their potential value to surrounding rulers as mercenaries. They now requested of Salome that, at the very least, she station each of them in one of her garrisons, presumably as commanders.l()4 These references are presumably to priestly (perhaps Sadducean) commanders in the army who were now trying to cope with the dramatic shift in

101. See Applebaum, "Fighting Priest," 35-38 (Hebrew), and Hengel, Zealots, 271-290. 102. See Goodblatt, "Priestly Ideologies," 225- 249. 103. Ant. 13.16, 2, 411.

104. Ibid., 13.16,2,412--415. One of them, Diogenes, was reputed to have advised Alexander Jannaeus to crucify eight hundred people. He was executed by the Pharisees when they assumed power (War 1.5 , 3,114, and Ant. 13.16,2,411).

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 Be.E.)

119

Hasmonean policy that accompanied Salome's ascension to the throne and allowed the Pharisees to threaten them at will. The likelihood that these military commanders were priests is enhanced by evidence from the Qumran sect and its scrolls. This group was led in large part by priests and had a military orientation, as reflected in the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, a manual for their anticipated eschatological war. Of greater import is the fact that the Pesher Nahum lO5 refers to contemporary Judaean sects via biblical figures; Judah represents the Qumran sect itself, Ephraim the Pharisees, and Menasseh the Sadducean priests. 106 In describing the attributes of Menasseh, the scroll speaks of them not only as "nobles" and "respectable men" but also as "men of valor" and "warriors." This, then, appears to be a clear attestation of the military dimension of the priestly class.

Religious Sects A notable development in Hasmonean times was the emergence of identifiable religious sects. 107 The term "sect" requires some clarification, as it usually is used in regard to Christian groups that periodically broke way from the Church for social and ideological reasons. In this period, only the Essenes of Qumran come close to fitting that definition. Other groups, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Hasidians of Maccabean days, Sicarii, and early Christians, all operated in Jerusalem and wider Judaean society and were not a priori opposed to the religious establishment. The term "sect" is thus not the most appropriate for our historical context. Nevertheless, we have retained it out of convenience, since it is universally used with reference to these groups. All evidence points to the beginning of the Hasmonean era as the time when a number of Second Temple sects crystallized. While some scholars have posited the existence of these sects, or perhaps more accurately proto-sects, as early as the fourth and third centuries, such theories are entirely speCUlative as there are no data to substantiate them. Josephus, however, first mentions the existence of sects in the middle of the second century,108 and the development of the communal, sectarian center in Qumran can be dated to its latter half.109 The first chapter of Mishnah Avot, which attributes statements to the first generations of Pharisaic 105. Cols. 3-4. 106. Amoussine, "Ephraim et Manasse," 389-396, and Flusser, "Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes," 133-168. 107. Grabbe, Judaism, 11:463-554, and Judaic Religion, 183-209; Sternberger, "Sadducees," 429-435; and especially A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects.

108. Ant. 13.5,9,171-173. 109. The resettlement of the site and enlargement of its facilities is often associated with the reign of John Hyrcanus. Compare, however, Magness, "Community of Qumran," 39-50.

120

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

leaders living in Hasmonean times (the Zugot or "Pairs"), seems to reflect, at least in part, an early period in the sect's formation. no The Pharisees quoted there speak of attaching oneself to a teacher, acquiring a colleague, opening one's home to sages, and more. One rabbinic source, Fathers According to R. Nathan, though stemming from Late Antiquity, seems to allude to the fact that the sects, particularly the Pharisees and Sadducees, emerged several generations after Antigonus of Socho, who lived in the early second century.l1l Religious sectarianism was indeed an unusual occurrence within ancient Judaism. Neither before the second century B.C.E. nor after 70 C.E. did the same range of organized sects exist among Jews, and thus the situation that first crystallized under the Hasmoneans was indeed sui generis. ll2 The historical circumstances of the middle second century would seem to have been most conducive for spawning such groups. This was indeed a time of transition and upheaval. Jewish society had been coping for decades with the attractiveness, threat, or both, of Hellenism, a process, as we have seen, that culminated in the transformation of Jerusalem into a polis in 175. Following the trauma of Antiochus' persecutions and the desecration of the Temple, the emergence of the new Hasmonean society was undoubtedly viewed by many with exhilaration and pride but by others, perhaps, with disdain and a source of profound disillusionment. Some may have been alienated by the effects of urbanization; by the awareness of Hellenistic influences that, instead of being checked, were now making ever-greater inroads under the Hasmoneans; by the Hasmonean usurpation of the high priesthood and the family's problematic behavior (to some) in that position; by the overly ambitious military designs and increasingly centralized authority achieved by the Hasmoneans; by their combining of political and religious roles; and by the emergence of a vigorous antigentile policy. Some or all of these factors may account for the creation of alternative religious groupings, principal among which were the above-mentioned sects.l\3 Since there were striking differences among these sects, it is likely that many of the factors listed above (and others as well) played varying roles in the formation of each. 110. See A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 147-149. 111. See Version A, Chapter 5. See also Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus, 64-66. The term "Pharisee" is of interest, appearing to derive from the Hebrew parash, meaning "to interpret" or "to separate from." Either is possible; however, if the latter alternative is preferred, then it is not clear from what the Pharisees wished to distance themselves. The suggestions in this regard are many: to separate themselves from the ruling Hasmoneans, the priestly caste, Hasmonean military policy, Jews who were lax in their observance, Hellenistic influences, or some or all of the above. 112. See A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 15-18. 113. For several general treatments of the phenomenon, see Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 239-308; E. P. Sanders,!udaism, 13-29; Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 160-162; and A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 28-41, 88, 112-113, and "City Lights," 50-64.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.c. E.)

121

Jerusalem was the focus of much of this sectarian activity. The Sadducees, by virtue of their being priests and involved in Temple affairs, were clearly based in the city. So, too, were the Pharisees. While the first sages mentioned are identified as hailing from a specific locale (Yose b. Yohanan of Jerusalem, Yose b. Yo'ezer of Zeredah, Nittai of Arbel), the remaining ones are not so identified. Since a number of traditions inform us that most functioned in Jerusalem, at times in connection with Temple affairs, it is reasonable to assume that for them, too, the city was the primary arena of activity. The struggle between the Pharisees and Sadducees throughout this period seems to indicate that each group was well represented in Jerusalem. Moreover, while the Essenes were concentrated in the Judaean Desert, they also had a foothold throughout the country and in Jerusalem as well (see below). In any case, Jerusalem was very much in the consciousness of the Essenes, since it was because of their opposition to the Temple's leadership that they fled to the desert. The importance of Jerusalem is reflected in several scroll fragments that extol the glories of the city, and the Essenes had every hope of victoriously returning to it at some point. 1I4 The various sects in Hasmonean Jerusalem shared a number of characteristics with one another, although they also differed in significant ways. We will deal with these similarities and differences, respectively. Common to the groups was the fact that they were all voluntary frameworks. People searching for religious messages and inspiration may have become acquainted with several sects over the course of time and, as a consequence, were exposed to a series of religious figures and frameworks, as did Josephus in relating his own experience in the first century C.E.l15 These sects were neither cut from one cloth nor large in nurnber.1I6 Not all priests were Sadducees or Essenes, and not all Essenes were priests. Moreover, the early Pharisees do not appear to have had anyone particular social trait in common. However, most members of the sects, especially among the leadership, seem to have hailed from the socially, economically, and religiously established classes of Jerusalem society. The prominence of both the Sadducees and Pharisees in John Hyrcanus' court is a striking case in point.lI7 The small size of these groups is attested by the fact that even during Herod's rule the Pharisees numbered only some six thousand,1I8 and in the first century there were approx-

114. Schiffman, Reclaiming, 385-394. 115. Life 2,7-12. 116. See A. Baumgarten, "Qumran and Jewish Sectarianism," 139-148. 117. Ant. 13.10,5--6,288-298, and A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 47-48. 118. Ant. 17.2,4,42.

122

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

imately four thousand Essenes. Jl9 The Essene communal site at Qumran, specifically its dining area, could accommodate perhaps as many as two hundred members at anyone time and roughly indicates the sect's size. 120 The Sadducees, for their part, were even fewer in number, if a comment by Josephus regarding the first century C.E. may be considered relevant to the Hasmonean era. 121

In choosing to belong to one particular sect, individuals were establishing their personal and collective identity vis-a-vis others. Thus each sect meticulously erected walls around itself to separate its members from other sects, ordinary Jews, and non-Jews. This social separation was rigorously mandated and articulated in a variety of ways. The Essenes residing in Qumran expressed this tendency in the extreme. The guidelines for entry into this sect, as well as the harsh punishment meted out to those who failed to keep its rules, indicate the determination to maintain communal standards at all costs. The Pharisees as well tended to separate themselves from the masses in certain crucial areas. The laws dealing with the havurah, with its stringent rules of both membership and separation from 'am ha-aretz (the ordinary Jew),122 are a case in point. For both the Qumran Essenes and the Pharisees, one of the crucial means of maintaining this separation was through the strict observance of purity rules. The need for constant purification was always present, as the miqva'ot (ritual baths) of Qumran and the attestations of Josephus and the scrolls repeatedly emphasize. 123 Part of the daily ritual of the Essenes in general, and particularly at Qumran, was immersion before the communal meal and the liturgy that accompanied it. l24 These purity regUlations, which differed in many aspects from one sect to the other, probably served to restrict any kind of social contact with those outside one's group. With the publication of several halakhic scrolls and fragments, e.g., the Temple Scroll and MMT,125 we have become more aware of late of the degree to which Jewish law was a pivotal factor in the self-definition of the sects, as reflected in rabbinic literature. This has helped refocus attention on the impor-

119. Ibid., 18.1,5,21, and Philo, Every Good Man Is Free 12,75. This assumes that these figures represent the total number of sectarians (and not just adult males) throughout the entire country. 120. Broshi, "Archeology of Qumran," 113-114. 121. Ant. 18.1,4,17: "There are but few men to whom this doctrine has been made known, but there are

men of the highest standing." 122. See T Demai 2, 2 (ed. Lieberman, 68); as well as Oppenheimer, 'Am Ha-Aretz, passim, and Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 216-220. 123. See Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Sect, 161-168. 124. War 2.8,5, 130-132, and 1QS v-vi.

125. Purportedly a statement by the leader of the breakaway sect discussing the major issues that separated his group from the Jerusalem authorities.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

123

tance of legal matters-and not only theological issues-in defining and distinguishing these groupS.126 Another common feature of the sects, at least regarding those for which we have information, is the centrality of Torah study. The Pharisaic emphasis on this activity is reflected in both the statements found in Mishnah Avot127 and the repeated claim made by Josephus that this group excelled in its precise knowledge of the Law. 128 At Qumran, study was an ongoing activity throughout the day and night. 129 Having noted some of the dimensions shared by these sects, let us now tum to certain major differences between them. The latter are even more salient, owing to the fact that the primary sources often highlight them. Rabbinic literature, as noted, emphasizes halakhic differences while the New Testament focuses on ideological and ritual issues separating the Pharisees and Jesus. l3O Josephus first introduces the sects in his account of Jonathan (ca. 150), as follows: Now at this time there were three schools of thought among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that ofthe Essenes. As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of Fate, but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not. The sect of Essenes, however, declares that Fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree. But the Sadducees do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our wellbeing, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness. l3l

This is not the only place where Josephus focuses on philosophical differences between the sects; 132 he notes other differences between them later on, in his 126. Schiffman, Reclaiming, 273-312. See, however, A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, passim. 127. Chapter 1. 128. For example, War 1.5, 2, 110. See A. Baumgarten, "Name ofthe Pharisees," 411-428. On the significance of the calendar controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees (here termed "Boethusians"), see Naeh, "Did the Tannaim Interpret?" 424-439. 129. Fraade, "Interpretive Authority," 46-69. 130. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 124-161; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 144-237; and S. Mason, "Chief Priests," 115-177. 131. Ant. 13.5,9, 171-173. A fuller account of the differences between the sects, with an especially long section devoted to the Essenes, is found in Josephus' War 2.8,2-14,119-166. 132. Josephus returns to this type of distinction elsewhere with respect to the soul not being immortal and that there are no rewards and punishments after death (War 2.8, 14, 164-165). The perception of Judaism as being an "ancestral philosophy" should not be dismissed out of hand. It is noted by many Greek writers (e.g., Theophrastus, Megasthenes, and Clearchus of Soli; see GLAJJ, I:passim), as well as by Philo (e.g., Embassy 23, 156), 4 Macc. 5:22, and Josephus elsewhere (Against Apion 2.4,47). See M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism," 78-81.

124

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

account of Hyrcanus' rule (see below). With the above distinctions in mind, we will next discuss the fundamental differences between the two sects that were based in Jerusalem.

Pharisees and Sadducees The Ideological Dimension

Pernaps the most outstanding characteristic of the Pharisees was their unique doctrine of the Oral Law, which they considered as binding as the written Torah itself.133 For the present I wish merely to explain that the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by former generations (lit., by the fathers) need not be observed.134

The Pharisaic interpretations of the Torah, which ipso facto made up their Oral Tradition, thus carried an enormous degree of authority and legitimacy for those who accepted this claim. How exactly the Pharisees themselves would have formulated this idea is unknown, although later rabbinic tradition contains a number of statements in this vein. 135 Moreover, how the Pharisees had defined the relationship between the Written and Oral Laws is beyond the scope of the sources at hand; later on, the Mishnah clearly differentiates between various categories of law in this respect: The rules about release from vows (i.e., in rabbinic law) hover in the air and have nothing to support them; the rules about the Sabbath, festivals, and instances of misusing objects dedicated to the Temple are as mountains which hang by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the halakhot many; the rules concerning civil cases, the Temple service, determining what is clean and unclean

133. We will restrict our discussion to the references that clearly relate to this early time frame. Most of the voluminous material on the Pharisees deals with the Herodian era and the subsequent fIrst century C.E. Some data derive from Josephus and some from the New Testament; the overwhelming bulk, however, are to be found in rabbinic sources. Even though some of this later material may be valid for the Hasmonean era as well, there is no way of being sure exactly how much. Therefore, we will be minimalist in our description. 134. Ant. 13.10,6,297. 135. Later rabbinic assertions might take one of several different forms. In their most extreme expression, rabbis would claim that all laws and regulations derive from Sinai; see, e.g., M Avot 1, 2; Sifra B'huqotai 8 (end); M Peah 2,6; and Y Peah 2, 6, 17a. Other statements speak of general principles being determined but not of their details. Finally, some statements accord the sages a great deal of authority and autonomy; as the interpreters and teachers of God's will, following the sages'decisions is considered tantamount to obeying God Himself; Sifrei Deuteronomy 41 and 49. See also B Bava Metzia 59a-b, and the comments of Urbach, Sages, 1:307-308.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.c. E.)

125

and forbidden relationships, they have many (biblical sources to) support them, and they are the essentials of the Torah. 136

It is commonly assumed that the Sadducees believed only in the Torah or Pentateuch as God's word and rejected any oral tradition, particularly that of the Pharisees. This assumption is not entirely mistaken, but requires some revision and fine-tuning. True, the Sadducees did not accept the Pharisaic Oral Law, but this does not mean that they did not have their own nonbiblical rules. The difference may have been that for the Sadducees everything had to be derived exegetically from the Torah, whereas for the Pharisees the Oral Law could be independent of Scriptures. Three considerations would seem to bolster this assumption: (1 ) No one can apply Scripture without some degree of interpretation. Once one relates a specific case or issue to a particular verse and then reaches some sort of conclusion, interpretation or midrash has taken place; this, then, is an instance of a nonwritten (i.e., oral) exegesis. (2) We know that the Sadducees derived many of their regulations and halakhah from midrash; rabbinic literature has preserved many instances of the Sadducees interpreting a biblical verse in one way and the Pharisees in another. The case of the daily sacrifice is classic in that it also clearly reflects the socioeconomic status of each sect. The Sadducees claimed that the daily sacrifice should be paid for by individual donors, the Pharisees, that it should come from the Temple coffers to which all Jews contributed, each side quoting a verse in support of its position. 137 There is no reason to doubt that such exchanges on a variety of issues did, in fact, take place before 70 B.C.E. 138 (3) We read of a Book of Decrees (xn1m 1no) that belonged to the Sadducees and listed their halakhic decisions. Thus they, too, clearly possessed such decisions over and above that which existed in the Torah. A second, and related, fundamental difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees was that the latter considered their Oral Tradition as completely binding, having derived from Sinai no less than the Written Law. The Sadducees, however, considered only the Torah as authoritative and that their exegetically derived traditions were ad hoc decisions commanding no authoritative value over and above their original intent and context. Finally, Josephus, corroborated by a later rabbinic tradition, delineates another important distinction between the two groups, this time in the social sphere: And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies and serious differences, the Sadducees having the confidence of the wealthy 136. Hagigah 1,8.

137. B Menahot 65a. 138. See, e.g., Acts 23:6-9.

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

126

alone but no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses. 139

Josephus' statement focuses on one of the most debated issues regarding the Pharisees in this and the subsequent Herodian and post-Herodian eras, namely, the degree to which they influenced the people politically and religiously.l40 At first glance, the sources at our disposal seem to be unanimous in this respect, namely that the Pharisees, at least in the first century C.E., indeed constituted the most powerful and popular sect. However, the issue is more complex than it at first appears. Two of the three primary sources, Josephus and rabbinic literature, closely identify with the Pharisees; Josephus became a member of the sect141 and the rabbis regarded themselves as the Pharisees' successors. Therefore, the testimony of each may be considered tendentious. The New Testament, for its part, emphasizes the Pharisees' role in the Galilee as adversaries of Jesus but has them playa distinctly secondary and peripheral role in the Jerusalem episodes of his life. However, it is precisely the Jerusalem accounts of the gospels that are considered the most detailed and more historically accurate traditions concerning Jesus' life. Furthermore, some scholars have detected a shift in emphasis in Josephus' accounts of the Pharisees, from a less to a more sympathetic one (or vice versa, according to others). Such considerations raise questions about exactly how reliable a source Josephus is in this regard. Finally, the intense research focusing on the Qumran scrolls and related literature in the late twentieth century has opened up new horizons with respect to the variety and richness of Second Temple religious life. Thus the inclination to view anyone sect as dominant and normative is far rarer today than ever before. The Sociopolitical Dimension

Given the political and religious climate of Hasmonean Jerusalem, the differences between the sects often led to a serious level of conflict and tension that first surfaced toward the end of Hyrcanus' reign. Initially, both groups seem to 139. Ant. 13.10, 6, 298. A similar distinction is made in Fathers According to R. Nathan, A, 5 (ed. Schechter, 26). See Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus, 64-66. The assertion made here by Josephus regarding the popularity of the Pharisees (see also Ant. 13.10, 5, 288-289) has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Most have regarded the statement as part of the Jewish historian's tendentiousness, but how much one ought to disregard the claim is disputed. See, e.g., Alon, Jews, Judaism, 22; M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism," 73-79; and S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 18-39,372-375. 140. The literature on this topic of Pharisaic dominance is enormous. Much of the credit for opening the debate goes to M. Smith for his seminal article, "Palestinian Judaism." Summaries abound; see, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 380-412; Saldarini, "Pharisees," 289-303; and the more recent Schaper, "Pharisees," 402-427. 141. Life 2, 12.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.CE.)

127

Figure 30. The 4Q396 (MMTc) parchment, copied some time in the late first century B.C.E. to the early first century C.E.

have been close to the Hasmonean ruler, either as personal allies or perhaps, more formally, as part of his council. 142 The Qumran document MMT seems to reflect a polemic against the then-authoritative Jerusalem halakhah and may have been aimed primarily at views espoused by the Pharisees (Fig. 30). If this letter were indeed written at the very first stage of the sect's history, then the situation described would relate to the third or early fourth quarter of the second century. In that case, not only did the Pharisees participate in the ruling elite (formally or informally) along with the Sadducees but, presumably, their interpretations were often considered authoritative. 143 Ironically, rabbinic sources are silent in this regard. On one occasion, Josephus reports that the Pharisees participated in a festive meal hosted by Hyrcanus, during which a dispute arose between the Hasmonean ruler and the Pharisees. The latter were consequently removed from positions of power and influence in Hasmonean affairs, particularly in the religious realm. It is difficult to assess whether the precise reason for this break was, as described, the alleged slander by one Pharisee and Hyrcanus' 142. Ant. 13.10,5-6, 288-298. 143. This seems to be the most widely accepted interpretation of the evidence in the recently published halakhic scroll from Qumran, Miqsat Ma 'ase Ha- Torah See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4 . See especially Y. Sussmann, "History of the Halakha," 179-200, as well as the articles of H. Eshel , "4QMMT," and D. R. Schwartz, "MMT." See, however, the engaging thesis of Fraade, "To Whom It May Concern," 507-526, suggesting that this letter was, in fact, an internal Qumran document and not directed to external enemies.

128

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

anger at his Pharisaic colleagues for not duly reprimanding him.l44 It may have played a role, but other, more serious, issues were probably at stake as well. This break appears to have been connected with political and social developments then unfolding in Hasmonean society.145 Since the Sadducees represented a significant part of the wealthy and aristocratic circles, and owing to their centrality in the diplomatic and military activities of the kingdom, not to mention Temple affairs, Hyrcanus may well have decided at this point to align himself more closely with this group, thus favoring their approach in religious matters as well. The result of this break was that the Sadducees now gained control of the religious agenda of Jerusalem and Judaea, and for the next thirty years they were full partners with the Hasmoneans in the political life of the city, while the Pharisees constituted part of the opposition. It is quite likely that the Pharisees-along with thousands of others-also suffered the crucifixion, exile, and other deaths that Jannaeus imposed on his opponents. 146 However, ~e tables were turned under Salome, and the Pharisees returned to power. According to Josephus, this change in policy was dictated by the wishes of her dying husband, Alexander Jannaeus. 147 The queen proceeded to hand over full control of her kingdom's internal affairs to the Pharisees, who wasted no time in exacting due punishment from their Sadducean persecutors and rivals. 148 The restoration of Pharisaic power dovetails neatly with a number of rabbinic sources that attest to the public prominence of Simon b. Shatah, who reputedly served as a judge and statesman at this time, the only early Pharisee to have held an official public pOSt.1 49 144. It is interesting to note that B Qiddushin 66a cites almost the same exact circumstances, although dating the break to the time of Alexander Jannaeus. On the parallel traditions between Josephus and rabbinic literature, see Cohen, "Parallel Historical Traditions," 7-14. Compare also Alon, Jews, Judaism, 26-27, and the more recent Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus, 109-110, who are among the small minority of scholars preferring the talmudic chronology. 145. For a more detailed account of these circumstances, see Levine, "Political Struggle," 61-83. 146. War 1.4, 3-6, 88-98, and Ant. 13.13,5-14,2,372-383. See Rabin, "Alexander Jannaeus," 3-11, and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 381. On the cruelty of Jannaeus as reflected in the Qumran scrolls, see Schiirer, History, 1:224-225. Hints of disruptions in Pharisaic life are contained in several talmudic traditions. One notes the fleeing of sages to Egypt, and another of the call of those in Jerusalem for their brethren to return; see, e.g., B Sotah 47a (= B Sanhedrin 107b); Y Hagigah 2,2, 77d (= Y Sanhedrin 6, 9, 23c). 147. Ant. 13.15,5,398-404. 148. This included the execution of one Diogenes and the persecution of others. As noted, many turned to Salome, requesting some sort of protection (War 1.5, 3, 113-114; Ant. 13.16,2,410). Josephus describes Pharisaic power as follows: "To them (the Pharisees), being herself (Salome) intensely religious, she listened with too great deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, became at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind, whom they would. In short, the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs" (War 1.5,2,111). Ant. 13.16,2,409 adds: "the Pharisees had the power ... [they1in no way differed from absolute rulers." 149. On the traditions relating to Simon b. Shatah and his public prominence, see Efron, Studies, 143-218. See also Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 43-48.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

129

Other Aspects of Hasmonean Pharisaism

The Pharisees appear to have enjoyed a reputation as being punctilious in their observance of the Law and precise (akribeia) in its interpretation. 150 These two qualities may hold the key to understanding the secret of their influence. In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees did not, and could not, claim any special lineage as a group, nor did they control any particular institution. Their appeal seems to have derived solely from the devotion and commitment to their particular religious way of life that some (perhaps many) people were inclined to follow, or at least respect. l5l Together with their reputation for exactness of interpretation and the binding quality of their Oral Tradition, the Pharisees seem to have advocated a number of innovations that were not accepted by all, certainly not the Sadducees. Their doctrine regarding the resurrection of the body is unattested in all but the very latest strands of biblical literature, with Dan. 12:2 being the most explicit example. The concept of Oral Law or an educational framework such as a house of study is new, although the latter may have become fully institutionalized only in the later Herodian and post-Herodian eras. The Pharisees apparently were willing to steer a middle ground among competing viewpoints on key theological issues. For instance, when it came to the question of free will vs. determination, they are said to have adopted a middle-of-the-road approach.152 Whereas the Sadducees stood squarely in the comer of free will and the Essenes in that of determinism, the Pharisees accepted both positions, despite their logical incongruity.153 This approach, which became a hallmark of Pharisaic thought,154 was to remain fundamental in later rabbinic tradition as well. 155 The only instance in which a rabbinic source speaks of a Pharisaic socialeducational initiative in Jerusalem (and perhaps elsewhere) appears in a tradition ascribed to Simon b. Shatah, who is said to have decreed three things: (l) a man should negotiate his wife's ketubah, (2) children should go to school, and (3) glass vessels are impure. 156 The second issue in this source seems to indicate that schools were (or had been) established at this time and that Simon b. Shatah took a stance in favor of "compulsory education." Moreover, it might also be 150. See War 2.8,14, 162; Life 38, 191; and Paul's statements about himself as a fonner Pharisee in Acts 22:3,26:5. 151. The most dramatic instance of this phenomenon was described earlier in this chapter with respect to Salome; see Fraade, "Interpretive Authority," 46--69. 152. M Avot 3, 15. 153. Ant. 13.5,9, 171-173. 154. See also Rom. 8-10. 155. M Avot 3, 15. 156. Y Ketubot 8, 8, 32c.

130

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

argued that a parallel tradition l57 likewise speaks of the creation of a cadre of teachers in Jerusalem that preceded the establishment of a network of teachers throughout the country, the latter step having been carried out by the firstcentury high priest Joshua b. Gamla. However, the matter is not quite so simple. For one, each of these sourcesand they are the only ones that relate to this topic-is very late, stemming from amoraic (third century C.E. and later) times. While they do not necessarily contradict one another, they do not say exactly the same thing either, and both leave many important details (e.g., actual schools, compulsory education) unaddressed. 158 For the moment, at least, no solid historical information can be culled from these traditions, though, admittedly, they are suggestive.

Essenes The third sect noted by Josephus-the Essenes-was also to be found in Jerusalem. Although its headquarters seems to have been in Qumran,'59 we know from Philo and Josephus that there were communities of Essenes throughout Judaea. l60 As for Jerusalem, Josephus specifically mentions one Judas the Essene who instructed his "companions and disciples" in the Temple area during the reign of Aristobulus I (104-103).161 Another piece of information may afford us a more solid basis for assuming an established Essene presence in Jerusalem. In his famous description of the city's First Wall, Josephus mentions the existence of a place called Bethso followed by the Gate of the Essenes, located in the southwestern comer of the city.162 Excavations over the last several decades have demonstrated that a gate once existed there and had been built into an already preexistent (Hasmonean) wall, probably in the early Herodian era. 163 It is quite possible that this gate is to be identified with the one referred to by Josephus, and that it was so called because of an Essene presence in the vicinity. However, the evidence from Josephus and the archaeological

157. B Bava Batra 21a. 158. The most comprehensive treatment to date on this issue, along with a full bibliography, is the study of Goodblatt, "Traditions," 83-93. 159. We are assuming that the Essenes and Qumran sect were one and the same, although clearly certain distinctions and subdivisions existed. This remains the dominant theory to date, although some have suggested that the two groups be divorced. See, e.g., A. Baumgarten, "Crisis in the Scrollery," 399-413. 160. Philo, Hypothetica 11, 1: "These people are called Essenes .... They live in many cities of Judaea and in many villages." In this vein, see also Josephus, War 2.8, 4, 124. Elsewhere, Philo notes that the Essenes preferred villages to cities (Every Good Man Is Free 75).

161. Ant. 13.11,2,311. 162. War 5.4,2, 145. 163. Riesner, "Josephus"Gate of the Essenes'," 105-109, and "Essene Gate," 618-619. See also Pixner, "History of the 'Essene Gate' Area," 96-104, and "Jerusalem's Essene Gateway," 23-31, 64, 66.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 8.C.E.)

131

finds regarding a gate relate to the later Herodian and post-Herodian eras. Can anything else be learned about the Hasmonean era? The answer is a qualified yes, but for this we must rely on another scroll and another statement by Josephus. When Yadin published the Temple Scroll, which was composed in the Hasmonean era,l64 he took note of the fact that it forbids relieving oneself in the holy city of Jerusalem: And you shall make them a place for a "hand," outside the city, to which they shall go out, to the northwest of the city-roofed houses with pits within them, into which the excrement will descend, [so that] it will [not] be visible at any distance from the city, three thousand cubits. 165

Yadin associated these latrines with the place called Bethso (possibly an Aramaic term for "a place of dung") that was noted by Josephus just before mentioning the Essene Gate. 166 TIms, according to this interpretation, we may have here evidence of an Essene settlement in this part of the city during the Hasmonean era. All this assumes, of course, that the Temple Scroll reflects a historical reality and is not patently theoretical, but this remains a moot issue. If indeed there were an Essene community in Jerusalem, it would have contributed to the diverse and variegated social and religious character of the city. As well as is known, this sect had adopted a number of strikingly different practices and beliefs that appear to have distanced them from other Jews: a monastic-type community with communal property, an emphasis on community-focused activities, rarer instances of marriage, use of the solar calendar, a belief in predestination, etc. 167

The aforementioned characteristics relate first and foremost to the sect living at Qumran; unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the Essenes of this period besides what is noted in the Qumran scrolls. 168 We are uninformed as to the extent, if at all, that the political-religious ideology fueling those at Qumran also applied to the Essenes of Jerusalem and elsewhere. According to the scrolls, members of the sect retired to Qumran in protest of the corruption of the Jerusalem authorities, i.e., the Hasmoneans, and their misguided halakhah. 169 How would the Jerusalem Essenes have handled such an issue on a day-to-day basis? Clearly, for 164. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:386-390, and Schiffman, "Temple Scroll," 348-350. 165. Temple Scroll XLVI, 13-16. 166. Yadin, "Gate of the Essenes," 90-91. 167. The literature on this sect is enormous. Several recent treatments of note include Schiffman, Reclaiming; VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today; and Kugler and Schuller, Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty. 168. It is to be recalled that the descriptions of Philo and Josephus stem from the first century C.E. How much of their description is relevant to the earlier period can be judged only by the evidence of the scrolls, most of which are from the Hasmonean era. 169. See Regev, "Temple Impurity," 133-156.

132

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

such a community to have existed in the capital city itself would have required a large measure of tolerance on the part of the ruling Hasmonean establishment. This, however, cannot be readily assumed on the basis of other data regarding Hasmonean attitudes toward dissenters, unless, of course, the Essenes in the city were so inconsequential in number or so eccentric in practice as to be easily disregarded.

Other Religious Circles: The Literary Evidence Examples of religious diversity in Hasmonean Jerusalem did not begin and end with the major sects discussed above. A variety of religious approaches and ideologies have come to light in apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books, and we have already had occasion to refer to several of them with respect to Ptolemaic Jerusalem.170 Many more works stem from the Hasmonean era, such as Jubilees, later parts of I Enoch, and perhaps the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Although the literary genres represented are diverse (history, hymns, wisdom literature, romances, and visionary tracts), many are apocalyptic in nature and are concerned with the end of days; their authors believed that they were witnessing the final generations of the old and perhaps the first glimpses of the new, i.e., redemption. l7l From this flowed their desire to tell of the events that would transpire and change everything on the face of the earth. Sometimes these [mal events are essentially historical: a Davidic king, the end of foreign rule, an ingathering of the exiles, etc. In other cases, the description is supernatural: The messiah is a supernatural being; the [mal events will happen suddenly and shake the earth's foundations; but, in the end, good will triumph once and for allover evil.172 To what extent were such views and beliefs common among Jerusalem's population? Did these books express the ideas of a limited coterie of savants or did they represent wider circles? The many works and their kaleidoscope of nuances seem to indicate that this genre was not a highly restricted one, but rather expressed a number of positions that had crystallized at this time. At times, the views were close to those of the Qumran sect and early Christianity and thus were different from and even contradictory to what we know about the Pharisees 170. These books, written between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E., were never canonized in the Bible, New Testament, or rabbinic corpora. Unfortunately, no precise dating of these books has been forthcoming. Some were written after 70 C.E. (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch), the remainder beforehand; some in the Diaspora, others in Israel. It is quite likely that those books deriving from a Palestinian setting were written in Jerusalem, and, as evidenced by the number of copies in the Qumran library, some of them can be securely dated to the Hasmonean era. VanderKam, "Origins and Purposes," 3-24, and "Jubilees," 1029-1032, however, dates Jubilees to the middle second century; its emphasis on the antiquity of the Law suggests that it was, inter alia, a polemic against the Hellenizers as represented in 1 Macc. 1: II. 171. See Grabbe, Introduction, 73-93. 172. See, e.g., Collins, "Apocalypses and Apocalypticism," 282-288 and references therein.

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

133

and Sadducees. Even though it is impossible to gauge which particular sector of the population identified with such views, it can nevertheless be claimed that these works, more than most other corpora, reflect beliefs and opinions that were an integral part of the marketplace of ideas on the contemporary Jerusalem scene.

Common Judaism under the Hasmoneans With all that has been said until now about the religious life of Hasmonean Jerusalem, it is important to bear in mind that such a topic is far from exhausted merely by dealing with exclusive sects and highly developed ideologies. In the second century B.C.E., probably only a small proportion of the population actually belonged to such groups. This does not mean that many others were not in some way influenced by them, but that only very few actually joined and committed themselves to the full rigors and responsibilities that membership entailed. Most people in the later Second Temple period would probably have been identified with the Pharisaic 'am ha-aretz, a term used to refer to all those who were not as punctilious in their observance as the members of the sect. Let us begin by trying to delineate the beliefs and practices of most Jews at the time. 173 There can be no question that the fundamental tenet that united Jews is the belief in one God. In contrast to the pagan world, with its multiplicity of deities, the singular focus on one God who had but one Temple in one particular city was completely distinctive. Judaism posited that God had chosen Israel as His people and had given them His Torah by which to guide their lives. However, the relationship with God was in essence a covenant between the two. Just as God had chosen the people and promised them rewards and a glowing future, so, too, the people committed themselves to fulftll His commandments and obey His ways. Very basic to this covenant was the belief in reward and punishment: Sacrifices, prayer, and fasts, along with moral and ethical standards could help avert an evil decree. Added to the above was the belief in the sanctity of God's Temple and Jerusalem, His designated holy city. Religious observance of the masses seems to have centered around three areas: (1) biblical commandments, such as the avoidance of certain foods and the observance of the Sabbath and holidays; (2) laws relating to agricultural produce, such as tithes and first fruits; and (3) Temple observances, such as sacrifices, pilgrimage, and half sheqel contributions. Other practices also emerged during this period and acquired widespread adherence. Most of the commandments connect-

173. See the extensive discussion on this topic, albeit for the later, Herodian, era, by E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 45-314.

134

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

ed to these categories are related in some fashion to the Temple. Either they were to be carried out expressly in the Temple, or the Temple came to assume the role of providing, or ensuring, the proper circumstances for their fulfillment. While the Temple's centrality has been noted for earlier periods as well, with the growth of Jerusalem and the increase in the Jewish population in Judaea and throughout the Diaspora, the institution's importance, activities, and status grew geometrically.

The Temple in Hasmonean Jerusalem With the dramatic expansion and growth of Jerusalem, the Temple still remained the central focus in the city. Before the Hasmoneans, the Temple's physical prominence was ensured by its location on the highest point of the eastern ridge, where the entire city was then located. However, with the expansion of Jerusalem westward, the newly enclosed area was, in fact, on much higher ground. Nevertheless, even without its topographical prominence, the institution continued to command center stage. This prominence was further enhanced by the fact that the Hasmoneans themselves regularly officiated there and were able to raise the funds necessary for the ongoing maintenance, refurbishing, rebuilding, and expansion of its facilities. Revered as Judaism's single holy site by an ever-growing population in Judaea (partly by natural increment, partly by forced conversions), the Temple was also the subject of much attention and debate among the newly established sects, each emphasizing, in its own way, the centrality of Jerusalem's sacred site. For all their differences, no group ever denied the sanctity of this site, even though some might have been critical about the way in which the Temple was being run. The importance of the Temple found expression at this time in a variety of ways. One was through literary works, foremost among which is 2 Maccabees;17.